Turkish Forum

Category: Iran

  • Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    Black Sea Crisis Deepens As US-NATO Threat To Iran Grows

    by Rick Rozoff

    15239

    Global Research, September 16, 2009

    Tensions are mounting in the Black Sea with the threat of another conflict between U.S. and NATO client state Georgia and Russia as Washington is manifesting plans for possible military strikes against Iran in both word and deed.

    Referring to Georgia having recently impounded several vessels off the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia, reportedly 23 in total this year, the New York Times wrote on September 9 that “Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war.” [1]

    Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh ordered his nation’s navy to respond to Georgia’s forceful seizure of civilian ships in neutral waters, calling such actions what they are – piracy – by confronting and if need be sinking Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. The Georgian and navy and coast guard are trained by the United States and NATO.

    The spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry addressed the dangers inherent in Georgia’s latest provocations by warning “They risk aggravating the military and political situation in the region and could result in serious armed incidents.” [2]

    On September 15 Russia announced that its “border guards will detain all vessels that violate Abkhazia’s maritime border….” [3]

    Russia would be not only entitled but obligated to provide such assistance to neighboring Abkhazia as “Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November, Russia pledged to help Abkhazia and South Ossetia protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.” [4]

    In attempting to enforce a naval blockade – the International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war this year [5] – against Abkhazia, the current Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili is fully aware that Russia is compelled by treaty and national interests alike to respond. Having been roundly defeated in its last skirmish with Russia, the five-day war in August of last year, Tbilisi would never risk actions like its current ones without a guarantee of backing from the U.S. and NATO.

    Days after last year’s war ended then U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden flew into the Georgian capital to pledge $1 billion in assistance to the nation, making Georgia the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Egypt and Israel.

    U.S. and NATO warships poured into the Black Sea in August of 2008 and American ships visited the Georgia port cities of Batumi and Poti to deliver what Washington described as civilian aid but which Russian sources suspected contained replacements for military equipment lost in the conflict.

    Less than a month after the war ended NATO sent a delegation to Georgia to “evaluate damage to military infrastructure following a five-day war between Moscow and Tbilisi….” [6]

    In December a meeting of NATO foreign ministers agreed upon a special Annual National Program for Georgia and in the same month Washington announced the creation of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership.

    In the past week a top-level delegation of NATO defense and logistics experts visited Georgia on September 9 “to promote the development of the Georgian Armed Forces” [7] and on September 14 high-ranking officials of the U.S. George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies arrived at the headquarters of the Georgian Ministry of Defense “to review issues of interdepartmental coordination in the course of security sector management and national security revision.” [8]

    The ongoing military integration of Georgia and neighboring Azerbaijan, which also borders Iran – Washington’s Georgetown University is holding a conference on Strategic Partnership between U.S. and Azerbaijan: Bilateral and Regional Criteria on September 18 – by the Pentagon and NATO is integrally connected with general military plans in the Black Sea and the Caucasus regions as a whole and, even more ominously, with joint war plans against Iran.

    As early as January of 2007 reports on that score surfaced in Bulgarian and Romanian news sources. Novinite (Sofia News Agency) reported that the Pentagon “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one on Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran….” [9]

    The bases are the Bezmer and Graf Ignitievo airbases in Bulgaria and the Mihail Kogalniceanu counterpart near the Romanian city of Constanza on the Black Sea.

    The Pentagon has seven new bases altogether in Bulgaria and Romania and in addition to stationing warplanes – F-15s, F-16s and A-10 Thunderbolts – has 3,000-5,000 troops deployed in the two nations at any given time, and Washington established its Joint Task Force-East (JTF-East) permanent headquarters at the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania.

    A U.S. government website provides these details about Joint Task Force-East:

    “All U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force training operations in Romania and Bulgaria will fall under the command of JTF–East, which in turn is under the command of USEUCOM [United States European Command]. Physically located in Romania and Bulgaria, JTF East will include a small permanent headquarters (in Romania) consisting of approximately 100-300 personnel who will oversee rotations of U.S. Army brigade-sized units and U.S. Air Force Weapons Training Deployments (WTD). Access to Romanian and Bulgarian air and ground training facilities will provide JTF-East forces the opportunity to train and interact with military forces throughout the entire 92-country USEUCOM area of responsibility. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and U.S Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) are actively involved in establishing JTF-East.” [10]

    The four military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria that the Pentagon and NATO have gained indefinite access to since the two nations were incorporated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2004 allow for full spectrum operations: Infantry deployments in the area and downrange to Afghanistan and Iraq, runways for bombers and fighter jets, docking facilities for American and NATO warships including Aegis class interceptor missile vessels, training grounds for Western special forces and for foreign armed forces being integrated into NATO.

    Added to bases and troops provided by Turkey and Georgia – and in the future Ukraine – the Bulgarian and Romanian sites are an integral component of plans by the U.S. and its allies to transform the Black Sea into NATO territory with only the Russian coastline not controlled by the Alliance. And that of newly independent Abkhazia, which makes control of that country so vital.

    Last week the Romanian defense ministry announced the intention to acquire between 48 and 54 new generation fighter jets – American F-16s and F-35s have been mentioned – as part of “a new strategy for buying multi-role aircraft, which means to first buy aircraft to make the transition to fifth generation equipment, over the coming 10-12 years.” [11]

    With the recent change in government in the former Soviet republic of Moldova – the aftermath of this April’s violent “Twitter Revolution” – the new parliamentary speaker, Mihai Ghimpu, has openly spoken of the nation merging with, which is to say being absorbed by, neighboring Romania. Transdniester [the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic] broke away from Moldova in 1990 exactly because of the threat of being pulled into Romania and fighting ensued which cost the lives of some 1,500 persons.

    Romania is now a member of NATO and should civil war erupt in Moldova and/or fighting flare up between Moldova and Transdniester and Romania sends troops – all but a certainty – NATO can activate its Article 5 military clause to intervene. There are 1,200 Russian peacekeepers in Transdniester.

    Transdniester’s neighbor to its east is Ukraine, linked with Moldova through the U.S.-concocted GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc, which has been collaborating in enforcing a land blockade against Transdniester. Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko, whose poll ratings are currently in the low single digits, is hellbent on dragging his nation into NATO against overwhelming domestic opposition and can be counted on to attack Transdniester from the eastern end if a conflict breaks out.

    A Moldovan news source last week quoted an opposition leader issuing this dire warning:

    “Moldova’s ethnic minorities are categorically against unification with Romania.

    “If we, those who are not ethnic Moldovans, will have to defend Moldova’s
    statehood, then we will find powerful allies outside Moldova, including in Russia. Along with it, Ukraine, Turkey and Bulgaria would be involved in this fighting. Last year we all witnessed how Russia defended the interests of its nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Why does somebody believe that in case of a civil war in Moldova Russia will simply watch how its nationals are dying? Our task is to prevent such developments.” [12]

    Indeed, the entire Black Sea and Caucasus regions could go up in flames if Western proxies in GUAM attack any of the so-called frozen conflict nations – Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan and Transdniester by Moldova and Ukraine. A likely possibility is that all four would be attacked simultaneously and in unison.

    An opportunity for that happening would be a concentrated attack on Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and Armenia. The latter, being the protector of Nagorno Karabakh, would immediately become a belligerent if Azerbaijan began military hostilities against Karabakh.

    On September 15 news stories revealed that the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, DC, founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, had released a report which in part stated, “If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.” [13]

    The report was authored by Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator from
    Virginia, Daniel Coats, former Republican senator from Indiana, and retired General Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command.

    Iran is to be given 60 days to in essence abandon its civilian nuclear power program and if it doesn’t capitulate the Obama administration should “prepare overtly for any military option” which would include “deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.” [14]

    The main Iranian nuclear reactor is being constructed at Bushehr and would be a main target of any U.S. and Israeli bombing and missile attacks. As of 2006 there were 3,700 Russian experts and technicians – and their families – living in the environs of the facility.

    It has been assumed for the past eight years that a military attack on Iran would be launched by the United States from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and by long-range Israeli bombers flying over Iraq and Turkey.

    During that period the U.S. and its NATO allies have also acquired access to airbases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (in Baluchistan, bordering Iran), Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in addition to those they already have in Turkey.

    Washington and Brussels have also expanded their military presence into Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania on the Black Sea and into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea bordering northeastern Iran.

    Plans for massive military aggression against Iran, then, might include air and missile strikes from locations much nearer the nation than previously suspected.

    The American Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced plans last week to supply Turkey, the only NATO member state bordering Iran, with almost $8 billion dollars worth of theater interceptor missiles, of the upgraded and longer-range PAC-3 (Patriot Advance Capability-3) model. The project includes delivering almost 300 Patriots for deployment at twelve command posts inside Turkey.

    In June the Turkish government confirmed that NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) planes would be deployed in its Konya province.

    The last time AWACS and Patriot missiles were sent to Turkey was in late 2002 and early 2003 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.

    On September 15 the newspaper of the U.S. armed forces, Stars and Stripes, ran an article titled “U.S., Israeli forces to test missile defense while Iran simmers,” which included these details on the biannual Juniper Cobra war games:

    “Some 1,000 U.S. European Command troops will soon deploy to Israel for a large-scale missile defense exercise with Israeli forces.

    “This year’s Juniper Cobra comes at a time of continued concern about Iran’s nuclear program, which will be the subject of talks in October.

    “The U.S. troops, from all four branches of service, will work alongside an equal number of Israel Defense Force personnel, taking part in computer-simulated war games….Juniper Cobra will test a variety of air and missile defense technology during next month’s exercise, including the U.S.-controlled X-Band.” [15]

    The same feature documented that this month’s exercise is the culmination of months of buildup.

    “In April, about 100 Europe-based personnel took part in a missile defense exercise that for the first time incorporated a U.S.-owned radar system, which was deployed to the country in October 2008. The U.S. X-Band radar is intended to give Israel early warning in the event of a missile launch from Iran.

    “For nearly a year, a mix of troops and U.S. Defense Department contractors have been managing the day-to-day operation of the X-Band, which is situated at Nevatim air base in the Negev Desert.” [16]

    The same publication revealed two days earlier that the Pentagon conducted a large-scale counterinsurgency exercise with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade last week in Germany, “the largest such exercise ever held by the U.S. military outside of the United States….” [17] The two units are scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, but could be diverted to Iran, which has borders with both nations, should need arise.

    What the role of Black Sea NATO states and clients could be in a multinational, multi-vectored assault on Iran was indicated in the aftermath of last year’s Georgian-Russian war.

    At a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels a year ago, Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin “said that Russian intelligence had obtained information indicating that the Georgian military infrastructure could be used for logistical support of U.S. troops if they launched an attack on Iran.” [18]

    Rogozin was further quoted as saying, “What NATO is doing now in Georgia is restoring its ability to monitor its airspace, in other words restoring the whole locator system and an anti-missile defence system which were destroyed by Russian artillery.

    “[The restoration of surveillance systems and airbases in Georgia is being] done for logistic support of some air operations either of the Alliance as a whole or of the United States in particular in this region. The swift reconstruction of the airfields and all the systems proves that some air operation is being planned against another country which is located not far from Georgia….” [19]

    Early last October Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security
    Council “described the U.S. and NATO policy of increasing their military presence in Eastern Europe as seeking strategic military superiority over Russia.

    “The official added that the United States would need allies in the region if the country decided to attack Iran.” [20]

    Patrushev stated, “If it decides to carry out missile and bomb attacks
    against Iran, the US will need loyal allies. And if Georgia is involved in this war, this will pose additional threats to Russia’s national security.” [21]

    Later last October an Azerbaijani website reported that 100 Iranian Air Force jets were exercising near the nation’s border and that “military sources from the United States reported that territories in Azerbaijan and in Georgia may be used for attacking Iran….” [22]

    Writing in The Hindu the same month Indian journalist Atul Aneja wrote of the effects of the Georgian-Russian war of the preceding August and offered this information:

    “Russia’s military assertion in Georgia and a show of strength in parts of West Asia [Middle East], combined with domestic political and economic preoccupations in Washington, appear to have forestalled the chances of an immediate strike against Iran.

    “Following Russia’s movement into South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Moscow was aware that serious plans to attack Iran had been laid out. ‘We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and [a] military solution to the nuclear crisis.’

    “Russia seized control of two airfields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned. The Russian forces also apparently recovered weapons and Israeli spy drones that would have been useful for the surveillance of possible Iranian targets.” [23]

    The same newspaper, in quoting Dmitry Rogozin asserting that Russian military intelligence had captured documents proving Washington had launched “active military preparations on Georgia’s territory” for air strikes against Iran, added information on Israeli involvement:

    “Israel had supplied Georgia with sophisticated Hermes 450 UAV spy drones, multiple rocket launchers and other military equipment that Georgia, as well as modernised Georgia’s Soviet-made tanks that were used in the attack against South Ossetia. Israeli instructors had also helped train Georgia troops.” [24]

    Rather than viewing the wars of the past decade – against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – and the concomitant expansion of U.S. and NATO military presence inside all three countries and in several others on their peripheries as an unrelated series of events, the trend must be seen for what it is: A consistent and calculated strategy of employing each successive war zone as a launching pad for new aggression.

    The Pentagon has major military bases in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq that it never intends to abandon. The U.S. and its NATO allies have bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered) and other nations in the vicinity of the last ten years’ wars which can be used for the next ten – or twenty or thirty – years’ conflicts.

    1) New York Times, September 9, 2009
    2) Ibid
    3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 15, 2009
    4) Ibid
    5) Wikipedia
    6) Agence France-Presse, September 8, 2009
    7) Trend News Agency, September 9, 2009
    8) Georgia Ministry of Defence, September 14, 2009
    9) Turkish Daily News, January 30, 2007
    10) U.S. Department of State
    11) The Financiarul, September 9, 2009
    12) Infotag, September 11, 2009
    13) Bloomberg News, September 15, 2009
    14) Ibid
    15) Stars and Stripes, September 15, 2009
    16) Ibid
    17) Stars and Stripes, September 13, 2009
    18) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 17, 2008
    19) Russia Today, September 17, 2008
    20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 1, 2008
    21) Fars News Agency, October 2, 2008
    22) Today.AZ, October 20, 2008
    23) The Hindu, October 13, 2008
    24) The Hindu, September 19, 2008

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/black-sea-crisis-deepens-as-us-nato-threat-to-iran-grows/15239

  • Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Patriot Missile Procurement Option Sparks Controversy in Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 170September 17, 2009

    By: Saban Kardas

    The Turkish government’s possible purchase of missile defense systems from the United States, as part of an ongoing tender, has sparked a new debate on Ankara’s new regional policies and its domestic arms procurement projects. On September 9, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified the U.S. Congress of a possible sale to Turkey of 13 Patriot fire units, various Patriot missiles including the advanced capability (PAC-3) missiles, and other related support equipment. Raytheon Corporation and Lockheed-Martin are the principal contractors and if they are awarded the tender, the project is estimated to cost $7.8 billion. The statement described Turkey as the major U.S. ally in the region and added that by acquiring these systems Turkey will “improve its missile defense capability, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats” (www.dsca.mil, September 9).

    Although this notice is a legal requirement for an ongoing tender, and did not mean a sale was concluded, the Turkish press widely covered this development and labeled it as one of the largest arms sales agreements in the country’s history. The extensive coverage of the story led to an impression that Ankara had already “decided to purchase” the Patriot systems.

    The Turkish media maintained that Turkey wants Patriot platforms to defend itself against Iran and linked this decision to U.S. plans to build a missile shield. Others, by contrast, claimed that the U.S. decision was sparked by a concern to thwart Turkey’s negotiations with Russia over the purchase of the new generation S-400 platforms. Moreover, the Turkish press also highlighted that the country would be returning as a major customer of U.S. weapons systems, after having granted several multi-billion projects to other countries (Turkiye, Vatan, Hurriyet, September 13; Radikal, September 14).

    To defuse such speculation, the Turkish defense ministry released a statement in which it said that the notice was part of Turkey’s ongoing international tender to acquire long-range air and missile-defense systems. Under this program, which was launched in June 2006, the under secretariat for the defense industry (SSM) issued a request for a proposal in April 2009 for the direct purchase of missile systems. The statement also underscored that in addition to the U.S. companies Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, requests for proposals were also sent to China’s Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC) and Russia’s Rosoboronexport. Moreover, since possible U.S. exports will take place under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) credits, a separate letter of request was also sent to the U.S. administration (ANKA, September 14).

    The statement, however, did not end the debate. Critics raised two questions: from whom Turkey plans to purchase these systems and whether this multi-billion dollar project is justified given the huge financial burden involved.

    Several Turkish and international observers quoted by the Turkish press maintained that the project was developed to quell threats from Iran. They believe that despite its flourishing ties with Iran, Turkey still perceives a threat from Iran’s nuclear program. Through the missile defense system, allegedly, Turkey seeks to enhance its defensive capabilities against Iran’s medium-range Scud missiles or long-range Sahab missile program. To substantiate their arguments, they referred to a report submitted to the U.S. Congress in February 2008, (Chain Reaction: Avoiding a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East), in which it was stated that the United States should acknowledge Turkey’s concerns and contribute to its development of a missile defense capability (www.superonline.com, September 13; Vatan, September 15).

    The congressional report concluded that considering Iran’s ballistic missile program has a range to strike any part of Turkish territory, combined with the prospect of eventual Iranian nuclear weapons capability, Turkey had concerns about the balance of power shifting in Iran’s favor. The report warned that if Turkey’s legitimate missile defense concerns were not met, it might opt for the development of a “Turkish bomb.” Since the U.S. plan for any future ballistic missile defense shield in Europe would not include Turkey, the report proposed that “the U.S. government should remove unnecessary obstacles to the speedy development of a missile defense system that addresses Turkey’s needs” (www.gpo.gov, February 27, 2008).

    Several Turkish experts, however, criticized the plans for the purchase of this weapons system and the designation of Iran as a source of threat. Some speculated that this project is not driven by Turkey’s real needs. Rather, it is promoted by the “weapons lobby,” which is trying to make profits by sowing seeds of distrust between Turkey and its neighbors, Iran and Russia. They add that the media reports about Turkey’s perception of Iran as a threat are merely the manipulations of these weapons lobbies. Others maintain that “if this purchase ever takes place, it will be inflammatory, especially while Turkey is trying to be a peacemaker in the region” (Today’s Zaman; www.usak.org.tr, September 15).

    Asked about how the purchase of these systems can be reconciled with the government’s policy of normalization with its neighbors, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu ruled out any specified target. “[Developing projects to meet our security needs] is not an alternative to [Turkey’s regional policies]. It does not mean that we perceive threats from any neighbors. Our policy of ‘zero problem with our neighbors’ is still intact” Davutoglu said (Cihan; ANKA, September 15).

    The second line of criticism emphasizes the financial burden of the project. Some maintain that given the economic difficulties the country is experiencing and in light of the soaring budget deficit, such spending on expensive weapons systems, which in their view does not correspond to Turkey’s real security needs, cannot be justified. The critics call for redesigning Turkey’s defense procurement policies and significant cuts on arms expenditures (Taraf, September 14; Yeni Asya, September 16). Others emphasize that this development underscores an underlying problem: the lack of democratic and parliamentary scrutiny over Turkey’s arms procurement policy, which creates an imbalance between the country’s improving relations with its neighbors and the priorities of the military establishment (Taraf, September 16).

    While improving relations with its neighbors, Turkey is also intent on hedging against future threats, reflecting the volatile nature of the region. Although as a member of the transatlantic alliance, it is a part of NATO’s security umbrella, Turkey realizes that in the past, there were problems in the activation of NATO security guarantees. Most notably, the dispatch of Patriot systems during the Gulf War (1991) and Iraq War (2003) were delayed due to intra-NATO disagreements, which fostered a legacy of developing national capabilities. Despite the domestic criticisms, the Turkish defense industry is unlikely to drop its plans to acquire missile defense systems any time soon.

    https://jamestown.org/program/patriot-missile-procurement-option-sparks-controversy-in-turkey/

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report                                                                         

     

                                                                                                    Over 300,150 readers

    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have been given the ability to evaluate, study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on the future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients.  I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

                                 SPECIAL BULLITEN:

     

                                 Our President is about to be Tested – Big Time

     

                The Middle East is about to blow sky high. We have now involved the UN Security counsel plus Germany (called P-5+1) to make Iran negotiate their nuclear weapons program. The due date is September 24, 2009.  To make matters worse the President promised Israel that if they did not take military action with Iran, he would deliver crippling sanctions with Iran.

    Big deal. What we withhold, China and Russia will deliver. This is now guts ball diplomacy that will reverberate across the whole world.

                Here is a scary and realistic scenario that could happen while everyone is concerned with what is going on in the kiddy pool of health care reform and economic recovery.

                ISRAEL will never, never allow itself to be at mortal risk. If and when their intelligence concludes the Iranians are close to getting a bomb, diplomacy will end. Russian expansionism has always been in the setting of somebody else’s war. Putin will ignite the match if he ever gets the chance. Imagine. They get Georgia without a contest, and open the door to secure Ukraine, and make trillions of Rubles selling “high test” to Europe after the Iranians close the Straits of Hormuz. It would stir up a real blizzard and they could retake the Baltic region while NATO is off figuring out how to get the gulf oil turned back on.           

     Buy GLD (NYSE-$99+) or CEF (NYSE-$13+) and top off your home fuel tanks.

     Have a strong cash position also.

     

    Richard C De Graff

    256 Ashford Road

    RER      Eastford Ct 06242     

    860-522-7171 Main Office  

    800-821-6665 Watts

    860-315-7413 Home/Office

    rdegraff@coburnfinancial.com

     

    This report has been prepared from original sources and data which we believe reliable but we make no representation to its accuracy or completeness. Coburn & Meredith Inc. its subsidiaries and or officers may from time to time acquire, hold, sell a position discussed in this publications, and we may act as principal for our own account or as agent for both the buyer and seller.

  • Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Davutoglu’s Visit to Iran Highlights Ankara’s Regional Diplomacy

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 167
    September 14, 2009 04:19 PM Age: 1 days
    By: Saban Kardas
    Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu paid an official visit to Iran on September 12-13. He met the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. Following his meeting with Mottaki, Davutoglu and his counterpart stressed the importance they attach to bilateral relations, as well as regional cooperation. Davutoglu noted that the two countries shared deep-rooted historical ties and their neighborly relations are based on the principle of refraining from interfering in each other’s affairs. He outlined many areas where they explored boosting bilateral relations, ranging from economic cooperation to security. Referring to this multi-dimensional partnership, Mottaki described Turkish-Iranian relations as “strategic” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    The foreign ministers emphasized that given the centrality of the threat of terrorism facing both countries, they will continue their collaboration in combating this phenomenon, referring to their joint efforts against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). Davutoglu also highlighted the flourishing economic activity between the two countries, noting that the bilateral trade volume has reached $11 billion annually, despite the global economic crisis. In addition to discussing cooperation in various areas, the two main items on Davutoglu’s agenda were the nuclear issue and energy cooperation. Davutoglu’s meeting came in the wake of the announcement by Washington that it will consider holding talks with Tehran, despite the latter’s reluctance to discuss its nuclear program. Iran forwarded a proposal to the major powers expressing its readiness to discuss global nuclear disarmament, as well as other international issues. Although the White House did not find Iran’s proposals as responsive to its concerns about its nuclear program, it nonetheless showed interest in holding direct talks with Iran (Today’s Zaman, September 14).

    Davutoglu reiterated Turkey’s position that the resolution of the nuclear problem should be based on mutual respect. He also conveyed to Jalili Turkey’s readiness to host negotiations between Iran and Western countries (Anadolu Ajansi, September 13). However, this is not the first time that Turkey has proposed to mediate between Iran and the West, and its previous offers failed to produce any practical results. Reportedly, both Washington and Tehran were reluctant to see Ankara play such a role (EDM, March 10). Following the press briefing with Davutoglu, Mottaki thanked his Turkish counterpart for Turkey’s support for Iran’s right to obtain nuclear energy (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12). Although Ankara remains eager to act as a mediator, what leverage it may hold to convince Tehran to compromise on the Western demands remains to be seen.

    Energy was the other key issue on the agenda. Turkey has a major incentive to help solve the diplomatic problems bedeviling Iran’s relations with the West and bring Iran into the orbit of the European energy security discussions, a policy which is also supported by many European countries.

    Turkey seeks to deepen its energy partnership with Iran, especially considering its efforts to become a major energy hub. Indeed, one of the biggest obstacles before the Nabucco project, which Turkey considers as a strategic priority, is finding suppliers, Iran is the most likely alternative, since it possesses the second largest gas reserves in the world. Turkey indeed has been eager to act as a bridge connecting Iranian gas to the European grid through Nabucco. Although Ankara signed a major energy cooperation deal with Iran in 2007, it had to suspend those plans due to American objections. U.S. sanctions toward Iran prevent the development of the Iranian gas sector and the export of its gas to Western markets. Since its fields are underdeveloped and it needs immense transportation infrastructure, Iran has not emerged as a major player in gas markets, and even has been forced to import gas from Turkmenistan to meet its domestic demand. Prior to the signing of the Nabucco inter-governmental agreement in Ankara, Turkish officials, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan emphasized their willingness to tap into Iranian gas, but U.S. officials reiterated their objection to the Iranian option (EDM, July 14). However, Davutoglu said that Turkey would work to help Iran export its gas to European markets.

    Turkey’s Iran policy resonates well with the recent course of its regional diplomacy. Ankara has fostered closer regional dialogue with Iraq, Syria and other Arab countries in order to create a peaceful neighborhood and develop closer economic partnerships, including energy projects (EDM, August 12). Bringing Iran into the same circle is definitely a prime motive driving Ankara’s policies toward Tehran.

    Davutoglu, as the architect of this policy, appreciates the central role that Iran plays in the region and expresses his aversion to any instability that might be caused by the ongoing diplomatic problems, as well as the developments in Iranian domestic politics. This concern, however, results in a status quo policy of supporting the Iranian government. As reflected in Ankara’s acquiescent attitude during the Iranian regime’s harsh crackdown on the protestors following the disputed presidential elections, Turkey was criticized for not being sensitive to domestic developments in Iranian politics (EDM, June 18).

    Another underlying problem in Turkey’s Iran policy concerns the differing interpretations both parties attach to “regional cooperation.” Iran views regional cooperation as a way to limit the involvement of the West and the United States in regional affairs, as well as to exclude Israel. Turkey, in contrast, values its ties to the West and defines its regional policies in complementary terms. Indeed, such differences of opinion were apparent in Ahmadinejad’s statements following his meeting with Davutoglu, which contained strong anti-Western rhetoric. Ahmadinejad claimed that the improvement of Turkish-Iranian relations is an obligation “in a process whereby great and oppressor powers are in decline” (Anadolu Ajansi, September 12).

    A major test for Turkey’s regional diplomacy might perhaps stem from its ability to foster closer cooperation among its neighbors, while also ensuring that it does not present an anti-Western platform.

    https://jamestown.org/program/davutoglus-visit-to-iran-highlights-ankaras-regional-diplomacy/
  • Syria offers Iran “regional alliance” with Turkey

    Syria offers Iran “regional alliance” with Turkey

    asadAssad congratulated Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying his re-election was a “lesson for foreigners”.

    Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday congratulated Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying his re-election was a “lesson for foreigners,” state news agency IRNA reported.

    “What happened in Iran was a major event and a great lesson for foreigners, that is why they are so upset,” the Syrian president said.

    Assad is one of the first foreign leaders to visit Tehran since Ahmadinejad won the June presidential election.

    “I came here today to personally convey my warm congratulations to you and the Iranian nation,” Assad told Ahmadinejad.

    “The Syrian president, in his meeting with the Iranian president, condemned the interference of foreign countries in Iran’s internal affairs,” IRNA reported, without elaborating.

    It quoted Assad as saying: “The main reason for the West’s interference is to block Iran and Syria’s frequent victories.”

    When Ahmadinejad was officially sworn in on Aug. 5, U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of France, Britain, Italy and Germany have not congratulated him yet.

    “Regional alliance”

    Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met Assad later and welcomed a proposal by the Syrian president to form an alliance between the two countries as well as neighbouring Iraq and Turkey, state television said, without giving details.

    “Such an alliance would be in line with the region’s benefit,” Khamenei was quoted as saying.

    Assad said that relations between regional allies Syria and Iran and their positions on Middle East issues should remain unchanged during Ahmadinejad’s second four-year tenure.

    “Iran and Syria should pursue their… policies in the region,” IRNA quoted Assad as telling Ahmadinejad.

    He added that meetings between Iranian and Syrian officials are “necessary to send a message to faraway countries and those in the region as they have a weak memory and forget the lessons they learned.”

    Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei praised on Wednesday key ally Syria for its resistance in the face of world powers in a meeting with Assad, state media reported.

    “Syria’s most important characteristic among Arab countries is its steadfastness and resistance,” Khamenei said, noting Syria’s excellent standing in the region.

    Khamenei said “the resistance front” in the Middle East “should strengthen its cooperation and ties,” the state news agency IRNA reported.

    “America’s blade has become blunter in the region,” Khamenei added.

    “The unity between Iran and Syria is the embodiment of resistance in the region,” the supreme leader said.

    Khamenei also branded as “very positive” Syria’s improved relations with Iraq and said that unity between Iran and its western neighbours, Iraq and Turkey, and with Syria would benefit the region.

    President Nicolas Sarkozy thanked Syria and other countries on Sunday for supporting France in the case of a French teaching assistant detained in Iran on spying charges. IRNA did not say whether Assad and Ahmadinejad discussed the issue.

    Clotilde Reiss, who was charged with spying, was freed on bail of about $300,000 but she is not allowed to leave the country and is staying in the French embassy pending a verdict.

    Source:  www.worldbulletin.net, 20 August 2009

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Over 300,001 readers
    My Mission: God has uniquely designed me to seek, write, and speak the truth as I see it. Preservation of one’s wealth while providing needful income is my primary goal in these unsettled times. I have given the ability to evaluate study, and interpret world and national events and their influence on future of the financial markets. This gift allows me to meet the needs of individual and institution clients. I evaluate situations first on a fundamental basis then try to confirm on a technical basis. In the past it has been fairly successful.

    Contact John Mauldin

    Print Version

    Volume 5 – Special Edition
    August 20, 2009

    Iraq Endgame
    By George Friedman

    As many of have heard, I had the pleasure of partaking in a weekend of fishing and intellectual jousting with some of today’s most brilliant minds. We spoke of war, politics, and of course, the economy. Their interconnection seems somehow much clearer sitting on a Maine lake fishing for bass. This week I offer you an article that’s key to understanding the U.S. role in Iraq. Futurologist and fellow aspiring fisherman George Friedman at STRATFOR lays out piece by piece U.S. options in the region. If your interests have anything to do with global energy markets — and whose don’t? — it’s enormously important that you grasp the relationships between various sectors in and around Iraq, and the possibilities moving forward.
    Staying aware of geopolitical imperatives around the globe is crucial to any comprehensive investment portfolio. I encourage you to check out STRATFOR’s Web site for whatever informs your investment area. Plus, my readers get a special membership rate.
    John Mauldin, Editor
    Outside the Box

    Iraq Endgame

    August 18, 2009
    By George Friedman
    Related Special Topic Pages
    Iraq, Turkey and the Kurdish Position
    Iraq, Iran and the Shia
    Turkey’s Re-Emergence
    U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq
    Iraq’s Oil
    Though the Iraq war is certainly not over, it has reached a crossroads. During the course of the war, about 40 countries sent troops to fight in what was called “Multi-National Force-Iraq.” As of this summer, only one foreign country’s fighting forces remain in Iraq — those of the United States. A name change in January 2010 will reflect the new reality, when the term “Multi-National Force-Iraq” will be changed to “United States Forces-Iraq.” If there is an endgame in Iraq, we are now in it.
    The plan that U.S. President Barack Obama inherited from former President George W. Bush called for coalition forces to help create a viable Iraqi national military and security force that would maintain the Baghdad government’s authority and Iraq’s territorial cohesion and integrity. In the meantime, the major factions in Iraq would devise a regime in which all factions would participate and be satisfied that their factional interests were protected. While this was going on, the United States would systematically reduce its presence in Iraq until around the summer of 2010, when the last U.S. forces would leave.
    Two provisos qualified this plan. The first was that the plan depended on the reality on the ground for its timeline. The second was the possibility that some residual force would remain in Iraq to guarantee the agreements made between factions, until they matured and solidified into a self-sustaining regime. Aside from minor tinkering with the timeline, the Obama administration — guided by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whom Bush appointed and Obama retained — has followed the Bush plan faithfully.
    The moment of truth for the U.S. plan is now approaching. The United States still has substantial forces in Iraq. There is a coalition government in Baghdad dominated by Shia (a reasonable situation, since the Shia comprise the largest segment of the population of Iraq). Iraqi security forces are far from world-class, and will continue to struggle in asserting themselves in Iraq. As we move into the endgame, internal and external forces are re-examining power-sharing deals, with some trying to disrupt the entire process.
    There are two foci for this disruption. The first concerns the Arab-Kurdish struggle over Kirkuk. The second concerns threats to Iran’s national security.
    The Kurdish Question
    Fighting continues in the Kirkuk region, where the Arabs and Kurds have a major issue to battle over: oil. The Kirkuk region is one of two major oil-producing regions in Iraq (the other is in the Shiite-dominated south). Whoever controls Kirkuk is in a position to extract a substantial amount of wealth from the surrounding region’s oil development. There are historical ethnic issues in play here, but the real issue is money. Iraqi central government laws on energy development remain unclear, precisely because there is no practical agreement on the degree to which the central government will control — and benefit — from oil development as opposed to the Kurdish Regional Government. Both Kurdish and Arab factions thus continue to jockey for control of the key city of Kirkuk.
    Arab, particularly Sunni Arab, retention of control over Kirkuk opens the door for an expansion of Sunni Arab power into Iraqi Kurdistan. By contrast, Kurdish control of Kirkuk shuts down the Sunni threat to Iraqi Kurdish autonomy and cuts Sunni access to oil revenues from any route other than the Shiite-controlled central government. If the Sunnis get shut out of Kirkuk, they are on the road to marginalization by their bitter enemies — the Kurds and the Shia. Thus, from the Sunni point of view, the battle for Kirkuk is the battle for the Sunni place at the Iraqi table.
    Turkey further complicates the situation in Iraq. Currently embedded in constitutional and political thinking in Iraq is the idea that the Kurds would not be independent, but could enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Couple autonomy with the financial benefits of heavy oil development and the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq becomes a powerful entity. Add to that the peshmerga, the Kurdish independent military forces that have had U.S. patronage since the 1990s, and an autonomous Kurdistan becomes a substantial regional force. And this is not something Turkey wants to see.
    The broader Kurdish region is divided among four countries, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. The Kurds have a substantial presence in southeastern Turkey, where Ankara is engaged in a low-intensity war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), members of which have taken refuge in northern Iraq. Turkey’s current government has adopted a much more nuanced approach in dealing with the Kurdish question. This has involved coupling the traditional military threats with guarantees of political and economic security to the Iraqi Kurds as long as the Iraqi Kurdish leadership abides by Turkish demands not to press the Kirkuk issue.
    Still, whatever the constitutional and political arrangements between Iraqi Kurds and Iraq’s central government, or between Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish government, the Iraqi Kurds have a nationalist imperative. The Turkish expectation is that over the long haul, a wealthy and powerful Iraqi Kurdish autonomous region could slip out of Baghdad’s control and become a center of Kurdish nationalism. Put another way, no matter what the Iraqi Kurds say now about cooperating with Turkey regarding the PKK, over the long run, they still have an interest in underwriting a broader Kurdish nationalism that will strike directly at Turkish national interests.
    The degree to which Sunni activity in northern Iraq is coordinated with Turkish intelligence is unknown to us. The Sunnis are quite capable of waging this battle on their own. But the Turks are not disinterested bystanders, and already support local Turkmen in the Kirkuk region to counter the Iraqi Kurds. The Turks want to see Kurdish economic power and military power limited, and as such they are inherently in favor of the Shiite-dominated Baghdad government. The stronger Baghdad is, the weaker the Kurds will be.
    Baghdad understands something critical: While the Kurds may be a significant fighting force in Iraq, they can’t possibly stand up to the Turkish army. More broadly, Iraq as a whole can’t stand up to the Turkish army. We are entering a period in which a significant strategic threat to Turkey from Iraq could potentially mean Turkish countermeasures. Iraqi memories of Turkish domination during the Ottoman Empire are not pleasant. Therefore, Iraq will be very careful not to cross any redline with the Turks.
    This places the United States in a difficult position. Washington has supported the Kurds in Iraq ever since Operation Desert Storm. Through the last decade of the Saddam regime, U.S. special operations forces helped create a de facto autonomous region in Kurdistan. Washington and the Kurds have a long and bumpy history, now complicated by substantial private U.S. investment in Iraqi Kurdistan for the development of oil resources. Iraqi Kurdish and U.S. interests are strongly intertwined, and Washington would rather not see Iraqi Kurdistan swallowed up by arrangements in Baghdad that undermine current U.S. interests and past U.S. promises.
    On the other hand, the U.S. relationship with Turkey is one of Washington’s most important. Whether the question at hand is Iran, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Asia, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Afghanistan, Russia or Iraq, the Turks have a role. Given the status of U.S. power in the region, alienating Turkey is not an option. And the United States must remember that for Turkey, Kurdish power in Iraq and Turkey’s desired role in developing Iraqi oil are issues of fundamental national importance.
    Now left alone to play out this endgame, the United States must figure out a way to finesse the Kurdish issue. In one sense, it doesn’t matter. Turkey has the power ultimately to redefine whatever institutional relationships the United States leaves behind in Iraq. But for Turkey, the sooner Washington hands over this responsibility, the better. The longer the Turks wait, the stronger the Kurds might become and the more destabilizing their actions could be to Turkey. Best of all, if Turkey can assert its influence now, which it has already begun to do, it doesn’t have to be branded as the villain.
    All Turkey needs to do is make sure that the United States doesn’t intervene decisively against the Iraqi Sunnis in the battle over Kirkuk in honor of Washington’s commitment to the Kurds.
    In any case, the United States doesn’t want to intervene against Iraq’s Sunnis again. In protecting Sunni Arab interests, the Americans have already been sidestepping any measures to organize a census and follow through with a constitutional mandate to hold a referendum in Kirkuk. For the United States, a strong Sunni community is the necessary counterweight to the Iraqi Shia since, over the long haul, it is not clear how a Shiite-dominated government will relate to Iran.
    The Shiite Question
    The Shiite-dominated government led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is no puppet of Iran, but at the same time, it is not Iran’s enemy. As matters develop in Iraq, Iran remains the ultimate guarantor of Shiite interests. And Iranian support might not flow directly to the current Iraqi government, but to al-Maliki’s opponents within the Shiite community who have closer ties to Tehran. It is not clear whether Iranian militant networks in Iraq have been broken, or are simply lying low. But it is clear that Iran still has levers in place with which it could destabilize the Shiite community or rivals of the Iraqi Shia if it so desired.
    Therefore, the United States has a vested interest in building up the Iraqi Sunni community before it leaves. And from an economic point of view, that means giving the Sunnis access to oil revenue as well as a guarantee of control over that revenue after the United States leaves.
    With the tempo of attacks picking up as U.S. forces draw down, Iraq’s Sunni community is evidently not satisfied with the current security and political arrangements in Iraq. Attacks are on the upswing in the northern areas — where remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq continue to operate in Mosul — as well as in central Iraq in and around Baghdad. The foreign jihadists in Iraq hope such attacks will trigger a massive response from the Shiite community, thus plunging Iraq back into civil war. But the foreign jihadists would not be able to operate without some level of support from the local Sunni community. This broader community wants to make sure that the Shia and Americans don’t forget what the Sunnis are capable of should their political, economic and security interests fall by the wayside as the Americans withdraw.
    Neither the Iraqi Sunnis nor the Kurds really want the Americans to leave. Neither trust that the intentions or guarantees of the Shiite-dominated government. Iraq lacks a tradition of respect for government institutions and agreements; a piece of paper is just that. Instead, the Sunnis and Kurds see the United States as the only force that can guarantee their interests. Ironically, the United States is now seen as the only real honest broker in Iraq.
    But the United States is an honest broker with severe conflicts of interest. Satisfying both Sunni and Kurdish interests is possible only under three conditions. The first is that Washington exercise a substantial degree of control over the Shiite administration of the country — and particularly over energy laws — for a long period of time. The second is that the United States give significant guarantees to Turkey that the Kurds will not extend their nationalist campaign to Turkey, even if they are permitted to extend it to Iran in a bid to destabilize the Iranian regime. The third is that success in the first two conditions not force Iran into a position where it sees its own national security at risk, and so responds by destabilizing Baghdad — and with it, the entire foundation of the national settlement in Iraq negotiated by the United States.
    The American strategy in this matter has been primarily tactical. Wanting to leave, it has promised everyone everything. That is not a bad strategy in the short run, but at a certain point, everyone adds up the promises and realizes that they can’t all be kept, either because they are contradictory or because there is no force to guarantee them. Boiled down, this leaves the United States with two strategic options.
    First, the United States can leave a residual force of about 20,000 troops in Iraq to guarantee Sunni and Kurdish interests, to protect Turkish interests, etc. The price of pursuing this option is that it leaves Iran facing a nightmare scenario: e.g., the potential re-emergence of a powerful Iraq and the recurrence down the road of the age-old conflict between Persia and Mesopotamia — with the added possibility of a division of American troops supporting their foes. This would pose an existential threat to Iran, forcing Tehran to use covert means to destabilize Iraq that would take advantage of a minimal, widely dispersed U.S. force vulnerable to local violence.
    Second, the United States could withdraw and allow Iraq to become a cockpit for competition among neighboring countries: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria — and ultimately major regional powers like Russia. While chaos in Iraq is not inherently inconsistent with U.S. interests, it is highly unpredictable, meaning the United States could be pulled back into Iraq at the least opportune time and place.
    The first option is attractive, but its major weakness is the uncertainty created by Iran. With Iran in the picture, a residual force is as much a hostage as a guarantor of Sunni and Kurdish interests. With Iran out of the picture, the residual U.S. force could be smaller and would be more secure. Eliminate the Iran problem completely, and the picture for all players becomes safer and more secure. But eliminating Iran from the equation is not an option — Iran most assuredly gets a vote in this endgame.

    John F. Mauldin
    johnmauldin@investorsinsight.com

    You are currently subscribed as rdegraff@yahoo.com.

    To unsubscribe, go here.