Turkish Forum English

Tag: DIPLOMACY

Turkey’s Syrian Ambit: New War in the Making

By Jeremy Salt – Ankara

Nov 18/2011

Possibly for the first time in the life of the Turkish republic, a Turkish government has adopted a policy of open, unprovoked confrontation with a neighboring country. The citizens of that country, Syria, are flabbergasted. Turkey spent years repairing relations with neighbors under the banners of soft power, strength in depth and ‘zero problems’. At every level, the outcome was very positive. Some months ago, however, under the impact of the so-called ‘Arab spring’, that policy was abandoned virtually overnight. It has been replaced by threats, belligerence and support for an armed group seeking the overthrow of a government with which Turkey had friendly relations until very recently.

While calling on the Syrian government to ‘end the violence’, the Turkish Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister make no mention of the violence for which the Syrian government is not responsible. Armed gangs – some apparently salafists and some apparently causing chaos for money – have been attacking soldiers, police and civilians virtually since the beginning of the protest movement. The government can pull all its tanks off the streets but that won’t stop the violence of these gangs (and now ‘army defectors’) and may even be seen as a sign of weakness and encourage it. Of the 3500 Syrians said to have been killed in the past seven months, a great many, including many civilians and more than 1100 soldiers, have fallen victims to these gangs. The violence has completely undermined the peaceful movement for reform, and together with the recent attack on Libya has alerted Syrians to what is in store for their country if the US and its allies ever get their foot through the door. Bashar al Assad has an undeniably strong base of personal popularity and if anything, especially after the hostile decisions taken by the Arab League, under the influence of Qatar, the Syrian people are closing ranks behind the government. They are facing the spectre of armed intervention in their country and devastation on a scale that would eclipse what has just been delivered to Libya in the name of a ‘responsibility to protect’.

Syrians are well aware of the brutality of the mukhabarat and corruption associated with high places in government. It is probably safe to assume that most support reform. The question is how to get it and at what price. Many are demonstrating but there is no sign that the majority of the people (and this largely includes the internal opposition) want anything other than evolved political reform. They are strongly opposed to foreign intervention and they object to Turkey’s aggressive involvement in their affairs. Once upon a time Syria gave sanctuary to Abdullah Ocalan. Turkey threatened war unless it got rid of him. For decades Turkey has had to put up with PKK attacks on its soldiers and civilians from across the border, yet its government is now supporting a man, Riad al Assad, whose ‘Free Syrian Army’ is doing exactly the same across the Syrian border. In confronting Syria, furthermore, Turkey has put itself at odds with Syria’s ally, Iran, whose cooperation it needs in dealing with the PKK. It certainly would be unwise to trust the US, which has played ducks and drakes with the Kurds for decades.

The violence being directed against soldiers and civilians is not ‘recent’ but has been going on for months. The stockpiling of weapons in a mosque in Dar’a, where the protests were sparked off by the arrest of children for writing anti-government graffiti on a wall, suggests that groups inside Syria were ready and waiting. Large quantities of weapons – pump action shotguns,   Israeli machine guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers – are being smuggled into Syria along with money in various currencies and sophisticated communications equipment. There is evidence of Syrian army uniforms being worn in an attempt to throw the blame for killings on to the government. Arrested men have confessed to shooting into demonstrators for the same reason. Of course, there are two narratives here – the Al Jazeera version where the violence was all one way until army ‘defectors’ began shooting back and the Syrian government version in which armed gangs were causing chaos across the country well before the ‘defectors’ joined in. Like most narratives neither is likely to be completely true or untrue, but there is abundant if unreported evidence in support of the case being made by the Syrian government. Many of the accusations against the Syrian government are coming from exiled groups such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Al Jazeera reports them with little or no attempt at verification. Its bias in its ‘reporting’ of Libya and Syria was so great, in the eyes of its Beirut bureau chief, Ghassan bin Jiddu, that he resigned in disgust.

What is happening in Syria bears the hallmarks of an orchestrated plan put into action by the US and its gulf allies. Reform is not the objective because that might still leave the Ba’ath Party in a position of power. The destruction of the government and therefore the removal of a long-standing obstacle in the way of US and Israeli policies is the objective. In addition the Saudis would like to see the power of the Alawis – heterodox Shia – broken forever.

On its past record the US would never miss an opportunity like this. It has been interfering in Syrian politics ever since the CIA helped to bring Husni al Zaim to power in the first of three coups in 1949. The State Department put Syria on its list of states that ‘sponsor terrorism’ in 1979. In the 1980s the US and Israelconfronted Syria in Lebanon but were outsmarted by Hafiz al Assad. In 2005 the US and its Lebanese proxies tried to blame Syria for the assassination of Rafiq Hariri. They succeeded in using the killing as leverage to get remaining Syrian troops out of Lebanon but their accusations felt flat four years later when the four generals who had been arrested were released for lack of evidence. The struggle with Syria also embraced Hizbullah.   In 2000 Hizbullah finally forced Israel to end its long occupation of southern Lebanon. Israel waited for revenge and in 2006 – with the backing of the US – launched a devastating attack on Lebanon with the intention of destroying Hizbullah. It failed in the most humiliating fashion. Even with air cover its soldiers could not hold villages a few kilometers from the armistice line. The collapse of the government of Saad Hariri in January this year underlined the strength of Hizbullah and its ability to outflank its enemies. Soon afterwards, the Bahrain uprising seems to have convinced the Saudis that something had to be done against resurgent Shi’ism. The end target, of course, remains Iran.

In this struggle with the Syrian regime the US has used every weapon at hand. In 2003 the US Congress passed the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act (SALSA) of 2003, preventing US companies from trading either in or with Syria. The Israeli lobby was chiefly responsible for pushing this legislation through Congress. Through the State Department’s Middle EastPartnership Initiative (MEPI) the US has been funding Syrian exiles and movements as well as funneling money into Syria through proxy organizations. One would not expect to find footprints let alone a ‘smoking gun’ but according to well placed sources, the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the former US ambassador to Lebanon, and now the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, began working on a plan to destabilize Syria as far back as 2008. The plan was multilayered and involved a range of actors as well as the spending of $2 billion.

Caught off guard by the wave of popular revolutions breaking out across the region, the US and its allies soon scrambled to their feet and started doing their best to turn the ‘Arab spring’ to their advantage. Ben Ali and Mubarak had to be abandoned but once an uprising broke out in Benghazi, they moved swiftly. On the basis of lies told to the UN Human Rights Council the UN Security Council passed a ‘no fly zone’ resolution which was quickly converted into the pretext for a general aerial assault on Libya aimed at bringing down Muammar Gaddafi. Qatar played its part alongside the US, Britain and France, providing hundreds of troops as well as the propaganda support of its satellite broadcast channel. There was no popular revolution in Libya.   There was not the slightest indication that anything but a small minority of Libyans wanted outside intervention in their country. Gaddafi had a genuine base of popularity, whatever the outside world thought of him, but seven months later the US and its allies had got what they wanted. The government in Tripoli had been overthrown and Gaddafi done to death in the most vile way. The centre of Sirte lay in ruins and tens of thousands Libyans had been killed in the name of protecting them. The most advanced country in Africa had been disabled not through the actions of its own people but through the intervention of three outside powers. Now they were free to concentrate their attention on Syria.

Apart from its support and funding of Syrians in exile, and apart from the covert support it is giving to the opposition inside Syria, the US has openly sought to inflame the situation in Syria at every turn. Its ambassador travelled to Hama before Friday prayers and let it be known in advance that he would be there. When the Syrian government offered an amnesty to people who handed in their weapons, as long as they had not committed serious crimes, the US intervened by advising Syrians not to hand in their weapons.

Behind the screen of the ‘Arab spring’ the US appears to have embarked on a spring-cleaning program. Iraq went in 2003 and now Libya has been dealt with but there are still three bumps on the road – Hizbullah, Syria and Iran – that need flattening. Strategies for dealing with them, alongside economic warfare, subversion and the possibility of direct military attack, include ‘dialogue’ with Sunni Muslim movements hostile to both Iran and Shia Islam. At the top of the list is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is about to come power in Egypt. The ideology of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey is a modified liberal version of the brotherhood’s policies as they are bound to take shape in Egypt. The connecting link between both of them is Saudi Arabia, which is a major investor in Turkey and will be a financial mainstay of the brotherhood if (more likely when) it takes government in Egypt. In summer the Turkish Prime Minister was reported (by Agence France Presse, a reputable source) to have told Bashar al Assad that if he brought the Muslim Brotherhood into government, he would help him control the opposition. As the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Syria, this was roughly the same as someone telling the Turkish Prime Minister that if he brought the PKK into government, he would be given help to control the Kurds. Of course Bashar was reported to have said no. The way in which the Turkish Prime Minister is attacking the Syrian president – feeding on his own people’s blood and so on – suggests that he was personally offended by this rebuffal.

Some of the most extreme voices in the Muslim world are now calling for the overthrow of the ‘heretical’ secular government in Damascus. They include the ranting Yusuf Qaradawi, whose home is in Qatar. Al Jazeera, the house organ of the Qatari government, is playing its part by beaming propaganda around the world, as it did following the attack on Libya (an Arab critic described it as the ‘voice of NATO’). .

Now the Arab League, a useless organization if ever there was one, is issuing ultimatums which the Syrian government cannot comply with. It cannot end the violence because it is not responsible for all the violence but the script has been written and the lines must be recited. The Arab League is simply putting an Arab face on western designs. The interference of an Arab organization which has done nothing in its life for Palestine or any other Arab cause has infuriated the Syrian people. Stage by stage, the crisis is being deliberately deepened with the intention of driving Syria further into a corner and setting the scene for armed intervention. If the US cannot get the resolutions it wants from the UN Security Council, because of the Russian and Chinese veto, the focus of action will come to rest even more firmly on Turkey.

Ultimately Libya was as defenceless against aerial attack by Britain, France and the US as any small country would be. In any case, Syria is not Libya. It has a much bigger army and it will defend itself against armed attack. It has had to fight for its existence against the French, the Americans and the Israelis, so there should be no illusions about how it is likely to react if any attempt is made to cross its border and set up a ‘buffer zone’. No country has any right to sequestrate the territory of another country and any such move would probably end in war.   There is no knowing where or when or how such a war would end and who it would ultimately involve. Iran has a defence treaty with Syria so its involvement should be anticipated. Hizbullah has already threatened to respond with an attack on Israel. Any conflict between Turkey and Syria would open the door to NATO intervention. Against the background of US military encirclement of the Middle East and penetration of Central Asia and the Caucasus, Russia andChina might decide to draw a line in the sand. Bashar’s warning that Syria is the fault line should be taken seriously. The US and its allies have delivered devastation to two Arab countries in the past eight years and now they have their sights on a third. This is not just about the Middle East or the region but the global balance of power. One has to ask whether Turkey’s leaders have really thought this situation through.

A short list of the players who think they would benefit from this war would include the US, Saudi Arabia and its gulf state allies, Israel (although opinion is divided), the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted salafists across the Middle East whose goal is the establishment of Islamic states. In Washington the same discredited bunch of people – the neo conservatives – who campaigned for war against Iraq and now want war on Iran, are very happy with developments on the Turkish-Syrian border. They might not think too far into the future but their planning for wars on Syria and Iran go back a long time. The destruction of the Syrian government and of the strategic alliance between Iran, Syria and Hizbullah would be a strategic victory of incomparable value for the US and its Arab world allies. Most of these governments would never give their own people the freedoms they are demanding for the Syrian people. Saudi Arabia does not even allow women to drive. Qatar does but otherwise has no constitution, no parliament, no unions and a system of ‘sponsored’ labor (the qafil, a word which comes from the wooden yoke fixed around the necks of Africans as they were led into slavery) which allows employers to prevent workers from entering or leaving the country.

As negotiator and facilitator between the Syrian government and the internal opposition, Turkey has a role to play but provoking Syria along the border, lecturing Bashar al Assad as if he were a refractory provincial governor during Ottoman rule and giving support to people who are killing Syrian citizens is not the way ahead.

– Jeremy Salt teaches the history of the modern Middle East in the Department of Political science, Bilkent University, Ankara. He previously taught at Bogazici (Bosporus) University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne. His publications include The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (University of California”

=========================

Turkey fears Syria concealing humanitarian crisis

By Safak Timur (AFP) – 16 hours ago

ISTANBUL — Syria’s failure to respond to an Arab League ultimatum for an observer mission raises concerns Damascus is trying to conceal a worsening humanitarian situation, Turkey said Friday.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had described the ultimatum to accept a mission of several hundred observers or face sanctions as a last chance for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

“Syria was expected to yes to the observers… unless there is a reality it hides about the situation in Syrian cities,” Davutoglu was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency after the deadline’s expiry.

“As it said no, it increased… the concerns on the humanitarian situation,” he said.

Humanitarian organisations and journalists have had very little access to much of Syria since the regime started cracking down on protests in March, killing at least 3,500 people, according to the United Nations.

“It is a last chance, a new chance for Syria,” Davutoglu had told reporters in Istanbul shortly before the 1100 GMT deadline for Syria to comply with the notice.

“We think it is now vital to put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people… and the bloodshed,” he said at a joint press conference with his Jordanian counterpart Nasser Judeh.

The new Arab warning was issued Thursday at a meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo, where the 22-member bloc also for the first time called on the UN to help resolve the crisis.

Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Jordan’s King Abdullah II have both called on Assad to quit over the violence.

“I hope that Syria will sign this accord,” Judeh said, referring to the Arab peace plan, adding that it represented “the collective will of the Arab world”.

Davutoglu warned that Syria would be isolated by Turkey, Arab states and the entire international community if it rejected the Arab proposals, and warned that Ankara could adopt further measures against the regime.

“Today is a day for an historic decision… and is a test of the good will of the Syrian administration,” he said after talks with Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi.

Davutoglu said the foreign ministers of the Arab countries might meet on Sunday to discuss further on Syria, according to the developments, and he would be participating as well.

Turkey has been increasingly strident in its criticism of the regime in neighbouring Syria, once a close ally, and has already halted joint oil exploration and threatened to cut electricity supplies.

But despite the strong rhetoric, Turkish deputy prime minister Bulent Arinc said Ankara ruled out any military intervention.

“We are absolutely opposed to any intervention in Syria and reject any operation that would involve Turkey against this country,” Arinc told journalists Thursday.

In his blunt call this week for Assad to step down, Erdogan branded him a coward and warned he risked the same fate as dictators who met bloody ends.

Turkey has ratcheted up the its criticism of Assad since its diplomatic missions came under attack by pro-government demonstrators in several Syrian cities earlier this month.

Tensions were heightened further on Monday when two busloads of Turkish pilgrims travelling through Syria on their way back from the hajj in Mecca were attacked by Syrian gunmen.

Turkey, which is already sheltering about 7,000 Syrian opposition activists who fled their home, is however mulling plans for a buffer or no-fly zone on its border with Syria.

Among those on Syrian soil is Riyadh al-Asaad, who defected from the Syrian army and is now leading a group of deserters in the rebel Free Syrian Army.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved

========

November 26, 2011
MISREADING INTENTIONS IN THE SYRIA CRISIS

Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 8:50 AM
STRATFOR
—————————
November 23, 2011

Summary
The aim of the Sunni army defectors who make up the Free Syrian Army is to sow divisions within the military that will ultimately bring down the Syrian regime from within. A number of foreign players share this agenda, but they are reluctant to provide military cover for an opposition still struggling under the weight of the Syrian security apparatus. A closer examination of the dilemmas faced by the main stakeholders in the conflict reveals how the current dynamics of the conflict leave ample room for error as each tries to read the other’s intentions.

Analysis
With months of demonstrations failing to dislodge the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, military defectors who make up the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are trying to exploit Alawite-Sunni divisions in the army to bring the regime down from the inside while asking outside powers for military assistance. Though no outside country has intervened in Syria on the FSA’s behalf, a number would like to see the end of the Iranian-allied regime in Damascus. Turkey has been particularly aggressive in condemning the Syrian regime, even threatening to create a buffer zone extending into Syrian territory.

The FSA hopes to convince Ankara that helping Syrian defectors can prevent border instability — Turkey’s primary concern. Meanwhile, al Assad and Iran may use their influence over Kurdish militant proxies as leverage to forestall Turkish involvement. Though the Syrian regime appears for now to be holding together, the confusion surrounding each party’s intentions has the potential to lead to miscalculations and bring about the very situation each player hopes to avoid.

The Free Syrian Army

The Free Syrian Army loosely refers to a group of mid- to low-ranking Sunni army defectors. They are led by Col. Riad al-Asaad, who is believed to be based in Turkey. The FSA claims it has 22 “battalions” of soldiers throughout Syria capable of launching attacks on symbolic targets; in the past week, the FSA has claimed to have attacked an air force intelligence facility and Baath Party offices. The FSA’s leadership has said its main strategic aim is to elicit further defections and, by splitting the army, cause the regime to collapse from within. With Syria’s Alawite-dominated army units concentrated on urban opposition strongholds, the FSA has been able to transmit messages, facilitate cross-border travel and coordinate defections among the mostly Sunni army soldiers manning checkpoints and border posts. The attacks claimed by the FSA so far suggest the group is not receiving arms from outside the country but is waging its resistance primarily using the arms and ammunition with which members defect.

A significant propaganda campaign is part of the FSA’s efforts to seek assistance, but the group is still operating under the weight of Syria’s pervasive security and intelligence presence. In reaching out to countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia that may want al Assad to fall, the FSA has stressed the need for military cover — much like that provided by NATO in Libya, which allowed rebels time and space to develop their resistance in the eastern stronghold of Benghazi. This is why FSA leadership has emphasized the Syrian regime’s allegedly heavy use of the air force to bombard civilians — the FSA hopes to create a justification for humanitarian intervention. (STRATFOR has not seen any indication that the regime has chosen to use its air force against demonstrators, likely out of fear of Sunni air force pilot defections.)

The exact nature of this proposed military intervention is deliberately ambiguous, varying from the implementation of buffer zones extending into Syrian territory to air cover provided by no-fly zones. Though the FSA has sought to avoid creating the perception it is inviting foreign “occupiers” into Syria, the group undoubtedly hopes to bring about a replication of the Libya model of intervention. In the FSA’s view, if the opposition can draw external forces into forming buffer zones in Syrian territory, it will bring them one step closer to receiving the more significant tactical support they are seeking, such as the insertion of foreign special operations forces, to help split the army and topple the regime.

Turkey’s Reluctance

The FSA is having trouble finding military powers willing to intervene. Turkey has been the most vocal in pressuring al Assad, with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Nov. 22 calling for al Assad’s resignation and on numerous occasions threatening to implement a buffer zone extending into Syrian territory. Turkey also openly hosts FSA leadership, along with other defectors who have fled into Turkey. However, while Ankara has a broad spectrum of options for supporting the opposition from its own side of the border, Turkey has not indicated it will follow through on its threat of military intervention.

Rather than deal with the near-term security implications of hastening al Assad’s fall, Turkey prefers to gamble on the regime’s inability to crush the resistance. Turkey could use a protracted political crisis in Syria to cultivate an opposition to Ankara’s liking, while avoiding direct involvement. The risk for Turkey is that al Assad will survive the crisis with Iranian aid. But Turkey also wants to avoid the near-term threat of becoming vulnerable to Syrian and Iranian militant proxy attacks, especially as the country has recently seen a significant rise in Kurdish militant activity.

Turkey’s primary interest in Syria is to ensure that instability there does not cause a refugee crisis or encourage Kurdish separatist activity within Turkey’s borders. Any eventual military intervention by Ankara — and its absorption of the associated risks — would be driven mainly by these concerns and not by the welfare of Syrian citizens. The United Nations estimates that roughly 7,600 Syrians currently live in Turkish refugee camps, but Turkey does not face an imminent crisis from thousands more refugees flooding across the border. This is largely because Syria has concentrated military crackdowns in opposition strongholds further south in the cities of Homs, Hama and Daraa.

(click here to enlarge image)

Constraints in Creating a Refugee Crisis

The FSA could try to spur Turkey to militarily intervene by creating just such a refugee crisis. By focusing activity in and around the northern strategic cities of Aleppo (an opposition stronghold) and Idlib, the FSA could draw harsher crackdowns by the Syrian army that would send civilians fleeing toward the Turkish border. This would also fixate Syrian forces on one location while thinning out the concentration of forces in other areas where the FSA may be trying to operate.

Similarly, the FSA could attempt to draw Jordan into the Syrian conflict by provoking stronger crackdowns in the southwest, where Syrian forces have concentrated much of their strength since the beginning of the uprising. Rumors circulated in the past week that the Jordanian government was also contemplating a “safe zone” on the Syria-Jordan border in the event of a refugee crisis, but a STRATFOR source in the Jordanian government strongly denied this. At the same time, the source said Jordan might have to contemplate such a measure if tens of thousands of refugees came across the border and if Jordan’s forces were augmented by Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) troops.

This is unlikely in the near term. An estimated 3,000 Syrians have fled to Jordan, and the Jordanian government is just now starting to set up refugee camps. Jordan does, however, share an interest in weakening the al Assad regime. STRATFOR has received indications from Syrian sources that GCC money and supplies have moved through Jordan to opposition forces in Daraa and the Damascus suburbs. But despite significant opposition activity near the Jordanian border, the refugee flow in the south has not reached the level that would warrant a Jordanian intervention, and Amman likely will continue to exercise caution when it comes to escalating its limited involvement in Syria.

While the FSA needs to accelerate a crisis to compel outside intervention, potential interventionists have a strategic interest in staving off such a crisis. Though Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States all share an interest in supporting the Syrian opposition and sowing rifts within the regime, none appear ready to step up their involvement. Should a neighboring country like Turkey (or possibly Jordan) detect that the FSA is trying to create a refugee crisis on its border, that government could take measures to restrict FSA activity on its territory to avoid being led toward military confrontation with Syria. In the meantime, it remains unclear whether the FSA can survive without a refuge near the main areas of resistance and solely with the weapons taken when they defected, while at the same time trying to lure the Syrian army into intensifying its crackdowns.

Al Assad’s Dilemma

Syria and Iran want to prevent further support from reaching Syrian dissidents by making clear to Turkey that there are repercussions for trying to split the Syrian regime. The most direct way to capture Turkey’s attention is through Kurdish militancy. Syria and Iran may not have the ability to directly orchestrate attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party core based out of the Qandil Mountains in northern Iraq, but they can potentially exploit splinter factions. The Turkish government takes this threat seriously and it is likely a major factor in Turkey’s reluctance to escalate its confrontation with Syria. But Syria and Iran would also need to exercise a great deal of caution — using Kurdish militant proxies could inadvertently give Turkey a compelling reason to intervene in Syria.

Al Assad’s strategic interest is simple: to ensure the survival of the regime. This is an interest shared by Iran, which needs Syria to complete an arc of influence running from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Though the Alawite-dominated forces are so far holding together, they are being stretched thin trying to maintain intensive security operations across the country. This strain does not bode well for the regime’s ability to bring an end to the crisis soon. At the same time, the amorphous FSA does not appear able to threaten the Syrian regime without significant outside help. This dynamic gives Turkey and others time to develop a more coherent strategy on Syria, but it will leave the FSA in a tenuous position as it attempts to get its insurgency off the ground with limited foreign backing.

Copyright 2011 STRATFOR.

November 26, 2011
Israel may launch strike on Iran as soon as next month to prevent development of nuclear weapons
- Senior Foreign Office figure: ‘We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year’
By Tim Shipman

Last updated at 8:30 AM on 10th November 2011

Foreign Secretary William Hague, speaking yesterday in the House of Commons, London, warned the UN report into Iran’s nuclear ambitions could spark a regional arms race

Israel will launch military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon as soon as Christmas, intelligence chiefs have warned.

A report by a UN watchdog into Iran’s nuclear ambitions ‘completely discredits’ the Islamic nation’s protestations of innocence, according to Foreign Secretary William Hague.

The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran is developing a nuclear test facility, nuclear detonators and computer modelling for a nuclear warhead that would fit on an existing missile.

Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that Israel will attempt to strike against the nuclear sites ‘sooner rather than later’ – with logistical support from the U.S.

A senior Foreign Office figure has revealed that ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action, adding: ‘We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year.’

Officials believe President Barack Obama would have to support the Israelis or risk losing vital Jewish-American support in the next presidential election.

In recent weeks, Ministry of Defence sources confirmed that contingency plans have been drawn up in the event that the UK decided to support military action.

But the source ruled out direct British support, adding: ‘Of course we are not in favour of Iran developing a bomb – but do we think they’d use it: no.

‘The bigger concern is it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons.’

Mr Hague said Britain would push for more sanctions against Tehran when the IAEA committee meets later this month.
Meeting the masses: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waves to supporters while visiting the city of Shahrekord, of Tehran. He vowed that Iran will not retreat ‘one iota’ from its nuclear programme
All smiles: Ahmadinejad hit out at the IAEA, saying it is discrediting itself by siding with ‘baseless’ U.S. claims that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, vowed not to retreat ‘one iota’ from its nuclear programme.

In a statement on Middle Eastern affairs, the Foreign Secretary was critical of Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Palestinian land.

But he announced Britain will abstain on a UN vote later this week to give statehood to Palestinians.

KEY FINDINGS IN UN REPORT ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME

In its latest report on Iran, the UN International Atomic Energy Agency outlines the sum of its knowledge on the Islamic Republic’s alleged secret nuclear weapons work, including:

Clandestine procurement of equipment and design information needed to make such arms;

High explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge;

Computer modelling of a core of a nuclear warhead;

Preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test, and

Developing and mounting a nuclear payload onto its Shahab 3 intermediate range missile – a weapon that can reach Israel, Iran’s arch foe.

Yesterday the Iranian president gave a passionate speech to thousands of supporters in central Iran, and broadcast on live state television, denouncing the UN report.

He hit out at the IAEA, saying it is discrediting itself by siding with ‘baseless’ U.S. claims that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The U.S. has yet to comment on the findings, but France said it is ready to push for sanctions of ‘an unprecedented scale’ if Iran refuses to answer new questions about its nuclear programme.

Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said that if Iran fails to answer concerns raised by the report, the international community should raise diplomatic pressure to a new level.

China isn’t publicly commenting yet on the U.N. assessment in a likely sign that it will wait for Washington and Moscow to signal their intentions. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei yesterday said that Beijing is studying the report and repeated calls for dialogue and co-operation.

Speaking to supporters in the city of Shahrekord, Ahmadinejad said Iran will not stop its nuclear development, adopting a defiant position against the report, which could spur efforts for new sanctions against his country.

He said: ‘If you think you can change the situation of the world through putting pressures on Iran, you are deadly wrong. The Iranian nation will not withdraw an iota.’

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, not weapons production.

Ahmadinejad’s regime is already thought to have built a top-secret explosives test facility at a site in Parchin, just outside Tehran, where it is conducting experiments to develop a weapon.

Scientists are building hi-tech precision detonators which would be essential for a nuclear device, and developing a uranium core for a nuclear warhead, the UN said.
Spreading the word: Ahmadinejad is adopting a defiant position against the report, which could spur efforts for new sanctions against his country

Nationalism: Supporters of Ahmadinejad wave flags during his speech in Shahrekord

The report also lays bare that Iranian scientists are trying to mount a nuclear payload into their Shahab 3 missiles – which can reach Israel, Iran’s arch foe.

The report compiled by Yukiya Amano is the strongest sign yet that Iran seeks to build a nuclear arsenal, despite Tehran’s insistence its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes.

The document claims that while some of the suspected secret nuclear work by Iran can have peaceful purposes, ‘others are specific to nuclear weapons.’

A 13-page attachment to the agency’s Iran report details intelligence and IAEA research that shows Tehran working on all aspects of research toward making a nuclear weapon, including fitting a warhead onto a missile.

Ahead of the report’s release, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak warned of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear programme.

He told Israel Radio that he did not expect any new U.N. sanctions on Tehran to persuade it to stop its nuclear defiance, adding: ‘We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table.’

The ‘all options on the table’ phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault.

Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons program at the Parchin military base about 30 kilometres from Tehran, diplomatic sources in Vienna say

While some of the suspected secret nuclear work outlined in the annex could also be used for peaceful purposes, ‘others are specific to nuclear weapons’, the report claims.

Some of the information contained in the annex was new – including evidence of a large metal chamber at a military site for nuclear-related explosives testing.

The bulk, however, was a compilation and expansion of alleged work already partially revealed by the agency.

But a senior diplomat familiar with the report said its significance lay in its comprehensiveness, thereby reflecting that Iran apparently had engaged in all aspects of testing that were needed to develop such a weapon.

Also significant was the agency’s decision to share most of what it knows or suspect about Iran’s secret work with the 35-nation IAEA board and the U.N. Security Council after being stonewalled by Tehran in its attempts to probe such allegations.

Copies of the report went to board members and the council, which has imposed four sets of U.N. sanction on Tehran for refusing to stop activities that could be used to make a nuclear weapon and refusing to cooperate with IAEA attempts to fully understand its nuclear program.

Inspection: Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility in April 2008

The nuclear power plant in Bushehr, southern Iran – a site that may be targeted in a mooted military strike

The agency said the annex was based on more than 1,000 pages of intelligence and other information forwarded by more than 10 nations and material gathered by the IAEA itself.

The report suggests that Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and includes satellite imagery of a large steel container the IAEA believes is used for nuclear arms-related high explosives tests.

In remarks broadcast on state television, Ahmadinejad said that International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano was simply repeating U.S. allegations. ‘He delivers the papers that American officials hand on him,’ Ahmadinejad said.

‘I am sorry that a person is heading the agency who has no power by himself and violates the agency’s regulations, too.’

He repeated Iran’s stance that it is not involved in making a nuclear weapon: ‘They should know that if we want to remove the hand of the U.S. from the world, we do not need bombs and hardware. We work based on thoughts, culture and logic.’
November 11, 2011
Reflections of Israeli Crisis in Caucasus

The recent tension between Turkey and Israel has over the last year affected the fronts of alliances in the region, leading to pursuits for new forms of alliances subsequent to the current crisis. (more…)

September 28, 2011
TURKISH FREIGN POLICY IN A CHANGING WORLD: NAMIK TAN

September 18, 2011
Turkey’s friendship with Syria nears breaking point

By Simon Cameron-Moore

ISTANBUL

(Reuters) – Turkey’s friendship with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stood near breaking point as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu prepared to visit Damascus on Tuesday in a last-ditch effort to persuade Assad to stop his security forces attacking civilians.

On Sunday, one of Assad’s advisers warned Davutoglu would be given short shrift after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said his minister would deliver a “decisive message,” having seen past entreaties to halt the violence ignored.

A Turkish official said Davutoglu would repeat the earlier calls. But the official did not want to venture into what Turkey will do if its words continue to fall on deaf ears in neighboring Syria.

Still, if Davutoglu returns empty-handed, Erdogan faces the prospect of ditching a friendship he has carefully nurtured over the past decade, leaving Assad more isolated and dependent on Iranian support than ever.

Bahadir Dincer, Middle East expert at the International Strategic Research Organization in Ankara, said he expected no change from the Syrian government given the comments from Damascus ahead of Davutoglu’s visit.

“Turkey will have to seriously consider its ties with Syria,” Dincer said. “It has been a white page for a decade now, The recent tension turned it grey, and we’ll see tomorrow if the relations are entering a red-page era.”

Having almost gone to war in the late 1990s over Syria harboring Kurdish militants, the friendship became a virtual poster-child for Erdogan’s foreign policy of “zero problems with neighbors.”

Erdogan has holidayed with Assad, their cabinets have held joint meetings, Turkey has become Syria’s biggest trading partner, the neighbors have visa-free travel between them, and Turkey tried to broker a peace deal between Syria and Israel.

NO GOING OUT ON A LIMB

The relationship with Syria has withered as Erdogan tried to encourage Assad, in vain, to make democratic reforms and end the repressive one-party rule of his Baath movement.

Events in the Arab Spring of popular protests, according to Sinan Ulgen in a paper published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have shown Ankara now wants to be on the right side of history and is ready to stand up for issues like human rights even where it imperils ties with incumbent leaders.

The patience Erdogan has shown so far with Assad stands in contrast to the speed with which he advised Hosni Mubarak to quit as president of Egypt when street protests erupted there early this year, but that patience appears to have run out.

There is genuine outrage in Turkey, a largely secular Muslim country like Syria but also a multi-party democracy, over the brutal repression unleashed since pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in the neighboring Arab state last March.

In June, after more than 10,000 Syrians fled to Turkey to escape attacks by security forces, Erdogan described the killing of Syrian civilians as acts of savagery.

Yet, his government — like Syria’s Arab neighbors, however upset they have become about Assad’s behavior, underlined by the recall of several Gulf ambassadors on Monday — is unlikely to take any unilateral action against Damascus, according to analysts of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East.

With the international community divided over what to do about Syria, Turkey is unlikely to go out on a limb, either through economic sanctions or military action.

“Turkey will not go to the lengths of unilateral economic sanctions. It has always argued that sanctions hurt people, not regimes,” said Semih Idiz, a columnist focused on foreign policy at Milliyet newspaper.

One big investment that could be vulnerable to a freeze in bilateral relations is a joint multi-billion-dollar dam project dubbed “Friendship Dam,” whose groundbreaking was attended by leaders of the two countries in February.

Turkey is also likely to resist any pressure to create a buffer zone inside Syrian territory, though it is reportedly a scenario that the Turkish military has made contingencies for.

“Turkey will not do anything unilateral militarily unless there is a massive spillover effect from what’s happening in Syria — a spillover of a humanitarian nature, or a threat to national security,” Idiz said.

Other analysts said Turkey should avoid being drawn into any military intervention in Syria just to please Western powers, as it would backfire on efforts to end ethnic Kurds’ long-running insurgency in southeast Turkey.

“Turkey may limit its trade and diplomatic ties with Syria. But, even if Turkey doesn’t take such steps, its clear message and attitude toward the Syrian administration will be a boost of morale to protesters,” Dincer said.

Syrians living in exile have flocked to Turkey, without any apparent encouragement from the Turkish government, for a series of meetings aimed at uniting opposition to Assad.

Any move by Turkish officials to engage the Syrian opposition would further alienate Damascus from Ankara.

And whereas Saudi Arabia withdrew its envoy to Damascus on Monday, Idiz doubted whether Turkey would want to be seen following Riyadh’s lead, lest its actions be seen through any sectarian prism.

Assad and the ruling clique in the Ba’athist Party hail from Syria’s minority Alawite community, a sect close to Iran’s dominant Shi’ites, while the majority of Syrians are Sunni.

Mostly Sunni Saudi Arabia sent troops to Bahrain in March to help stifle unrest among the emirate’s Shi’ite majority.

While most of Turkey’s population are also Sunni, it also has a small Alawite minority, and Erdogan’s government has steadfastly sought to avoid stirring sectarian issues.

Last Friday, Davutoglu said it was too soon to talk about asking the Syrian ambassador to Ankara to leave.

reuters.com, Aug 8, 2011

August 8, 2011