Republican and Mitt's Geography Lesson of the Day

Since this is a foreign policy blog, I won’t deal with the misogynistic proclivities of the Republican Party and its slimy politicians. What is interesting is their complete lack of depth in international affairs (at least ever since their Christianista Misogynist in Chief, Richard Mourdock won the primary against Senator Lugar in Indiana).

Aside from the astoundingly cluelessness of Mitt Romney in general at the final debate with President Obama, there was a remarkable moment when he floated the notion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be indicted for his inflammatory statements against Israel. The Iranian President was once quoted saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map,” though the translation was later revealed to be just a tad wrong.

“I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation,” Romney said.

That was followed quickly by one of Romney’s advisors, Eric Fehrnstrom, suggesting that the World Court could arrest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First of all, can someone please supply the world with the address of the “World Court”?

No?

I didn’t think so. And for a political cult party that, along with its tea-bag followers, finds international agreements and institutions loathsome, appealing to one, even though it doesn’t exist, strikes me as a bit of a stretch, even for these buffoons.

In case these moth-brained neo-cons haven’t noticed, their cartoon compatriot Ahmadinejad is going to be out of a job pretty soon; so, unless they act quickly to get the "World Court" to issue an indictment and provide the "World Police" with a warrant to parachute into Iran, snatch their suspect and whisk him away to the "World Jail" where he can await trial by the "World Court" as soon as a "World Prosecutor" can be found they will miss the moment.

On more thing. Republicans, like a good number of their disciples, couldn't find Iran with a map and a flashlight. Hence, this statement by Mitt at the debate:

"Secondly, Syria’s an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea."

Uhm. Well. No.

According to the CIA fact book, Iran's coastline consists of pretty nice beachfront on the Persian Gulf leading out to the Gulf of Oman which is connected (get the map Republican boys and girls) to the Indian Ocean. That's 1,520 miles of sipping pina-coladas and sunbathing by the sea while watching its excuse for a navy go by. If that's not enough, then they can float some toy ships on the Caspian as well - anywhere along 460 miles of shoreline.

Oh, yeah. Iran doesn't border Syria, although thanks to the last American president they were gifted Iraq, so I guess that's something

Shifting Sands for the Kurds

Flag of Kurdistan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Once upon a time the Kurds were frequently shown a red-line by Turkey that they could never cross – independence. Even as late as 2010, the warning was in effect.  To fight the PKK, the Turkish army covers Kurdish regions in the east of Turkey and has intermittently thought nothing of crossing into Iraq, in force, to attack PKK home bases.  But the Kurdish government in Erbil is different. It is rich, peaceful and it is engaged in a cold-war with Baghdad. 

Kurdish Iraq has been part of the country in name only for at least a decade.  Having first been protected by the no-fly zone in effect against Saddam Hussein, it became de-facto independent after his army was pulverized in the first Iraq war and then systematically dismantled by the invasion in 2003.  Both wars were beneficial for the Kurds. (Please note – I am not defending the illegal, ill-conceived 2003 invasion and its badly handled aftermath). Erbil is now probably the richest city in Iraq as a result of oil, maintains a decent military, enjoys relative peace and can thumb its nose at the government in Baghdad.   It is also stable – something Ankara appreciates on its borders.

The former peace-in-the-neighborhood policy is changing to stark realism as Ankara understands that as a major regional power – perhaps the regional power – choices need to be made. Gradually, Kurds in Turkey are gaining their civil rights – a long road lies ahead in that respect – but Turkey knows that being friends with every neighbor is not a policy choice.  As a result, given the tension that exists between Shia controlled Iraq and Sunni Turkey, the Kurds may find that a deal with Ankara and future independence is not just a dream.

Iraq, Syria and Iran are upset with Turkey and Turkey has severed relations with the Assad regime while offering aid to Syrian refugees and has issued blunt warnings of military action to Damascus – not something Iran appreciates or wants to see.  The Kurds, however, have been welcomed. Not so long ago Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish Regional Government PM, paid a visit to Ankara where he was treated as a head-of-state.  Barzani’s government is increasingly tied to Turkey by both trade and the need for security against what the Kurds believe is a hostile government in Baghdad and a not so friendly Iran. This has resulted into a Kurdish policy of not irritating Ankara by showing any sort of support for the outlawed PKK.

In the past few days, the al-Maliki government in Baghdad has even more reason to be annoyed with Turkey. Ankara has said that the fugitive Vice President of Iraq, Tariq al-Hashemi (a Sunni) wanted for allegedly orchestrating death squads and attacking Shiites, is their guest and that the recently issued “red notice” by Interpol is not an arrest warrant and can be safely (if embarrassingly) ignored.  They are not going to do anything except treat him as a guest.  All these past and current events present the Kurds in Erbil with an opportunity for further de-facto independence, if not de-jure.

Some years ago, the suggestion was floated that Iraq should simply be divided in three, Shia south, Sunni west and Kurdish north.  The idea was derided as dangerous.  But it is playing out. If Erbil and Ankara reach a degree a comfort with each other, it would be beneficial to both. 

Iran loses Turkey - and everything else

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey at Çanakkale Türkçe: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Başbakanı (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After a prolonged absence from posting, I'm back.  I have frankly been immersed in legislative initiatives in Tajikistan and meetings in Kyiv and Istanbul for a major program in the Black Sea basin. 

Nevertheless, the dry spell should be over for the time being. 

The first item on the agenda is a quick post on the fluid dynamics in the Middle East brought on by the Syrian civil war and attrocities which have been committed by the al Assad regime.

The systematic murder of women, children and other civilians in order to crush the revolt represented largely by the Free Syrian Army, has been unresolved.  Kofi Annan says he is shocked by the massive bloodshed committed by Syrian regular army forces in the period leading up to the agreed upon cease fire and withdrawal of army units from cities and towns in Syria.  Why he is shocked is beyond comprehension.  There is nothing in the Baath regime's history that would have indicated other than brutal repression when their control was threatened.  Russia  claims to support the Annan mission - except that it is deliberately facilitating the murders as is China.

Now, the situation is changing because the civil war has become decidedly a geopolitical struggle between Iran and its not-so-friendly neighbors and the West.  The casualties are the civilians.  Nevertheless, Iran seems to have overplayed its hand and is now openly in a war of words with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia extending to threats of punishment.  They have also slapped away the strongest power in the region, Turkey, by first calling Turkey and enemy of the Syrian people for hosting the Friends of Syria conference on April 1 and then questioning the location of new nuclear talks, advocating a change of venue from Istanbul to Damascus or Baghdad. 

The optics of a successful rising Iran have now changed. Ankara bent over backwards to mediate on the nuclear issue and a week ago Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan met with Ayatollah Khamanei to promote negations and avoid a military strike (however unlikely).  The meeting ended with a statement when Ayatollah Khameni said that  “building weapons of mass destruction amounts to a sin in our religion.”  Case closed. Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Davutoğlu went home.

Then Iran rejected Istanbul as venue and the situation began to unravel alarmingly. Clearly, Iran has learned nothing from following the personality of Erdoğan.  He has a tendency to take things personally. Very personally and very publicly.  Beware an Erdoğan scorned.  Now he accused Iran of evasion and self-isolation. Then he turned to the Syria problem and Iran's ally.

Iran has managed to piss-off the most powerful, and formerly neutral country in the Middle East. It has crossed the line and lost Turkey (an overwhelmingly Sunni nation with elections approaching). Tehran’s mendacity is evident not only its anti-Turkish ranting on Syria, where it itself is assisting in the slaughter, but also its astonishing disrespect to Turkey's efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis.

Now, Erdoğan  says the country will wait "patiently" to see if Syria abides by a cease-fire deadline on Tuesday, but may take certain "steps" if the violence does not stop after that. Nearly 700 Syrian escaped to Turkey last Friday.  During a 36 hour period last eek about 2,800 crossed the to escape a helicopter-backed assault by Syrian troops.  No one can expect Turkey to continue to accept more refugees.  It already host 24,000.

What "certain steps" means is unknown - but the Turkish army can control the border from the Syrian side without too much worry about Syrian army units. Assad is on his way out.  Iran is going to lose this gambit and at the same time has lost the help of important players in the region, furthering its isolation.  Rarely has any country misplayed its hand in such a way.

Syria Unravels

About three weeks ago I asked a friend in Damascus whether anything serious was beginning in Syria.  Only minor demonstrations in the south were then taking place, but given the upheavals elsewhere, I thought it would be interesting to get a local perspective.  The answer was short – and I expect deliberately so – “not much happening…all is quiet, really”.   No longer and he is heading to Canada on other business hoping that everything will settle down when he returns in a month.  The problem is that Syrian demonstrations are likely to get worse this weekend and particularly on May 1^st and May 6^th, both of which are national holidays, with the latter being the “day of martyrs”. 

From what I can gather, this did not start as a political movement aimed at removing Bashar al-Asad.  Rather, it was almost purely the result of economic issues and calls for lifting the emergency laws in force for about 40 years.  Now, however, so many people have been killed by the regime that every relative of every person killed is out for blood.  Tribal traditions are rising to the top and although Asad himself was never the original target, that is rapidly changing.  People are angry.

Given the severity of the crackdown by the government it is unlikely, but not impossible,  for the government to fall.  Should that happen, the politics of the region would be shaken, not stirred.  Syria is an important player whose instability or change in government would have a profound affect.  Syria is a key transit point for Iranian support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  Loss of the transit would seriously and adversely impact Iranian plans for the Levant.  Israel also needs to be concerned since, although a front-line state and hardly in a talking mood with Israel, it was at least stable. The Turkish policy of a peaceful neighborhood, not to mention an vibrant economic zone with Turkey reestablishing its presence in the Levant at the expense of Iran would rapidly disintegrate.  Iran may feel it necessary to become more overt in its take-over of Iraq, leading to trouble in the Kurdish north.  In other words, an unstable Syria would create a mess.

Syria has also pushed Bahrain to below-the-fold status as the GCC continues to crush the rebellion there.  Many have characterized this as a sectarian revolt of Shiite against Sunni.  That’s convenient, but not entirely accurate, until now.  It may have morphed into sectarianism, but the Shiite majority suffers from severe economic and political discrimination.  A less discriminatory environment and more economic opportunities for Shiites might have avoided the entire revolt.  However, the loud sectarian voices emanating from Iran have solidified the Shiite-Sunni divide.  Active interference – hinted at the other day by the commander of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran – would result in a war with Saudi Arabia and, since the US 5^th Fleet is based in Bahrain, with US forces taking part.  It is no secret that Iran really, really wants the US Fleet out of the Arabian Gulf.  One can only hope that the civilian government in Tehran can keep the Republican Guard on a short leash because the consequences of an Iranian attack in Bahrain would have huge economic, political and military repercussions.  It would also be a gift to the neo-cons and Netanyahu as the US would be forced into action against Iran’s formidable conventional army.

Syria is important to watch as the government moves in with tanks to snuff out the revolt.  But political change is coming in Damascus whether Asad prevails or not and the Iranians are understandably concerned that their policies in the region could rapidly unravel – and not to their benefit. 

Maneuvering in Lebanon

Image via Wikipedia

Apparently there is consternation in the west concerning the selection of the Hezbollah backed candidate, Najib Mikati, as Prime Minister of Lebanon. The Shiites basically selected a moderate millionaire with strong ties to Syria - something the Sunni's don't like.  But before the western press ties itself into knots of hysteria, it should be pointed out that the selection and appointment followed clear, democratic parliamentary procedures.  In other words, the system - supported by the US and Europe - worked.

More on the geo-politics later, but suffice it to say that the Saudi and Western plan for Lebanon is in shambles. That does not mean, however, that Iran and Syria have won and that particular marriage is not as strong as it seems.

This Can't Be Good...

Lesson learned - if you are the leader of a country in turmoil, don't leave for a foreign trip if you expect to stay in power. 

Prime Minister Saad Hariri of Lebanon is now a caretaker courtesy of Hezbollah.  Hezbollah toppled the government over a long-running dispute linked to a U.N. probe into the 2005 assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri which is poised to indict several Hezbollah members for their involvement.  Hezbollah has been threatening that if Hariri did not disavow the investigation then they would take action. 

Syria is Hezbollah's main ally through which it receives money and other support from Iran.  Iran needs Hezbollah to keep its foot in the door in the Levant and to threaten Israel. The scene is about to become a lot more complex and dangerous.

What is Syria's interest here?  First and foremost, it sees Lebanon as Syrian - perhaps no longer physically, but certainly politically.  But Hezbollah, which has served Syrian interests, is dead in the water without Iran. Syria is going to have to make a choice between its interests and those of Hezbollah and Iran.

If Hezbollah succeeds in seizing control of the government, Syria may be faced with the unpalatable choice of reducing its support to Hezbollah by constricting its supplies or another Israeli assault which could easily suck in Damascus. From a geo-political standpoint, Syria should not want Iran to increase its footprint. Some sort of Syrian intervention is going to be necessary, but likely will not come until after the UN indictments. Then, Syria has its excuse.

Turkey may also become involved both to increase its influence at the expense of Iran and reduce tensions to avoid a military escalation. But it remains to be seen what influence Turkey can actually muster.

I find it hard to believe that Hezbollah is indulging in the type of power play that might result in a severe problem for itself and Syria. However, this is Lebanon where nothing is clear-cut.

Ankara's Dilemma

Iran is again in the news as Hillary Clinton, in Dubai on the first stop of a three-nation tour of the Persian Gulf, said the Arab world should act to sharpen enforcement of the sanctions and reject attempts to stoke Mideast tensions. She also said that if Iran succeeds in developing an atomic bomb, it will plunge the Mideast into a disastrous nuclear arms race, she said. "It is first and foremost in the interest of the region to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." Yet last week, Israel's newly retired spy chief said he thinks Iran won't be able to build a nuclear bomb before 2015.

Yet, a week before the P5-1 talks begin in Istanbul (the 1 being Germany which is not a member of the UN Security Council) with Iran, the emphasis appears to be on the nuclear issue that has clearly subsided in light of the Israeli assessment which was surely known before Meir Dagan, the former Israeli Mossad chief who made the assessment made his statement.

The call for Arab support is nothing new and as the Wikileaks cables show, the drum beater in chief against Iran is Saudi Arabia. But let’s look at what is happening in the region and how the nuclear issue should be relegated to the back of the fridge for a while.

As I have said frequently, much to the boredom of my readers I’m sure, the US has not yet come to grips with the new geo-political reality of the world in which it cannot dictate policy very much to the key players any longer. This applies as much to global powers as it does to regional ones. We are back to the pre-World War I geo-political realities. We know who are the global powers. The regional ones include Turkey and wannabe Iran. There is no regional Arab power since Egypt gave up the mantle after 1973 (although that may be changing).

The general public in the US would likely be shocked to learn that Iran, although Muslim, is not Arab. They, in their usual geo-political vacuum existence and Faux News environment, probably also do not realize that Turkey, although Muslim, is not Arab. Few people understand (more than before, I think as a result of the Iraq fiasco) that Sunni Muslims are not exactly on the same side as Shiite Muslims. They probably do remember that Turkey turned down fearless leader Junior Bush in his invitation (more like a demand at the time) to join his adventure in Mesopotamia and therefore concluded that Turkey was “looking east” and away from the West. The foundation of Turkey’s opposition is forgotten, if it was ever mentioned. Turkey said that the invasion would destabilize the balance of power in the region and that they were not keen on that idea. They were right. And now it is a truly more difficult region to stabilize.

So what we have now is a realpolitik wake-up call. Iraq has largely, though not entirely, been handed to Iran and return of Moqtada al-Sadr, a pro-Iranian cleric with a private army, cements that in place. The removal of Iraq as an independent force in the region has provided Iran with the opening it needs to pursue a historic dream – the control of the Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf if you happen to be in Saudi Arabia). That is why the Sunni Saudis are so alarmed. The US is withdrawing and the only game in town is Iran, it seems. Nuclear weapons are not the problem. With the US out, Iran has the most powerful conventional military in the region – except for Turkey. But Iran is a lot closer to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates than is Turkey.

The regional balance of power may be at a tipping point in favor of Iran, which makes Israeli policies of apartheid against Palestinians and exchanging Greece for Turkey as an ally even more stupid than they appear on the surface. The current Israeli government now faces the prospect of the EU treating East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state and having an EU presence at the demolitions of Palestinian homes, and intervention when peaceful protesters face arrest. All this follows the razing of the famous Shepherds Hotel in East Jerusalem to make way for 20 homes for Jewish settlers (a violation of international law).

The rivalries are just beginning as Turkey begins its reluctant maneuvering to offset Iran and represent all Muslims in the region. I say reluctant because Turkey has said that it will not act as a mediator between Iran and the West. Well, sorry boys. Turkey is going to find it impossible to play any other role. It’s what happens when you become a regional power.

Turkey will need to make decisions that it hates to make – about its neighbors, policies and actions that will not please everyone. The “zero problems” foreign policy only goes so far before national and regional interests force choices. How Turkey handles the upcoming talks with Iran will be a key example of how Turkey plans to exert its influence in Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Geo-politics is forcing Turkey into its natural place in the region as a counterbalance to a surging Persian Iran. It cannot afford to let the vacuum formed by the US withdrawal to result in Iran realizing its dream to control the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The US will have little influence after leaving Iraq and shows no prospect of dealing with Israeli policies that are self-defeating and which adversely affect US national interests. Iran will negotiate in Istanbul, but further sanctions will do nothing if the results are the status-quo and Iran knows it. It consistently keeps the nuclear issue at center stage because that takes the eyes of the West off the target – which should be prevention of the creation of a regional hegemon at the expense of the West and its fundamental interests. Iran cannot afford for anyone to decide to indulge in an air campaign against its conventional military – which is where its real power lies. Smoke and mirrors – Iran can afford to lose what it does not have.

Which brings us back to the Saudis – who will not be in Istanbul. But it is the Saudi who are most concerned about Iran – and not from the nuclear side of the issue, but the conventional and the shifting balance of power. What is Turkey going to do? It is not in its interests to allow Iran a free hand to establish itself as the sole regional power, able to influence the policies of Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. Turkey cannot simply sit at the negotiating table and play the neutral. It is not neutral and it is in Turkey’s national interests to position itself as the regional power at the expense of Iran.

Welcome to the world of realpolitik, Ankara.

Kurdish Independence

Image via Wikipedia

What would happen if Iraq lost the Kurdish north? The region is already largely autonomous and is a major center of oil reserves. The conventional wisdom is that independence for “Kurdistan” would prompt a military response, sooner or later, from its neighbors – Iran and Turkey. But would it really?


Iran has its hands full with a poor economy, a hostile neighbor – Saudi Arabia – and an unstable Iraq which is proving harder for Iran to manipulate than it expected. It also has larger issues of concern such as a military attack by you-know-who. So, although there is a longstanding conflict that flares now and again between Kurdish nationalists in the northwest of the country and Tehran, it is exceedingly unlikely that Iran would invade northern Iraq if it became independent.

The question is really, what would Ankara do? I suspect that Ankara might welcome an independent Kurdish Republic for several reasons. First, the Kurds in northern Iraq are not actively hostile to Turkey. The PKK is not welcome as a strong presence and indeed is quite worrisome since any cross border attack against Turkish troops has the tendency to provoke a rapid, overwhelming response from Turkey.

An independent Kurdistan might actually gut the PKK movement – much like the establishment of a Palestinian state would seriously undermine Hamas and Hezbollah. Turkey would benefit in its poorest region, the southeast, and tensions would be reduced. Then, there is the oil. Turkey relies heavily on Russian energy supplies for its growing economy. An alternative source would be a welcome event for Turkish foreign policy advisors and would also allow Turkey to increase its influence south and east at the expense of Iran.

Unlikely as it may seem, an independent Kurdish state would not result in an upheaval. However, it is equally unlikely that Baghdad would appreciate the independence of a key part of the country. To avoid the possibility of such a move, I would expect the Iraqi leadership to continue the façade of an integrated nation while at the same time giving the Kurds as much autonomy, short of secession, as they want.

Iraq needs the oil as well.

Iran and US on Common Ground

Isn't it nice to know that those in the US who so despise Muslims in general and Iranians in particular are on the same level as Iranians when it comes to the death penalty?

Iran Losing Key Support?

In a surprising move, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree banning the delivery of the S-300 air defense system and a host of other major arms to Iran, apparently in response to the new UN sanctions.  Since the S-300 system doesn't even make it to the UN list of conventional arms and would be entirely justified, the move is clearly a sign that the deal made between Washington and Moscow for more investment into Russia had a catch.  More investment, fewer supplies to Iran. 

Also included in the ban was entry to and transit through  Russia for a Iranians connected with Iran's nuclear program while simultaneously banning Russians or Russian firms from rendering financial services if the services relate to Iran's nuclear activity.

The move by Moscow is a big deal.  It signals that Russia's foreign policy may be returning to a more pragmatic view of the world based on self-interest.  Ultimately, it is not in Russian's interest to have a strong Islamic state to the south that is very capable of causing trouble in Russian dominated regions of its neighbors or even its internal trouble spots of Chechnya and Ingusetia.  It is in its national interest to attract Western investment of every type.  In that scenario, Iran is dispensable.

The UN sanction regime still won't work in and of themselves - but losing allies like Russia at a time when Iran cannot be certain that the US may be changing its tactics regarding military intervention, may be the beginning of a change in Iran's tactics overall.

Iran Follow-Up Saudi Build-up

Speaking of Iran and the concerns of Saudi Arabia - the US withdrawal from Iraq has shaken the Saudi's.  As I mentioned, it is not the nuclear threat that Iran may pose - it is the conventional.  In the previous post, I neglected to mention this.

Turkey Rising - Redux

Image via Wikipedia

I admit that I am somewhat of a Turkophile, but the recent referendum on constitutional reforms has again demonstrated that Turkey is a key player – if not the key player – for Europe and the West in the Middle East.

For all the puffery of the prior US administration regarding building democracy in the Middle East by invading Iraq and threatening Iran, the foreign policy of Bush studiously ignored the growing democratic movement in Turkey. It is now taking the lead and, given European attitudes of exclusion toward countries and, more recently, ethnic groups, is likely to move forward without Europe or the US.
The first attempts at a renewed democratic movement ended with a whimper in the early 1990’s.

The conclusion was that liberalization and policies of inclusion - of the Kurds, non-Muslims and other ethnic groups – had failed. The trouble with this conclusion is that it is based on the childish assumption that people will support initiatives that improve society rather than voting against their own interests. People are generally inclined to only think of themselves. Just take a look at the return to the disaster of Republican policies in the US which brought that country an acceptance of torture, use of military force as the first resort. an economy geared to reward the wealthy and election of truly dangerously ignorant people who knew how to use fear of change and outright lies to retain power. Turkey has turned the corner on that particular obstacle with the 58% vote in favour of more democracy.

Turkey achieved this European Union sanctioned step-forward by a hitherto impossible alliance between conservative Moslems and liberals, both of whom suffered under what had become a limited democracy imposed by the military and the Kemalists who were stuck in the wrong century. Continuing this progress will not be easy, however, as the PKK terrorists have made very clear with continuing political violence to extent that they, like their Taliban counterparts, opposed participation in the national referendum.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the results for the government will strengthen their resolve to pursue their “peaceful neighbourhood” policy - much to the annoyance of those wishing for an attack on Iran and a continuance of the apartheid policies in Israel. This policy includes economic cooperation with its ancient competitor, Iran. Khodro, an Iranian carmaker, plans to manufacture automobiles in Turkey in a “free zone” to be established on the border between the two countries. This involves some risk as it is clear that Iran continues to pursue policies which, sooner or later, may have adverse consequences of a military nature. But, it expands Turkish influence.

The US/Turkey relationship is more complicated than that of Europe’s with Ankara. Both the US and Turkey foreign policy concerns interact regarding Israel and Iran. Unfortunately, the US Congress, about to be taken over by the most regressive minds of the country, will soon become more hostile and less pragmatic toward Turkey which is the straw-that-stirs the drink in the region. US foreign policy in the region is not reflective of its national interests. However, it would be a gross mistake to think that US policy will be able to influence events without Turkey’s assistance. Israel is no longer enough and, in any event, has managed to hold hostage US foreign policy for too long.

Turkey, on the other hand, cannot overplay its influence as, regardless of the growing economic ties with Iran, the latter remains a significant competitor which can upset any move toward peace in the region. Iran has a significant conventional military capability as well which, though no match for Turkey’s, could make matters worse in the Gulf region and Iraq. Turkey cannot afford to become too estranged from the US in that case.

The European Union, though not any closer to accepting Turkey into its club, will likely forge ahead with developing other forms of cooperation with Turkey. Turkey’s recent referendum which produced extended praise in Brussels will help to develop a closer relationship. This is no doubt on the minds of the AKP in Ankara as it ponders what to do with its soon to be far worse relationship with the US as a result of the Greek and Armenian lobbies as well as the religious far right take-over in the US. This is an opportunity for Brussels for political and economic diplomacy after a summer of disastrous economic problems triggered by the financial melt-down of an irresponsible Greece.

Finally, should it be necessary to point out that the US is far away and its only super-power status is its military reach? Moscow certainly has taken notice of this weakness and has vastly increased its influence in Turkey. Moscow holds the key to the Ngorno-Kharabakh and its recent military treaty with Armenia should, but won’t, wake up the Armenian diaspora in the US which continues to wield political influence far beyond what it should to prevent any sort of agreement among Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Ankara wants a solution in the NK. The deal it strikes with the Kremlin and Baku in the future will stun the diaspora. Any deal will increase Russian influence in the South Caucuses but will fall into the Turkish foreign policy framework established by the AKP – whether the US likes it or not.

Barring a major outbreak of violence or an attack on Iran by the US (Israel has no hope of doing that alone) Ankara will become the overwhelming “go-to” country in the region.

Welcome to BICT and Mult-Polar World

OK. I was wrong. I thought that the Israeli assault on the Turkish flotilla would have sunk the vote on sanctions against Iran. It did not. Whether these sanctions work or not, and I don’t believe that they will achieve the desired result, is not really the question. Israel is now more isolated than ever, as is Iran. The vote against the resolution by Turkey and Brazil was more about regional muscle-flexing and desire to play a larger role in their regions and the world, than their understandable anger over the snub of their nuclear fuel swap agreement with Iran – which is not entirely dead depending on the next move by the US.

Turkey has faced the fact that the opposition by France, Germany and Austria to EU membership has killed the prospect regardless of previous commitments by Brussels to move forward. It has now turned to its old domains in the east and south to increase and solidify Turkish influence and power and it is succeeding.
Ankara may have genuinely believed in the uranium swap deal; but, regardless of the outcome, it has placed itself solidly in the regional power column, independent of the US while still remaining within NATO. Turkey principal competition is Iran. They are not allies and the Iranian brand of Islamic rule is not palatable in Turkey. The attack on the Turkish flotilla has elevated Turkey’s standing in the region as the pre-eminent political power. By voting “no” in the UN against sanctions and joining with Brazil in a nuclear fuel swap deal, its political capital in the Middle East leaped multiple levels. All these events come at Iran’s expense and make Turkey a leader in the region, wielding political and military clout that cannot be safely ignored. Even Russia knows this and has been careful to rapidly build closer economic ties to Turkey. Although Turkey is heavily dependent on Russia for energy, Moscow knows that Turkey can create serious problems for it in the Caucuses and less so in Central Asia.

Brazil, meanwhile, is rapidly asserting its independence and strength in South America and has shown that it can be a player of international scope. Brasilia has increased its trade relationships with China, Russia, West Africa and the Middle East, especially now Turkey. Clearly the leading political and economic power in South America (despite the pretensions of the Chavez regime), it is in a position to require the US to pay attention to its views. Joining with Turkey in the nuclear fuel swap agreement puts Brazil on the map outside of its region.

Russian agreement on the new sanctions also reflects an awareness that it will need to be more sensitive to a multi-polar world. Although it clearly may indulge in more aggressive behaviour in the Caucuses, any such further adventure will come at a steep price as it tries to build ties with Turkey. Turkey is in a position to make life easier for Russia in the Caucuses and may ultimately be instrumental in resolving the long-running confrontation between Yerevan and Baku. By asserting its independence from the US when its interests conflict with those of Washington, Turkey is leveraging its regional strength and becoming a trusted broker.

All the recent events are pointing toward a new balance of power where regional interests can trump traditional alliances. The US can no longer rely on Turkey or Brazil to tow any particular line if their national interests would be adversely affected. For that matter, neither can Russia or the EU. Each must deal with the regional powers in a different way. The now famous BRIC bloc is not really accurate. Drop the R and add a T. Welcome to the new world.

Overcoverage of Issues and Events

I have to admit that I’ve been lax in posting. There are two reasons for this outside of the need to actually complete some work. The first is the extreme obviousness of many topics and issues about which I could write if they were not so obvious, and the second is the useless warnings that bubble up about the necessity to deal with these issues to avoid the giant rocks from space that are sure to obliterate the planet if we don’t solve the problem NOW - but, well - let’s just list a few…


Israeli intransigent refusals to deal with any issue to move the region closer to peace,

Iranian intransigent rejection to agree on any solution dealing with anything,

Somali pirates seizing yet another ship (and being paid-off),

German pronouncements on their superior work ethic versus everyone with a shade darker skin colour

Greek worker riots as a result of reduced payments for doing nothing anyway,

Spanish riots as a result of Greek riots and 40% unemployment among youth,

French riots as a result of being French,

G20 meetings,

G8 meetings,

G pick-a-number meetings,

The imminent implosion of the Euro and the end of civilization,

North Korean insanity

In that light, a hat tip to Drezner for posting this:

An ineffectual international organization yesterday issued a stark warning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, the latest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless intergovernmental bodies.

“We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must take on board the vital message that my organization exists.”

The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organization has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media.

“Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the issue, we will be justified in labeling it a crisis.”

The organization, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its own irrelevance. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’s most salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda and then issuing a largely derivative annual report on the subject, it hopes to convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence whatsoever on the situation.

The intervention follows a resounding call to action in the communiqué of the Group of [number goes here] countries at their recent summit in a remote place no-one had previously heard of. The G[number goes here] meeting was preceded by the familiar interminable and inconclusive discussions about whether the G[number goes here] was sufficiently representative of the international community, or whether it should be expanded into a G[number plus 1, 2 or higher goes here] including China, India or any other scary emerging market country that attendees cared to name.

The story was given further padding by a study from an ambulance-chasing Washington think-tank, which warned that it would continue to convene media conference calls until its quixotic and politically suicidal plan to ameliorate whatever crisis was gathering had been given respectful though substantially undeserved attention.

I'll be back soon  with a post on one or more of the topics listed above. Or maybe something not sufficiently covered by the MSM.

Brazil and Turkey Convince Iran - Maybe

Brazil and Turkey appear to have brokered a deal with Iran to accept low-enriched uranium to Turkey for further enrichment. By appear, I mean that although the agreement has been signed by Iran, the Never-Ending-Negotiation Process of the Iranians may yet unravel this first step. And, lest anyone think the current Iranian regime has a corner on this particularly back to the bazaar tactic, the former Shah and his government also used this favourite of Persian tactics.

Nevertheless, despite the protestations of Israel that Turkey and Brazil have been “tricked”, this is a positive development. Israel has said that Erdogan and Lula are naïve. They may be a lot of things but naïve is not one of them - particularly in the case of Erdogan and Turkey for which this is a significant diplomatic and geo-political coup if it works.

Assuming acceptance of the deal by Russia, the United States and France and compliance by Iran, Turkey has established itself as a trusted broker in the region. If Iran follows through, then it has suffered a geo-political set-back as Turkey will use this to enhance its presence throughout the Middle East both economically and politically. By helping Iran to avoid an additional set of sanctions, Turkey has shown that it can accomplish what Iran cannot on its own. Big brother, little brother. Syria and Iraq need to pay attention now as Turkey puts its interests first to further enhance its position.

Israel needs to pay attention too. The remarks that Turkey is naïve show a strong tendency to ignore its ever shrinking circle of support. It is the present government that is naïve. If this deal is implemented, Netanyahu and his supporters lose their last chance for an attack on Iran. Good.

Turkey Rising?

Image via Wikipedia

The Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, has been quite busy of in the past month, meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan, the EU, Brazil, Serbia, Bosnia and NATO ministers, and has met with some success in getting what Turkey feels is in its interests. 

For example, after what by all accounts was a difficult dinner in Tallinn, Davutoğlu managed to win over enough NATO members, to get NATO MAP (Membership Action Plan) status for Bosnia.  Although this is part of Turkey's well know efforts to achieve reconciliation in the Balkans, an old stomping ground, it also shows that despite the brush-off and broken promises from certain EU members regarding accession, Turkey is in Europe.

As part of Turkey's Balkan reconciliation effort, Davutoğlu also met with the foreign ministers of Serbia and Spain.  Serbia, of course, is not happy about Bosnia's proposed NATO membership.  However,  Davutoğlu's meetings with Spain and Serbia are also meant to advance Serbia's integration efforts into the EU and NATO. As if that was not enough, a future meeting in Istanbul will involve a presidential summit among Turkey, Serbia and Bosnia.


Perhaps the EU needs to take another look at its tactics regarding Turkish membership and Turkey in general - because Turkey is a European power now whether they like it or not.

The riskiest venture though is Turkey's attempts, with Brazil, to negotiate some sort of fuel swap deal with Tehran.

Last week Davutoğlu met with Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Minister, to review his earlier talks in Tehran regarding the fuel swap negotiations. Brazil's Foreign Minister is flying to Tehran soon to continue the pursuit of a deal.  So, what happens if Turkey and Brazil do come up with a deal?  I'm very skeptical that the deal can be brokered given the current rhetoric flowing out ofTehran.  However, assuming that the talks succeed, then then sanctions would be off the table at the UN where they are scheduled to be raised in June when France chairs the Security Council. A deal would be embarrassing for the US and Tehran.  The US has been pushing hard for sanctions and Tehran has been its usual strutting self.  At the end of the day, the US can get over the embarrassment because a solution would be a vindication of its Iran policy.  Tehran not so much. Which is why I am not convinced the negotiations have any chance of success.

The fact is, Turkey and Iran are not strategic partners and both have geo-political aims for dominance in the Middle East.  Iran has a military budget the size of Finland's and is an economic mess. Turkey is a major military and economic power that just happens to anchor NATO in the east. For Tehran to agree to a fuel swap would deliver a huge diplomatic plum to Turkey, enhance its prestige and allow it to reach deep into a region in which Iran would like to compete and control.  The deal won't happen without some intense bargaining.

There is a downside risk for Turkey in its attempt to work with Iran.  Failure to broker this deal will tarnish Turkey's image as a regional leader.  It has been unable to arrive at a successful solution among Israel, Syria and the Palestinians and is already seen in the West as being just a little too supportive of Iranian ambitions. Failure to move Iran to accept a fuel swap deal acceptable to the West will put Ankara in an awkward position when sanctions come to a vote in the UN in two months time where it will likely abstain.

Iranian Sensitivities

Image via Wikipedia

Iran finally noticed that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Emirates etc., refer to that body of water dividing them from Iran as the Arabian Gulf. Now they are retaliating.

The BBC reports that the Iranian Transport Minister, Hamid Behbahani, has given foreign airlines 15 days to change the name to Persian Gulf on their in flight monitors.

BBC also reports the the good minister is under threat of impeachment for incompetence. Timing is everything.

Iran on the Brink

Image via Wikipedia

Well. Not exactly. But the Western media would have you believe it is as they continue to portray the "opposition" as some sort of anti-clerical, anti-Islamic group (this does not apply to the protesters in the street who are likely very anti-clerical rule).

I recently received an email of an alternative view which seems to me much more reality based although I can't vouch for its accuracy. Essentially, the alternative view says this:

1. This is not about a conflict of ideology. It is about economics - those that affect the economic elites.

2. On one side is Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The other side is represented by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The former has been on the short end of the deal to Ahmadinejad lately and his businesses are not doing well. Remember, he is a very wealthy cleric.

3. Rafsanjani is basically shut down in Iran - he is no longer privy to the inner circle discussions or decisions.

4. The 30 year old sanctions have taken a toll and Rafsanjani developed a strong overseas network for trade. So, Rafsanjani's overseas network has come into play.

5. Ahmadinejad did not sit on his hands and has been developing his own overseas network. This has not worked out so well as Rafsanjani gave the names etc of people the President had been working with to the CIA and MI5 who have dutifully scotched the deals. In a tit for tat, Ahamdinejad closed his opponents out of the internal banking system. Bad if you need loans to run businesses.

6. If either side voiced this in public, the religious mantle they cover themselves with would vanish. Nothing but the political and economic hacks that they are.

7. The street protests are mostly those Iranians who are westernized. Not many, I'm afraid.

8. The growing pressure by security forces to put an end to the demonstrations is becoming intense. If they are unleashed, the bloodshed so far seen will be nothing.

9. Since Rafsanjani is out of the loop, anything he or his people say to the west must be considered unreliable.

10. Ahmadinejad will deal on the nuclear issue but the US has to simultaneously (or a nano-second before) drop sanctions so that he will come out looking like a savior.

11. The economic control war is playing out, but the regime is running thin on patience.

What is left unsaid above is what would happen if the US agreed, as a New Year gesture, to lift sanctions? Would the demonstrations stop - or be stopped?

As I said, take the above with a grain of salt. But it is entirely plausible under the circumstances and is consistent with other political power struggles - one only needs to look to the clan struggle going on now in Russia. It's all about the money.

Peace Prize, US and Iran

In reading President Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I was struck by certain sections which are indicators of what may come. Here are the 'graphs:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naive -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.

...I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms....

If I were making a bet, then this part of the speech means that if Iran keeps thumbing its nose at the international community, refuses the proposals of Russia, Turkey and others, then the US is going to act militarily. I make no judgement of whether this is smart or not, but even Moscow seems to be frustrated. Iran's leadership need to pay attention.

Fresh Air in Tehran

This was interesting. The fact that the student Mahmoud Vahidnia, has not been, to this point, the target of retribution (his statements and questions were really posed with respect), is refreshing. It is a bit of fresh air juxtaposed with the tear gassing of protesters the other day.