Archive
Dynamic tensions between religion and politics in Iran
Though the tumultuous events following the June 2009 presidential election in Iran has brought political tensions and oppositions to the surface, there have been a long-standing differences within and between public, religious, and power elite groups contesting such issues that touch on the very practice and framework of political life. A central question remains the form, substance, and practical application of government and governance.
Sheikh Chafiq Jeradeh, the director of the Institute of Sapiential Knowledge for Philosophical and Religious Studies in Beirut, has written a brief article regarding the dynamic tension between state and religion in Iran. This article is published on Conflicts Forum. Conflicts Forum is founded and directed by Alastair Crook, who has had a career as a British Diplomat and member of the secret service (MI6). Below is an excerpt from Sheikh Chafiq Jeradeh’s article:
[U]ntil now, the tension between the underlying religious principles and contemporary structures of statehood and the international order have not been satisfactorily resolved.
…These tensions however are evident today in Iran: They have given rise to a strand of thinking within society that seeks to place doctrinal religion within a secular framework – this, in addition to their desire to establish the political structures on a similar secular basis. This has caused the religious parties to react in two ways:
- Firstly it has led some to wall themselves in behind the Wilayat al-Faqih formula and to reject any new thinking about this concept arising in the Iranian intellectual or political arena.
- Secondly, it has led to a wider discussion regarding the relationship between Islam and Wilayat al-Faqih. The object of this discussion is centred on how to Islamise contemporary institutional systems of governance, whilst another strand is moving in the opposite direction: It looks at how to revise the concept (Wilayat al-Faqih) better to reflect contemporary reality, and its needs.
This is the real dilemma facing the present al-Wali al-Faqih (the Guardian Jurist, i.e. Imam Khamenei) and the institutions affiliated with him.
Secondly – During Imam Khamenei’s rule, some circles began to discuss the following issues:
- Does the concept of Wilayat presuppose a tradition of (cognitive) knowledge of its own, which in itself enables the Wali (Supreme Leader) to lead and to manage the actuality? Or, does it require some additionally acquired expertise in governance, as well as the special vision, which only spiritual attainment can provide?
- Does Wilayat al-Faqih have one form, and one form only – the one presented by late Imam Khomeini, or there are other possible forms that Imam Khamenei can reveal?
- Finally, does the concept rest on a basis of popular acceptance and commitment within the ranks of the Iranian elites? Or; does its basis lie in the emotional circumstance of revolution? This is an important point that needs to be clarified – for the answer to this question will spell out for us the possibilities for dissension between Iranian elites and the popular will.
Land mines threaten ‘4 million Afghans’
A pile of land mines
“Since 1979 an estimated 640,000 mines have been laid,” according to a video clip by the UK’s Guardian showing a de-mining program in rural Afghanistan. The country is one of the most mined in the world, with farms, orchards, water sources, towns, and cities covered by this dangerous and indiscriminate killer. The mining of the country has been persistent since the the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country, running through the civil war and the current war. Resources for de-mining resources are hard to come by in the already strained country, and, since mines are hidden, it is never clear to locals what patch of earth may be deadly often until they suffer the serious consequences of an explosion. The capital city of Kabul has been no exception, mines are found even there. Doctors Without Borders explains this: “The capital, Kabul, was mined heavily by mujaheddin commanders after the Soviet withdrawal. Between 1992 – 95, Kabul became the focus for severe fighting between rival mujaheddin factions battling over control of the city. Large parts of the city – particularly western Kabul – were mined as a result of house-to-house fighting.”
The use of cluster bombs has exasperated the problem, with unexploded munitions adding another layer of danger. “One particularly deadly unexploded munition was the BLU-97 bomblet, which was dispensed from the U.S. CBU-87 and CBU-103 cluster bombs.”
According to Doctors Without Borders, “Minefields have been laid by both Soviet and Afghan forces, and mines have been used in all phases of the Afghan conflict: in vast quantities during the Soviet occupation, during the power struggle between mujaheddin commanders after the Soviet withdrawal, and now during fighting between Taliban forces and other Afghan commanders.”
158 countries have signed on to a Mine Ban Treaty. Russia, US, China, and India have refused to sign the treaty. “Landmines are known to have caused 5197 casualties last year, a third of them children, according to the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), which links some 1000 activist groups.” (The Daily Telegraph)
“The United States has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, has not exported them since 1992, has not produced them since 1997, and has no plans for future procurement,” according to Human Rights Watch. Despite this they have refused to sign on to the treaty, sometimes mentioning that doing so would undermine their efforts in the DMZ line between North and South Korea, an area that is heavily mined. Every other NATO member has endorsed the treaty.
A representative of the permanent mission of Afghanistan to the UN made the following statement on October 30, 2009:
Since 1979, it has been estimated that over 640,000 mines have been laid in Afghanistan; and that as recently as 2008, 4,924 hazardous mine areas remained in the country. These areas comprise an estimated 720 kilometers of land, threatening over 2,220 communities and 4 million Afghans. Further, 75% of these impacted communities are found in 12 of the country’s 34 provinces. Many Afghan farmers have also lost their farms and so their livelihoods, as 75.6% of this mine territory is used for agriculture. Afghanistan remains one of the most heavily contaminated countries in the world, and there are still over 700 kilometers of land contaminated by an estimated 56 different types of land mines.
Afghanistan continues to experience daily reminders of the mines’ lethality: from January to July 2008, in a mere six months, 1445 victims of mines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) were reported, and 50% of these were children. 2.7% of Afghanistan’s population has been labeled as “severely disabled” and 9% of these disabilities have been attributed to landmines.
Known Landmine Problem in Afghanistan (as of December 2001) [MAPA Monthly Progress Report, December 2001]
Zbigniew Brzezinski: US or Israeli war on Iran ‘would be a disaster’ and Eurasia’s importance for global power
Zbigniew Brzezinski has been influential in US foreign policy since his role as US president Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor. He continues to maintain formal and informal influence to this day. He is also well known as the Author of the book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, in which he famously stated that “America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” In the videos included in this post, he speaks regarding the geostrategic importance of Eurasia in (US) global dominance.
Excerpts from the above video:
“If the conflict spreads, we’re going to be alone… The Russians aren’t going to be with us, the Europeans aren’t going to be with us…”
“The Chinese are getting more involved in the Iranian economy because they need energy.”
“Don’t trifle with the silly notion ‘we’ll just bomb them and the problem is solved.’ It’s a false analogy.
The Real News interview with Brzezinski also includes the following on the war in Afghanistan. Highly recommended viewing.
Yemen in the media
Al Jazeera’s program, the Listening Post, has salient insight and analysis on how the media covers news and the rising conflict in Yemen.
The video clip recommends the following blogs to learn news of and from Yemen:
Below a map showing Yemen’s location
The dead rising: Afghanistan
Afghans are dying in record numbers. The number of dead civilians has increased in 2009 over the previous year. According to a UN report, at least 5,978 were injured or killed in 2009. Afghans have endured some three decades of warfare, and millions of them live a difficult existence as refugees in Pakistan and Iran. This is a terrible toll on a country that has an estimated population of 28.4 million (2009, CIA Factbook). It is no surprise that under such hardship and faced with such ongoing tragedy, people would demand better and would seek a minimum of peace by decrying the current situation and system that has enabled, maintained, and deepened such atrocity, by blaming all sides involved, the Taliban, the government, and foreign occupation forces. The issue comes to a boil when it seems that no one is taking very serious and immediate steps to eliminate deaths caused by their actions, and that the killing of civilians would constantly remain the subject of ‘investigation’ rather than a concerted effort to halt one’s own party from being a cause of casualties. This issue has persisted now since the 2001 invasion of the country, and it appears that the discourse on the subject is one of investigation (tied to the very act of denial of one’s own responsibility), followed by (when caught literally red-handed by video evidence or accounts of casualties) promises of reductions in the number killed. That anyone can speak of reductions over a very serious attempt to bring the number down to nothing seems to me evidence of detachment from those suffering from violence, as if some cold calculus has been conducted that judges a certain number of children and adult dead in pursuit of a political-military goal as arbitrarily acceptable: this of course defined by those who hold the guns. The people, then, must indeed be glad that their superiors in power can make such efficient decisions and are technically-minded enough to be able to act upon them. If the people cannot realize or appreciate this, well, then that must be evidence simply of the correctness of their not being in charge — what a privilege indeed to have the aid, and rule, of men with guns.
|
Civilian casualties of war (deaths only) |
|||
|
Month |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
January |
50 |
56 |
141 |
|
February |
45 |
168 |
149 |
|
March |
104 |
122 |
129 |
|
April |
85 |
136 |
128 |
|
May |
147 |
164 |
271 |
|
June |
253 |
172 |
236 |
|
July |
218 |
323 |
198 |
|
August |
138 |
341 |
33 |
|
September |
155 |
162 |
336 |
|
October |
80 |
194 |
162 |
|
November |
160 |
176 |
165 |
|
December |
88 |
104 |
164 |
|
TOTAL |
1523 |
2118 |
2412 |
|
Source: UNAMA |
|||
Excerpt from IRNA:
At least 5,978 civilians were killed or injured in 2009, UNAMA said in a report entitled Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict 2009. “UNAMA Human Rights [unit] recorded a total of 2,412 civilian deaths between 1 January and 31 December 2009. This figure represents an increase of 14 percent on the 2,118 civilian deaths recorded in 2008,” said the report released on 13 January 2010.
…UNAMA blamed Taliban insurgents for 1,630 civilian deaths (67 percent of the total recorded deaths) in 2009.
…Civilian casualties resulting from military operations by pro-government Afghan and foreign forces dropped by 28 percent in 2009 compared to 2008, according to UNAMA. In total 596 civilian deaths (25 percent of total) were attributed to Afghan and foreign forces.
Over 180 deaths could not be attributed to any of the conflicting parties and resulted from cross-fire or unexploded ordnance.
|
Civilian casualties of war (deaths only) |
|||
|
Month |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
January |
50 |
56 |
141 |
|
February |
45 |
168 |
149 |
|
March |
104 |
122 |
129 |
|
April |
85 |
136 |
128 |
|
May |
147 |
164 |
271 |
|
June |
253 |
172 |
236 |
|
July |
218 |
323 |
198 |
|
August |
138 |
341 |
33 |
|
September |
155 |
162 |
336 |
|
October |
80 |
194 |
162 |
|
November |
160 |
176 |
165 |
|
December |
88 |
104 |
164 |
|
TOTAL |
1523 |
2118 |
2412 |
|
Source: UNAMA |
|||
Geopolitics and crisis in the Caucasus: A report
Map of the Caucasus region (1994)
The Caucasus have, for the greater part, entered a period of political crisis since and because of the collapse and dissolution of the Soviet Union. According to a report written by Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, “in general, the Soviet Union’s collapse has been critical in creating new crises by influencing three factors including the resurgent of national identities, change in the geopolitics of power and change in the economic importance and nature of various geopolitical zones in the former Soviet Union.”
Below are are some notable excerpts from the report, or short synopsis and the inclusion of maps on my part. The report is entitled ‘Geopolitical Changes and Crises in the Caucasus,’ and written by Dr. Mahmoud Vaezi. The Center for Strategic Research is, according to its own website, attached with the Iran government’s “Expediency Council as research arm of the Council. Another mission of the Center for Strategic Research is to study and research those issues which are among duties of the Expediency Council according to law (including drawing up large-scale policies of the system, providing consultation services to the Leader, possible revision of the constitution, presenting solutions for large-scale problems, arbitration with regard to differences between legal entities, etc.). Since the Expediency Council formulates general strategy of the Islamic system, research activities of the Center are mainly of a strategic nature.”
Resurging national identities in the Caucasus region
Ethnic, cultural, and tribal differences coupled with the relative liberty of the region’s peoples to reestablish control over their homelands resulted in a number of national and regional tensions, in some cases leading to conflicts. This was exacerbated by the artificial boundaries established under the Soviet Union, often cutting through communities of peoples, so leaving room for tensions resulting from the need to address externally defined borders that did not correspond to ethnic and cultural communities.
Map of ethnolinguistic groups in the Caucasus (2009)
A power vacuum that enables new power dynamics
[I]n the early years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, given Russia’s preoccupation with its domestic problems, regional and trans-regional powers found an opportunity to compete with one another to realize their goals and to fill the power vacuum while considering factors such as the geopolitical and geo-strategic value of different regions,” writes the report’s author, Dr. Mahmoud Vaezi.
Essentially, the Soviet collapse ended the relative status quo of the region and opened it to the possibility of significant changes in the dynamics of regional and international engagement and interference. For example, NATO countries saw this period as an opportunity to increase their influence and potential expand the breadth of their power base.
Administrative map of the USSR's Caucasus region
Change in the nature of economies and the introduction of fresh opportunities
The newly independent states of the Caucasus provide new economic opportunities, many tied to natural resources, for countries of the region and beyond, which might seek to make new political and economic gains by tapping into these new economies.
One of the other natural and geographical implications of the Soviet collapse has been the volatility of the situation of routes connecting the former Soviet Republics to the outside world. The land-locked situation of countries in Central Asia and Caucasus (except for Georgia), and their lack of access to the high seas, as well the separation of some regions from their mainland, (such as Nakhchivan), have had various impacts on the economic and political structures of the newly independent countries. To compensate for these geographical shortcomings, these countries have become dependent on some of their neighboring countries in order to access the high seas.
What’s special about the Caucasus?
Strategic studies maintain that any region that attracts the interest of the great powers is of geopolitical and geo-strategic significance. However, these regions are divided into two categories: 1) regions that create only strategic, geopolitical and economic advantages for the great powers and 2) regions that are apt to pose threats to one or more of the great powers. Between these two categories, the second holds greater potential for creating crises.
The Caucasus has displayed both of the above characteristics in the post-Soviet era. On the one hand, this region has had strategic geopolitical and economic advantages for the U.S. and to some extent Europe, and on the other hand, it has had the potential for posing threats against Russia.
Energy security
Caspian oil and gas and its transit routes to markets have increasingly attracted the attention of great powers due to the world’s growing dependence on the import of hydrocarbon energy resources, the growing of tensions in the Middle East and the rise of Russia as a major player in the energy politics of the 21st Century. Nonetheless, although great powers such as Russia, the United States and the European Union share political interests in preventing the Caspian Sea from becoming a crisis-ridden zone, these actors have behaved competitively in this region. For more than a decade, controversy over the transit routes of energy from the region has been one of the main areas of contest among some regional and trans-regional powers.
Currently, a set of pipelines transport Azerbaijan’s and Caspian oil and gas to the world markets. The 1700-kilometer Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline with a capacity of one million barrels per day was inaugurated on May 25, 2005 with a $4.2 billion investment. This pipeline was intended to bypass Iran, Russia and Armenia. Before the construction of this pipeline, another one transported oil from the Baku port to Supsa port in Georgia near the Black Sea. To build this 515-mile pipeline, which began in April 1999, nearly 600 million dollars were spent. The oil transported to Supsa is conveyed to Europe with vessels through the Black Sea and Bosphorus strait.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum gas pipeline with a capacity of 20 billion cubic meters transports Caspian gas to the West and Europe. Furthermore, railroads for the transit of crude oil from Tbilisi to the Puti and Batumi ports transport 100,000 barrels of crude oil from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan to foreign markets. These two transit routes of oil and gas have turned Georgia to an important hub for energy transit, even more important than Turkey for Europe.
Although military confrontation between Russia and the Western great powers in the Caucasus is unlikely, current power projection by both sides will create an unstable situation in the region, threatening peace and security in one of the mostly volatile regions of the contemporary world. Indeed, one point is certain: Russia will no longer tolerate any security arrangements between the Caucasian states and the outside powers as it sees such arrangements as an encroachment of its immediate security environment. However, it seems that Russia will stop short of open and an all-out hostility toward the West reminiscent of the Cold War.
…Moscow regards the Caucasus as its backyard and considers controlling the Caucasus very important and strategic in order to keep its hold on the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea. For this reason, whenever the central government in Moscow enjoys enough power, it has shown its interest in dominating this region. Given the fragile nature of ethnic issues in the Caucasus and its neighboring regions in the Russian territory, the reluctance of many nationalities to accept Russia’s domination, and the likelihood that they could be intrigued by outside forces, Russia regards the republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia as its strategic depth and considers any influence exerted by foreign powers in these regions as a threat to its national security.
…At the same time, the U.S. is also interested in expanding its influence in this region because it knows well that the Caucasus holds many strategic prizes for U.S. global position. The region can provide the U.S. with an energy supply, an access route to energy resources located in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, and strategic superiority needed to confront Russia and Iran.
A persistent situation of crisis
…attempts at shifting the balance of power and privileging one’s own interests have given rise to new crises and conflicts in the region. Indeed, the new stage of crisis in the Caucasus broke out when the West, by encouraging the Rose Revolution in Georgia, tried to ignore Russia rather than collaborating with it in regional affairs. This attitude which was also followed in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine convinced the Russians that the West was not ready to recognize Russian interests in the former Soviet sphere.”
…The will and interest of both the U.S. and Russia combined with the region’s political and geopolitical situation have given the dialectical relationship between geopolitical changes and crisis a prominent role in shaping future political and strategic contours of the region. Under these conditions, it seems that as long as all regional and trans-regional powers do not pay attention to the interests of other powers or be perceived as threats against them, this situation will continue.
Yemen and the Indian Ocean: The US strategy to maintain global power and contain China
As the US becomes more overtly involved in the fighting taking place within and throughout Yemen, it is important to regard the wider strategic context that has made the Middle Eastern country such a focus of action and attention.
MK Bhadrakumar writes in the Asia Times that,
A cursory look at the map of region will show that Yemen is one of the most strategic lands adjoining waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. It flanks Saudi Arabia and Oman, which are vital American protectorates. In effect, Uncle Sam is “marking territory” – like a dog on a lamppost. Russia has been toying with the idea of reopening its Soviet-era base in Aden. Well, the US has pipped Moscow in the race.
The US has signaled that the odyssey doesn’t end with Yemen. It is also moving into Somalia and Kenya. With that, the US establishes its military presence in an entire unbroken stretch of real estate all along the Indian Ocean’s western rim. Chinese officials have of late spoken of their need to establish a naval base in the region. The US has now foreclosed China’s options. The only country with a coastline that is available for China to set up a naval base in the region will be Iran. All other countries have a Western military presence.
About half of the world’s oil production travels by sea, as does some 90% of the volume of all global trade. Of this seaborne trade, some 70% of petroleum products pass through the Indian Ocean.
Maritime trade routes are “strategic by its control and commercial by its usage,” says Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Associate Professor, Dept. of Global Studies and Geography, Hofstra University.
Meanwhile, maritime trade has nearly doubled between 1990 and 2006 (UNCTAD, ‘Review of Maritime Trade.’ 2007). The nearby Straight of Hormuz, leading in and out of the oil and gas rich Persian Gulf, is, according to the US Energy Information Administration, “the world’s most important oil chokepoint due to its daily oil flow of 16.5-17 million barrels (first half 2008E), which is roughly 40 percent of all seaborne traded oil (or 20 percent of oil traded worldwide).”
In September 2009, US Admiral Timothy J. Keating gave a lecture stating that the Asia-Pacific region will become of increasing importance to the USA and the word over time. Keating mentioned that, “of the 20 largest ports in the world, 15 of them are in the Asia-Pacific region. Nine of them are right there in China.” Shanghai is the busiest port by volume in the world. He also mentioned that some 80% of the oil to China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan goes through the Straight of Malacca. To get there, it has to go across the Indian Ocean. (You can view a video of Keating’s lecture here).
Bhadrakumar’s earlier mentioned article asserts that:
Most important, however, for US global strategies will be the massive gain of control of the port of Aden in Yemen. Britain can vouchsafe that Aden is the gateway to Asia. Control of Aden and the Malacca Strait will put the US in an unassailable position in the “great game” of the Indian Ocean. The sea lanes of the Indian Ocean are literally the jugular veins of China’s economy. By controlling them, Washington sends a strong message to Beijing that any notions by the latter that the US is a declining power in Asia would be nothing more than an extravagant indulgence in fantasy.
In the Indian Ocean region, China is increasingly coming under pressure. India is a natural ally of the US in the Indian Ocean region. Both disfavor any significant Chinese naval presence.
…China is keen to whittle down its dependence on the Malacca Strait for its commerce with Europe and West Asia. The US, on the contrary, is determined that China remains vulnerable to the choke point between Indonesia and Malaysia.
Meanwhile, according to Robert D. Kaplan’s article ‘Power Plays in the Indian Ocean,’ India is soon to become “the world’s fourth-largest energy consumer, after the United States, China, and Japan — is dependent on oil for roughly 33 percent of its energy needs, 65 percent of which it imports.”
Kaplan also writes that “India is enlarging its navy in the same spirit. With its 155 warships, the Indian navy is already one of the world’s largest, and it expects to add three nuclear-powered submarines and three aircraft carriers to its arsenal by 2015.”
“…How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources,” writes the highly influential US policy adviser, Zbigiew Brzezinks, in his book, ‘Grand Chessboard – American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.’
Iran’s paramilitary, the Basij: from inception, to war, and public unrest
The Basij is Iran’s volunteer paramilitary under the command of the country’s parallel military force, the Revolutionary Guard (aka Sepah). They were founded in 1979, under Ayatollah Khomeini, and gained increased prominence during the long Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, during which they defended the country against an Iraqi invasion of the southwest (where lie the bulk of the oil and gas fields). More recently, the Basij has become associated as one of the key coercive forces used by the government to put down opposition following the contested presidential election of June 12 which saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retain his post as president.
The paramilitary’s unpopularity among opposition demonstrators is evident in the following video showing people bringing down a billboard.
Here you can view an archival film from the Iran-Iraq war, which saw the Revolutionary Guard/Sepah and the Basij rise to prominence due to their success in defending the country against attack.
A small group of Basiji present what it is they believe is the role of their group, which they claim serves against tyranny and support religion.
In the early period of unrest against the contested June 12, 2009 presidential election, hundreds of thousands of people came to the streets to protest against the election result. On June 15, 2009, the Basij gained further notoriety among the popular opposition following the shooting and death of at least on protester at Azadi Square.
[Vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/8604701%5D
The late Ayatollah Montazeri, who died in December, was seen to be one of the most vocal supporters of the popular opposition and is widely quoted because of this. He was among the most senior Ayatollahs and a source of emulation for many people, he was also one of the founders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a heavy hand in the 1979 revolution. In the following video, he speaks of the Basij, stating that they must serve good, not evil, and that beating people is who might not agree with you is no way to behave. This video is in Farsi.
The regional policies of Turkey and Iran in the Middle East
Below is an excerpt from Iranian Diplomacy, from an interview with Jochen Hippler, a political scientist specializing on the Middle East. Interestingly, Hippler mentions a point that has been quite important in Turkish foreign policy toward the Middle East, that Turkey can act as a source of technology. Turkey’s alliance with Europe and the USA has given it access to technological expertise and materials that it can and has leveraged in its relations to the region, such as in the case of using its own companies to deliver services (such as negotiations around energy extraction and refinement), or even the potential transmission of technology to states. Furthermore, Turkey has the potential, due to its close partnership with and geographic proximity to Europe, act as a trade and transit bridge to the European continent, which can also be leveraged in its foreign relations.
Q: What do you think of the regional competition between Iran and Turkey? Just as Turkey, Iran is trying to influence the domestic and foreign policies of Arab countries. Many observers believe that there is a competition going on between Iran and Turkey to add more Arab countries to their camp. Do you agree with these observers?
Hippler: Not that much. I think there are two counter-arguments for such analyses. First of all, Iran is trying to find and integrate exceptions in the Arab World. It is following this policy in Lebanon, has relations with some Iraqi groups with this aim and also tries to exert its influence on Palestinian groups such as Hamas. The Arab World is looking at such efforts with suspicion. Arab countries think that Iran is trying to promote its ideology between Arab countries and revive its ancient influence over Arabs.
So I think that Iran’s policy contradicts that of Turkey and this gives Turkey the upper hand. For Turks, ancient past is history and can’t be developed anymore. Also, there is more sympathy between some Arab countries and Turkey. Religious factors –I mean the Shiite-Sunni issue- can bring Turkey and Arabs closer. So against Turkey, Iran doesn’t have so many opportunities.
On the other hand, Turkey’s chances aren’t that much better. Although Turkey’s position among the Arab countries is better than Iran, we cannot blow it out of proportion. I think that for Turkey, it is more important to attract Arab and Muslim countries and spearhead their ties with the United States and West. This can be an advantage for Turkey. Arabs have oil and Turkey has technology which comes from West, especially the United States. Arab countries need that technology. Through Turkey, they can export their products to the European Union. Strong ties with EU can help Turkey in its interaction with Arab countries.
In my opinion, this is the policy Turkey is following right now. Look at the quality of its relations with Syria, Egypt, Lebanon or even Jordan. So for those reasons, Turkey can outperform Iran in its ties with Arab countries. Compared with Iran, it can be a better diplomatic leader for Arab countries. Iran’s chances are lower. So I don’t think talks about regional competition between Iran and Turkey are realistic.
Juan Cole: ‘Iran and the Goldilocks Principle’
Excerpt from Juan Cole’s blog, Informed Comment:
I concur with much of what Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett say in their piece, which argues that Iran gives no evidence of being on the verge of revolution. I should say that I know and admire them, and share their conviction that the Obama administration should engage the government in Tehran, whatever it is. We had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and face to face talks all through the 1980s, at a time when that regime really was on the verge of falling. You can’t know the future. Diplomacy, as Kissinger correctly observed, is a game played with the pieces that are actually on the board at any one time.
But I do not share their dismissive attitude to the Green movement. I think it is big, nation-wide, multi-class and significant.
…The NYT article about the tunnels under Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant is breathless and presents no evidence whatsoever for its thesis. Is it being alleged that Iran has squirreled away enromous numbers of centrifuges in the tunnels? How are they getting water and electricity? How would they avoid showing an electromagnetic signature? Has anyone seen a centrifuge down there? It is all innuendo, reminiscent of the allegations about Iraq’s supposed nuclear program in 2002-3.
…The ‘sinister tunnel’ argument comes just after media mogul and arch-warmonger Rupert Murdoch’s Times of London published a story based on obviously altered and forged documents claiming Iran was working on a ‘nuclear trigger’ for a bomb. Can you say, ‘Niger yellowcake,’ children? Thanks to Gareth Porter for exploding this fraud. See his piece on the way US intelligence community dismissed the document as fraudulent, and his more recent evidence for tampering with the text.
Chyzmyz 