Turkey's fear of Iran's influence. U.S. and Iran conferring on Iraq. 

By Sue Lerner

THE DAILY STAR (Lebanon)  "Turkey's emerging fear: Iranian influence"

Commentary by Iason Athanasiadis "specialist in Middle East politics who often visits Iran"

QUOTES FROM TEXT: "Turkish Foreign Minister feared the spread of Iranian influence from southern Iraq to his own country",,, "Ankara recently announced its willingness to act as an intermediary with Iran over ... nuclear power"... "growing rapprochement between the US and Turkey"...Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul recently confessed that he feared the spread of Iranian influence from southern Iraq to his own country. Although Gul later denied having made this statement, his comment was a valuable insight into Turkey's true concerns over political developments on its southern flank. There, the Bush administration has subjected three countries to concerted political pressure in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. After five years of such pressure, Iran and Syria are turning into increasingly isolated international pariahs. The same policy, when applied by Washington to Iraq, culminated in the country's invasion and the growing fragmentation of its society along sectarian lines. Both Iran and Syria include similar ethnic mosaics, so the prospect of persistent instability could prompt them to dangerously realign along racial, tribal or sectarian fronts. Turkey's other big concern is that the Bush administration's clumsy redrawing of the regional geopolitical map has brought about a potentially unstoppable rise in Iranian influence. And while Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has accepted his country's secularism, he also heads one of the more overtly Muslim governments in the history of the Turkish republic.  Recently, a group of retired generals and ambassadors diagnosed the development of "theocratic nationalism" in Iran and warned of the danger it posed to Turkey. The incoming Turkish ambassador to Iran, Gurcan Turkoglu, is Gul's top foreign policy adviser. Ankara recently announced its willingness to act as an intermediary with Tehran for a resolution to the dispute over its nuclear program. Ankara's re-engagement in the region is worrying Israel (whose only openly Muslim ally until now was Turkey), even as the Turks offer Washington an additional channel through which to promote its Middle East initiatives and exert pressure. Turkish concerns - shared by the United States - are fuelling a growing rapprochement between the U.S. and Turkey. And in the event diplomacy fails, Turkey is one of Washington's more reliable allies in Iran's vicinity that can help force the latter's hand....For the moment, the big policy issue facing Turkey is whether Iraq will descend into civil war. ...  the transformation of Iraq's most economically viable part into an Iranian zone of influence would turn Iran into a powerful regional actor threatening both Turkey and Israel...Turkey to refocus its foreign policy emphasis in Iraq away from....Turkmen community and toward more realistic options such as dealing with Iraq's powerful Shiite bloc.  ... .The Turkmen, realizing that Turkey's support is waning, have panicked. But ethnic symmetries may not be enough to entice Erdogan to throw the brunt of his diplomatic support behind the small group at a time whe Jaafari reportedly dangled the promise of expelling the 5,000 members of the Kurdish Workers' Party from Iraq, if they continued to mount cross-border attacks against Turkey. Furthermore, there is a natural alliance between Jaafari and Ankara over the disputed city of Kirkuk, from where a considerable number of Shiites and Turkmens are likely to be displaced in the event of a Kurdish takeover.

ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 25 Mar.'06:"Why Give Iran a Say on Iraq?"  Amir Taheri, QUOTES FROM TEXT: "Iran and the United States ... to begin talks on ...'measures to benefit the Iraqi people"..."Iraq likely to have a pluralist regime in which Shiites are a majority, Iran may no longer face ...Sunni Arab regimes determined to challenge it"..."emergence of a Shiite dominated democracy next door may well inspire a democratic revolution in Iran"..."may encourage Iran's defiance of the UN resolution".


FULL TEXT: Barring a last-minute hitch Iran and the United States are expected to begin talks on what they have both called "measures to benefit the Iraqi people." The euphemism is unlikely to deceive anyone. What Tehran and Washington are really interested in is to find out each other's true intentions in Iraq. There is no doubt that both Iran and the United States have benefited from the demise of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein. The US has eliminated an enemy that it had wounded but not killed in 1991, something that Machiavelli had warned against almost five centuries ago. With Iraq likely to have a pluralist regime in which Shiites are a majority, Iran may no longer face a coalition of Sunni Arab regimes determined to challenge it in the region. But while US and Iranian interests in Iraq converge up to a point, the two powers have diametrically opposite visions when it comes to the future of Iraq, indeed of the entire Middle East. The US wants a democratic and pro-West Iraq with a capitalist market-based economy, and open to the new globalization trends. In his better moments President George W. Bush has even spoken of turning Iraq into a model for the entire Arab world, indeed for all Muslim countries. And that, of course, is indirect competition with Iran that claims that its own system is the ideal one for all Muslims. Iran wants an Iraqi regime that adopts at least some aspects of Khomeinism if only to prove that the Islamic republic in Tehran is not a historic anomaly. The Tehran leadership is also concerned that the emergence of a Shiite-dominated democracy next door may well inspire a democratic revolution in Iran as well. With he center of Shiite theological authority clearly shifting to Najaf, Iran's rulers may risk losing the religious card they have played for the past 27 years. The crucial question in regional politics now is whether Iraq, and beyond it the Middle East, will be reshaped the way US wants it or remolded as Iran's Khomeinist leaders have dreamed of since 1979. It is against that background that it is important to know what Iran would actually bring to the table when, and if, the promised talks materialize. Iran has already scored a point simply by being invited by the US for talks.  Although Iran did nothing to oust Saddam Hussein, this invitation bestows on it a stature that only a liberating power would normally have. For example, at the end of World War II no one invited Switzerland or Poland, as neighbors of Germany, to discuss its future. Iran has scored yet another point by positioning itself as a power speaking for the Iraqi people. The leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic  Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abdul-Aziz Hakim has helped Iran's maneuver by issuing a verbal "invitation" to enter the talks almost as a protector of the people of Iraq. The fact that Hakim and his party have been supported by Iran for more than a quarter of a century does not diminish the importance of that move. The Iranian strategy is clear from the outset. Foreign Minister Manuchehr  Mottaki has said that Iran's chief priority is to discuss the withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces from Iraq. Mottaki knows that the US and its allies are in Iraq under a United Nations' mandate that will run out in December. He also knows that that mandate cannot be renewed without the consent of the newly elected Iraqi Parliament and government. Finally, he also knows that President George W. Bush is under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to bring the Iraqi episode to an end. So, when the Americans and their allies start to leave, as they are certain to do later this year, Iran would be able to pretend that it was its efforts that ended the "occupation". Iran, however, has more important ambitions in Iraq. Strategically, it sees post-Saddam Iraq as a corridor through which it can communicate with Syria and Lebanon that it considers as part of its broader glacis. In fact, once Tehran's influence is established in Iraq as it is in Syria and Lebanon, Iran would be able to project power in the Levant for the first time since the early 7th century when the Persian Empire under Khosrow Parviz drove the Byzantines out of Mesopotamia and what is now Syria. It is no accident that scholars in Tehran have just rediscovered the set of agreements that Iran had signed with the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century.  Known as the Erzerum treaties, these documents give Iran a droit de regard (the right of oversight) over Iraq's principal Shiite centers of Najaf, Kerbala and Kazemayn (now a suburb of Baghdad). The agreements also enable Iran to take "appropriate action", a code word for military intervention, if it felt that its security, or the access of Iranian pilgrims to "holy places", was being threatened by the presence of foreign hostile forces in southern Iraq. If implemented those agreements could lead to the emergence of an Iranian administration in the "holy cities" and an Iranian veto on key aspects of Iraq's foreign policy. Iran has already used those agreements to persuade the new Iraqi government to sign an agreement under which more than 600,000 Iranian pilgrims would be able to visit Iraq each year with little control from the Iraqi authorities. The second set of documents that Tehran is now dusting up is known as the Algiers Accords, negotiated and signed in Algiers, Geneva, Tehran and Baghdad between 1975 and 1976. These give Iran and Iraq shared sovereignty over the Shatt Al-Arab estuary that constitutes Iraq's principal outlet to the open seas. The agreements, signed by Saddam Hussein as a tactical ploy to end Iranian support for the Kurds in the 1970s, would, if fully implemented, give Iran a chokehold on Iraq's foreign trade, including oil exports. Iran does not want the US to fail in Iraq. It wants the US to succeed in eliminating all possibility of a new Sunni-dominated regime being installed in Baghdad. But Iran wants the US to succeed at the highest possible cost, both in blood and treasure. It is a mystery why Washington wants to give Tehran a place at the high table in Iraq. It is certain that the Islamic republic will continue doing whatever it can to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The supply of new and more lethal explosives, smuggled into Iraq from Iran, partly via Syria is unlikely to dry up. Nor is Tehran likely to end the training programs launched by its Lebanese Hezbollah clients for Iraqi militants. The decision to involve Iran in Iraqi affairs is likely to anger the United States regional allies who have never discounted the possibility of an Irano-American deal that might leave them in the lurch. The Arab states will also be concerned about the possibility of Iraq's Arab identity being diluted as a result of Iranian intervention. The US may have made this strange move because of the experiment in Afghanistan where talks with Iran did help speed up the defeat of the Taliban and the creation of a new regime in Kabul. But Iraq is not Afghanistan if only because it offers far more scope for Iranian mischief making. The invitation to Iraq is also likely to encourage Iran in its defiance of the United Nations on the nuclear issue. After all if Iran is treated as a major power in one domain it cannot be "bullied" as a weakling in another. Has the Bush administration made its first major mistake with regard to Iraq? It is too early to tell. But this decision may be even worse than a mistake; it may be unnecessary. And, as Talleyrand noted almost 200 years ago, in politics doing something that is not necessary is worse than making a mistake.

Not so sacred Saudi Arabia. Egyptian Press "freedom"

By Dr. Joseph Lerner

ARAB NEWS (Saudi) 12 Mar.'06: "Over 2,000 Overstayers Arrested "Samir Al-Saadi, Arab News. QUOTES FROM TEXT:  "Police busted up prostitution houses, illegal maid networks, forged ID document rackets, alcohol manufacturers and distributors, and illegal international call cabin operators."..."Some just waiting to be raided to get a free ride back home, others acknowledging that they have nowhere to run,,' he said.  Many undocumented migrants in this region are pilgrims that overstay their Haj visas."

EXCERPTS: JEDDAH, 12 March 2006 - In its largest pre-dawn raid so far this year, Jeddah security  ... arresting 2,327 undocumented migrants, most of whom appeared to be voluntarily turning themselves in for deportation....  Jeddah police chief Col. Misfer Al-Misahi led ... the operations, which involved cutting off electricity to 16 residential buildings that were crowded with overstayers. Landlords of these properties are being investigated. Police busted up prostitution houses, illegal maid networks, forged ID document rackets, alcohol manufacturers and distributors, and illegal international call cabin operators. Drugs were confiscated from a number of  homes; police said that they found large amounts of Captagon (the commercial name for a therapeutic amphetamine fenetylline) and hashish...."We have solved a number of crimes by matching fingerprints," said an official who did not want to be identified. In Jeddah's downtown ...  Arab News observed hundreds of presumed  overstayers turning themselves in as soon as the buses for arrested illegal aliens stopped. Arab News asked an officer at the scene if it is common to have overstayers  voluntarily turning themselves in for deportation. "Yes," he said, "they start turning themselves in. Some just waiting to be raided to get a free ride back home, others acknowledging that they have nowhere to run," he said. Many undocumented migrants in this region are pilgrims that overstay their Haj visas.

AL-AHRAM WEEKLY 9-15 Mar.'06:"Confrontation escalates": HEADING: "With the imprisonment of a second journalist in less than two weeks the showdown between government  and press is in danger of spinning out of control, writes Jailan Halawi". QUOTES FROM TEXT:  "Several unsuccessful attempts have already been made at issuing a draft law that satisfies all parties, Indeed, the Ministry of Justice is currently drafting a law and will consult with the syndicate over its provisions before submitting  it to the People's Assembly.   Yet according to the syndicate's council  the new law  'remains enigmatic'."..." why is it taking the government years to repeal a law that restricts freedom when, in serving its own interests, it passes many [laws] in a matter of days' "

EXCERPTS: A Criminal Court on Tuesday sentenced a journalist to one year in jail, fuelling the growing conflict between the press and the government. Journalist Amira Malsh was found guilty of libelling judge Atia Mohamed Awad in a story published in the independent weekly Al-Fagr in July. Malsh said information mentioned in the story was quoted from sources linked to a bribery case then under investigation by the state security prosecutor. Al-Fagr 's editor-in-chief, the well known writer Adel Hamouda, said he would contest the ruling which he described as "a new blow to journalists". Hamouda called on the Press Syndicate and all human rights organisations to support Malsh. The ruling is the second time in less than two weeks that a journalist has been imprisoned and ups the ante in the campaign by journalists to rescind the law that allows jail sentences for publication offences. On 23 February a Cairo court sentenced Abdel-Nasser El-Zuheiri, a journalist with the independent daily Al-Masri Al-Yom, to one year in jail. El-Zuheiri, along with two colleagues from the same paper, was also ordered to pay LE10,001 in compensation. The three journalists had been accused of libelling former minister of housing Mohamed Ibrahim Suleiman in a story that appeared in August 2004.  Last April each received one- year jail sentence but was subsequently granted a retrial since the earlier judgement had been passed in absentia. On 3 March, following discussions between the Chairman of the Press Syndicate Galal Aref, Suleiman, Minister of Information Anas El-Fiqi and head of the Supreme Press Council Safwat El-Sherif, Suleiman agreed to drop suits filed against 37 publications. Following the meeting Aref and Suleiman issued a joint statement in which Suleiman explained his decision to abandon the lawsuits had come in response to both the president's decision to do away with custodial sentences and appeals he had received from the Supreme Press Council. Suleiman noted he was satisfied with the court ruling in his favour and was not actively seeking the jailing of journalists.
.  .  .
Speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly Aref described the move as a reflection of the regime's conviction that jail sentences for publication offences are no longer relevant as Egypt moves towards reform and democracy. The compromise, he said, was "a sign that the government is seeking a way to end the crisis". Aref nonetheless stressed that the syndicate's goal was not only to suspend the sentence against El-Zuheiri but to press for the abolition of custodial sentences. Until that happens, he said, "the confrontation lingers".
.  .  .
Several unsuccessful attempts have already been made at issuing a draft law that satisfies all concerned parties. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice is currently drafting a law and will consult with the syndicate over its provisions before submitting it to the People's Assembly. Yet according to the syndicate's council the new law "remains enigmatic". In statements President Hosni Mubarak has said the law in question should be passed during the current parliamentary session, which ends in May.  Journalists, though, are skeptical: "why is it taking the government years to repeal a law that restricts freedom when, in serving its own interests, it passes many [laws] in a matter of days," noted one. One explanation for the delay is concern on the part of the Ministry of Justice over several provisions in the syndicate's own draft law. Yet though the ministry has informed the syndicate of such concerns it has yet to call for further consultations. Rumours have recently surfaced that the Ministry of Justice has already presented its own draft law to the Council of Ministers, without consulting or informing the syndicate, a move should it prove true will serve only to complicate the picture. But can the law be passed without the syndicate's consent? "Of course. They [the government] can do anything. Yet we will reject any law of which we have not approved and over which we have not been consulted," said Aref. The journalists' campaign, Aref explained, should not be viewed solely in terms of enshrining their right not to be jailed for what they write but within the framework of democratic reforms. "We cannot speak of liberty when there is such restraint on freedoms. We are not asking that journalists be above the law, or for a licence to slander, but we are calling for jail sentences to be replaced by fines. No one should be jailed for their views."

 

Hamas: "Children fight alongside the adults in the resistance"

By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The Hamas promotion of terror and violence among Palestinian children continues unabated. This past week, Hamas placed pictures on its web site (see pictures below) of children in combat roles and combat dress, taken during "Palestinian Children's Festival" held in Yemen. The third picture below shows a girl wearing a sash with the name Reem Riyashi on it. Reem Riyashi was a woman suicide terrorist who killed four Israelis.

Yemen News reported: "A Hamas representative [in Yemen] Jamal Issa … stated that the Palestinian children fight alongside the adults in the resistance."
[http://www.newsyemen.net/en/view_news.asp?sub_no=3_2006_03_10_5870]

These pictures were on the Hamas web site [www.palestinian-info.net] home page for a week, and can be seen today at this link:
http://www.palestine-info.net/arabic/palestoday/dailynews/2006/mar06/18_3/photo/index.htm

It is somewhat ironic, that while this terror role-modeling for children is being glorified by Hamas, the actual celebration of terror for children took place in Yemen. This is the same Yemen, who according to US News and World Report last week: "has become one of America's most unexpected allies in counter terrorism." [March 13, 2006 page 38]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Reem Riyashi" [suicide terrorist]