Iran

The mystery of modern Turkey

What does Turkey actually think? That’s an issue that has been occupying many Europeans, as the vital NATO ally heads to the polls. On the one hand Turkey has in the last 10 years become more like the West: globalised, economically liberal and democratic. Turkey’s economy is now the world’s 16thlargest, the sixth largest in Europe. But, at the same time, questions arise about its recent policies: will it consolidate its democratic achievements, or is it threatened by a populist tyranny or even authoritarian rule? Certainly, many fear that Prime Minister Recyp Erdogan’s behaviour is moving Turkey away from the West, both in terms of internal policy and external alignmen.

A good day for Cameron

Today is one of those days when David Cameron gets full political benefit from being Prime Minister. He is basking in the president of the United States’ reflected glory. The papers this morning are full of him playing table tennis with Barack Obama and tonight’s news bulletins will lead on their joint press conference at lunchtime. As Cameron stands next to Obama, he’ll look both a statesman and a centrist. It’ll be hard for Labour to attack Cameron as an extremist on deficit reduction when he keeps stressing how he and Obama agree on a sensible level and pace to get their budgets heading back into balance. There are, obviously,

Obama Men & Bush Measures?

Ross Douthat and Andrew Sullivan have been debating the extent, if any, to which Barack Obama’s foreign policy has broken with his predecessor’s. Ross’s point in his column this week is that Obama’s approach is more consistent with Bush’s than is generally supposed. I think that’s true, though some of Andrew’s criticisms of that view are plausible too. Ross responds here and Andrew has another go here during which post he writes: As for the impact of Obama on the Iranian revolution and the Arab Spring, I agree it’s too facile to draw a direct linkage. History and perspective will again help. But the Cairo speech – defending democracy in

Obama’s Love of Cake

Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker article on the development of Barack Obama’s approach to foreign policy is, as always, full of interestig stuff even if, perhaps unavoidably, I suspect it depends a little too heavily upon the Slaughter-Power approach. Nevertheless, Ryan gets to the heart of Obama’s presidency – or at least the style of it – here: Obama’s instinct was to try to have it both ways. He wanted to position the United States on the side of the protesters: it’s always a good idea, politically, to support brave young men and women risking their lives for freedom, especially when their opponent is an eighty-two-year-old dictator with Swiss bank accounts.

Eyes turn to Syria

The situation in Syria seems to be on a knife’s edge. Perhaps 80 protesters were killed by security forces during massive demonstrations yesterday. Checkpoints have gone up around all major cities, including Aleppo, Homs and Hama and of course Damascus. A friend who has been visiting the country this week says the situation is “pretty tense with police all around and no one, I mean almost no one on the streets. Taxis are not operating and there are no buses between cities.” The road south from Damascus to Deraa is heavily guarded to prevent the protesters moving from one city to the next. The key problem for Bashri al-Assad’s regime

A certain tragic allure

Towards Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980), the last or most recent Shah of Iran, there are two principal attitudes. Towards Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980), the last or most recent Shah of Iran, there are two principal attitudes. To the Islamic Republic and many in Europe and the US, Mohammed Reza was a tyrant, womaniser and poltroon, who was put on the throne by Britain and Russia in 1941 and maintained there by the US, till a popular uprising sent him scurrying abroad in 1979 where he died, unlamented, in Egypt 18 months later. The second attitude, which is gaining ground even in Iran, is that Mohammed Reza was a man of

Obama sketches out the limits to American involvement in Libya

There was one aspect of Barack Obama’s Big Speech on Libya last night that was particularly curious: for a President who is trying to downplay American involvement in this conflict, he sure went in for good bit of self-aggrandisement. The amount of references to his and his government’s “leadership” — as in, “At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution” — was really quite striking, at least to these ears. I suppose it’s all about mollifying those voices who argue that the US Pres hasn’t done enough, quickly enough. But it’s hardly going to endear him to

How to deal with Bahrain

If you find yourself on the same side of an issue as Iran, it is wise to think carefully what path you have chosen to walk. Today, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman condemned the foreign military intervention in Bahrain to confront the protests as “unacceptable.” To my dismay, I agree with what Tehran says; but, I suspect (and hope), for very different reasons. The grievances driving the Bahraini protests stem from years of discrimination by the Sunni elite of the Shia majority. Evidence of the problem is well-documented. Last year, Amnesty said that the Bahraini authorities had “failed to investigate alleged torture of detainees”. The State Department’s annual human rights

A reminder that the Iranian threat hasn’t gone away

Today’s news that Nato has intercepted an Iranian weapons shipment to the Taliban shows the threat Iran poses to international order and just how dangerous it would be for this regime to develop a nuclear capability. The shipment means that the regime, or at least part of it, wishes to assist those who want to kill Western troops and will back the forces of instability in the world. William Hague has released a statement calling Iran’s behaviour ‘completely unacceptable.’ But it is not clear what options Nato has beyond complaining about Iran’s actions. Any attempts to disrupt these supply routes on the other side of the border would be extremely

Iranian regime moves against opposition leaders

There are two significant developments in the Middle East to reflect on tonight. The New York Times is reporting that two Libyan air force jets conducted bombing raids on Monday. These raids appear to have been relatively ineffective. But they do suggest that there are still pilots prepared to carry out the regime’s orders, something that makes the issue of a no fly zone pertinent. But, perhaps, more important is that ground-level counter attacks by pro-Gaddafi forces have been repelled with relative ease by the rebels. Second, the Iranian government have, according to the BBC, removed Mir Hossein Mousavi, the ‘defeated’ 2009 presidential candidate, and Mehdi Karroub, the reformist politician,

Tehran’s latest provocation

The people of Egypt and Libya may have swung the spotlight onto their respective countries – but it is a spotlight that Iran is keen to exploit. Two of their warships have just passed through the Suez canal en route to Syria, the first to do so since 1979. They were given clearance by Egypt’s new military stewards a few days ago. On one level, Tehran’s actions are unimpeachable: Egypt cannot forbid access to Suez unless it is at war with the country at sail. But they are also, of course, designed to provoke. Why choose to do this now, other than to suggest something about the new latticework of

Iran’s turn

Revolutions are exciting when they happen to other leaders. When they target the government you lead, then they become decidedly less appealing. That seems to be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s view. Only last week the Iranian President told the Egyptian protesters that they had the right to express their own opinions. The Iranian regime’s short-sighted glee, however, has quickly turned to fear. And it shows: the regime has unleashed the police onto protesting crowds in Iran, killing one and wounding several. Unlike Hosni Mubarak, Iran’s leaders know what it is like to be a revolutionary movement – and they have used their inside knowledge to lethal effect. Like Lenin and Stalin, they

Where does it leave Israel?

Israel is in a right state over Egypt’s incipient revolution. Israeli politicians talk openly about the threat from an Islamist takeover, the greatness of Hosni Mubarak, and have even taken to sneer at the West’s hopefulness. Now that President Mubarak has announced he will leave, the Israeli leadership will be looking on in horror. They are right to be concerned. The beleaguered Jewish state has already lost one regional ally in Turkey and does not relish the prospect of losing Egypt too. That would leave only Jordan, a country whose monarchy may be the next casualty of the pro-democracy movement sweeping the region. But it is not just a matter

The Failure of Realism: Diagnosis Without Any Prescription

These two posts by Melanie Phillips on the situation in Egypt are very useful. Clarifying, even. They merit a response not because it’s Melanie and she’s a neighbour but because she publishes a view that’s more widely held than you might think if you only consulted the broadsheets and the BBC. It may, I think, be summarised as: Barack Obama is throwing Mubarak under the bus and we’ll soon have Tehran on the Nile. A lot of people believe this or fear it the most probable outcome. They may, alas, be proven right. I’m struck, however, by their certainty that the Muslim Brotherhood will soon be running Egypt and, furthermore,

Fox: Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2012

As Cairo smoulders, it’s easy to forget about one of the most combustible ingredients in the Middle Eastern cocktail – Iran. Yet the threat still exists, as Tony Blair and Liam Fox have been keen to remind us. James Kirkup reports that the Defence Secretary has warned a Commons committee that Iran could have a nuclear device as soon as next year. Fox isn’t the first to make the 2012 claim. The director of the CIA did so last year. And a recent article by the former UN weapons inspector David Albright and Andrea Stricker – which I arrived at via Jeffrey Goldberg – explains just how Iran might pull

Déjà vu | 21 January 2011

Tony Blair is beguiling the Chilcot Inquiry once again. He was majestic last time – quick witted, sincere and convinced. There was nothing in that benign hearing room to alter, as he might have put it, the ‘calculus of risk’. His ease was sufficient to crack subtle jokes at Gordon Brown’s expense, and most emerged from the hearing believing that Britain had actually been at war with Iran. He is already ploughing those same furrows, albeit with a barely audible note of impatience, irritated that these banal proceedings continue. Iran is the new Iraq, Blair says, and he publicly takes a ‘hard line’ against Tehran, just as his government, in

How Iran’s nuclear programme was delayed

Iran’s nuclear programme is the most likely source of a major global conflict. So it is highly significant that the outgoing head of Mossad recently told the Israeli parliament that technical problems meant that Iran might not be able to make a bomb until 2015. These technical problems have, as a riveting piece in the New York Times explains, being caused by a computer virus. The stuxnet (correction) virus is in wide global circulation but it only kicks in when it spots the pattern that is used for centrifuges making highly-enriched uranium. When it does, it makes the centrifuges spin so fast that they destroy themselves. This virus appears to

Laughing Mohammad Larijani, the Comical Ali of Iran

In the week when the Iranian regime forced Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani to goulishly re-enact the murder of her husband on TV, it is worth reading Newsweek’s interview with Mohammad Javad Larijani, a regime insider. His answers call to mind Comical Ali, whose delusional denials of the US advance in Iraq made everyone realise how detached from reality Saddam Hussein’s regime really was. First on the matter of torture, routinely said by the UN, former prisoners and defectors to be used by Iranian officials: “Torture is forbidden by the Constitution. Any law officer who tortures civilians will meet a very harsh punishment.” Of course, he admits, the Iranian system could “need

Chinese burns

The latest cache of Wikileaks has done America no end of good. The Saudis urged the US to bomb Iran – a sign that the Arab world can make common cause with the States and Israel. It has also emerged that North Korea has sold the Iranians long range rockets – Moscow, Berlin and Istanbul are all within the Ayatollah’s range. But the most important revelation is that China has tired of North Korea’s lunatic machinations, recognising that the rogue state is an impediment to global and regional security. China is also convinced that the country will not survive Kim Jung-il’s death and favours a union of the two Koreas,

Julian Assange: the new face of anti-Americanism

Like everyone else, I have poured over the latest cache of Wikileaks – the publication of which I find irresponsible and destructive. There are several pieces of information now in the public domain that will cause the US diplomatic embarrassment or worse may even help the regimes in Tehran, Pyongyang and Moscow. Just ask yourself a few questions. Will the West be safer if the Saudi leader cannot trust that a conversation he has with a US envoy will remain secret? Will that help or hinder Iran’s nuclear prpgramme? Will US-German links be improved by the knowledge that US diplomats are sceptical of Angela Merkel’s policies? Will that aid G20