US president Donald Trump published a new strategy on Iran. There were two major declarations. The first one related to inacceptability for the USA of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) signed in 2015 on Iranian nuclear program. The second one related to sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that was included in the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List.
First of all, we should remember that President Trump did not take the USA out of the JCPOA and did not denounce it. Once again, he simply did not confirm that Iran performed the “nuclear treaty” (which he did before), gave orders to learn if it is possible to amend its terms and conditions, as well as made a declaration that the American party may terminate it at any time. Though in this process he did not give details of the methods, mechanisms, ways and the instruments of this hypothetical denunciation. This is not a simple two party American-Iranian document, this is an international pact, approved and confirmed by the UN Security Council.
As a counterbalance to their boss, a group of National Security advisors to Trump declared that Iran conforms to the conditions agreed. This is a fully substantiated and logical declaration, has the main International watchdog of the IRI nuclear program, IAEA has confirmed 8 times that “Iran is strictly in line with its obligations under the JCPOA”. That is why Trump did not and does not have a formal way to terminate the agreement.
Another issue here is to change the requirements for Iran in this agreement. But this is also less probable because Iran categorically objects to it. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif declared that Tehran will never negotiate on the nuclear deal with the world powers already agreed.
In his turn, the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi confirmed that the terms of conditions of JCPOA cannot be reviewed, and the best way is to follow them.
Russia, China and the European Union also noted that the JCPOA does not need any additions or amendments. Russian Deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov gave a smart remark on that: “There is an American proverb that our colleagues open use in such situations, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.”
JCPOA has been working fine for two and a half years. Former Under Secretary of State and chief negotiator from Washington, together with the other G6 intermediaries and Iran Wendy Sherman warned: “The reluctance of the president to accept the truth about the agreement with Iran, that it works and that it is clearly in the US National Security interests, will have serious consequences.”
We will add that not only for the USA, which will face political, image and moral challenges. All the participants of the nuclear talks with IRI (except USA) support JCPOA and speak for keeping it, criticizing Trump’s position.
Besides that, the fact that Iran went out from under the sanctions, it also became and interesting Target for the international business. Almost all EU countries, as well as Japan, South Korea, China, Southeast Asia are interested in developing economic relations with Iran and are actively against a new anti-Iranian campaign and new anti-Iranian sanctions.
JCPOA is an important historical document that, probably for the first time since 1945 when the nuclear era started, put the nuclear Ambitions of a particular country under control and made it fit the framework of international laws and IAEA requirements. This is a good example of global diplomacy effectiveness that created a precedent of true trust of other parties in the name of nuclear weapons nonproliferation. JCPOA can become a model for diplomatic settlement of regional and world crises.
It should be noted, that Great Britain, Germany, France underline the aspect of nuclear non-proliferation in this treaty and say that it really meets its target. They spoke in support of JCPOA and called to the USA not to take steps that could undermine it and thus undermine the non-proliferation regime for nuclear weapons.
Mass media say, that London, Paris and Berlin called Washington to think it over. French president Emmanuel macron disclosed his intentions to make a visit to Iran, while German foreign office head Sigmar Gabriel declared that White House policy pushes Europe back from the USA and, moreover, causes it to get closer to China and Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Iran in early November where he will have talks with the IRI President Hassan Rouhani. Among the problems discussed there will inevitably be the question of is the JCPOA future. Moscow will once again express its support to this International document.
Destruction of JCPOA by the United States will undermine trust to America and, most negative, to all talks on nuclear problems of the “threshold” countries aspiring to get nuclear weapons, first of all, North Korea, and to further lead two nuclear non-proliferation regime falling.
This or that way, this will cause the USA to become an outlaw country that will not have any moral rights to call anyone to negotiations on new nuclear agreements.
Trump must have understood the consequences of his resolution to leave JCPOA and did not declare it irrevocably. In conditions of a very hard internal policy situation in the USA, he shifted the responsibility for it to the Congress. The Congressmen have 60 days to think over and take a bill on sanctions due to the refusal of the IRI President regarding the conditions of the nuclear agreement and another 10 days for the voting process. That means that the fate of JCPOA will be solved December 24th. There are little partyzans of IRI in the USA, but there are many opponents to Trump. Thus, we don’t know how the Congress will behave in those December days. This is a hard game, just as in American football.
Another version is that the reason for the the anti Iranian campaign initiation is the fact that President Trump is trying to provoke Iran to unilaterally leave JCPOA. For Trump that would be a perfect variant.
In its turn, Iran is also playing its own game, because there are many opponents to this agreement. Now the country sees a hard game between relatively liberal surrounding of President Rouhani and his political and economic opponents.
One of them is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as well as politicians in the surrounding of Rouhani opponents at the recent election, Ebrahim Raisi and radical clerics. A special attention should be paid to IRGC, that is an organization that has not only military, but also economic power. By the way, in the period of hard sanctions, the structures of IRGC managed to find ways to pass over the limits gaining considerable funds from their activity. It’s natural that IRGC was not interested in lifting sanctions.
There is a political game on, and it is very active. Certainly, JCPOA, the IRI nuclear program which is the object of Iranian national pride, is in the center of this fight.
Antique Iranian activity of trump is playing for opponents of Hassan Rouhani who built his presidential career on conclusion of this nuclear agreement and lifting sanctions imposed on Iran. He managed to reach positive economic results, in his new year address to the nation on March this year he said: “The Iranian people, having taken the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions, reached the results we wished, the sanctions chains are broken… The sanctions in the sphere of banking, currency and financial operations, petrol and petrochemistry, insurance and transports – all these “nuclear sanctions” are lifted which created perfect conditions for economic activity of our people.” “I am certain, said president Rouhani, is that our joint effort inside the country and constructive interaction with the world will help our economy to grow and blossom.”
This is so. In 2013 the GDP fell 6% per annum, while in 2016 the Iranian economy grew about 4-6%. The fight on inflation was also successful causing it to fall from the unofficial 40% to around 10%.
JCPOA took Iran from the isolation. In two years Tehran was visited by dozens of state leaders and governments, while the amount of trade and economic delegations can be hardly counted at all. There was information on dozens of transactions for billions of dollars.
This August, when presenting a new cabinet to Majlis, President Rouhani declared that one of the external political priorities of the new government will be keeping the agreement on the nuclear program and its protection from the USA acts. “The most important task of the foreign minister is, first of all, to maintain JCPOA and not too loud USA and our opponents succeed,” Mr. Rouhani said. “Protecting JCPOA means to fight Iranian enemies,” the Iranian President said.
JCPOA destruction or yet even an attempt to do it by the White House will significantly strengthen president Rouhani’s opponents’ position which can eventually lead to serious consequences, up to forceful transition of the executive power from the incumbent president to his opponents. In this scenario, it’s possible that Iran will terminate JCPOA and IAEA will be removed from control over the nuclear activity of Iran which will once again make the IRI nuclear program active and reanimate its military component.
Such a scenario will cause a strong reaction of the USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia which is fraught with yet another possible military conflict in the Middle East.
Another danger is Trump’s resolution to include IRGC In the list of terrorist organization, putting it in line with Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
This caused immediate Tehran reaction. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Iran would retaliate very hard without giving any more further detail.
IRGC Chief commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari, in his turn, made a transparent hint that the Corps would include the US Army into the list of terrorist organizations and make it it’s target like ISIS all over the world, and first of all in the Middle East, to counteract Trump’s allegations in his address. General Jafari persistently recommended USA to leave the Middle East and stay at a distance of at least 2000 km from Iran (the operating range of Iranian medium-range ballistic missiles). There is information that Iranian missiles were retargeted to the objects related to the American Army located in the Middle East.
Thus, the “cold war” between USA and Iran up for almost 40 years is moving step by step into a critical phase thanks to efforts of President Trump’s Administration. Now it is not only Iran and a threat, but there’s a risk that it will spread onto the Middle East currently on fire, as well as the non-proliferation regime for nuclear weapons.
First published in our partner International Affairs
Saudi religious moderation: the world’s foremost publisher of Qur’ans has yet to get the message
When the religious affairs minister of Guinea-Conakry visited Jeddah last week, his Saudi counterpart gifted him 50,000 Qur’ans.
Saudi Islamic affairs minister Abdullatif Bin Abdulaziz Al-Sheikh offered the holy books as part of his ministry’s efforts to print and distribute them and spread their teachings.
The Qur’ans were produced by the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, which annually distributes millions of copies. Scholar Nora Derbal asserts that the Qur’ans “perpetuate a distinct Wahhabi reading of the scripture.”
Similarly, Saudi Arabia distributed in Afghanistan in the last years of the US-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani thousands of Qur’ans produced by the printing complex, according to Mr. Ghani’s former education minister, Mirwais Balkhi. Mr. Balkhi indicated that the Qur’ans were identical to those distributed by the kingdom for decades.
Mr. Ghani and Mr. Balkhi fled Afghanistan last year as US troops withdrew from the country and the Taliban took over.
Human Rights Watch and Impact-se, an education-focused Israeli research group, reported last year that Saudi Arabia, pressured for some two decades post-9/11 by the United States and others to remove supremacist references to Jews, Christian, and Shiites in its schoolbooks, had recently made significant progress in doing so.
However, the two groups noted that Saudi Arabia had kept in place fundamental concepts of an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic, and intolerant interpretation of Islam.
The same appears true for the world’s largest printer and distributor of Qur’ans, the King Fahd Complex.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has, since his rise in 2015, been primarily focussed on social and economic rather than religious reform.
Mr. Bin Salman significantly enhanced professional and personal opportunities for women, including lifting the ban on women’s driving and loosening gender segregation and enabled the emergence of a Western-style entertainment sector in the once austere kingdom.
Nevertheless, Saudi Islam scholar Besnik Sinani suggests that “state pressure on Salafism in Saudi Arabia will primarily focus on social aspects of Salafi teaching, while doctrinal aspects will probably receive less attention.”
The continued production and distribution of Qur’ans that included unaltered ultra-conservative interpretations sits uneasily with Mr. Bin Salman’s effort to emphasize nationalism rather than religion as the core of Saudi identity and project a more moderate and tolerant image of the kingdom’s Islam.
The Saudi spin is not in the Arabic text of the Qur’an that is identical irrespective of who prints it, but in parenthetical additions, primarily in translated versions, that modify the meaning of specific Qur’anic passages.
Commenting in 2005 on the King Fahd Complex’s English translation, the most widely disseminated Qur’an in the English-speaking world, the late Islam scholar Khaleel Mohammed asserted that it “reads more like a supremacist Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian polemic than a rendition of the Islamic scripture.”
Religion scholar Peter Mandaville noted in a recently published book on decades of Saudi export of ultra-conservative Islam that “it is the kingdom’s outsized role in the printing and distribution of the Qur’an as rendered in other languages that becomes relevant in the present context.”
Ms. Derbal, Mr. Sinani and this author contributed chapters to Mr. Mandaville’s edited volume.
The King Fahd Complex said that it had produced 18 million copies of its various publications in 2017/18 in multiple languages in its most recent production figures. Earlier it reported that it had printed and distributed 127 million copies of the Qur’an in the 22 years between 1985 and 2007. The Complex did not respond to emailed queries on whether parenthetical texts have been recently changed.
The apparent absence of revisions of parenthetical texts reinforces suggestions that Mr. Bin Salman is more concerned about socio-political considerations, regime survival, and the projection of the kingdom as countering extremism and jihadism than he is about reforming Saudi Islam.
It also spotlights the tension between the role Saudi Arabia envisions as the custodian of Islam’s holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, and the needs of a modern state that wants to attract foreign investment to help ween its economy off dependency on oil exports.
Finally, the continued distribution of Qur’ans with seemingly unaltered commentary speaks to the balance Mr. Bin Salman may still need to strike with the country’s once-powerful religious establishment despite subjugating the clergy to his will.
The continued global distribution of unaltered Qur’an commentary calls into question the sincerity of the Saudi moderation campaign, particularly when juxtaposed with rival efforts by other major Muslim countries to project themselves as beacons of a moderate form of Islam.
Last week, Saudi Arabia’s Muslim World League convened some 100 Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist religious leaders to “establish a set of values common to all major world religions and a vision for enhancing understanding, cooperation, and solidarity amongst world religions.”
Once a major Saudi vehicle for the global propagation of Saudi religious ultra-conservatism, the League has been turned into Mr. Bin Salman’s megaphone. It issues lofty statements and organises high-profile conferences that project Saudi Arabia as a leader of moderation and an example of tolerance.
The League, under the leadership of former justice minister Mohammed al-Issa, has emphasised its outreach to Jewish leaders and communities. Mr. Al-Issa led a delegation of Muslim religious leaders in 2020 on a ground-breaking visit to Auschwitz, the notorious Nazi extermination camp in Poland.
However, there is little evidence, beyond Mr. Al-Issa’s gestures, statements, and engagement with Jewish leaders, that the League has joined in a practical way the fight against anti-Semitism that, like Islamophobia, is on the rise.
Similarly, Saudi moderation has not meant that the kingdom has lifted its ban on building non-Muslim houses of worship on its territory.
The Riyadh conference followed Nahdlatul Ulama’s footsteps, the world’s largest Muslim civil society movement with 90 million followers in the world’s largest Muslim majority country and most populous democracy. Nahdlatul Ulama leader Yahya Cholil Staquf spoke at the conference.
In recent years, the Indonesian group has forged alliances with Evangelical entities like the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), Jewish organisations and religious leaders, and various Muslim groups across the globe. Nahdlatul Ulama sees the alliances as a way to establish common ground based on shared humanitarian values that would enable them to counter discrimination and religion-driven prejudice, bigotry, and violence.
Nahdlatul Ulama’s concept of Humanitarian Islam advocates reform of what it deems “obsolete” and “problematic” elements of Islamic law, including those that encourage segregation, discrimination, and/or violence towards anyone perceived to be a non-Muslim. It further accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, unlike the Saudis, without reservations.
The unrestricted embrace of the UN declaration by Indonesia and its largest Muslim movement has meant that conversion, considered to be apostasy under Islamic law, is legal in the Southeast Asian nation. As a result, Indonesia, unlike Middle Eastern states where Christian communities have dwindled due to conflict, wars, and targeted attacks, has witnessed significant growth of its Christian communities.
Christians account for ten percent of Indonesia’s population. Researchers Duane Alexander Miller and Patrick Johnstone reported in 2015 that 6.5 million Indonesian had converted to Christianity since 1960.
That is not to say that Christians and other non-Muslim minorities have not endured attacks on churches, suicide bombings, and various forms of discrimination. The attacks have prompted Nahdlatul Ulama’s five million-strong militia to protect churches in vulnerable areas during holidays such as Christmas. The militia has also trained Christians to enable them to watch over their houses of worship.
Putting its money where its mouth is, a gathering of 20,000 Nahdlatul Ulama religious scholars issued in 2019 a fatwa or religious opinion eliminating the Muslim legal concept of the kafir or infidel.
Twelve years earlier, the group’s then spiritual leader and former Indonesian president Abdurahman Wahid, together with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, organised a conference in the archipelago state to acknowledge the Holocaust and denounce denial of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. The meeting came on the heels of a gathering in Tehran convened by then Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that denied the existence of the Holocaust.
Iran Gives Russia Two and a Half Cheers
Iran’s rulers enthusiastically seek to destroy the liberal world order and therefore support Russia’s aggression. But they can’t manage full-throated support.
For Iran, the invasion of Ukraine is closely related to the very essence of the present world order. Much like Russia, Iran has been voicing its discontent at the way the international system has operated since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, Iran and Russia see the world through strikingly similar lenses. Both keenly anticipate the end of the multipolar world and the end of the West’s geopolitical preponderance.
Iran had its reasons to think this way. The US unipolar moment after 1991 provoked a deep fear of imminent encirclement, with American bases in Afghanistan and Iraq cited as evidence. Like Russia, the Islamic Republic views itself as a separate civilization that needs to be not only acknowledged by outside players, but also to be given ana suitable geopolitical space to project influence.
Both Russia and Iran are very clear about their respective spheres of influence. For Russia, it is the territories that once constituted the Soviet empire. For Iran, it is the contiguous states reaching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean — Iraq, Syria, Lebanon — plus Yemen. When the two former imperial powers have overlapping strategic interests such as, for instance, in the South Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, they apply the concept of regionalism. This implies the blocking out of non-regional powers from exercising outsize economic and military influence, and mostly revolves around an order dominated by the powers which border on a region.
This largely explains why Iran sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity that, if successful, could hasten the end of the liberal world order. This is why it has largely toed the Russian line and explained what it describes as legitimate motives behind the invasion. Thus the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe was cited as having provoked Russian moves. “The root of the crisis in Ukraine is the US policies that create the crisis, and Ukraine is one victim of these policies,” argued Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei following the invasion.
To a certain degree, Iran’s approach to Ukraine has been also influenced by mishaps in bilateral relations which largely began with the accidental downing of a Ukrainian passenger jet by Iranian surface-to-air missiles in January 2020, killing 176 people. The regime first denied responsibility, and later blamed human error.
Iran, like several other of Russia’s friends and defenders, the ideal scenario would have been a quick war in which the Kremlin achieved its major goals.
Protracted war, however, sends a bad signal. It signals that the liberal order was not in such steep decline after all, and that Russia’s calls for a new era in international relations have been far from realistic. The unsuccessful war also shows Iran that the collective West still has very significant power and — despite well-aired differences — an ability to rapidly coalesce to defend the existing rules-based order. Worse, for these countries, the sanctions imposed on Russia go further; demonstrating the West’s ability to make significant economic sacrifices to make its anger felt. In other words, Russia’s failure in Ukraine actually strengthened the West and made it more united than at any point since the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US.
A reinvigorated liberal order is the last thing that Iran wants, given its own troubled relations with the collective West. The continuing negotiations on a revived nuclear deal will be heavily impacted by how Russia’s war proceeds, and how the US and EU continue to respond to the aggression. Iran fears that a defeated Russia might be so angered as to use its critical position to endanger the talks, vital to the lifting of the West’s crippling sanctions.
And despite rhetorical support for Russia, Iran has been careful not to overestimate Russia’s power. It is now far from clear that the Kremlin has achieved its long-term goal of “safeguarding” its western frontier. Indeed, the Putin regime may have done the opposite now that it has driven Finland and Sweden into the NATO fold. Western sanctions on Russia are likely to remain for a long time, threatening long-term Russian economic (and possible regime) stability.
Moreover, Russia’s fostering of separatist entities (following the recognition of the so called Luhansk and Donetsk “people’s republics” and other breakaway entities in Georgia and Moldova) is a highly polarizing subject in Iran. True there has been a shift toward embracing Russia’s position over Ukraine, but Iran remains deeply committed to the “Westphalian principles” of non-intervention in the affairs of other states and territorial integrity. This is hardly surprising given its own struggles against potential separatism in the peripheries of the country.
Many Iranians also sympathize with Ukraine’s plight, which for some evokes Iran’s defeats in the early 19th century wars when Qajars had to cede the eastern part of the South Caucasus to Russia. This forms part of a historically deeply rooted, anti-imperialist sentiment in Iran.
Iran is therefore likely to largely abstain from endorsing Russia’s separatist ambitions in Eastern Ukraine. It will also eschew, where possible, support for Russia in international forums. Emblematic of this policy was the March 2 meeting in the United Nations General Assembly when Iran, rather than siding with Russia, abstained from the vote which condemned the invasion.
Russia’s poor military performance, and the West’s ability to act unanimously, serve as a warning for the Islamic Republic that it may one day have to soak up even more Western pressure if Europe, the US, and other democracies act in union.
In the meantime, like China, Iran will hope to benefit from the magnetic pull of the Ukraine war. With so much governmental, military and diplomatic attention demanded by the conflict, it will for the time being serve as a distraction from Iran’s ambitions elsewhere.
Author’s note: first published in cepa
Ignoring the Middle East at one’s peril: Turkey plays games in NATO
Amid speculation about a reduced US military commitment to security in the Middle East, Turkey has spotlighted the region’s ability to act as a disruptive force if its interests are neglected.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan set off alarm bells this week, declaring that he was not “positive” about possible Finnish and Swedish applications for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
NATO membership is contingent on a unanimous vote in favour by the organisation’s 30 members. Turkey has NATO’s second-largest standing army.
The vast majority of NATO members appear to endorse Finnish and Swedish membership. NATO members hope to approve the applications at a summit next month.
A potential Turkish veto would complicate efforts to maintain trans-Atlantic unity in the face of the Russian invasion.
Mr. Erdogan’s pressure tactics mirror the maneuvers of his fellow strongman, Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban. Mr. Orban threatens European Union unity by resisting a bloc-wide boycott of Russian energy.
Earlier, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia rejected US requests to raise oil production in an effort to lower prices and help Europe reduce its dependence on Russian energy.
The two Gulf states appear to have since sought to quietly backtrack on their refusal.
In late April, France’s TotalEnergies chartered a tanker to load Abu Dhabi crude in early May for Europe, the first such shipment in two years.
Saudi Arabia has quietly used its regional pricing mechanisms to redirect from Asia to Europe Arab “medium,” the Saudi crude that is the closest substitute for the main Russian export blend, Urals, for which European refineries are configured.
Mr. Erdogan linked his NATO objection to alleged Finnish and Swedish support for the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which has been designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the United States, and the EU.
The PKK has waged a decades-long insurgency in southeast Turkey in support of Kurds’ national, ethnic, and cultural rights. Kurds account for up to 20 per cent of the country’s 84 million population.
Turkey has recently pounded PKK positions in northern Iraq in a military operation named Operation Claw Lock.
Turkey is at odds with the United States over American support for Syrian Kurds in the fight against the Islamic State. Turkey asserts that America’s Syrian Kurdish allies are aligned with the PKK.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu warned that Turkey opposes a US decision this week to exempt from sanctions against Syria regions controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
“This is a selective and discriminatory move,” Mr. Cavusoglu said, noting that the exemption did not include Kurdish areas of Syria controlled by Turkey and its Syrian proxies.
Referring to the NATO membership applications, Mr. Erdogan charged that “Scandinavian countries are like some kind of guest house for terrorist organisations. They’re even in parliament.”
Mr. Erdogan’s objections relate primarily to Sweden, with Finland risking becoming collateral damage.
Sweden is home to a significant Kurdish community and hosts Europe’s top Kurdish soccer team that empathises with the PKK and Turkish Kurdish aspirations. In addition, six Swedish members of parliament are ethnic Kurds.
Turkey scholar Howard Eissenstat suggested that Turkey’s NATO objection may be a turning point. “Much of Turkey’s strategic flexibility has come from the fact that its priorities are seen as peripheral issues for its most important Western allies. Finnish and Swedish entry into NATO, in the current context, absolutely not peripheral,” Mr. Eissenstat tweeted.
The Turkish objection demonstrates the Middle East’s potential to derail US and European policy in other parts of the world.
Middle Eastern states walk a fine line when using their potential to disrupt to achieve political goals of their own. The cautious backtracking on Ukraine-related oil supplies demonstrates the limits and/or risks of Middle Eastern brinkmanship.
So does the fact that Ukraine has moved NATO’s center of gravity to northern Europe and away from its southern flank, which Turkey anchors.
Moreover, Turkey risks endangering significant improvements in its long-strained relations with the United States.
Turkish mediation in the Ukraine crisis and military support for Ukraine prompted US President Joe Biden to move ahead with plans to upgrade Turkey’s fleet of F-16 fighter planes and discuss selling it newer, advanced F-16 models even though Turkey has neither condemned Russia nor imposed sanctions.
Some analysts suggest Turkey may use its objection to regain access to the United States’ F-35 fighter jet program. The US cancelled in 2019 a sale of the jet to Turkey after the NATO member acquired Russia’s S-400 anti-missile defence system.
Mr. Erdogan has “done this kind of tactic before. He will use it as leverage to get a good deal for Turkey,” said retired US Navy Admiral James Foggo, dean of the Center for Maritime Strategy.
A top aide to Mr. Erdogan, Ibrahim Kalin, appeared to confirm Mr. Foggo’s analysis.
“We are not closing the door. But we are basically raising this issue as a matter of national security for Turkey,” Mr. Kalin said, referring to the Turkish leader’s NATO remarks. “Of course, we want to have a discussion, a negotiation with Swedish counterparts.”
Spelling out Turkish demands, Mr. Kalin went on to say that “what needs to be done is clear: they have to stop allowing PKK outlets, activities, organisations, individuals and other types of presence to…exist in those countries.”
Mr. Erdogan’s brinkmanship may have its limits, but it illustrates that one ignores the Middle East at one’s peril.
However, engaging Middle Eastern autocrats does not necessarily mean ignoring their rampant violations of human rights and repression of freedoms.
For the United States and Europe, the trick will be developing a policy that balances accommodating autocrats’, at times, disruptive demands, often aimed at ensuring regime survival, with the need to remain loyal to democratic values amid a struggle over whose values will underwrite a 21st-century world order.
However, that would require a degree of creative policymaking and diplomacy that seems to be a rare commodity.
Mali’s withdrawal from G5 Sahel, Joint Force ‘a setback’ for the region
Mali’s decision on 15 May to withdraw from the G5-Sahel group and its Joint Force is “unfortunate” and “regrettable”, a...
First polio outbreak in 30 years declared in Mozambique
Health authorities in Mozambique declared an outbreak of wild poliovirus on Wednesday after confirming that a child in the country’s...
G7’s potential should be utilized positively
The G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and...
Nations must ‘act together, urgently and with solidarity’ to end crisis of food insecurity
Hunger levels around the world are at “a new high”, the UN chief said on Wednesday, in a call to...
Americas: Rising COVID-19 caseload should be a ‘wake-up call’
COVID-19 rates are on the rise in the Americas, where new infections and fatalities have been steadily increasing over the...
Musings of a journalist – Part 3
The entire idea of writing this is that as journalists we find ourselves finding and scratching other people’s truths. However,...
Saudi religious moderation: the world’s foremost publisher of Qur’ans has yet to get the message
When the religious affairs minister of Guinea-Conakry visited Jeddah last week, his Saudi counterpart gifted him 50,000 Qur’ans. Saudi Islamic...
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Vietnam-US relations and the US-ASEAN Summit
Middle East3 days ago
Iran Gives Russia Two and a Half Cheers
Americas4 days ago
A U.S.-ASEAN summit—a face or a farce
Middle East4 days ago
Ignoring the Middle East at one’s peril: Turkey plays games in NATO
South Asia4 days ago
Sri Lankan economic crisis and the China factor
Intelligence3 days ago
New ISIS Strategy and the Resurgence of Islamic State Khorasan
Economy3 days ago
Possible Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine War on Global Food Trade
South Asia3 days ago
The sizzling “Political Matrix”; What will happen now?