Connect with us

Middle East

Turkey in Idlib

Avatar photo

Published

on

 What is the real strategic sense of Turkey’s very recent military operation in the Idlib region of North-Western Syria?

 We will analyse here, above all, the main strategic effects and the consequences within the entire Middle East region, as well as the counterpressures within the global geopolitical framework.

 The word Idlib comes from the Aramaic “Adad” (God) and “Lib” (centre).

 A very important geographical and military factor is that, to the West, Idlib is very close to Latakia, where the Russian base of Khmeimimim is located, with more than 1,000 stable operatives, who are now part of the Russian defence apparatus, together with those of the Tartus naval base, where – at the air base near Latakia – also an important unit of the Sixth Directorate of the Russian Military Secret Service (GRU) operates.

 As early as 2015, i.e. the outbreak of war in Syria, Idlib has been, at first, the centre of protests against Bashar al Assad by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and other Sunni groups. Later Idlib was taken as a safe base by the various jihadist groups, including the remaining elements of the “Islamic State” of Raqqa that have now largely fled to the North-Western Syrian city, in close contact with the Turkish territories.

 Not to mention the over 100,000 ones, previously held by the Kurds, who are relatives, collaborators and mere militants of the so-called “Caliphate” that Turkey has no interest in keeping detained and is slowly releasing.

 Currently Idlib is not controlled by any majority jihadist group, but by an often vague balance among the many groups of the “holy war”, i.e. the Middle East and the other proxy wars, usually mediated by the Turkish Intelligence Services.

 Besides autonomous groups of jihadists coming from the Chinese Turkestan-Xinjiang, often weakened with lightning operations by the operatives of the Chinese Armed Forces, in the region. There are also Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Al Qa’eda faction that has been operating for many years in Syria and partly in Iraq, and the National Liberation Front, founded in May 2018 and openly supported by Turkey.

 It currently includes as many as 11 jihadist factions, but also nationalistic and mainly anti-Assad groups.

These groups often emerge from the Syrian Sunni majority, largely present in the North of the country.

 In agreement with Russia, however, as early as 2019 the Syrian government led by Assad has stated that “Syria’s first goal is to free Idlib”.

 A very harsh signal for Turkey which, just in that phase, was beginning to have as many as 1,300 soldiers around Idlib to monitor the ceasefire.

 In that case, Turkey’s primary goal was to avoid adding a further and probably incalculable mass of other migrants to the 3 million Syrians already present in the Turkish territory on the border with Syria – with EU money – but assigned by Germany alone to Turkey.

 That situation made the U.N. Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, do his utmost to prevent a new offensive against Idlib from the South and from the East.

 Hence, Staffan de Mistura’s proposals were the usual talks to avoid military pressure and, above all, create a humanitarian corridor, mainly with a view to avoiding the rush of crowds of Syrian migrants to Idlib and, from there, to the “Balkan route”.

 European countries are full of migrants but, when thinking about geopolitics, they focus only on humanitarian aspects and, precisely, on how to avoid the arrival of other migrants.

 Cannot we call it a failure?

 In October 2018, in Sochi, the contacts between Putin and Erdogan led to an agreement.

 A “de-escalation zone” was created in Syria – just to use the terminology of the Astana talks, the real ones, not the semi-deserted talks in Geneva – and it was in that area that Turkey took up the role of maintaining public order.

 Shortly after the Sochi agreement, in an interview on the Russian TV, Bashar al Assad stated: “The Syrian military confrontation with Turkey is illogical”.

 The document signed in Sochi between the two leaders stated that: a) there was a commitment of both countries for Syria’s territorial integrity; b) there was a common commitment to the fight against “all terrorists”, as well as the beginning of a ceasefire regime in Idlib as from March 6, and the establishment of a ‘security corridor’ along the Syrian M-4 motorway, six kilometres to the right and six kilometres to the left of the road axis; c) finally, there was the introduction of joint Turkish-Russian patrols, again along the M-4 motorway, in Idlib, in the direction controlling the Latakia-Aleppo axis.

 Regardless of what happens to the Sochi agreement, the clash between Turkey and Russia is therefore very unlikely.

 Neither Turkey nor, even less, Russia want to open a Syrian front where they would inevitably enter de facto marginalized from Syria.

 A new war for hegemony in North-Western Syria between Russia and Turkey would be a very hard blow for both economies, which are now increasingly interconnected. By clashing with Turkey, the Russian Federation could lose an easy access to the Dardanelles and its own Syrian bases, as well as to the Bosphorus.

 Moreover, Russia does not want to upset a NATO country like Turkey, which is now a maverick in the Atlantic region. An incalculable advantage position for Russia.

 On its part, however, Turkey cannot do without specific support also from the United States, especially if obtained outside the North Atlantic Treaty region.

 This means Turkey’s future concessions to the United States in the Eastern Mediterranean region and Turkey’s involuntary delicate hand against the PKK and other Turkish organizations (all offspring of the PKK, however) that are still essential on the ground for the United States (and Israel). 

 Currently, however, many executives of CIA, the Pentagon and the vast U.S. intelligence community do not even hide the desire to put an end to Erdogan’s regime.

 Certainly the new Turkish Sultan is “scarcely democratic”, but if the United States were to test the approach of all its Middle East traditional allies in this regard, obviously the only democratic country would be Israel.

  It will not be easy for the United States to define its future regional alliances, but the situation of relations between Turkey and the United States is today increasingly ambiguous and, in any case, very tense.

 Only the most brilliant people within CIA are worried about not exasperating tempers, so as to avoid Turkey agreeing definitively with Russia irremediably against the United States.

The idea of some North American intelligence executives is also to push Turkey into reckless military adventures in Syria and, possibly, also in Libya – a distant area, but very much correlated with Syria – to eventually create a Turkish Vietnam and then leave Erdogan’s regime in the hands of the increasingly angry and impoverished Turkish crowds. A hope more than a strategic idea.

 A vast program- as De Gaulle would have said – but anything is possible, even the U.S. planners’ dreams, if you are in the Middle East.

 At this juncture, there is a key question. Can Assad alone control the stability of his Syria, after a victory which means, above all, the persistence of Russian protection over the old Ba’ath regime and also the inevitable support of the covert or non-covert military structures of Iran, which wants, above all, to create a stable terrestrial continuity towards the Lebanon and border with Israel, with its military and signal intelligence (SIGINT) stations?

 Currently – after having changed and made the strategic framework much more insecure, with an ineffective stability of the U.S. positions in Syria and Turkey’s definition of the agreement with Russia, as well as the strong permanence of the ever stabler Assad’s regime, in the rest of Syria – the Turkish forces have approximately 20,000 soldiers in the Idlib area.

 The deployment of Erdogan’s forces in Idlib includes his five special forces, which depend only on the Chief of Staff and not on the classic territorial chain of command of the Turkish Armed Forces. It also includes some armoured units, light infantry units, i.e. real commandos, and the 5th Brigade, specialized in paramilitary operations and mountain warfare.

 Hence nothing to do with a Military Police that deals with an agreement on the M-4 motorway line.

 The dozens of thousands Syrian or para-Syrian migrants, who want to push towards Europe, in the direction of Greece and then the “Balkan route”, are always supported by the Turkish Armed Forces themselves, who do not want civilians standing in the way between them, Assad’ Syria, Russia and the other players in the Syrian war, especially Iran.

 Clearly Turkey does not want even the United States. If anything, Erdogan wants the financial support of the E.U., which, as usual, is terrorized of the obvious result of a war it has recklessly supported.

 Hence, currently, the feeble agreement that Turkey and Russia reached in Sochi – which, indeed, served their most basic strategic interests – no longer holds, except for the wise malice of both statesmen.

 It has even been said that recently Russia has sought the support of the Emirates and of Saudi Arabia (currently it is more difficult, after the fall of OPEC+) so as to break the stalemate with Turkey, while it is known that none of the powerful countries of Jazeera, namely the Arabian Peninsula, likes the Turkish strategic behaviour.

 Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have begun to support, with money and weapons – the weapons that the new E.U. IRINI mission naively seeks at sea – the Libyan “rebels” of Cyrenaica, against the pro-Turk Tripolitanians, supported by the naivest part of the international community and, above all, by the Muslim Brotherhood that, instead, is not naive at all.

 Obviously, however, Syria’s final victory at Idlib would never be accepted by Turkey, which would probably react with a limited but very harsh counteroffensive, capable of turning the Idlib area not into a Turkish enclave, to be used as a bargaining chip with Syria, but into a real Turkish area.

 Furthermore, the Syrian economic crisis has not permitted an acceptable reconstruction in the areas of the Idlib region brought back to the Syrian regime or to Russia. This has also led to further revolts and provided induced support to the old jihadist networks that are fierce and still rich in liquidity.

 It is also possible that the great push of Syrian and para-Syrian migrants – of various ethnic origin and political nature – is not viewed too negatively by Russia, which could thus favour those ethnicist and right-wing forces which now permanently support Russian strategic goals in the now brain-dead Europe.

 Hence what should we do? Should we support the Idlib Strip as an area of permanence and support – with E.U. money – of the over three million additional migrants – something that is now physically impossible?

 Where could the E.U. money be found, in the midst of a COVID-19 financial emergency?

 Meanwhile, until the Idlib issue is solved, Assad’ Syrian regime is not stable and hence not capable of facing the great business of the country’s reconstruction, without the others’ strategic “teeth”.

Certainly – for what foreign policy agreements are worth – the Adana Agreement of 1998 still applies between Syria and Turkey. It dealt with the Province of Hatay, as well as the issue of water, essential for both countries, not to mention the Syrian recognition of the PKK as a “terrorist organization” and, therefore, the subsequent and immediate expulsion of the PKK leaders, especially Abdullah Ŏcalan, from Syria. 

This is something we Italians remember fairly well. Therefore, between 2004 and 2010, the relations between Turkey and Syria were excellent.

 The two countries also signed the beginning of a High Level Strategic Cooperation Council in September 2009, with an immediately subsequent free trade agreement between them.

 That agreement was immediately extended to the Lebanon and Jordan, besides the two first signatories – hence the old Levant Quartet. When the war, which had begun as the Syrian “Arab Spring”, became radicalized, and both global and regional elements entered Syria, Turkey changed its observation point, mainly with reference to the strong presence of Iranian and, in any case, Shi’ite forces organized by Iran.

 This was also connected to the proven substantial U.S. lack of interest in Syria, and above all its sole support for the various Kurdish political-military organizations – which, indeed, has never been the only one for the Kurds.

 Since the beginning of tensions in Syria in 2014 – especially thanks to the local organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, often connected at the time to the U.S. networks, as in Egypt – Turkey had clear and very simple goals in mind: the management of the inevitable humanitarian crisis, in which it was directly and inevitably interested; the fall of Assad’s regime; a proxy war against Iran; the elimination of Daesh, competing with the Turkey-manipulated jihadist organizations on the ground, and the final marginalization of the entire Kurdish area.

 Currently there are approximately 4 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. Therefore, Turkey’s goals are currently to stop further migrant flows, as well as to support those already there, and finally keep its very safe borders with Syria in view of avoiding further migrant flows.

 At that juncture, once the clash in Syria had started, Turkey saw both the Kurds and Daesh arrive at its borders.

 Later, in 2011, when the “Arab spring” broke out in Syria, Turkey explicitly advised Assad to start a radical reform of the Ba’athist regime in view of maintaining internal stability.

 Certainly, today, with the penetration of Russian and Iranian security apparata into Assad’s regime, the fall of Ba’ath and the Assad dynasty – a desire never hidden by Turkey – is much more difficult to achieve. Furthermore, Russia has an economic and oil agreement with Turkey that is worth the entire survival of the Turkish AKP regime.

 One of Turkey’s primary plan to topple Assad, and hence free Syria from Russia and Iran and turn it into a dépendance of Turkish geopolitics, was to try to unite all the forces opposing Assad into a single “front”.

 The Turkish support also applied to the Astana talks, where Turkey supported the opposition against Assad, including jihadists, and, above all, sought peace in Syria with a view to sending its 4 million migrants back to their Syrian homes and in the rest of the world.

From this viewpoint, we can better understand the Turkish operations Euphrates Shield in 2016 and Olive Branch in 2018, both designed to avoid the Daesh penetration into Turkey and the Kurds’ arrival in Ayn-el-Arab and Afrin.

 As already seen, however, the real punctum dolens of Turkey’s regional geopolitics is the possible “Shiazation” of Syria, while Turkey would like to have the entire Syria or, at least, its Sunni-majority parts, hegemonized by Turkish interests.

 The Turkish Forces’ and Intelligence Services’ penetration into Idlib has also this meaning: at first, we take our area of influence, then we will decide to negotiate with Bashar al Assad, but from a position of strength.

 It should be recalled that the first aspect of the 1979 revolution in Iran was the expansion of Islamic radicalism, which immediately spread to both Sunni and Shi’ite countries.

 The second strategy, which is currently still pursued by Iran, was instead pan-Shi’ism.

 After the predictably unfortunate “Arab Springs” that the United States invented to defuse the sword jihad by reactivating the militancy, including the religious one, with a bottom-up and rank-and-file approach, with the results we could well imagine even before, Iran no longer uses pan-Islamism, but only pan-Shi’ism.

 Since 1980, however, Turkey has carved out its geo-informative role of defender of the West against pan-Islamism and, above all, against the great Shi’ite insurgency organized by Iran, which has also strengthened the never well clarified relations between the AKP, Erdogan’s party, and the Muslim Brotherhood which, at the beginning of the “Arab Springs”, was also the primary instrument of the U.S. operations in the framework of the great change regime planned by Langley in the Arab-Islamic world.

 Certainly Iran has its very strong Shi’ite identity, which mobilizes and strongly motivates all its proxies, in Syria as in the rest of the world. Also Turkey, however – especially after Operation Olive Branch, has created its myth: a “democratic and pluralistic” Syria, i.e. without the Assad dynasty in power, but still maintaining the political and territorial unity of the Syrian Republic.

 In other words, Turkey still envisages the silent division into zones of influence, possibly favouring Russia, which maintains the TurkStream project, the bilateral gas pipeline leaving from Anapa, in the Russian region of Krasnodar, crossing the Black Sea and arriving at the Turkish station of Kiyikoi.

 A clearly strategic pipeline since it strengthens Russian-Turkish ties and hence favours Turkey’s substantial moving away from NATO. It also avoids Russia’s transit through the dangerous and unstable Ukraine, which will hence become more a problem for the West, which has opposed Russian operations in the region, than for Russia.

 Let us, however, analyse the current Turkish military operations in Syria. The Turkish military action began on October 9, 2019, with attacks on the Kurdish area of Tall Abyad and Sere Kaniye, which were carried out also thanks to the help of some jihadist groups connected with the MIT, the Turkish secret service.

 Still today, it is an area of Turkish hegemony, obtained in a territory previously controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by the Kurdish initiative and involving Christian (Assyrian) and Arab (Sunni) troops.

 Well before the SDF, however, much of the territory occupied by Turkey was previously held by the so-called Caliphate of Raqqa.

 Another Turkish goal was to militarily separate the Syrian Kurds – who are often mostly on the Syrian-Turkish North-Western border – from their fellow countrymen in Iraq and, all the more so, in Turkey.

 In addition, Erdogan’s Turkey plans to relocate at least 2-3 million Syrian refugees or refugees coming from Syria (who are the largest share) already present in Turkey.

 A solution that has already caused two problems. All migrants come from North-Western Syria and, hence, they are not homogeneous with the Turkish stability projects in the region. There is also the danger of giving room and bases for action to Turkey’s traditional enemies: the Syrian Democratic Forces; some remnants of the “Caliphate”, that, especially in its last phases, had close relations with the Turkish Intelligence Services; some Kurdish areas well armed from their supply lines, which go mainly from South-Eastern Syria to the whole Northern border.

 Just think that, in 2013, there were also confidential talks between the Chief of MIT and the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the leaders of all the Kurdish forces, in view of reaching a stable agreement. Those negotiations, however, were harshly disrupted by Turkey.

 In the meantime, the E.U. is obtusely undertaking to paying Turkey to stop migrants at the beginning of the “Balkan route”, which is, however, largely used both by Syrian migrants and by the majority migrant flows passing through Syria.

 Indeed, the E.U. support for all the U.S. and Franco-British democratist follies, aimed at bringing free elections and secular democratic systems throughout the Middle East, has been a unique case of strategic masochism, i.e. paying the same Turks who destabilize North-Western Syria and then asking Europe to pay the bill for what they have done precisely to the designated victims, namely the powerless Europeans.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Middle East

The Qatar World Cup: Soccer upsets, politics, and sensitive situations

Avatar photo

Published

on

Barely out of the starting blocks, the Qatar World Cup has already produced a fair share of upsets as well as politically and personally sensitive situations and incidents.

Qatar’s 2:0 loss to Ecuador in the tournament’s opening match will have reinforced critics’ conviction that the Gulf state should never have been awarded World Cup hosting rights, among other things, because of its alleged lack of a soccer legacy.

Leaving aside the merits of the allegation and Qatari disappointment, the jury remains out on what Qatar’s return on its massive investment in organising the World Cup will be regarding reputational capital.

For Qatar, the ultimate evaluation of the return will largely depend on how it manages the tournament and potential flare- and hick-ups as dissidents try to turn Iranian matches into venues of protest, activists seek to capitalise on the opportunity to campaign for their cause, and fans refuse to play to Qatari soft power objectives, let alone possible incidents of intoxication, rowdiness, and LGBT-related issues.

So far, the picture constitutes a mixed bag.

Addressing Iranian concerns, Qatar refused to accredit for the World Cup, Iran International, a Saudi-backed, London-based satellite television broadcaster, that the Islamic republic accuses of fomenting months-long anti-government protests that security forces have been unable to squash.

Similarly, to prevent matches from turning into platforms for protest, Qatar stopped Iranian fans from bringing Iran’s pre-revolutionary flag into the country’s first World Cup match against England.

The flag, dating from the time of the shah, toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution, is viewed as a symbol of protest against Iran’s theocratic government.

That didn’t halt fans holding up signs in the stadium demanding freedom in Iran and pictures of demonstrators killed by security forces.

However, there was little Qatar could do when the Iranian national team refused to sing the country’s national anthem at the beginning of the game.

“I would like to express my condolences to all bereaved families in Iran. They should know that we are with them. And we support them. And we sympathize with them regarding the conditions,” the team’s captain, Ehsan Hajsafi, told journalists hours before the match.

While Qatar’s state-run domestic broadcaster avoided showing female supporters with their hair uncovered in the stadium, Iranian state television interrupted its live broadcast as the Iranian and Ecuadorian anthems were played.

For weeks, footballers have signalled support for the protesters by not celebrating Iranian League goals, wearing black wristbands, and expressing support for the Iranian people without mentioning the protests to evade government retaliation.

Nevertheless, current and former players have been questioned by authorities, detained, or charged with “acting against national security.”

The refusal to sing the national anthem and the team’s embarrassing 6:2 loss to England fed the Iranian government’s worst fear that the World Cup would turn out to be a global platform for dissent rather than a moment of unifying national celebration.

The national team was emboldened by their manager, Carlos Queiroz, who, breaking with FIFA’s fictional separation of politics and sport, insisted that “players are free to protest as they would if they were from any other country as long as it conforms with the World Cup regulations and is in the spirit of the game.”

Overall, Iran has lost in more ways than just on the pitch.

At the start of the year Iran, which sits across the Gulf, had hoped to attract World Cup tourists like the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman, and proposed the crafting of a joint tourism plan with Qatar. Tehran even agreed to forgo the visa requirement for World Cup visitors.

That hope was dashed by the anti-government protests, the failure to revive the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran’s inability to complete necessary infrastructure on its Kish Island.

The match against England could prove to have been a cakewalk compared to potential friction when Iran meets the United States on the Qatari pitch on November 29 in what is likely to be one of, if not the most politically charged match of the World Cup.

Similarly, Arab fans, reflecting sentiments among some Qataris, made clear that the World Cup would not be a bridge-building event, at least not when it came to relations with Israel and Israelis.

Arabs largely refused to be interviewed by Israeli media. Footage circulating online showed two Saudi fans, a Qatari shopper, and three Lebanese fans walking away from Israeli reporters in a demonstration of the limitations of soccer as a vehicle to build bridges. In another incident, Palestinians chanted “go home” when approached by Israeli reporters.

Qatari media published some videos of sharp encounters between Arab fans, Qatari nationals, and visiting Israelis with the caption: “No to normalization.”

“Sure, most countries in the Arab world are heading towards normalisation – but that’s because most of them don’t have rulers who listen to their people,” said Saudi football fan and oil worker Khaled al-Omri, who travelled to Qatar to support the kingdom’s national team.

The fans’ refusal to engage with Israeli reporters dashed hopes that ten Israeli charter flights ferrying up to 20,000 fans from the Jewish state to the World Cup, the first ever between Tel Aviv and Doha, would herald a new milestone in the normalisation of Arab-Israeli relations following the 2020 establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

Qatar, like Saudi Arabia, has made the conversion of informal ties into formal relations conditional on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under FIFA rules, Qatar was obliged to grant entry to fans irrespective of whether the Gulf state recognizes the country issuing a supporter’s passport.

In line with the rules, authorities allowed Israeli channels to broadcast from Doha, but unlike other major foreign networks did not provide them with a formal studio.

Protest was not the preserve of Iranians and pro-Palestinian Arabs. Prominent Qataris made statement of their own by wearing a pro-Palestinian armband at the Germany-Japan match after being told that German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser would sport a One Love pro-LGBGT band.

Ironically, Ms. Faeser was sitting in the stadium’s VIP section next to FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who had just banned players from wearing the One Love band on the pitch in support of LGBT rights.

In response, Germany’s players covered their mouths for the team photo before their opener against Japan.

Mr. Infantino, unmoved by Ms. Faeser’s gesture, apparently saw no contradiction between his ban and FIFA’s opening days later of disciplinary proceedings against Ecuador over homophobic chanting by their fans in the match against Qatar.

Meanwhile, the Qataris had likely forgotten their loss in the euphoria sparked by Saudi Arabia’s 2:1 defeat of favourite Argentina 2:1 the first of two initial World Cup upsets.

“Looking forward to the Japan-Saudi final,” quipped Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer after Japan, in a second soccer upset, beat Germany 2:1.

The New York Times noted in a tweet that the Saudi upset put Argentinian player Lionel Messi, widely viewed as one of soccer history’s best players, in “a strange position” given his agreement to promote Saudi tourism and potentially the kingdom’s joint bid together with Egypt and Greece for the hosting of the 2030 World Cup.

Mr. Messi would potentially be campaigning against his home country, with Argentina planning a rival joint bid with Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile. So far, Spain, Portugal, and Ukraine are the only ones to announce their joint interest officially.

The tweet and a headline in The Athletic, a sports publication that was recently acquired by the Times that accused Mr. Messi of selling himself to the devil, sparked a furious tweet by Mohammed Alyahya, former editor-in-chief of Al Arabiya English.

Staggering racism. It implies Arabs are incompetent & can’t win. It accuses a Latino world hero of corruption. Messi is the greatest footballer today, wealthy & only concerned about legacy. But according to the NYT, he’s a venal traitor in a shady deal with rich Arabs. Shameful,” Mr. Alyahya said.

Contrasting the Saudi victory with the Iranian defeat, author Lee Smith opined:

“The people of the Middle East recognize a strong horse when they see one: That horse is clearly not Iran. By attempting to reenter the Iran deal, fill the regime’s war chests with billions of dollars, and legitimize its nuclear weapons program, the Biden administration is doing something even worse than backing sectarian tyrants who spread death and destruction. It’s backing losers.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Further Setbacks over Fragile Iran Nuclear Negotiations Following Death of Mahsa Amini

Published

on

image source: Tehran Times

Authors: T-Fai Yeung and K. H. Wong*

On September 13, 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian woman, was arrested by the religious morality police of Iran’s government in Tehran, the capital of Iran, for allegedly wearing a hijab that did not meet the standards established by the Iranian authoritarian regime. She died in hospital three days later. Once her death became known, there was public outrage because numerous Iranian people believed that her death was attributed to police brutality. More fundamentally, the Iranians have held numerous grievances due to the long-term oppression of the country’s government. Amini’s death has given rise to large-scale demonstrations in Iran.

Unsurprisingly, the Iranian regime has attempted to suppress the protests, while also accusing the United States and Israel of provoking unrest, with the aim of undermining Iran’s stability. Nonetheless, the official tough stance has yet to crackdown on the so-called “hijab protest”. Analyses suggest that this anti-government protest is different from previous protests in Iran, because it is large-scale and the participants are determined to push for political reform. Given that the Iranian government has failed to curb this civil unrest, some foreign media have suggested a potential government collapse.

However, similar speculations have appeared since then-US President Trump re-imposed US sanctions on Iran. However, it is difficult to judge how far the Iranian regime is from collapsing at this time. It is relatively safe to claim that the hijab protests will hinder negotiations between the West and Iran for the resumption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal.

Tensions between the West and Iran Have Been Unavoidable

In retrospect, the US, UK, and EU had hoped that the normalization of trade with Iran would be lucrative enough to end the development of the country’s nuclear weapons. However, with Trump at the helm, he unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and reactivated sanctions against the country on the grounds that the relevant agreement was full of loopholes, leaving the possibility of Iran developing its nuclear weapons secretly. Iran has reacted by increasing the production of enriched uranium in a high-profile manner, claiming that this breach of the agreement by the US is the main cause for its action.

It is certainly true that Joe Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 US presidential election and assumed office in 2021, has repeatedly shown his desire to re-negotiate with Iran regarding the nuclear deal. However, as some emphasize that Iran is getting closer to possessing nuclear weapons, it would be negligent for the West to re-join the agreement without adding any additional clause. Worse still, Iran’s rigged presidential election last year allowed Ebrahim Raisi (aka the “Butcher of Tehran”) to become president. This sent a signal to the West that the Iranian government has little intention to make compromise. As expected, subsequent negotiations have slowly continued.

It is perhaps true that there is no eternal enemy in international politics; but even if there are common interests, it does not mean that it will help much in narrowing the divergences between two sides. Soon after the West’s sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, the US allegedly wanted to reduce sanctions on Iran to ease the global energy crisis. However, the actual progress of this strategy was not as smooth as rumored. The nationwide hijab protests in Iran have made it even more difficult for the West to ignore Iran’s human rights abuses.

Notably, Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia in July this year was severely criticized because he had violated his promise of punishing Saudi for its killing of dissident journalist Khashoggi. If Biden made a tolerant gesture towards the Iran authoritarian regime amid the large-scale hijab protests, further criticism of the US president would be a certainty.

Additionally, Iran has recently been blamed for sending attack drones to support Russia’s war in Ukraine. Consequently, the West have been left with little choice but to maintain or even expand sanctions on Iran. Although the EU has not formally echoed the US sanctions against Iran, many European companies have already cut ties with Iran over concerns that they will be sanctioned for maintaining trade relations with Iran. It is therefore likely that relations between the West and Iran will further deteriorate, regardless of the EU’s position on sanctions against Iran.

The West Now Pay the Price for Downplaying Energy Independence in the Past

Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are three of the world’s major energy exporters, but now the West are going through an energy crisis. Furthermore, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and Russia announced earlier that they would cut oil production to protect their own interests. This move may further harm the West’s efforts to mitigate soaring oil prices. Arguably, the energy crisis in the West is the result of overconfidence in global trade liberalization and failure to address the importance of energy independence. Once the major authoritarian energy exporting countries reduce their supply of energy, the hasty response of the West will be like “digging a well when they are thirsty”. The Economist recently warned that Europe’s energy crisis is unlikely to end after this winter, because it is difficult to find alternative sources of energy in the short term.

The West must face its energy and economic crisis; this issue is why many conservatives have claimed that strongman rule has the potential to replace democratic politics. Unfortunately, this type of false dichotomy often misleads many people, and has the potential to push the world to an even more dangerous level.

*K. H. Wong has been a researcher at the Global Studies Institute Hong Kong since March 30, 2022. His commentary articles have appeared in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Linhe Zaobao (Singapore) and Ming Pao Daily News.

An earlier Chinese version of this article appeared in print on October 18, 2022 in Section B, Page 10 of Ming Pao Daily News. 

Continue Reading

Middle East

What Can Baku Expect from Netanyahu’s Return to Power?

Avatar photo

Published

on

Whenever Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in power, Azerbaijani-Israeli relations always moved in the right direction.  He realised  that Azerbaijan was very strategic for the free world, as a Caspian Sea nation rich in oil that borders the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia.  Indeed, 40% of Israel’s oil originates in Baku, the capital city of a nation that serves as Israel’s  shield against Iran, a country whose leadership butchers and tortures its own people while routinely chanting “death to America” and “death to Israel.”

Relations between Azerbaijan and its southern neighbor Iran have worsened at a time when Netanyahu, who was chosen for his harsh attitude towards Iran, is coming to power for the third time.  One of the most important results of the Second Karabakh War was that the masks were torn off. Of course, the number one friend and ally of Azerbaijan is Turkey. At the same time, during the war, the Azerbaijani state and people witnessed that Israel was a loyal friend and partner of Azerbaijan. Israel did not give the modern weapons it gave to Azerbaijan to another state. Indeed, these are the best examples of friendship and strategic partnership.

The Israeli-Azerbaijani friendship is based on such solid foundations that it has a pace of development regardless of who is in power in Israel. Nevertheless, in any case, one should not forget that Azerbaijani-Israeli relations have been developing especially vigorously during the time when Netanyahu was the prime minister.  Higher results were achieved in the issues of energy and military security, as well as military-technical cooperation. The victory of Netanyahu’s party in the elections can be assessed as a happy event for Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan-Israel relations will most likely rise to a new level, as there are serious grounds for this today. In the meantime, it can be stated that the foundation of Azerbaijan-Israel relations was mainly laid by Netanyahu, notwithstanding the relations between Israel and Azerbaijan have been positive during all Israeli governments.

Cooperation in the security and military fields has been at a high level, especially after the establishment of an Azerbaijani Tourism and Trade Office in Tel Aviv, with a new Azerbaijani Embassy soon to be opened. One cannot expect anything will change here. However, Netanyahu can come to an agreement with some countries around Iran and create a coalition against this state. And due to Iran’s behavior and foreign policy, the surrounding countries except Armenia have become unfriendly countries to the mullah  regime. For Israel now, an alliance with the countries around Iran is more important.  The US has not fully fulfilled Israel’s hopes in the case of Iran. There is an objective reason for this. Today’s US administration still hopes that it will be able to sign a nuclear agreement with Iran.  One can believe that if there is any military operation against Iran, it will affect Azerbaijan as well. Furthermore, now there exists a grounded euphoria in Azerbaijan that Iran will be divided and a whole Azerbaijan will be created.    

Considering this, the government of Israel this time must make Azerbaijan even closer to us and to do everything to make peace in this vital region, as well as to help them stop the extremism within their borders.   The recent arrests of Iranian spies in Azerbaijan are an important step that helps to weaken the Iranian axis in our region.   The establishment of an Azerbaijani Embassy in the State of Israel will be the next step, as it will show Tehran that their fear-mongering and hatred does not intimidate neither Jerusalem nor Baku.   United, Azerbaijan and Israel will stand together in union, working to halt Iran’s hegemony in the region under the alliance of the new Netanyahu-led government and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

I think Israel has an interest to make the Turkic areas and wherever they speak Turkic languages to be in an alliance with us. Creating an independent South Azerbaijan is of critical importance, as it will help to tear apart the mullah’s regime and bring peace and prosperity to our region. Another step that Netanyahu should take is to continue to improve the relationship with Turkey. During the last few months, Turkey has moved back in the right relationship with Israel.  Israel should use this in order to build an alliance against Iran among Turkic countries, who form a strong block in union against Tehran.       

On top of that, I think that Israel must help Azerbaijan to develop Karabakh and to give them different technologies to rebuild the area.  Israeli technology can help to make Karabakh arable and ripe for agriculture again, which will help to address the global grain crisis that was caused by the war in Ukraine.   Just as Azerbaijani oil is the solution to the oil crisis caused by the war with Ukraine, Azerbaijani grain can also be used to fight against the rapid inflation in grain prices caused by the shortages in such a basic staple of food, which is causing hunger among the poorer elements in many developing countries.

According to the World Food Program, “The world is facing a food crisis of unprecedented proportions, the largest in modern history. Millions are at risk of worsening hunger unless action is taken now to respond at scale to the drivers of this crisis: conflict, climate shocks and the threat of global recession. The interplay of these drivers is making life harder each day for the world’s most vulnerable and reversing recent development gains.  As many as 828 million people go to bed hungry every night. The number of those facing acute food insecurity has soared – from 135 million to 345 million – since 2019. A total of 49 million people in 49 countries are teetering on the edge of famine.”

Karabakh has the potential to produce enough grain to address this global crisis.   I know for I was there on two separate occasions.   But in order for that to be possible, Israel must help them to find a solution to the landmine problem, which has left large areas of Karabakh uninhabitable for close to thirty years.   But Israeli robots can easily detect and eliminate these mines even in the absence of landmine maps, which will enable the area to be used for agriculture on a massive scale, especially if used in unison with Israeli agricultural technologies that can help the soil be cleaned up and replenished while overall reducing pollution in the area.  Already, an Israeli-Italian dairy farm is operating in Karabakh and Israel should do more to help improve the agricultural outputs in the region.  

Israel must help Azerbaijan with everything for combatting Iran, the enemy of all the free world which is willing to destroy Azerbaijan just as much as it wishes to destroy us.  This is because Iran sees a majority Shia Muslim country that champions multiculturalism, religious tolerance and women’s rights as a threat to its very existence in the region.  We must give the Azerbaijanis what is necessary in cyber security, satellite, etc. and give them all of the support, so that Tehran and its proxies can be defeated once and for all.    

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Economy13 mins ago

Why the burden on business women to ‘do it all’ must stop

Glorifying multi-tasking by women is something we are all guilty of – across the globe we celebrate women who have...

Energy2 hours ago

Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program

In 2014, China deployed a large-scale initiative named as Solar Energy Poverty Alleviation Program (SEPAP) to systematically alleviate poverty in...

Europe5 hours ago

Significance of first EU-Bangladesh political dialogue

The European Union (EU) and Bangladesh held their first “political dialogue” on Thursday (November 24) in Dhaka to “elevate” their...

Energy7 hours ago

USA-KSA Energy War and Global Energy Crisis

The response of the USA to OPEC and its partner’s plan to reduce output by two million barrels per day...

Eastern Europe12 hours ago

Is a Marshall Plan for Ukraine possible?

Reflecting on Ukraine’s future beyond the current conflict, many politicians and experts speculate about the expediency of a new Marshall...

International Law16 hours ago

Why International Institutions Survive: An Afterword to the G20 Summit

We, of course, are extremely critical of the very idea of global institutions and the prospects for their survival amid the emergence of a qualitatively...

Terrorism Terrorism
Defense18 hours ago

America Produces Biological Weapons; Does Russia? Does China?

On November 26th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US ‘military biological activities’ a threat to the world – Russia”, and reported...

Trending