Iran Overview: Striking Poses from Sanctions to Cyber-War to "Terrorism"

We closed last night by noting a couple of postures from the Iranian Government over its nuclear programme and supposed economic strength.

So while we look towards analysis of the significant developments in the political situation, we catch up this morning by noting some other poses and threats, beginning outside Iran.

US and Europe: We're Going to Get You

Following the UN resolution for tougher sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme, the Obama Administration has made the first public play of what it supposedly means. It has expanded US sanctions on Iran, imposing penalties on more than three dozen additional companies and individuals.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the new penalties were aimed at those who were helping Iran develop its nuclear and missile porgrammes and evade international sanctions.



"In the coming weeks we will continue to increase the financial pressure on Iran," Geithner said. "We will continuee to target Iran's support for terrorist organizations."

European Union governments have joined in with a draft statement, to be discussed at a summit today, that would not only enforce the UN sanctions by restricting "dual use” goods with potential military applications and imposing additional curbs on Iranian banks and shipping but also go further, targeting Iran’s oil and gas industries.

European penalties would affect “key sectors of the gas and oil industry with prohibition of new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies, equipment and services.”

Iran: We're Coming to Get You (on the Web)

Meanwhile in Tehran, Iranian officials were issuing yet another warning that they would most definitely catch anyone who dared use the Internet to oppose the regime.

Iran police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam said a new "internet police" force was being created to "identify threats and remove them". The agency would be up and running "within the next couple of months," the security chief said, to deal with the "unique and serious threats are felt by users and the society" from the "relatively new" Internet. Ahmadi-Moghaddam continued, "Identifying these threats and removing them and passing new laws applicable in this space is part of an effort to prevent any harm."

The police chief's statement followed repeated declarations by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps of its Internet surveillance and sabotage operations to crush dissent.

"Don't Try and Get Us" --- Foreigners and Terrorists, Chapter 83

Iran, amidst more arrests before and after the first anniversary of the election, played up the allegation of foreign support of those seeking "regime change" by calling in the British Ambassador. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that the message was, "The Islamic Republic of Iran demands a serious inquiry by the British government into this issue and a report of its findings."

The summoning of the Ambassador followed a Tuesday proclamation by Minister of Intelligence Heydar Moslehi that Iranian forces had broken up a plot to bomb Tehran squares on 12 June: ""Two terrorist teams of hypocrites [the People's Mojahedin of Iran] were identified and their key members were arrested."

Turkey Analysis: Which Way is Ankara Heading? (Yenidunya)

There seems to be a lot of fuss right now about whether Turkey is "turning its face towards the East".

The query, often simplistic, arises from a number of development. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu is pursuing a "Zero Problem with Neighbours" policy based on dialogue, various economic agreements, and the lifting of visa requirement. The policy includes a close relationship with both Syria and Iran.

This policy has been part of the uranium swap deal with Iran, dismissed by the West; the friction with Israel, from the "low chair" crisis up tothe  nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara in the Freedom Flotilla; warming relations with Russia, crowned with a nuclear settlement; and the veto of sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council.



Israeli officials reiterated, following the most recent crisis in high waters, that they view the region separated into two opposite camps. There are "moderates" such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine (West Bank), Jordan, and Israel, There are "extremists" such as Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and (Palestine) Gaza. Israel asks: which will Turkey choose?

That blunt enquiry has been accompanied by some incredibly naive arguments, lacking an apparent notion of the basic principles of international relations. Nuh Yilmaz wrote in Foreign Policy magazine:

"All options are on the table” is the best phrase to describe how Turkey feels about Israel’s attack on humanitarian aid flotilla carrying more than 600 activists from 32 countries... Israel will, most likely, no longer be seen as a friendly state nor an ally, but will be treated as a rogue state by Turkey.

When I say Turkey will imply that “all options are on the table,” I do not mean that Turkey will wage a war against Israel. However, more dangerously, Israel will be seen as a state against which one should protect itself and should consider any possible action because of its unlawful and rogue character.

Others placed Ankara's "adventurism" at the centre of Turkish-American relations. Steven A. Cook of Foreign Policy argued that Turkey had not only shifted its axis but had dared to a challenge the US:

It is hard to admit, but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors -- especially in the Middle East. This is the logical result of profound shifts in Turkish foreign and domestic politics and changes in the international system.

Some tried to find a formula for Turkey's "shift". On Thursday, Turkish daily Hurriyet asked whether there would be a "Middle East Union" under Turkey's leadership in the future. This would build on a joint declaration signed among Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, seeking to lift visas and increase the level of cooperation in the fields of energy, health, agriculture, trade and customs.

Let me be blunt with you and with those who are wringing their hands. There has been no change in Turkey's axis.

Ankara's ultimate destination is still full membership in the European Union. Turkey's efforts and regional diplomatic initiatives are a part of its economic development and a part of its struggle to turn into a "strategic" mid-power which can help (re)shape the region.

The tension between a mid-power in Ankara and an American strategic partner --- a Middle East "spearhead" --- in Israel is the outcome of a power struggle between two allies at a time when the latter is under pressures and the benefits of "direct friendly support" of Washington are being seriously being questioned, inside and outside the US. The perception arises that Turkey is trying to fill the space Israel has left/will be forced to leave.

In the context of Turkey's economic boom and diplomatic manoeuvres to increase its credibility in the region, the  complicating factor is that its part to the European Union is currently blocked. Out of 34 chapters to be confirmed to accept Turkey as a part of the Union, only 12 chapters have been addressed so far. Of the other 22, 17 are being blocked by other countries --- eight alone by Cyprus.

The lesson to take from this dead end is crystal-clear: without political concessions on Cyprus and the Aegean Sea, there will be no European Union in the future for Turkey. So Ankara is not only  trying to gain time by looking to its back garden but also trying to knock on Europe's door with an increased credibility.

At the end of the day, Ankara's manoeuvres are not a new invention but the reflection of an active political agenda. As the president of the Washington-based American-Turkish Council, retired Ambassador James Holmes, said, "Turkey is expanding its interests, rather than isolating itself."

The current international alignments are suitable to Turkey's interests, since Washington needs Ankara more than other countries. That is not because of the political swamp in Afghanistan and Pakistan but also because of the ongoing diplomatic track with Iran and Syria, in the aftermath of Bush the Junior's imperial policies and Israel's perceived aggression in the region. Indeed, engagement and diplomacy is preferable to Washington rather than confrontations that could dynamite Obama's  "change", slapping aside unclenched fists and preventing a settlement between Israel and Ramallah.

There are limits to this political agenda. Although Ankara is ready with an economic surplus to deliver to its neighbours, it has not solved its own problems.

The weakest chain of the "Zero Problem" policy rattled in Turkey's relations with Armenia. Ankara couldn't break through long-standing fearsin the face of threats over energy supplies from the "little brother" Azerbaijan.

And, within Turkey, thousands of Kurdish children are in prisons and more officials of the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) are arrested. Indeed, the war with the Kurdish separatist group PKK is accelerating day-by-day since the Erdogan Government see the Kurdish political movement as a "rival".

And, of course, there are always the Armenian "genocide" issue and the Cyprus problem...

Another limit is Israel . West Jerusalem still means more than a regional power to Washington, remaining and a "friend" and a nuclear "democratic" power. Indeed, Washington sorted out the most recent Flotilla problem and gave a green light to Tel Aviv for an internal inquiry into the violence on the Mavi Marmara. Israel is not discredited in the eyes of Washington just because of a few days, not when military/intelligence relations are indispensable for both sides.

Still, if Ankara can show progress in its Kurdish and Cyprus issues in the near future along with continuing diplomacy advances in the region and a move back from blunter discourse towards Israel, it can continue increasing both its credibility to use as leverage against the EU and to promote its strategic importance to Washington.

Gaza Flotilla Analysis: US Official Position "My Israel, Right or Wrong" (Yenidunya)

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that "the situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable". However, when she turned from the "humanitarian side" of the issue, she emphasised: "Israel’s legitimate security needs must be met."

Translated: We are sorry for some Gazans who are suffering from the blockade but Israel needs to continue its struggle against Hamas and we do support this cause.

Gaza Flotilla LiveBlog (3 June): Pressure on Israel Grows

(Clinton also did not emphasize the need of an international investigation. On Tuesday, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, was offered an investigation led by an "international" judge as a chair with a US representative as an observer. West Jerusalem has not responded.)


On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden, appearing on the US Public Broadcasting Service, put all the blame on Hamas and said, "I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest". As for the enquiry, he opened the door for West Jerusalem, "Well, an investigation run by the Israelis, but we're open to international participation..."

Here is a part of the transcript of Biden's interview:

Charlie Rose: Prime Minister Netanyahu was scheduled to come to Washington. He did not. He went back to Israel. There is a blockade. Should they end the blockade in lieu of what's happened here?

Joe Biden: I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel's need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza. Let me explain that very briefly. Sometimes, because we deal so much at least which you know so much about, we have to remember how we got here. Remember, it was Ehud Barak who decided to pull all Iraqi troops --- I mean, excuse me, all Iraqi --- all Israeli troops out of Gaza. He did that back in '06.

Then there was an election, an election for their Parliament with a president named Mahmoud Abbas who in fact was the successor of [Yasser] Arafat in the Fatah [Party]. That produced a majority of members of the Parliament, which was the West Bank and Gaza, of Hamas.

The international community, the so-called Quartet; the United States, Europe, Russia, and the U.N., said, "Look, in order for you to be part of that government, you have to agree to four conditions. One, you'll abide by previous agreements that have been made by the government of --- by the Palestinians. Two, you are going to renounce terror. Three, you're going to recognize Israel, and basically that you have to accept” --- and here's what happened. They then got in a fight among themselves. They physically took over by force of arms, killed members of the existing government, exile them, took over and started firing rockets into Israel. Over 3,000 went in last year.

And as we put pressure, and the world put pressure on Israel to let material go into Gaza to help those people who are suffering, the ordinary Palestinians there, what happened? Hamas would confiscate it, put it in a warehouse, sell it, they were -- so the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government with the Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up.

And so I mean again, look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not and the -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know --- they're at war with Hamas --- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. And up to now,

Charlie, what's happened? They've said, "Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship --- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza." So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, "I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight --- 3,000 rockets on my people." Now, the one thing we have to do is not forget the plight of these Palestinians there, not Hamas, the --- they're in bad shape. So we have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them to get building materials in, glass....

Charlie Rose: That's what they're trying to bring in, building materials.

Joe Biden: Yes, we know that, but they could have easily brought it in here and we'd get it through. And so now the question is what do we do? Well, we had made it clear, the President of the United States has spoken three times, yesterday with Bibi, or the day before yesterday, he's spoken once yesterday with a guy that I have spent a fair amount of time with, with Prime Minister Erdogan in Turkey; the Turks, we passed a resolution in the U.N. saying we need a transparent and open investigation of what happened. It looks like things are ---

Charlie Rose: International investigation ---

Joe Biden: Well, an investigation run by the Israelis, but we're open to international participation, just like the investigation run on the sunken sub in -- off the coast of Korea. That was run by South Korea, but the international community joined in that investigation. And so that is very possible here as well. I might add by the way for all those who say the Israelis, you know, you know, you can't trust them, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled today that every one of the people on those ships had to be released immediately, immediately.

Charlie Rose: So what's the ---

Joe Biden: It's a rule of law. It works.

Charlie Rose: I said it was my last question, so I'll make it my last question then. So are you saying that the relationship between Israel and the United States is okay, that there are ---

Joe Biden: It's more than okay. Look, we always have had disagreements tactically with the Israeli government, but when I was in Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I held a press conference before all the flap about a new settlement, etc, and ---

Charlie Rose: Right, yeah, yeah. Exactly, oh, the President got very upset about that because of what he did while you were in the country. I mean, that was the ---

Joe Biden: That's true but here's the point. We stood there at that press conference I'm making a major speech at the University of Tel Aviv, major meaning laying out U.S. policy, and Bibi pointed out that no administration in history has been as up-front and supportive of Israel's security as this administration. We've done everything from provide missile defense. We've made sure they've maintained their qualitative edge. There's a new program they call Iron Dome that we're helping fund for them to be able to protect themselves. We have joint maneuvers. They've never been closer on the strategic side with Israel than today.