Category Archives: International Affairs

Current Affairs & GEO – politics of Iran

Jun 7 2011

German – US relations on the rocks?

Minutes ago President Obama and Chancellor Merkel held a press conference at the Whitehouse.  While it was greatly anticipated that the two leaders would talk about strategic differences in approach with regards to Europe’s financial crisis and on Middle East affairs, the two leaders opened their remarks with high praise and admiration for one another.

The President, while calling the Chancellor by her first name on a number of occasions during his talk, made reference to the two countries strong trade ties and collaboration in industry while at the same time calling on Germany’s need to show greater leadership in European matters during these challenging times. 

Likewise, the Chancellor reciprocated the high praise by giving credit to the United States for its support of  Germany after the Cold war stating that, “I would not be here today had it not been for US leadership”.   

While on the surface the two leaders choreographed the press conference well, behind closed doors it is no secret that the Chancellor has a very different approach to both the financial crisis in Europe and on matters of German – Middle East relations.

On matters of EU financial control,

The Chancellor firmly believes that many of the European countries in a state of crisis are fiscally undisciplined and lack the labor and tax laws that would make them productive and not to mention competitive in today’s global market place.  As such in her view, any form of handout “stimulus” would be a disincentive to the political establishment of such countries to chance course by taking corrective measures.  This is clearly in contrast to the American position that is more interventionist.   

On matters of German – Middle East relationship

It is no secret that for decades Germany has enjoyed a special relationship with countries in the Middle East, namely Iran, going as far back as the days of Reza Shah (1930s) who used the Germans as a leverage against Russian and British influence in Iran.  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Reza Shahs son, continued the relationship from 1945 to 1979, paving the way for many German companies such as Linde, BASF, Lurgi, Krupp, Siemens, ZF Friedrichshafen, Mercedes, Volkswagen and MAN to enter the lucrative Iranian market.   

But what made this relationship even more exclusive was what happened after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the overthrow of the Shah, who was considered a US ally. 

From 1979 to this day most Western countries who were considered US allies, including the US, were shutout of the Iranian market except for Germany and in the absence of any serious rival this bilateral relationship developed into a multibillion dollar one way German export to Iran business relationship.

Knowing full well what endorsing sanctions on Iran would do to Germany and German companies who rely on this trade to keep their businesses profitable and their staff employed, the Chancellor’s position is difficult.  On the one hand she does not want to lose the relationship her country has with the United States while on the other hand the Iran market is a vital German economic interest.   

On matters of the Palestinians right to statehood Germany has made it clear that it support a two state solution but it has also grown weary of Israel’s continued violations and unauthorized land grab of Palestinian territories.  Furthermore, in light of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech a few weeks ago in Congress denouncing any resumption of talks based on the 1967 boards the Germans have voiced concern over Israel’s genuine intentions.

In my view, and in light of Germany’s strategic interests in Iran, Germany will use its Palestinian card to appease the US and Israel at the United Nations should the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood and in doing so convince the Americans to back off from calling for further sanctions on Iran. 

The fact of the matter is that 40% of Iran’s trade balance comes from its relationship with Europe of which 29% is with Germany. 

In February of 2006, the President of the German-Iranian Chamber of Commerce in Tehran, Michael Tockuss said “some two thirds of Iranian industry relies on German engineering products and spare parts” and not to mention that the value of trade between Tehran and Berlin has increased to nearly 4.7 billion Euros in 2010.  This translates into 50,000 German jobs who rely on strong German – Iran relations and the Chancellor know this.

May 24 2011

Netanyahu makes the case why under his leadership Israel will never agree to PEACE

Hours ago Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave what could only be described as a chummy speech to a United States congress that looked more like a pro-Israel fraternity of men and women oblivious to the realities of a 60 year old conflict in the Middle East.

Rather than outlining Israel’s position of compromise and expressing his interest for a lasting peace and rapprochement with the Palestine leadership and with the greater Palestinian people, the Arab world, and in essence with the greater Middle East, Netanyahu added flames to an already volatile fire that could ultimately engulf the entire Middle East region into war. 

His forward leaning demeanor at the podium, condescending and at times patronizing tone of voice, and heavy-handed speech said it loud and clear, Israel under his watch will never accept peace with the Palestinians. Sadly, congress ate it up by giving him 26 standing ovations each time he laid out a demand that incorporated the following points:

A)      Israel will not go back to the, newly defined, “indefensible” 1967 board,
B)      All disputed land claims must be negotiated, meaning Israel will have to agree to it,
C)      Settlements will not be dismantled on occupied Palestinian territory,
D)     Palestinian refugees will not have a right of return to their homeland but in return will be settled in the “new” generously offered Palestinian land given to them by the Israeli’s,
E)      Israel will require more land as it prepares for future growth and development,
F)      Jerusalem will be the undivided capital of Israel,
G)     Fatah must break ties with Hamas for any talks to resume,
H)     In the interest of security, Palestine must become a demilitarized zone while Israel can arm itself with the latest military technology provided by the United States. And
I)        Any attempt by the Palestinians to unilaterally declare a state of Palestine should be vetoed by the United States at the United Nations.  Meaning Israel will not accept any international covenant that gives legitimacy to the Palestinian people.

It was clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu had come to the United States to play hardball, to stand his ground and in some sense to take Barak Obama to school on matters of Middle East real politik. 

His provocative speech while hitting a nerve  around the world served a strategic purpose and that was to forewarn the American center of power that they should expect rocky roads ahead, even a war that could pull Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and other Arab countries that have recently gone through an Arab awakening into the mix.

When all was said and done, Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked congress for their continuous support of Israel and for their one-sided and generous support. 

Minutes after his speech reaction from the Palestinian authority made it clear that they had no intention of furthering talks with Netanyahu and his administration under the current circumstances and see Netanyahu for what he really is, an impediment to peace not only between Israel and the Palestinians but an impediment to peace and security in the greater Middle East.

May 22 2011

President Obama does a U turn on his Middle East policy at AIPAC

Minutes ago at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), President Obama gave a warm and fuzzy speech to a crowd that was impatiently waiting to get clarification on what the President meant when he said that Israel had to draw its lines based on the 1967 boarders with Palestine.

The President didn’t disappoint by doing a U turn on his Middle East policy speech that was delivered only two days prior where he advocated for the resumption of Middle East peace talks and for the creation of a two state solution based on the 1967 boarders.

Addressing the Washington based pro Israeli lobby the president outlined America’s unwavering support for Israel by outlining the nations ongoing and steadfast military and diplomatic support for Israel thus making it clear that Israel remains a strategic interest of the United States in the Middle East and that the relationship between the two countries was “Ironclad”.

While reaffirming his commitment to Israel he also gently reminding the audience that the world had indeed changed and that through technological advancements of the 21st century protecting Israel and guaranteeing its security from a far had become a more challenging proposition, not to mention a costly one to the American tax payer.

Nevertheless to clear any ambiguity on what he meant during his Middle East policy speech two days prior, President Obama elaborated on “the 1967 boarders and mutually agreed land swap” as the basis for the resumption of peace talks between the Israeli’s and the Palestinians. The President made reference that any land deal to be made will have to be done between the parties, meaning between hard right Netanyahu on the Israeli side and a joint Hamas and Fatah on the Palestinian side.

Is this the American position for brokering a Middle East deal based on the “new realities” on the ground, seriously?

In my view we are back to square on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and while on the surface the Presidents talk sounded rosy, beneath the surface rough waters are ahead but with one difference, today the people of the Middle East are of a new generation that are not only pushing for stability in the region but more importantly are demanding a more balanced leadership on the part of the United States.  Todays generation of young Arabs expect the United States, this beacon of freedom and democracy and symbol of tolerance and advocate of universal human rights  to be a genuine peace maker.

Furthermore, it must be said that with the sweeping changes taking place in the Middle East, America can no longer afford to support dictatorships in the region as a means to guarantee security for Israel.  With the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, the geo-politics of the region has significantly changed making Israel’s position even harder to sustain if it is unwilling to make peace.

Therefore, to bring about long-lasting peace and stability in the region, America must play a balanced role between the two sides and before the international community. The alternative to this position will be a Middle East backlash against America and its ally, Israel with global implications and America can not afford to lose face in these challenging times ahead.

Mar 5 2011

we are in times of a moral dilemma, yet again …

There are moments in our lives, and they are few, where our humanity comes face to face with a moral dilemma that challenges our soul, as individuals and as a people.

In 1940 during World War II humanity was challenged in Auschwitz. In Africa we faced a dilemma with the genocide in Sierra Leone, in Asia the massacre in Burma tested us, and today we face a new dilemma, the radicalization of the Middle East with an ideology that if left unaccounted could very well lead to the spread of a political system and a way of life that is at odds with the very nature of what it means to be born free.

And as we face this new dilemma we have one of two choices. Either we can be indifferent and stay silent in fear of persecution, ridicule or involvement beyond our comfort zone, or alternatively, we can stand on principles, show moral indignation and become engaged.

Having said that, taking on such a challenge often comes at a price but it is only in such circumstances that we realize who we are as individuals and what we value as a people.

And so it is needless to say that the natural state of (wo)man is to live in freedom from tyranny and oppression and with all the legal and moral rights on our side it is our duty to face such a challenge head on before it is too late.

Feb 2 2011

US foreign policy towards the Middle East and North Africa is dead wrong, once again

In 1979 the Carter administration sent General Heiser to Iran telling the Shah it was time to pack up and leave Iran. That bad advice and the subsequent US support for Khomeini eventually brought US / Iran relations to a halt.

Today, the Obama administration has sent Frank Wisner to Egypt to send the same message to President Mubarak.

Can someone take out the US foreign policy play book of 1979 and flip through its pages. I did and I know the ending because I lived through it, and it aint pretty.

President Obama is sending the wrong message to Egyptians and to Mubarak, and with extremists waiting in the wings, it will only destabilize the country to the point of no return.

The encouraging message for President Mubarak on the part of the US administration would be to help him organize a transition government, lay the framework for political parties to emerge and institutionalize democratic rule.

What Egyptians want is political stability, the right to self-determination and ultimately to have a country that is economically vibrant. Egyptians no longer want to be at the mercy of US $1.5 billion dollars a year in financial assistance from the US. They want a different kind of relationship with the US that is amicable and mutually beneficial.

Furthermore, and sticking to US foreign policy, it is absolutely irresponsible to stand on the sidelines and watch Egypt go from one form of dictatorship to another and its certainly nothing for the US (an ally of Egypt) to be proud of, as was the case in Iran in 1979. The US administration should be wary not to repeat plays that lead to major historic fumbles.

Oct 2 2010

3 Oil companies tell U.S. we still have business in Iran

European oil majors resisted pressure from the United States to abandon all Iranian activities, saying they would continue buying Iranian crude and exit the country only upon expiry of existing contracts.

* Total still purchasing Iranian crude

* Statoil still providing technical assistance on gas field

* ENI says to exit Iran upon contracts expiry

* Shell says purchases of Iranian crude still legal

Sep 27 2010

Israel says no to peace talks by resuming to build settlements on occupied land

Now that the moratorium on settlement freeze has been lifted by the Netanyahu government, and early this morning, a mad dash to lay cement for a community center in occupied West Bank became grounds for a photo op published and broadcast on every news paper and tv station across the middle east, I was reminded of King Abdulla of Jordan’s words on American TV a few days ago when he said, if the issue of settlement is taken off the table we can expect a war by the end of this year”.

In my view what King Abdulla was trying to say is that the issue of settlement is so intricate to the Palestinian position that without it all hopes of peace in this 60+ year conflict will be in vein. Infact, what the moratorium did was give credibility to the Palestinian Authority and Mahmood Abbas that without it the leadership is now in a state of disarray.  This seemingly soft blow has not only wounded the peace process but more importantly it has created an opening for extremist elements both from within the Palestinian ranks as well as those who can influence the resistance from abroad to push for defiance against the peace process.

And so I would argue that this move on the part of the Israeli’s is a further act of aggression and an invitation to war. A war that will inevitably pull all the stakeholders who have invested in this conflict for 30 years, and by that, I am referring to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon & Iran into the mix.  The Saudi’s will sit this one out and in doing so will forever demonstrate their weak position as a power broker in the Middle East region as their role is more economic than political vis-à-vis their relationship with the United States.

So now it all comes down to the question of when and not if this war will take place and at what scale. When will Israel instigate this war with a much anticipated attack on Iran and how far will the US go in supporting its ally.

In my view if war breaks out, the United States will have no choice but to back Israel and the nature of engagement will have to be a massive offensive attack on Iran, Southern Lebanon (Hezbollah Stronghold), and Gaza as a means to neutralize a counter attack. Will it work?

Well, if Iraq is any indication of American adventurism and military success, the answer is no but what is more likely in such a turn of event is the escalation of a long drawn out and bloody regional war that could take on a new dimension, WW3.

But if I could predict the future this well I would have spent the better part of my time picking the winning numbers in a US $10,000,000 lottery.  Time will tell.