petroleumworld

Petroleumworld`s
Opinion Forum:
viewpoints on issues in energy, geopolitics and civilization

Sunday´s
Opinion

MEES: Middle East's Political Comments

By Charles Snow

The rhetoric in Iran’s post-election confrontation has escalated sharply ahead of the 11 February anniversary of the Islamic revolution. In Iraq the dispute over the disqualification of candidates in the parliamentary elections next month remains unresolved. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that Iran is ready to send its low-grade uranium abroad for further processing has been given a skeptical reception in the west. Palestinian leader Mahmud ‘Abbas and Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak see eye to eye on the undesirability of a one-state solution. The US has named a new ambassador to Syria.

Rhetoric Escalates In Iran

As the 11 February anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution approaches, both the reformist opposition and the hardline defenders of the status quo in the wake of the contested June presidential elections are escalating their rhetorical assaults on each other to levels that suggest that some sort of confrontation may be imminent. Opposition leader (and defeated presidential candidate) Mir Hossein Mousavi said in an interview posted on his website on 2 February that last week’s execution of two participants in the unrest that followed the election was aimed at “terrifying people” into submission and that “the majority of people believed in the beginning of the revolution that the roots of dictatorship and despotism were abolished. I was one of them. But now I don’t have the same beliefs. You can still find the elements and roots that lead to dictatorship.” Even more damagingly, he added that “dictatorship in the name of religion is the worst kind. The most evident manifestation of a continued tyrannical attitude is the abuse of parliament and judiciary. Filling the prisons and brutally killing protestors show that the roots of dictatorship remain from the monarchist era. I don’t believe the revolution achieved its goals.”

On the other side of the confrontation, Judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi threatened to go beyond rhetoric in the campaign to suppress protests when he said on 2 February that “the two men executed and another nine who will soon be executed were definitely arrested in recent riots and each was linked with counter-revolutionary movements.” And Tehran Revolutionary Guard commander Gen Hossein Hamedani gave similarly short shrift to anyone opposing the authorities, saying that “anyone breaking ranks with the Iranian people will be considered an agent of foreigners. Any voice other than the voice of the Islamic revolution will be pushed aside.”

Interestingly enough, it was the head of the US Central Command, Gen David Petraeus, who on 3 February offered a perceptive analysis of Iran’s political evolution since last June -and one that more or less coincides with Mr Mousavi’s. Gen Petraeus told Reuters that the “big winner” in the disputed election has been the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, and that Iran “has gone from I think a theocracy that had democratic elements in a narrow spectrum…to a government that is the result of a hijacked election and a regime that is kept in power by security services to a vastly greater extent than has ever been the case before.”

Row Over JAC Ban Threatens Iraqi Election

For a brief moment, there was an almost palpable sense of relief in Washington on 3 February after Iraq’s High Election Commission (HEC) overturned the 14 January decision by the Justice and Accountability Commission (JAC) – the body in charge of post-Saddam de-Ba’thification – to disqualify some 500 candidates in the 7 March parliamentary elections, even if the ruling was somewhat qualified. (Winning candidates would not be able to assume office until vetted by the JAC.) However, the chairman of the JAC, ‘Ali Faisal al-Lami, was quick to cry foul and to point the finger at the Americans in general – who want to avoid a Sunni boycott of the elections at all costs – and Vice President Joe Biden, who made an unscheduled visit to Baghdad on 23 January, in particular, saying that “the Americans obviously still interfere in all Iraqi institutions…for the past two days I saw American embassy officials inside the appeal court and they put pressure on. This is the direct result of Joe Biden.” That might be dismissed as sour grapes, but when on 4 February government spokesman ‘Ali al-Dabbagh declared that “postponing the implementation of the law of the JAC until after the election is illegal and unconstitutional,” and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called an extraordinary session of parliament on 7 February to discuss the dispute, it looked as if the dispute over the JAC’s actions could develop into a confrontation between Mr Maliki and his Shi’a allies in the Iraqi National Alliance (formerly the United Iraqi Alliance) and their Sunni and secular opponents that could threaten the legitimacy of the elections, and with it American plans to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Ahmadinejad: “No Problem” Sending Uranium Abroad

Bearing in mind that last November Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki stated flatly that “surely we will not send our 3.5% fuel abroad” for further enrichment, as proposed by the negotiators for the P5+1 (the US, UK, China, Russia, France and Germany), it was on the face of it a volte-face when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on 2 February that “we have no problem sending our enriched uranium abroad. We say: we will give you our 3.5% enriched uranium and will get the fuel. It may take 4 to 5 months until we get the fuel.” However, things are never that simple when negotiations on Iran’s nuclear activities are concerned, and the sceptical reaction in the west to Mr Ahmadinejad’s apparent change of mind was summed up by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who said on 3 February that “we have to see whether Iran actually takes up the offer to enrich uranium abroad. One speech does not necessarily mean it will take further steps.” And if Iran does not take further steps, it looks as if the French are leading the charge as far as further UN and/or EU sanctions are concerned. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon warned on 3 February that “the Iranian government has not wanted to accept our offer of dialogue. It has instead rushed forward headlong. So the moment has come to act. I think it’s not too late to use the political process to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear military capacity, but I acknowledge that time is pressing. We are going to seek the adoption of a new resolution at the UN incorporating strong sanctions, and the EU must also accept its responsibilities.” However, as far as the UN is concerned the French face one major obstacle in the form of Chinese opposition to further sanctions (which may well be stiffened by the row with Washington over US arms sales to Taiwan). Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told reporters in Paris on 4 February that Peking wanted to see more direct talks between Iran and the P5+1 and that “to talk of sanctions at the moment will complicate the situation and might stand in the way of finding a diplomatic solution.”

Barak And ‘Abbas See Eye To Eye

It does not happen very often, but Palestinian President Mahmud ‘Abbas and Israeli Defense Minister and Labour party leader Ehud Barak have both come out against Israel’s current policies in the occupied territories and in favor of a two-state solution to the conflict over Palestine. Mr ‘Abbas told the Guardian on 1 February that Israel’s settlement expansion and land confiscation in the West Bank was “leading to the one-state solution, which we reject.” And the next day Mr Barak agreed with him, not out of any sudden sympathy for the Palestinian cause but for reasons of demography and realpolitik., saying that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a “Zionist, Jewish, democratic” state. “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic,” he argued. “If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, it will be an apartheid state.” Good Zionist that he is, Mr Barak insisted that “we have a right” to the occupied territories. But “the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints.”

US Names Ambassador To Syria

After announcing its intention to restore full relations with Damascus last June, the Obama administration has now nominated former ambassador to Algeria Robert Ford as the first US ambassador to Syria since relations were downgraded in the wake of the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri in 2005. The appointment, confirmed by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu’allim on 3 February, marks the next step in the administration’s campaign to engage rather than exclude those who do not share its views in the region, or, as State Department spokesman P J Crowley put it, “we look forward to restoring our ambassador to Damascus because we think Syria plays a vital role and our bilateral relationship should progress.” However, Mr Crowley also made it clear that it is tactics rather than strategy that have changed in Washington when he added that “we will continue to engage Syria to play a more constructive role in the region. We have questions for Syria in terms of its support of extremist groups in the region. But we are committed to advance our relationship.” How far and how quickly that relationship advances will therefore probably be determined by how far the Syrians are willing to distance themselves from their alliance with Iran and downgrade their support for groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah.

Charles Snow is Middle East Economic Survey's (MEES) Political Editor.Petroleumworld not necessarily share these views.

Editor's note: This article was originally published by Middle East Economic Survey's (MEES) , on Feb 8, 2010. Petroleumworld reprint this article in the interest of our readers.

All comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view of this website. All comments are posted and published without liability to Petroleumworld.

Fair use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

All works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com or else and it is done within the fair use as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated

Petroleumworld welcomes your feedback and comments, share your thoughts on this article, your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Write to editor@petroleumworld.com

By using this link, you agree to allow PW to publish your comments on our letters page.

Petroleumworld News 02/08/10

Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated

Petroleumworld welcomes your feedback and comments,
share your thoughts on this article, your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.

Write to editor@petroleumworld.com

By using this link, you agree to allow E&P
to publish your comments on our letters page.

We welcome the use of Petroleumworld™ stories by anyone provided it mentions Petroleumworld.com as the source. Other stories you have to get authorization by its authors.

Send this story to a friend

Any question or suggestions, please write to:
editor@petroleumworld.com

Best Viewed with IE 5.01+
Windows NT 4.0, '95, '98 and ME +/ 800x600 pixels