Last nigth, there was an interesting dinner in Damascus. Iran's president Ahmedinejad, Hizballah's leader Nasrallah were hosted by Syria's president Assad.
Iran and Syria abolished visa application with each others. And both of the leaders teased US Secretary of State's statements about Syria. Hillary Clinton urged Syria to move away from Iran. Their respond to Clinton to cancel visas.
The Jerusalem Post, "Trilateral meeting in Damascus", February 26, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=169748
As it is known, US opened her embassy in Syria after 2005 assassination to Rafik Hariri who was PM of Lebanon. Why Syria was blamed about the attack.
Syrian-US relations developed since September 2008. US Secretary of State (Rice) and Syrian Foreign Minister Muallim attended the meetings between two countries' delegations in New York. New US administration sent two delegations plus Obama's special envoy Mitchell to Assad. And as it was underlined, US decided to re-open her embassy in Damascus. Also US encouraged Turkey to develop ties with Syria.
All these efforts by US seems to be closer with Syria. It's meaning to isolate Iran in the Middle East. Syria's approach to US, is not clear. Syria prefers to keep her alliance with Iran. Syrian-Iranian alliance sustains since 1980's. Hizballah in Lebanon is the tangible outcome of the alliance. Beside Lebanon's situation, Syria-Iran associates in Gaza. Their collaborator in Gaza is Hamas. Hamas' leader Mashal lives in Syria.
In spite of being closer with US, Syria does not give up her alliance with Iran. Sometimes Syria uses the multilateral relations as a bargaining tool in the region. But this policy has a risk potential for Syria and the all region.
Syria and Iran declared a Middle East without Israel and US. It can be commented bilateral alliance would fight against Western axis in the near region. Syrian-Iranian axis also target Arab regimes. The critical point is Lebanon. Lebanon's pro western PM Saad Hariri, agreed Hizballah's militant power against Israel. It can be decoded Hariri does not only share coalition government with Hizballah but also agrees to share state of Lebanon's sovereignty. Why Nasrallah who is the leader of Hizballah's existence is significant in Ahmedinejad-Assad summit.
If Lebanon can be converted as a Hizballahistan, it would a model to Arab world despite sectarian differences. Shia crescent's extension and main front is Lebanon.
Secondly, Iran's challenge to produce nuclear weapon would also create a pressure on Arab states.
Thirdly, Iran uses neighborhood relations on Turkey which is US ally and member of NATO. At least Iran tries Turkey to be neutral any further conflicts between Iran and Western forces plus Israel.
Fourth item about Iran to develop ties with Russia and China. Iran is currently an observer member of Shangai Cooperation Organisation. Beside the affiliation Iran has relations in Southern America. Venezuela is an important example of it. Venezuelan leader showed his support to Ahmedinejad several times. Iran attempts to be a part of anti Western world and achieves. It's tangible scores can be perceived in UN.
Global leader US and so called regional leader Iran would clash one day?
But Iran develops her process in each day. Iran aims to blockade Israel with Syria, Hizballah and Hamas.
Syrian-Iranian axis challenged with "trilateral summit" against US,Israel, Arab states and Western countries.
It has a potential for further conflict risks. And Turkey's situation is so critical about US-Iran clash. US raises her pressure on Turkey why US and Turkey are allies.
Turkish administration's calculations must be rational.
26 Şubat 2010 Cuma
14 Şubat 2010 Pazar
"VALENTINE DAY" IN LEBANON
Today, in many where, St.Valentine Day is commemorated between lovers. It is also called as "lovers day". But our subject is not Valentine Day.
5 years ago, Lebanon PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. Syria was blamed about killing. Syrian administration rejected the allegations. However Syria has withdrawn her troops after the assassination from Lebanon. As it was remembered in UN reports Syria was blamed about the Hariri assassination and there was a heavy pressure on Syria.
BBC News, "New Hariri report 'blames Syria'", December 11, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4519346.stm
Syria-Iran alliance's main exercise area is Lebanon and as we have stated before, Hizballah's existence was resourced by the alliance.
New cabinet in Lebanon was founded by Rafik Hariri's son Saad Hariri.Saad Hariri won the elections in June 2009 with March 14 coalition. The other name of the coalition is Cedar Coalition. Saad Hariri is pro western just like his father. Saudi-US common aproach supports Hariri. Hariri's pro western Sunni axis meet with moderate forces in Lebanon.
Hariri became PM in Lebanon in November 2009. In spite of the political clashes Hariri invited Hizballah into his cabinet. Hizballah is sharing the government with two ministers but they are also main opposition. Hariri's seats' were enough about forming the govenment without Hizballah but he has included Hizballah in the context of keeping the territorial and national integrity.
In May 2008, Hizballah captured Beirut and also invaded Hariri's buildings. After 1990 Taif accord, armed groups has left their arms in Lebanon except Hizballah. Hizballah fougth against Israel especially in Southern Lebanon. Israel ended her invasion in 2000. So currently Hizballah is "state within a state" in Lebanon.
Saad Hariri had blamed Syria about his father's assassination. However he visited Syrian president Assad after he became PM. Hariri is trying to keep balances in his country. Different balances mean different foreign political interventions and collaborators.
Hariri preferred to underline Israeli threat on his political agenda why it can be concerned as a common ground with the different political fractions. And he stated that, "if Israeli-Hizballah conflict occur,we will support Hizballah in the name of our land's defense."
Hana Levi Julian, "Lebanese Gov't Officially Backs Hizbullah Terrorist Group", Arutz Sheva.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135946
It means to give up nation state structure and Hizballah's power related "state within a state". Lebanon government unofficially agreed Hizballah's armed body and political entity. Or Hariri's admininistration had to recognize Hizballah's tangible political-militarily sovereignty.
Today's demonstrations about Hariri assassination in Lebanon is very significant. Hariri's son is PM during the anniversary. He has emphasized "March 14 coalition still exist".
AFP, "Lebanon marks fifth anniversary of Hariri assassination", France 24. http://www.france24.com/en/20100214-lebanon-marks-fifth-anniversary-hariri-assassination-march-14-syria
Any clashes with Israel would empower Hizballah in the country. Hizballah's main ally Iran in under pressure about "nuclear issue".
So Hizballah's political support can realize with a new clash.
Hariri's situation seems very problematic.
He gives compromises to Hizballah and Syria-Iran alliance to maintain his cabinet's existence.
Syria has some developments to progress her relations with US and Western powers. Syria's consultations with US sustains from September 2008 meeting which US Secreatary of State Rice and Syrian foreign minister Muallim attended. Obama administration in US is sending new ambassador to Syria after 2005. Syrian-Israeli indirect negotiations sustained until December 2008 under Turkish facilitating.
Jumblatt who is the leader of Druze's Lebanon criticized Assad and Syria several times but he approaches Syria just before.
February 14, 2010 is an effort for March 14 to show their massive ground. On the other hand Hizballah's current structure is a main barrier to keep Lebanon's integrity.
5 years ago, Lebanon PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. Syria was blamed about killing. Syrian administration rejected the allegations. However Syria has withdrawn her troops after the assassination from Lebanon. As it was remembered in UN reports Syria was blamed about the Hariri assassination and there was a heavy pressure on Syria.
BBC News, "New Hariri report 'blames Syria'", December 11, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4519346.stm
Syria-Iran alliance's main exercise area is Lebanon and as we have stated before, Hizballah's existence was resourced by the alliance.
New cabinet in Lebanon was founded by Rafik Hariri's son Saad Hariri.Saad Hariri won the elections in June 2009 with March 14 coalition. The other name of the coalition is Cedar Coalition. Saad Hariri is pro western just like his father. Saudi-US common aproach supports Hariri. Hariri's pro western Sunni axis meet with moderate forces in Lebanon.
Hariri became PM in Lebanon in November 2009. In spite of the political clashes Hariri invited Hizballah into his cabinet. Hizballah is sharing the government with two ministers but they are also main opposition. Hariri's seats' were enough about forming the govenment without Hizballah but he has included Hizballah in the context of keeping the territorial and national integrity.
In May 2008, Hizballah captured Beirut and also invaded Hariri's buildings. After 1990 Taif accord, armed groups has left their arms in Lebanon except Hizballah. Hizballah fougth against Israel especially in Southern Lebanon. Israel ended her invasion in 2000. So currently Hizballah is "state within a state" in Lebanon.
Saad Hariri had blamed Syria about his father's assassination. However he visited Syrian president Assad after he became PM. Hariri is trying to keep balances in his country. Different balances mean different foreign political interventions and collaborators.
Hariri preferred to underline Israeli threat on his political agenda why it can be concerned as a common ground with the different political fractions. And he stated that, "if Israeli-Hizballah conflict occur,we will support Hizballah in the name of our land's defense."
Hana Levi Julian, "Lebanese Gov't Officially Backs Hizbullah Terrorist Group", Arutz Sheva.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135946
It means to give up nation state structure and Hizballah's power related "state within a state". Lebanon government unofficially agreed Hizballah's armed body and political entity. Or Hariri's admininistration had to recognize Hizballah's tangible political-militarily sovereignty.
Today's demonstrations about Hariri assassination in Lebanon is very significant. Hariri's son is PM during the anniversary. He has emphasized "March 14 coalition still exist".
AFP, "Lebanon marks fifth anniversary of Hariri assassination", France 24. http://www.france24.com/en/20100214-lebanon-marks-fifth-anniversary-hariri-assassination-march-14-syria
Any clashes with Israel would empower Hizballah in the country. Hizballah's main ally Iran in under pressure about "nuclear issue".
So Hizballah's political support can realize with a new clash.
Hariri's situation seems very problematic.
He gives compromises to Hizballah and Syria-Iran alliance to maintain his cabinet's existence.
Syria has some developments to progress her relations with US and Western powers. Syria's consultations with US sustains from September 2008 meeting which US Secreatary of State Rice and Syrian foreign minister Muallim attended. Obama administration in US is sending new ambassador to Syria after 2005. Syrian-Israeli indirect negotiations sustained until December 2008 under Turkish facilitating.
Jumblatt who is the leader of Druze's Lebanon criticized Assad and Syria several times but he approaches Syria just before.
February 14, 2010 is an effort for March 14 to show their massive ground. On the other hand Hizballah's current structure is a main barrier to keep Lebanon's integrity.
10 Şubat 2010 Çarşamba
IRAN: TO A MIDDLE EASTERN CHAOS?...
World public opinion concerns Iran issue intensively for the last years. Especially suspicions on Iran to make "nuclear weapon" is discussed. Generally two different approaches about Iran's nuclear program. One of the idea tries to underline Iran's nuclear enery right. The other approach to allegate Iran's nuclear program does not target to use nuclear energy. It is only an illusion. Islamic republic covers her real goal to have nuclear weapon.
In fact, nuclear program became a prestige subject for Iran. We can remember last Iranian elections which was held in June 2009. The opposition rejected the conclusions and demonstrations contiuned for the weeks.
On the other hand, "to have nuclear weapon" is an instrument for Iran's foreign policy.
Iran's challenge deploys from the Eastern Mediterranean to Persian Gulf. Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the parts of Iran's main policies. We can underline these militant organisations as "proxy forces" of Iran. Iran disturbs Israel with the fundamental Islamic elements, also gain popularity in the Middle East geography. And we must note that, Iran does not only invest Shia parties but also radical Sunni organs like Hamas.
Hamas and Hizballah founded their entities in Gaza and Lebanon. Southern Iraq became an Iran's sub influence area. Yemen's militants are so important, they clash with Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In this context Iran could reach Eden.
Iran's main infrastructure gain her moving point from Syria. Syria-Iran alliance keep cooperation to feed Hizballah-Hamas. Iran-Syria alliance stands versus pro western Sunni Arab countries.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon (PM) and Egypt draw pro western Sunni Axis.
Iran started her "uranium enrichment plan" Tuesday. (February 9) There are two different evaulations about Iran's challenge. One of them it is only a bargaining method for Iran, the other is to enter cul-de-sac.
Iran's administration is living a legitimacy problem. So Iran became more agressive. However, the most wondered question includes if there is a cost benefit analyse.
Turkey's situation is very problematic. Iran is Turkey's neighbor, US is her ally. And Turkey has main ties with West. Also member of NATO.
Turkey's balance sustained until current environment.
Suppose, if Iran-US conflict occurres, how EU, NATO, US allies would behave. Support US or Iran?
The question is ironic. So I repeat to ask the same question to Turkey.
That is the cross road for Turkish Foreign Policy in the post cold war era.
Pro Islamic government in Turkey uses anti Israeli or pro Iranian discourse, but Turkey's main route related with the Western axis economicaly, militarily and politicaly. Turkish-US relations is sustainable and AKP government awares it. AKP maintains relations with US strongly.
Turkey's efforts to develop ties with Syria is not against West why US supports the policy to isolate Iran.
Iran's last decision could be a starting point of the Middle Eastern chaos.
Turkey's behavior will be the key reason to prevent conflict or to live the armed conflict.
Turkey's neutral situation is coming to a decision making time.
In fact, nuclear program became a prestige subject for Iran. We can remember last Iranian elections which was held in June 2009. The opposition rejected the conclusions and demonstrations contiuned for the weeks.
On the other hand, "to have nuclear weapon" is an instrument for Iran's foreign policy.
Iran's challenge deploys from the Eastern Mediterranean to Persian Gulf. Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the parts of Iran's main policies. We can underline these militant organisations as "proxy forces" of Iran. Iran disturbs Israel with the fundamental Islamic elements, also gain popularity in the Middle East geography. And we must note that, Iran does not only invest Shia parties but also radical Sunni organs like Hamas.
Hamas and Hizballah founded their entities in Gaza and Lebanon. Southern Iraq became an Iran's sub influence area. Yemen's militants are so important, they clash with Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In this context Iran could reach Eden.
Iran's main infrastructure gain her moving point from Syria. Syria-Iran alliance keep cooperation to feed Hizballah-Hamas. Iran-Syria alliance stands versus pro western Sunni Arab countries.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon (PM) and Egypt draw pro western Sunni Axis.
Iran started her "uranium enrichment plan" Tuesday. (February 9) There are two different evaulations about Iran's challenge. One of them it is only a bargaining method for Iran, the other is to enter cul-de-sac.
Iran's administration is living a legitimacy problem. So Iran became more agressive. However, the most wondered question includes if there is a cost benefit analyse.
Turkey's situation is very problematic. Iran is Turkey's neighbor, US is her ally. And Turkey has main ties with West. Also member of NATO.
Turkey's balance sustained until current environment.
Suppose, if Iran-US conflict occurres, how EU, NATO, US allies would behave. Support US or Iran?
The question is ironic. So I repeat to ask the same question to Turkey.
That is the cross road for Turkish Foreign Policy in the post cold war era.
Pro Islamic government in Turkey uses anti Israeli or pro Iranian discourse, but Turkey's main route related with the Western axis economicaly, militarily and politicaly. Turkish-US relations is sustainable and AKP government awares it. AKP maintains relations with US strongly.
Turkey's efforts to develop ties with Syria is not against West why US supports the policy to isolate Iran.
Iran's last decision could be a starting point of the Middle Eastern chaos.
Turkey's behavior will be the key reason to prevent conflict or to live the armed conflict.
Turkey's neutral situation is coming to a decision making time.
3 Şubat 2010 Çarşamba
NATO'S STRATEGIC CONCEPT II (CHANGES to NATO’s STRUCTURE, FORCES and CAPABILITIES)
(I contunie to evaulate NATO's new strategic concept in NATO's discussion blog. Today parallel to NATO's discussion forum headline, I consider, CHANGES to NATO’s STRUCTURE, FORCES and CAPABILITIES)
Best regards:
D.T.
21st century brought “new threats” to world’s security. First of all, beside regular armies and headquarters system, NATO’s structure must also include flexible and rapid troops. I mean more and smaller bases, forward stations from the Middle East to Center Asia.
Currently, fighting with terrorism is not an exception. Like Al Queda there are new types of terroristic organisations. NATO countries’ internal infrastructures have to develop intra network against terrorism. Military operations and criminal network must have a regular interaction.
Non state actors have to be described clearly in NATO’s concepts. And the infrastructure can be evaulated for new types of counter terror activities.
Not only non state actors but also some countries can threat world’s stability. Non proliferation of WMD is one of the essential mission of NATO. Afghanistan’s stability is so important why Taliban is also active in Pakistan and could capture nuclear weapons in Pakistan. North Korea’s situation and Iran’s position is so important.
North Korea can destabilize Pacific’s situation. On the other hand, Iran has a regional periphery from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Iran can activate Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Islamic Republic has connections with Shia militants in Yemen and has a tangible influence in Southern Iraq. If Iran would have nuclear weapon(s), regional balances will be broken against Western axis.
So NATO is in a critical examination. Non-proliferation is related with diplomatic activites but if the countries can not be persuaded with political attempts, NATO’s structure provides “persuasion” with deterrence. It means “hard power”.
I will summarize my approach with these outlines:
* NATO will keep her regular forces
* NATO will produce smaller and rapid forces in the “out of area”. It provides more bases and forward stations.
* NATO’s new threats: Terrorism, proliferation of WMD, dictatorships
* NATO’s operations currently deploys from Balkans to Center Asia.
* NATO’s enlargement will reach Japan and Australia. It means transatlanic relations will enrich Pacific depth.
My comment's link is below:
http://natostratcon.info/2010/01/11/natos-transformation/comment-page-2/#comments
Best regards:
D.T.
21st century brought “new threats” to world’s security. First of all, beside regular armies and headquarters system, NATO’s structure must also include flexible and rapid troops. I mean more and smaller bases, forward stations from the Middle East to Center Asia.
Currently, fighting with terrorism is not an exception. Like Al Queda there are new types of terroristic organisations. NATO countries’ internal infrastructures have to develop intra network against terrorism. Military operations and criminal network must have a regular interaction.
Non state actors have to be described clearly in NATO’s concepts. And the infrastructure can be evaulated for new types of counter terror activities.
Not only non state actors but also some countries can threat world’s stability. Non proliferation of WMD is one of the essential mission of NATO. Afghanistan’s stability is so important why Taliban is also active in Pakistan and could capture nuclear weapons in Pakistan. North Korea’s situation and Iran’s position is so important.
North Korea can destabilize Pacific’s situation. On the other hand, Iran has a regional periphery from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Iran can activate Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Islamic Republic has connections with Shia militants in Yemen and has a tangible influence in Southern Iraq. If Iran would have nuclear weapon(s), regional balances will be broken against Western axis.
So NATO is in a critical examination. Non-proliferation is related with diplomatic activites but if the countries can not be persuaded with political attempts, NATO’s structure provides “persuasion” with deterrence. It means “hard power”.
I will summarize my approach with these outlines:
* NATO will keep her regular forces
* NATO will produce smaller and rapid forces in the “out of area”. It provides more bases and forward stations.
* NATO’s new threats: Terrorism, proliferation of WMD, dictatorships
* NATO’s operations currently deploys from Balkans to Center Asia.
* NATO’s enlargement will reach Japan and Australia. It means transatlanic relations will enrich Pacific depth.
My comment's link is below:
http://natostratcon.info/2010/01/11/natos-transformation/comment-page-2/#comments
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
