WP: Iraqi election results pointing up the country’s deep divides
The emerging results from last week’s parliamentary elections have made clear that Iraq remains a dangerously polarized nation, with deep regional and sectarian schisms that could widen as the U.S. military draws down.
The race to become Iraq’s next prime minister is so tight that it remains unclear who will come out ahead. The country is caught between two men: Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who became the candidate of choice for Sunni Arabs, and incumbent Nouri al-Maliki, an Islamist Shiite who has recast himself as a nationalist while still promising to serve the once-oppressed Shiite majority.
No matter which man’s slate wins more seats, diplomats and Iraqi officials say the post-election jockeying to build a governing coalition could give rise to new conflicts in Iraq’s Shiite-dominated south and the Sunni-dominated west, with the potential to unravel hard-won security gains.
Telegraph: Iraq election: Sectarianism threatens Iraq’s future
Al-Maliki is already courting potential allies, but his sectarian attitude and his close ties with the Iranian regime raises deep concerns about his ability to project himself as a leader of all Iraqis. The fact that Al-Maliki was at the centre of a pre-election campaign banning significant Sunni figures from running for election, whilst his election posters concentrated more on the de-Baathification of Iraq than on leading the nation towards freedom and prosperity under a democratic government help to underline that point.
Times: Tehran accused of arming Taleban with weapons and explosives
The Iranian Government has been accused by Afghan and Western officials of delivering tonnes of weaponry to the Taleban, including plastic explosives, mortars, grenades and technical manuals.
Weapons and documents shown to Channel 4 News indicate that more than ten tonnes of weapons have been intercepted at Iran’s desert border with Afghanistan in the past year, with a tonne and a half recovered in the past week.
The reports come as General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Iran also provided a base for al-Qaeda operatives. Afghanistan’s intelligence agency estimates that about 60 per cent of the weaponry it has intercepted from Iran has been supplied by the Iranian Government rather than black market dealers.
In a report on Iran’s weapons smuggling to the Taleban — to be aired by Channel 4 News this evening — one Afghan Taleban commander claims that the Iranian border is assuming greater importance than that into Pakistan.
Channel 4: Exclusive: Iran supplies weapons to Taliban
Channel 4 News can reveal the Taliban insurgency against British and American forces is being supported by Iranian weapons smuggled over the border including mines, mortars and plastic explosives.
The exclusive images and documents show, for the first time, the full extent of Iranian support for the Taliban in the shape of tonnes of weapons of the type being used against UK troops in Helmand province.
Despite the millions of dollars being spent by the international community to ensure cross-border security between Iran and Afghanistan, Channel 4 News has been shown vast hauls of weaponry which Afghan security services have told us are just a fraction of hardware intercepted from Iran on their way to the Taliban.
They claim it shows the true extent of direct support from the Iranian government for the insurgency.
The Afghan border with Iran is almost 1000km long and is incredibly difficult to police. The border town of Eslam Ghalah, in the Western Afghanistan province of Herat, is a key checkpoint for goods and human traffic entering and leaving Afghanistan.
Inside Iran: Turkey’s Warm Ties with Iran: A Brief History
The 1990s were marked by hostile relations between Iran and Turkey, which was the direct outcome of Turkish foreign policy elite’s conviction that Iran was supporting the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) and had a campaign to export Islamic revolution to Turkey.
Iran was perceived as posing an existential threat to the survival of the organizing ideology of the state, secularism, and the territorial integrity of the country. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, however, there has been a notable softening in Turkey’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Iran. Since it came to power in 2002, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has adopted a new policy approach, which aims to minimize the problems in Turkey’s neighboring regions and develop political and economic relations to foster peace and stability in the region. Under the current government, the trade between Turkey and Iran has increased more than six-fold, hitting $7.5 billion in 2007.
Reuters: Syria’s link to Hezbollah clouds honeymoon with U.S.
Emboldened by its strong ties with Iran and Turkey, Syria is ignoring U.S. demands that it stop backing Hezbollah, despite the risk that this will spoil its rapprochement with Washington and raise regional tensions.
FP: Hezbollah’s Extreme Makeover
The fusion of leisure, religion, and politics has become an indispensable strategy for Hezbollah, particularly following its 2006 war with Israel. As the party reconstructed South Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs (known as Dahiyeh) following the conflict, it built — and encouraged investors to build — entertainment venues that cater to Shiites of all social and economic classes.
After the 2006 war, Iranian money flowed in massive quantities to Hezbollah. This was not charity: The Islamic Republic of Iran was determined to ensure that its client could solidify its standing within Lebanon’s Shiite community and reconstitute its fighting strength before the next round against Israel. Hezbollah used these funds to compensate the Shiites who lost relatives, homes, and businesses during the war.
Mohammad Ali Mokalled, a Shiite writer and a candidate who ran in opposition to Hezbollah in the party’s stronghold of Nabatiyeh in last June’s parliamentary elections, said that Hezbollah used the money coming from Iran to buy people’s allegiance — and it worked. “If you ask anyone in the south today if they are afraid of an upcoming war with Israel, they tell you yes, but they also say that they would support Hezbollah no matter what happens,” he said.
BBC: Netanyahu’s brother-in-law calls Obama ‘anti-Semitic’
In an interview with Israel Army Radio, Mr Ben-Artzi said his brother-in-law should learn from previous Israeli prime ministers.
“Once the Americans tried to intervene in anything related to Jerusalem we told them one simple word: ‘No’,” he explained.
Mr Obama, he added, not only disliked Mr Netanyahu personally, but “dislikes the people of Israel”.
“For 20 years, Obama sat with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli, and anti-Jewish.”
He said it was clear Mr Obama agreed with Rev Wright because he had remained a member of his congregation.
“Think about it. If you had heard of someone who for 20 years sat in church and heard anti-Semitic sermons and didn’t get up to leave after two weeks, wouldn’t you think he identifies with it?” he asked.
“As a politician running for presidency he had to hide it, but it comes out every time and I think we just have to say it plainly – there is an anti-Semitic president in America,” he said.
“Unfortunately this creates a difficult situation for Israel, but we will never give up our deepest interests – Jerusalem and our ties with it.”
Economist: Where did all the love go?
Friends have spats, but this seems to be more than that. America has not simply accepted Mr Netanyahu’s prompt apology. Opinion in the administration is said to be divided. Mr Biden himself and many State Department officials, together with George Mitchell, who was to have supervised the now-stalled proximity talks, advised cooling things down. But, whether out of rage or calculation, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton preferred to escalate.
On television last Sunday David Axelrod, the president’s chief policy adviser, called Israel’s announcement an “affront” and an “insult”—extraordinary language in exchanges with an ally. And notwithstanding that “unshakeable bond”, Mrs Clinton is insisting that Mr Netanyahu must comply with a string of fresh demands. These reportedly include shelving the building plans, avoiding new provocations, agreeing to talk about “core issues” such as Jerusalem in the proximity talks, and offering a new concession, the details of which are not yet clear, to the Palestinian side.
…In testimony to a Senate committee this week, General David Petraeus, hero of Iraq and America’s commander in the wider Middle East, said the unsolved conflict in Palestine was fomenting anti-Americanism in the wider region. An obvious point, perhaps; but yet another reason why the love is draining out of a special relationship.
CFR: Enemies Into Friends: How the United States Can Court Its Adversaries
