WarSclerotic

Arab media gloat at Morsi’s downfall | The Times of Israel.

Egypt’s ‘Intifada’ proves the Arab Spring is not an Islamist Spring, writes one columnist

Supporters of Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammed Morsi attend a rally in Nasser City, in Cairo, Egypt, Egypt, Monday, July 1, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Amr Nabil)

The dramatic demonstrations in Egypt and their aftermath continue to resonate in Arabic-language media Tuesday, with headlines predicting fateful developments in the hours and days to come.

“24 hours will determine Egypt’s future,” reads the top headline of Saudi-owned daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat Tuesday, featuring a photo of veiled women waving Egyptian flags and holding signs reading “Get out.”

“In a move that could change the political equation, the Egyptian army threatened yesterday to forcefully return to the forefront of political life if no agreement is reached between the rival groups,” reads the article’s lead paragraph.

Al-Hayat, based in London, leads with the headline “The Egyptian army tightens its stranglehold on Morsi and prepares for decision,” reporting that with its announcement the army foiled President Mohammed Morsi’s plan to bide his time and wait for the storm to pass. The army seems to have already prepared a “roadmap” for the post-Morsi era, reports the daily.

“The Egyptian army overrode the government’s plans to rely on the time element to overcome unprecedented popular protests against President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. It gave ‘everyone’ until tomorrow to fulfill the ‘people’s demands’ after millions of demonstrators voiced one demand, namely ‘holding early presidential elections’.”

London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reports “celebrations” on the street when the army issued its “final warning” to the government.

“The army’s ‘final warning’ came amid rapid dramatic developments indicating the effective collapse of the regime, as a number of ministers tendered their resignation. The state experienced complete paralysis when a large number of government institutions and service providers shut their doors in Cairo and the provinces.”

The headlines of Egypt’s print media are even more hyperbolic, if that is possible.

“The people wished it, and the army responded,” reads the headline of independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm, reporting that “millions” of Egyptians took to the country’s squares, as the armed forces “sided with the people.” Establishment daily Al-Ahram reports that the Salafi Nour party has joined the call for early presidential elections and the formation of a technocrat government.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi editor-in-chief Abdel Bari Atwan writes on Tuesday that the army’s warning to Morsi means that Defense Minister Abdul Fattah Sisi is the effective Egyptian president.

“We do not know what decision the army is hiding, just as we do not know the contours of the roadmap Sisi spoke of. What we can say is that through its million-man demonstrations on Sunday the opposition succeeded in dragging the army to heed its demands, placing President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in a very difficult corner,” writes Atwan.

“The army’s statement, in terms of its content and timing, constituted a first step in solving the crisis, dispelling most of the people’s fears and giving them a measure of hope in the future. Hope for security and for eradicating all forms of political and criminal thuggery, and restoring the prestige of the state and the presidency.”

According to Al-Hayat columnist Hazem Saghiyeh, the Egyptian Intifada (as it’s now being called by more and more Arab commentators) is a slap in the face to those who argue that the “Arab Spring” revolutions placed Islamists in power centers, never to be removed.

“What is happening in Egypt indicates that those revolutions left the door wide open for the freedom that brought the Islamists, and then that same freedom paved the way to pounce on them,” writes Saghiyeh.

A-Sharq Al-Awsat, never a big fan of the Muslim Brotherhood, gloats at Morsi’s apparent downfall.

“Today, following the Egyptian revolution and General Sisi’s speech, it is clear that the president and the Muslim Brotherhood and everyone who celebrated their mistakes both internal and foreign are in a true bind,” writes columnist Tareq Homayed.

“The question now is: will the president and Muslim Brotherhood have learned their lesson or will they continue their collective suicide and commit more mistakes? Do the president and his people understand that Egypt today is not like Egypt of yesterday? Did they read, for instance, the sign held up by Egyptians saying ‘God bring us Ramadan without the Brotherhood?’”   

The only big media outlet sympathetic to Morsi seems to be Qatari-based news channel Al-Jazeera. In an op-ed by columnist Fahmi Huwaidi on the channel’s website titled “After the presidency received the demonstrations’ message,” the writer argues that the message voiced in Egypt’s squares “reached the concerned parties.”

“What is taking place in Egypt is first and foremost a political conflict between national forces,” writes Huwaidi in a bid to dispel Islamist claims that the protesters are largely pro-Mubarak traitors. “Other elements are trying to exacerbate the conflict and utilize it to harm both sides, whether loyalists or oppositionists.”

Iran importing missile-grade ore from Germany, France – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Taking advantage of ambiguity in sanctions, Iran imports refined alumina ore from Europe to make armor parts, missile components. Tehran claims atomic work is ‘peaceful’

Reuters

Exploiting a loophole in Western sanctions, Iran is importing a high grade of refined alumina ore from several European countries including Germany and France that Tehran could be using to make armor parts and missile components.

Western measures imposed on Iran over its disputed nuclear program have hit many sectors of its economy including steel and other metals, where it is heavily dependent on imports. Tehran says its atomic work is peaceful.

The refined ore has been excluded from European Union sanctions, but tightened US sanctions that came into effect on July 1 seek to close the loophole. According to a US Treasury briefing, the latest measures will cover “raw or semi-finished metals” that include aluminum.

“After July 1, new sanctions will blacklist metals trade with Iran including aluminum, coal, steel, gold, silver and platinum amongst others, and should include alumina,” said Mark Dubowitz, who has advised President Barack Obama’s administration and US lawmakers on sanctions.

Alumina is a refined version of the raw ore bauxite. It is typically used to make aluminum, but in its high purity or ‘chemical grade’ form, it has non-metal applications that have sensitive military uses.

Export data from independent firm Global Trade Information Services showed that between January 2012 and March 2013, around 4,000 tons of alumina had been sold to Iran mostly from Germany and France, but also from Slovenia, Italy, Hungary and Belgium.

Experts and traders say the high price paid of $700-$1,000 a ton and relatively low amounts involved indicated the exports were most likely high purity chemical grade alumina.

Mark Gorwitz, previously with the US Department of Defense and now a consultant specializing in nuclear and missile-related technologies, says Iran is able to manufacture weapons grade ceramic composites using chemical alumina.

Iranian rocket. Archive (צילום: AFP)

 “Iran definitely has the ability to manufacture missile parts locally. They’ve done quite a bit of work on ceramic composites made with alumina, and used for manufacturing armor parts and missile components like nozzles and radomes,” he said.

Gorwitz cited an academic paper seen by Reuters on the scientific properties of alumina armor, published in 2011 by researchers at Malek Ashtar University, an entity listed by the EU in 2008 as linked to Iran’s nuclear activities.

Chemical alumina, a powder, has to be combined with other materials to make ceramic composites for missiles and armor.

David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector now president of US-based think-tank the Institute for Science and International Security, said Iran had been studying the use of chemical alumina for years, citing three scientific journal papers published by Iranian academics between 2008 and 2009.

“The documents show that there’s an interest in mastering the use of chemical alumina for a broad set of uses which include military,” he said.

Chemical alumina can also be used to make transparent ceramics used in lasers and night vision devices. But its use in protective cones for missiles potentially links it to Iran’s nuclear program.

“In general, Iran has been trying for three decades to develop ballistic missiles,” said Michael Elleman with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“Transparent ceramics are a type of sapphire made using chemical alumina. Sapphire can be used as a missile component. Whether the missile carries explosive or nuclear warheads is not the point; most missiles are dual capable.”

A spokesman for Tehran’s UN mission in New York said sanctions were “counterproductive in terms of confidence building between Iran and some members of the Security Council who level some allegations against my country”.

“Iran has never violated its international commitment and always remains committed to its obligations,” he said.

Data from the International Aluminum Institute showed Europe produced 2.38 million tons of chemical grade alumina between January 2012 and June 2013, accounting for about a third of the total chemical alumina produced globally.

“None of the military and defense-related applications use particularly large tonnages of alumina,” a Western specialist familiar with alumina processes said.

Iranian military commanders regularly announce what they say is significant progress in the manufacture of defense systems and missiles, which are tested during regular drills and war games. But western analysts say their real capabilities cannot be independently verified.

A spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said the export of all forms of crude aluminum products as well as other aluminum products were prohibited under EU sanctions.

“Whereas the export of aluminum ore – alumina – is not,” the spokesman said. “It is an area that may be looked at in the future.”

As of July 1, however, the tightened US sanctions might hamper the alumina trade with Iran as companies involved, who also have US interests could be targeted by Washington.

“Any European companies found selling alumina, for example, will face the full weight of US law. Alumina previously has sailed past the radar under previous US and EU sanctions and should not be overlooked again as an important target of pressure,” Dubowitz said.

New President

Earlier this year, Switzerland-based commodities giant Glencore Xstrata said it had done nothing wrong when they engaged in alumina-for-aluminum swap deals with Iran. Another Swiss group Trafigura was involved in similar deals.

One industry source said at present alumina made in Europe was reaching Iran via middlemen operating from the Middle East Gulf who transport the cargoes on barges from the United Arab Emirates. Alumina can be shipped in general cargo vessels.

“There’s a number of small-time traders in Dubai dealing with alumina from Europe. They buy it from Europe and ship it to (Iran’s major cargo port) Bandar Abbas,” said a Europe-based alumina player familiar with the trade.

“It’s a lucrative market … these small guys have not got that much reputation to lose even if they get caught.”

The surprise victory of moderate cleric Hassan Rohani in Iran’s presidential election last month has raised hopes for an easing of tension in the decade-old nuclear dispute, although he is not expected to opt for dramatic change, given his ties with the religious leadership.

“It seems unlikely that the presidential elections will have a significant effect on Iran’s military program – at least in the short term,” said Hannah Poppy at consultancy Risk Advisory.

“Military spending is a long-term budgetary issue, and the President’s control over the military is limited. Also, Iran has invested a considerable amount to support its regional allies Syria and Hezbollah , so a major reduction in military aid or rhetorical support would be counter-intuitive.”

Warning: Egypt may become failed state – Israel Opinion, Ynetnews.

Analysis: Chaotic Egypt in need of massive foreign assistance, not Obama’s call for political dialogue; anything less is doomed for failure

The no-confidence vote of the Egyptian street in the Muslim Brotherhood regime does not bode well for the citizens. Israel and Egypt’s other neighbors should be concerned because the Arab country is on its way to becoming a failed state.

Even if the current political crisis is resolved and the demonstrators return to their homes, the main ailments that led to the civil unrest will not disappear:

• Egypt’s economy, which is functioning only partially, has caused millions of youngsters to take to the streets because they are unemployed and cannot earn a decent living.

• The collapse of the law enforcement authorities is resulting in anarchy in the cities and in the Sinai Peninsula. It is also causing the citizens to feel they have no protection on the streets.

• Political activity is taking place on the street and the social networks. The street is dictating the political and public agendas, as well as – to a large extent – the operational decisions. The democratic institutions – parliament, the presidency and government – are nearly irrelevant.

The economic distress in Egypt, particularly with regards to the employment of youngsters, is not new. This was actually the main reason behind the revolt against Mubarak’s regime, but back then there was at least economic growth and a regular supply of basic goods such as flour and petrol. Today the Muslim Brotherhood regime is unable to provide these basic commodities.

What’s really demoralizing is that there does not appear to be any politician or army leader who can rescue the Egyptian economy. In order to recuperate, Egypt is in need of massive foreign intervention, as well as generous investments from Gulf Arabs and Western corporations with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund and other global institutions, which would actually be running the corruption-ridden Egyptian economy until it recovers.

But the economic crisis in Europe and the one the US is beginning to recover from do not bode well for the Egyptian economy. Also, which foreign investor, or even tourist, would spend his money in a country where people are robbed on the street and women are constantly raped?

Internal security and the rule of law can be restored in Egypt, but this requires and efficient and determined regime, one that would have broad public legitimacy that would allow it to rule with an iron fist for a short period of time. Currently it appears that only the army is capable of this, but its leaders are hesitant after what happened to General Tantawi and his men, who tried to take over for Mubarak but were ousted following pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood and the street.

Since then, the generals are not keen on entering politics and are focusing on preventing a civil war and protecting Egypt’s economic interests. They fear that if they try to act forcefully, the street will strike back and deprive them of the legitimacy they need after the street and the social networks have become a modern-day pharaoh that rules the land of the Nile.

Anti-Morsi protest in Cairo (Photo: Reuters)

In light of the current situation, it is clear that Egypt has entered a trap which, as of now, it cannot escape. The economic distress and the threat of religious coercion are causing the youngsters to take to the streets, but if new elections are held that will depose Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, they may, after a short period of reorganization, return with renewed vigor and regain control over Egypt along with the Salafis and Jihadists. How? With mass protests and violence.

Unless Egypt’s economy experiences a surprising turnaround, it will become a failed state, like Somalia and Afghanistan. Regional and global history has shown us that the violent nightmares in failed states also affect neighboring countries. Some countries, such as Iran, exploit the lack of governance in failed states to set up terror groups that operate on their behalf. This is what has happened in Yemen, for example.

Islamist terror groups thrive in areas where there is no governance. Drug-trafficking and piracy are also rampant in the absence of a central government.

The chaos is reducing the possibility – which still exists – that the Egyptian army will wage war against Israel. On the contrary, it increases the motivation among Egypt’s military brass to preserve the peace treaty with Israel. But despite this advantage, the current situation presents a number of huge disadvantages, which will mostly likely grow more severe with time.

First of all, a situation in which the street dictates to the regime is very dangerous and turns Egypt into a fickle country whose responses are unpredictable. Today the masses in Tahrir Square are chanting slogans against Hamas, but tomorrow, will Israel act to curb the rocket fire emanating from Gaza, they may demand that the army enter Sinai to rescue the “Palestinian brothers.” Egypt currently belongs to the Western camp, mainly because the US is the only country that provides it with military and financial assistance.

The heads of Egypt’s army are loyal to Washington. But tomorrow the ayatollahs from Tehran may offer the desperate regime billions of dollars that would enable the regime to subsidize the price of Egyptian pita bread to the farmers. Then, even the generals and the Sunni clerics from Al-Azhar University would be faced with a difficult dilemma.

President Obama’s call to resolve the crisis through political negotiation is indicative of his country’s inability to help an important Middle Eastern ally. Two years ago, the same Obama rushed to force out the oppressive but functioning Mubarak regime.

Egypt is in need of massive financial and administrative assistance, similar to the assistance offered to Europe as part of the Marshall Plan following World War II. Anything less is doomed to failure, the effects of which Israel will most likely feel as well.

Israel seeks $5B in U.S. loans to buy arms – UPI.com.

Israel Hayom | Egypt’s secular-military coalition.

Boaz Bismuth

Jordan’s Islamists embroiled in Egypt’s crisis – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Muslim Brotherhood key to Mursi’s rise and fall – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

The Muslim Brotherhood had the chance to govern Egypt after winning elections fair and square a year ago.

But instead of governing and protecting all Egyptians as their civil responsibility and civic duty dictate, the Muslim Brotherhood divided, polarized and proved beyond any doubt that political Islam — just like militant Islam — will never be inclusive. As a consequence, it will never be accepted in the mainstream without major concessions and multiple metamorphoses. In addition, President Mursi wasted the momentum of the revolution and allowed problems to fester all the while pretending the situation is rosy unable to admit his presidency’s weaknesses or pitfalls.

According to Mursi’s own logic, he cannot stay! According to his own prediction, he shall go!

 

Octavia Nasr

While Egypt was sinking further economically, politically and socially, Mursi and his Brotherhood showed no sympathy to the suffering masses. Instead of unifying the country and finding solutions to urgent problems and challenges, they turned their backs on the opposition and focused their attention on harassing, prosecuting and jailing activists, bloggers, entertainers and journalists for the “crime” of disagreeing with them or criticizing them.

Political Islam is fundamentalist and exclusive by nature. It survives and thrives on animosity and persecution. It feeds off of the underdog sentiment and it attracts certain masses around it, controls them and directs them any which way it wants: To the streets when needed or to the ballot boxes. With one order, a custom-tailored audience can be activated. It can grow from small to large to fit the size needed for any given event. They can also be manipulated to be violent or peaceful based on the need of its leadership. The problem of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is not in the numbers it can and will produce on demand; its problem resides in its inability to “govern” fairly as it has proven in the past year it cannot represent more than its own beneficiaries.

Homes truths on the MB

On this historic juncture for Egypt, let us remember this:

The Muslim Brotherhood had no significant role in Egypt’s revolution in 2011 and the fall of Hosni Mubarak that ensued.

The Muslim Brotherhood has said early on that it will not seek political representation and that it will not run in elections.

Mohammed Mursi ran for the highest office on the promise to listen to the people and allow them to express themselves and to have a constitution and congress that represent them and protect them. He even said in a TV interview once, perhaps a premonition of what is to come, “No president of Egypt will remain in office if the people are not satisfied with him,” and called on Egyptians to demonstrate against him if he does not abide by the constitution and the law.

Mr. Mursi has certainly gotten his chance to lead. He was elected democratically and he has had a year in office to prove whether he meant what he promised or not.

The fact that millions of Egyptians are calling on him to step down means that they are dissatisfied with his performance and they reject him as their president. Following Mursi’s own advice, they took to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with him. No matter what percentage of the entire population or the electorate they represent, they are Egyptians, they are dissatisfied with him and they are demonstrating as he has directed them to.

According to Mursi’s own logic, he cannot stay! According to his own prediction, he shall go!

This article was first published on Lebanon-based Annahar on July 2, 2013.

_______
Multi-award-winning journalist Octavia Nasr served as CNN’s senior editor of Middle Eastern affairs, and is regarded as one of the pioneers of the use of social media in traditional media. She moved to CNN in 1990, but was dismissed in 2010 after tweeting her sorrow at the death of Hezbollah’s Mohammed Fadlallah. Nasr now runs her own firm, Bridges Media Consulting, whose main aim is to help companies better leverage the use of social networks.

Chaos in Middle East Grows as the U.S. Focuses on Israel – NYTimes.com.

By MARK LANDLER and JODI RUDOREN

WASHINGTON — In Damascus, the Syrian government’s forces are digging in against rebels in a bloody civil war that is swiftly approaching the grim milestone of 100,000 dead. In Cairo, an angry tide of protesters again threatens an Egyptian president.

At the same time, in tranquil Tel Aviv, Secretary of State John Kerry wrapped up a busy round of shuttle diplomacy, laboring to revive a three-decade-old attempt at peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He insisted on Sunday that he had made “real progress.”

The new secretary of state’s exertions — reminiscent of predecessors like Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III — have been met with the usual mix of hope and skepticism. But with so much of the Middle East still convulsing from the effects of the Arab Spring, Mr. Kerry’s efforts raise questions about the Obama administration’s priorities at a time of renewed regional unrest.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, once a stark symbol and source of grievance in the Arab world, is now almost a sideshow in a Middle East consumed by sectarian strife, economic misery and, in Egypt, a democratically elected leader fighting for legitimacy with many of his people.

“The moment for this kind of diplomacy has passed,” said Robert Blecher, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa Program of the International Crisis Group. “He’s working with actors who have acted in this movie before, and the script is built around the same elements. But the theater is new; the region is a completely different place today.”

Administration officials no longer argue, as they did early in President Obama’s first term, that ending the Israeli occupation and creating a Palestinian state is the key to improving the standing of the United States in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now just one headache among a multitude.

And yet Mr. Kerry, backed by Mr. Obama, still believes that tackling the problem is worth the effort: five visits to the region in the last three months. The most recent trip involved nearly 20 hours of talks, stretching almost until dawn, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority.

Former administration officials defend that conviction. Mr. Kerry’s focus, they say, makes sense precisely because of the chaos elsewhere. With little leverage over Egypt and deep reluctance about intervening in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one place that the United States can still exert influence, and perhaps even produce a breakthrough.

“You don’t have instability between the Israelis and Palestinians right now,” said Dennis B. Ross, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East. “But if you don’t act, there’s a risk that the Palestinian Authority will collapse, leaving a vacuum. And if we know one thing about vacuums in the Middle East, they are never filled with good things.”

Resuscitating the peace process, he said, is also vital to Jordan, which is reeling from the wave of refugees from Syria and can ill afford a new wave of Palestinian unrest in the neighboring West Bank.

What is less clear is whether the Arab upheaval has made a peace accord between the Israelis and Palestinian any less elusive. Some analysts say the instability has made Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas eager to resolve their dispute, while others assert that both can use it as a pretext to avoid making the hard choices needed for a deal.

“I think both sides look at what’s happening in the region right now and think, ‘Maybe we’re better off putting ourselves in a more stable situation with each other,’ ” said a senior Western diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his involvement in what Mr. Kerry has demanded be confidential discussions.

But several Israeli analysts said the reverse was true: the unrest has made Israel more concerned about security than about taking risks to advance the peace process. Sallai Meridor, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said most Israelis would rank Syria, Iran, Egypt and Jordan above the Palestinians in terms of “importance and urgency.”

A day after Mr. Kerry concluded 13 hours of talks with Mr. Netanyahu, Israeli newspapers were dominated by images of the vast protests in Egypt. Five of the six five major daily papers did not even carry front-page reports on Mr. Kerry’s diplomacy.

“Were you to ask people in the leadership of both Israel and the Palestinians whether they thought resolving the conflict now, given the developments in the region, is feasible, most people would tell you it’s quite unlikely,” Mr. Meridor said.

As for the Palestinians, some analysts said Mr. Abbas felt as vulnerable as ever about protracted negotiations with Mr. Netanyahu, particularly without preconditions. A preoccupied Egypt would leave the Palestinian Authority without crucial political support.

“Abbas would say that to reach a deal, you need Arab support from Saudi Arabia and Egypt,” said Ghaith al-Omari, the executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine. “With all the chaos, you might not get that.”

Mr. Kerry has made efforts to enlist the Arab world in his campaign. He brought Arab foreign ministers to Washington in April and won their support for an update to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Before his latest round of shuttle diplomacy with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas, Mr. Kerry huddled with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Analysts say he has avoided the trap of pushing for direct talks without laying the necessary groundwork.

“There is a reason Kerry has gotten as far as he has,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel and Egypt.

While resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the magic bullet for the region that some once thought, it still resonates widely, whether among the crowds in Tahrir Square or the militants of Hezbollah, who cite Israel in rallying around President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

A recent survey of 20,000 people in 14 countries by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Doha found that found Israel and the United States were seen as the top security threats.

Mr. Kerry has made it clear that he will not give up his peacemaking quest. But analysts said that the gravity of the crisis in Egypt would force him and other senior officials to shift their attention to Cairo, where American policy, some say, has failed to keep up with events.

“It’s good that Kerry is focusing on the peace process,” said Brian Katulis, an expert on Egypt at the Center for American Progress, “but the biggest thing they haven’t done is pursue a strategic review on Egypt.”

Hassan Rohani, West’s false hope for a nuclear deal with Iran – Opinion – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The new Iranian president, playing on his ‘moderate’ image, will try to entice the international community into ever more circular negotiations in exchange for easing the sanctions while Iran closes in on its goal – reaching military nuclear capability.

Hasan Rohani. Photo by Reuters

The election of Hassan Rohani as Iran’s new president has not surprisingly produced a flurry of analysis on what might be expected as far as the nuclear crisis is concerned, and whether the long and drawn-out negotiations with the international community could finally end in agreement. So far there is no evidence to suggest that there has been any change in Iran’s basic interests, nor in its ongoing desire to achieve a military nuclear capability. Nevertheless, much commentary is currently focused on the prospect of a new opportunity for diplomatic progress. Is it warranted?

The hope in the West has long been that if enough pressure is brought to bear, Iran might change its cost-benefit analysis vis-à-vis the nuclear issue and be willing to come to a deal. Rohani’s very election indicates that the pressure of biting sanctions has had an effect – at least in the sense that it forced the Supreme Leader to include a presidential candidate who has directed attention to the need to improve the economic situation. And there is little doubt that Rohani will be focused on sanctions relief at the next round of nuclear negotiations, although the current negotiator Saeed Jalili had the same aim at the last two rounds in 2012 and 2013, to no avail.

But the real question is whether the pressure on Iran has been strong enough to bring it to the point of readiness to conclude a deal that would in effect squander its military nuclear ambitions. In answering this question, a crucial variable is Iran’s progress in the nuclear realm. According to a recent article in the Economist, Iran is already unstoppable, and will become a nuclear state sooner or later. Whether that is the case, or whether there is still a little time to stop Iran, clearly the ability of economic (and other forms of) pressure to force Iran’s hand in the negotiations is inversely related to its progress in the nuclear realm. The closer Iran gets to its goal, the more pressure will be needed to convince it to relinquish that goal. Iran is very close, and there is as of yet no indication that it is poised to negotiate a deal that will reverse that trend.

If Iran is still determined to achieve a military capability, and is so close to its goal, what, if anything, has changed with Rohani’s election? The answer lies in the realm of hopes and expectations. Rohani’s more moderate tone has raised new hopes and expectations for a deal, and it is these hopes that are sparking a realignment of positions that will later feed into the negotiations dynamic.

Let’s start with Iran. Judging by what Rohani has said so far, there are no grounds for concluding that a new opportunity has opened up on the nuclear front. He has clearly stated that Iran will not consider suspending uranium enrichment. In what might be construed as a more positive message, he has said that if the US demonstrates “goodwill,” a process of confidence-building can begin, but this is actually a very familiar Iranian position from the past eight years with Ahmadinejad as president – the prospect of Iranian progress is always preconditioned on an altered U.S. (or P5+1) stance. (The P5+1 are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council + Germany, the group of states that has been negotiating with Iran since 2009). Rohani has also focused new attention on the U.S., rather than the P5+1 negotiating framework. While there is much to be said for moving the negotiation to the bilateral sphere, one obvious and significant drawback would be in opening the way for drawn-out negotiations on all aspects of these two states’ relations. While this could have positive ramifications in the very long-term, it would be considerably less conducive to the goal of stopping Iran in the nuclear realm per se, because of the urgent and pressing time factor. As such, even if Rohani follows through on opening up to the U.S., this does not signify an opportunity in the nuclear realm.

Rohani seems focused most of all on securing sanctions relief, and he knows that the approach of the previous Iranian negotiators in this regard failed. But he too is not advocating a different approach to the nuclear issue as such, and therefore, what can be expected is for Rohani to try to capitalize on the expectation of a deal, hoping this will be enough to get the other side to agree to ease sanctions. He will be focused on resuscitating the hope that the international community harbors that a deal is possible, but without the change in approach that would enable the sides to move closer to an actual deal. Maintaining this strategy in the short- to medium-term will necessitate taking some steps to underscore and reinforce his image of moderation – this can be done regarding internal and perhaps regional affairs, but not in areas that impinge on the nuclear program.

Turning to the international community, any step Iran takes in the direction of a more moderate approach will be embraced by the P5+1 because the international community is desperate for any indication that there is still hope for a nuclear deal, regardless of whether there are grounds for believing that a deal is any more realistic now than it was before Rohani’s election. In this vein, Joschka Fischer, for example, writes about the “glimmer of hope” from Iran although in the same article he admits that the interests of the two sides on the nuclear question remain “diametrically opposed,” and when he sets out the parameters for nuclear negotiations, he offers no direction for overcoming the inherent constraints. Similarly, when Rohani or Khamenei say that everything would be quite simple to resolve if only the U.S. was “serious,” commentators latch onto this as indication of new hope, forgetting that this position has been voiced so many times before.

Most analysts that envision a deal with Iran present some variation of Iran being allowed to conduct civilian nuclear activities, while being barred from activities that are geared to developing nuclear weapons. Hossein Mousavian, a spokesman of the Iranian nuclear negotiation team when Rohani was chief negotiator, has explained that the West should accept Iran’s right to enrich and Iran would accept IAEA guarantees. If this deal sounds familiar it is because it is: this is the basic deal of the NPT itself, which Iran agreed to decades ago when it joined the treaty. Indeed, the ten-year crisis with Iran began when it became apparent that Iran had cheated on its commitment. Therefore the “new” idea for a solution is merely restating what is already in place, the problem being that Iran broke the rules.

Iran wants a military capability – and is very close to achieving one – and as such it cannot be trusted not to continue to work on one clandestinely. If this sounds like we are back at square one that would be an accurate conclusion. It also sounds like nothing much has changed on the nuclear front.

Dr. Emily B. Landau is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). She is the author of “Decade of Diplomacy: Negotiations with Iran and North Korea and the Future of Nuclear Nonproliferation” (2012). 

Obama scrambles to save Morsi after Muslim Brotherhood rejects Egyptian army ultimatum.

Barack Obama in call to Mohamed Morsi

US President Barack Obama and Chief of US General Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey intervened in the Egyptian crisis early Tuesday, July 2, in an attempt to save the besieged President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood. Obama called the Egyptian president and Gen. Dempsey phoned Chief of staff Gen. Sedki Sobhi, hoping to defuse the three-way crisis between the regime, the army and the protest movement before it gets out of hand.
The crash of Morsi’s presidency would seriously undermine the objectives of the Arab Revolt  pursued by the Obama administration as the arch-stone of his Middle East policy.
The administration had earlier sought unsuccessfully to persuade the heads of the Egyptian army not to issue its 48-hour ultimatum to Egypt’s rulers “heed the will of the people” by Wednesday afternoon – or else the army would intervene. The Americans proposed instead to leave Morsi in place after stripping him of presidential authority and installing a transitional government to prepare the country for new elections to the presidency and parliament.
debkafile’s Middle East sources report that the army chiefs led by Defense Minister Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi rejected the American proposal.
Obama promised to back steps taken by President Morsi to show he is “responsive to the opposition’s concerns,” while Gen. Dempsey asked Egyptian generals to moderate their stand against the Muslim Brotherhood. The underlying message was that if they failed to do so, Washington might reconsider its $1.3 billion annual military assistance package which is the main source of income for the armed forces.

Heartened by the US president’s vote of support, Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamic allies, rejected the army’s ultimatum for resolving the country’s deadly crisis, saying it would sow confusion and ran contrary to the Egyptian constitution.

Morsi insisted he would stick to his own plans for national reconciliation.

His regime is meanwhile crumbling:  Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr resigned early Tuesday, the sixth minister to quit the government in the last 24 hours. He follows the president’s military adviser Gen. Sami Anan, former chief of staff under President Hosni Mubarak. Senior judges and high police officers were seen taking part in the anti-government protest rallies of the last week.

Morsi and the Brotherhood now face two ultimatums: If by Tuesday afternoon, he has not agreed to step down and call an early election, the organizers of the protest movement, which has brought millions to the streets of Egyptian cities, will launch a relentless and anarchic campaign of civil disobedience. The defense minister says the army will intervene if the government fails “to heed the will of the people” by Wednesday afternoon.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its radical allies are now considering whether to fully mobilize their adherents for “processions” and counter-demonstrations. This would take Egypt to the brink of a violent and prolonged escalation with incalculable consequences.