WarSclerotic

PM: ‘Grievous Historic Error’ being Made at Geneva – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

( Watch and make up your own mind whether Netanyahu is bluffing or warning… – JW )

Iranian deputy foreign minister says the six powers have “accepted the framework of Iran’s proposal.” Netanyahu issues stern warning.

A senior Iranian official claimed Thursday that a breakthrough had been made at nuclear talks in Geneva, and that Tehran’s proposed plan for resolving the impasse over its atomic program has been accepted by the six world powers. At roughly the same time, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned that signing an interim deal with Iran would be a mistake of “historic proportions,” but that appears to be precisely the deal being hammered out.

Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said the so-called P5+1 powers had “accepted the framework of Iran’s proposal.”

“The aim of both sides is to sign the agreement,” he told Iranian journalists after the first session of talks, adding that further progress was expected at a scheduled meeting on Thursday evening.

“We hope we can all reach an agreement on a single text and that an agreement would be signed between two sides. We are currently working on this issue but it is too early to say if we will have a written agreement or it will be deferred to the next meeting or the next ones,” Araqchi said. “It’s too early to say whether a written agreement could be made in the next 48 hours.”

The British Guardian called his account of progress at the talks “the most upbeat from a Iranian official in many years.” It is believed the Iranian framework involves signing an interim partial deal that would slow down or stop key elements of the progress of Iran’s nuclear activity in return for limited sanctions relief. That would “buy time” for a more comprehensive deal, to be negotiated over the course of a year, which would set long-term limits for the Iranian program.

In another sign of progress, the leader of the Iranian delegation, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, cancelled a trip to Rome so that he could take part in Thursday evening’s face-to-face meeting with the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, who acts as the convenor for the six-nation negotiating group that includes the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China.

In addition, reorted the Guardian, the format of the talks in the afternoon were changed in an attempt to make possible more rapid progress. Araqchi said both sides agreed to hold four brief sessions in the afternoon instead of the usual long sessions. Iran will meet France, Britain and Germany in one session and Russia, China and the US in three separate afternoon sessions.

Netanyahu: historic mistake

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denounced on Thursday the proposals reportedly being made in Geneva regarding Iran’s nuclear program, saying adopting them would be “a mistake of historic proportions.”

Speaking at a conference on joint strategic dialogue between the government of Israel and the Jewish world, Netanyahu said the proposals being offered at the meeting would ease pressure on Iran for empty concessions that would “allow Iran to retain the capabilities to make nuclear weapons.”

He added that ongoing sanctions have seriously affected the Iranian economy, and the P5+1 can compel the nation to fully dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Netanyahu called for “ending all enrichment, stopping all work on the heavy water plutonium reactor. Anything else will make a peaceful solution less likely.”

He reiterated that Israel “reserves the right to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

Netanyahu met Thursday evening with a visiting delegation of members of the US Congress and told them, “If the news that I am receiving of the impending proposal by the P5+1 is true, this is the deal of the century, for Iran. Because Iran is essentially giving nothing and it’s getting all the air taken out, the air begins to be taken out of the pressure cooker that it took years to build in the sanctions regime.

“What we’re having today is a situation that Iran is giving up, at best, a few days of enrichment time, but the whole international regime’s sanctions policy has the air taken out of it. That’s a big mistake, it will relieve all the pressure inside Iran, it is a historic mistake, a grievous historic error.”

Iranian state TV aired a documentary this week showing the country’s ability to fire missiles on Tel Aviv and Foreign Minister Zarif said Wednesday that the West should forget armed action, saying negotiations were the only option.

Analysis has shown that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be a huge destabilizing factor in the Middle East, with some suggesting that Saudi Arabia’s oil fields would be a first target.

Netanyahu: Geneva offer to Iran is a ‘historic mistake’ | The Times of Israel.

As new P5+1 talks begin, PM slams offer of eased sanctions if Iran agrees to scale back nuclear program; Tehran’s FM says deal could be done this week

By Stuart Winer November 7, 2013, 6:02 pm

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks in Jerusalem on November 07, 2013. Photo by FLASH90

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday described a reported Western offer to Iran — of “limited” sanctions relief in response to an Iranian agreement to start scaling back nuclear activities — as a “historic mistake.”

Addressing Israeli and Diaspora leaders in Jerusalem as a new round of talks on Iran’s rogue nuclear program got under way in Geneva, Netanyahu said, the proposals “on the table in Geneva” would “ease the pressure on Iran in return for ‘concessions’ that aren’t concessions at all.” He said Israel completely oppose these proposals, which would leave Iran with a capacity to build nuclear weapons.

“I believe that adopting [these proposals] would be a mistake of historic proportions. They must be rejected outright,” he added.

Sanctions had brought Iran to the brink of economic collapse, and the P5+1 countries have the opportunity to force Iran to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program, the prime minister said. “Anything less than that” would reduce the likelihood of a peaceful solution to the crisis, he said, and Israel would always reserve to protect itself against any threat.

As the talks kicked off, the Iranian foreign minister said a deal over his country’s rogue nuclear program could be reached by week’s end, if all parties strove to reach that goal.

“If everyone tries their best we may have one,” Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted by Reuters as saying. “We expect serious negotiations. It’s possible.”

Zarif made the comments to reporters after a preliminary breakfast meeting with European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

A senior US official, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, said the six world powers of the P5+1 — the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany — were ready to offer “limited, targeted and reversible” sanctions relief in response to agreement by Iran to start scaling back activities that could be used to make weapons.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif at the United Nations, September 26,2013 (screen capture: Youtube/Youtube News)

Israeli Energy Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud) said the offer was “unfathomable” and that it was a “grave mistake” to offer any easing of the sanctions pressure when the Iranians hadn’t done anything to dismantle their nuclear program. He said the nuclear program was seen by the regime in Tehran as its guarantee of survival, and that it was taking its cue from the summer’s Syrian chemical weapons crisis, when it saw that the West didn’t dare confront the relatively weak President Bashar Assad, even though he used chemical weapons against his own people 14 times.

Following Netanyahu’s cue, Israeli officials said they wouldn’t accept any compromise short of dismantling Iran’s nuclear research program.

“Israel… has learned that a proposal will be brought before the P5+1 in Geneva in which Iran will cease all enrichment at 20 percent and slow down work on the heavy water reactor in Arak, and will receive in return the easing of sanctions,” an Israeli official told AFP Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Israel thinks this is a bad deal and will oppose it strongly.”

But in a nod to skeptics in Congress, the official emphasized that any economic relief given Iran could be canceled, should Tehran renege on commitments it makes in Geneva. She added that the six powers were looking to test the durability of any initial nuclear limits Iran agreed to by waiting — possibly for as long as six months — after such an agreement before any sanctions relief kicked in.

Iran and the P5+1 were set to begin two days of negotiations on Thursday in the latest round of talks aimed at allaying Western fears that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. The United States is leading Western powers in demanding that Iran not only halt its nuclear development but cut back on its capabilities and stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

‘Nuclear Iran’s First Target: the Saudis’ – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

One Iranian EMP nuclear bomb can knock out the Saudi and American defenses in Saudi Arabia, said Langfan.

An EMP, or electro-magnetic pulse bomb, explodes at high altitude, knocking out the electric grid of a large area and rendering computers and other electronics useless.

Langfan predicted that the EMP nuke could put the Iran in control of the Shiite-majority areas of eastern Saudi Arabia where almost 100% of Saudi oil is located.

He also drove home the fact that most of the world’s oil reserves are located within the so-called “black gold triangle” which Iran can turn into a Shiite Caliphate.

On last week’s The Watchman, Langfan explained that a Palestinian Authority state would render Israel defenseless.

Mark Langfan’s articles on the subject of Iran’s EMP potential in Arutz Sheva:

The 100% Fatwa-Compliant Iranian EMP Nuclear Weapon

Saudi Arabia First on the Iranian Nuke Hit List

US senator pushes to block Iran sanctions waivers | The Times of Israel.

An interim agreement that does not freeze enrichment and work on Arak plant might be a hard sell for the administration

By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil November 7, 2013, 3:24 pm

Iran’s heavy water nuclear facilities near the central city of Arak, 150 miles (240 kilometers) southwest of Tehran (photo credit: AP/ISNA/Hamid Foroutan/File)

WASHINGTON — A powerful Republican senator is considering legislation that would block the Obama administration from being able to lift any sanctions against Iran without major concessions by Tehran toward stopping its nuclear program. While his key Democratic counterparts in the Senate remain silent on pending sanctions legislation, Sen. Robert Corker, a Republican of Tennessee, said Wednesday that he is considering an amendment that would require Iran to cease enrichment altogether and suspend all work on the Arak heavy water plant before any sanctions are lifted.

Corker told the The Daily Beast that he had “crafted an amendment to freeze the administration in and make it so they are unable to reduce the sanctions unless certain things occur.”

The senator noted that the administration can now put waivers in place to allow for the gradual easing of sanctions — which seems to be the cornerstone of current deals being floated. “We’re very concerned that in their desire to make any deal that they may in fact do something that is very bad for our country,” he said.

But with an incremental deal reportedly on the table at a meeting currently being held in Geneva between Iran and six world powers, Corker’s amendment is a distant legislative horizon — and a questionable one in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Even Democratic senators who support a tough sanctions regime are unlikely to support legislation that seeks to tie the Obama administration’s hands in negotiations.

The administration reportedly asked Senate Democrats for a 60-day hold on advancing the existing sanctions legislation that is currently awaiting Senate committee review, and they seem to have complied.

Robert Corker (photo credit: US Senate / Wikipedia Commons)

Democratic leaders have avoided directly commenting on the future of the new sanctions legislation, which has been delayed indefinitely en route to its first hurdle — a hearing in the Senate Banking Committee. Even Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey, the hawkish chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, has remained quiet this week on the chances of advancing the sanctions legislation.

His only hint as to the future of the already-drafted sanctions legislation came in an interview with CNN, when he said that “I would be willing to say that if we can get Iran to suspend its present activities as we move forward with what I hope will be fruitful negotiations, that any new round of sanctions would say that they could be ceased immediately upon Iran meeting its verifiable actions under the Security Council resolutions.”

The Democratic Senate leader also said that he supported a partial lifting of sanctions only if Iran froze all nuclear production — a statement that likely included both enrichment and the construction of the heavy water plant at Arak. Menendez’s comments echoed those made by Rep. Steve Israel, a Democrat of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In mid-October, Israel told The Cable that “if the president were to ask for a lifting of existing sanctions it would be extremely difficult in the House and Senate to support that…. I’m willing to listen but I think that asking Congress to weaken and diminish current sanctions is not hospitable on Capitol Hill.”

An interim deal currently reported to be on the table, in which Iran would cease all enrichment at 20 percent and slow down work on the heavy water reactor in Arak in exchange for the easing of sanctions, would not meet the parameters of Corker’s hypothetical legislation. The current sanctions legislation that has already passed Congress, however, contains a so-called “national security waiver,” enshrining in law the possibility for the president to lift some sanctions without seeking congressional approval.

The current reported proposal also does not meet the bare minimum for an interim deal proposed by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.

The well-respected anti-nuclear proliferation think tank published this week a list of what it described as “the irreducible elements of an interim agreement with Iran.”

Central among those elements was “stopping the advance of Iran’s centrifuge and Arak reactor programs” as well as a call to reduce the stocks of highly enriched uranium in Iran that could be used to make nuclear weapons. A longer-term agreement, ISIS noted in the brief, would necessarily require the elimination of all stocks of highly enriched uranium.

Other elements of the bare minimum-agreement framework include an immediate freeze on all centrifuge production and extensive work to increase the nuclear program’s international transparency.

Kerry warns of violence if peace talks fail – Israel News, Ynetnews.

( This is the US threatening Netanyahu with Palestinian violence if he doesn’t play ball on IRAN.  This THREAT comes a week after the WH leaked that Israel attacked Syria.  Hang tough, Bibi.  Oppose this “agreement” with everything Israel has to throw at it. – JW )

US secretary of state says if Israel-PA peace talks fail, violence in region may return, notes negotiations have so far been ‘productive’

AP

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Thursday of a return to violence if faltering peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians ultimately fail. He also rejected suggestions that he scale back his ambition to salvage the talks and forge a final settlement and interim agreement.

Kerry has been shuffling this week between Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan in a frantic bid to get the peace negotiations back on track amid rising public anger among Palestinians over Israeli settlement activity and among Israelis over the release of Palestinian prisoners.

“What is the alternative to peace?” Kerry asked at a joint news conference with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. “Prolonged continued conflict. The absence of peace really means you have a sort of low-grade conflict, war.”

“As long as the aspirations of people are held down one way or another … as long as there is this conflict and if the conflict frustrates once again so that people cannot find a solution, the possibilities of violence” increase, he said.

Kerry appealed for Israelis and Palestinians to take the peace process seriously and for their leaders to overcome differences that have hamstrung the talks since they began three months ago with the goal of reaching a deal by the end of April, 2014. He acknowledged the hurdles, but said he was convinced that both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas were committed to the negotiations

“I am pleased to say that despite difficulties, and we all understand what they are, these discussions have been productive,” he said.

“Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas reaffirmed their commitment to these negotiations despite the fact that at moments there are obviously tensions over one happening or another or one place or another, whether it is in Israel or the territories,” Kerry said.

Earlier Thursday, Kerry told Jordan’s King Abdullah II that his meetings had “created some clarity on some of the points.”

He did not elaborate, but said at the news conference with Judeh that there was “significant progress in our discussions about a couple of areas of concern in the panorama of concerns that exist.”

A statement from Jordan’s Royal Palace said Abdullah, a close US Arab ally, said final status talks involve “higher Jordanian interest,” mainly a common border with a future Palestinian state, the fate of Jordan-based Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1967 Mideast war and Jerusalem, where the kingdom maintains custody over Christian and Muslim holy sites.

The king also called on the international community to help end unspecified “Israeli unilateral actions in the occupied Palestinian territories because they are illegal, illegitimate and constitute a real obstacle to peace efforts,” the statement said. He was referring to Israeli government plans to build more settlements in the West Bank.

Kerry will see Abbas again Thursday night in Amman and then return to Jerusalem on Friday for a third meeting with Netanyahu in two days before continuing with his swing through the Middle East and North Africa in the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Morocco.

Kerry brokered the re-start of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which began three months ago. But little progress has been made.

The secretary has been hit with complaints from both sides during his trip while working to maintain an optimistic tone. On Wednesday he noted that in any negotiation “there will be moments of up and moments of down.”

Tensions have been running high after Palestinians said a secret negotiating session on Tuesday broke down in a dispute over Israeli settlement construction.

The stalemate has prompted speculation that the US may need to increase its involvement in the talks and present its own outline for peace – or lower expectations and pursue a more limited, interim agreement.

Tension was running high and on clear display after the Palestinians said a secret negotiating session on Tuesday broke down in an acrimonious dispute over Israeli settlement construction. Introducing Kerry in Bethlehem, the town’s mayor denounced settlements as a “siege” on Palestinian land and people; Netanyahu opened his first meeting with Kerry by bashing the Palestinians for their behavior in the peace talks.

Kerry rejected the idea of an interim agreement, saying it had been tried before and not worked.

“An interim agreement, only if it embraces the concept of a final status might be a step on the way but you can’t just do an interim agreement and pretend you are all the way there,” he said.

The Palestinians want to establish an independent state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. They say they’re willing to adjust those borders to allow Israel to keep some West Bank settlements as part of a “land swap.”

Netanyahu opposes a withdrawal to Israel’s pre-1967 lines, saying such borders would be indefensible.

He has also demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland, a condition they reject on the grounds that it would harm the rights of Israel’s Arab minority and Palestinian refugees who claim lost properties inside what is now Israel. Netanyahu also rejects shared control of east Jerusalem, home to key religious sites and the Palestinians’ hoped-for capital.

Israel Hayom | ‘Death to America,’ with a smile.

Dr. Ephraim Kam

Iranian FM: We Don’t Threaten Israel, or Anyone – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

( “Butter wouldn’t melt in our mouths… DEATH TO ISRAEL!! ” – JW )

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

Reuters

On a visit to Paris, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Wednesday that Western states should forget about the idea of armed action against Iran. “Not all options are on the table,” Zarif said, echoing comments by Western politicians implying the possibility of the use of force against Iran if the talks in Geneva on stemming Iran’s nuclear program fail.

“There is no call to talk about the use of force,” Zarif said in comments quoted by Israeli daily newspaper Ma’ariv. “The only thing that can be done is to continue the negotiations in Geneva and to reach a negotiated solution. We do not threaten Israel or anyone else with the use of force.”

The comments were made at a press conference, in which Israeli reporters participated. A Ma’ariv reporter asked Zarif if relations between Iran and Israel were a possibility. “The issue of diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran are not a topic of discussion in Geneva,” he said.

Zarif was in Paris to attend the 37th session of the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Late Wednesday, he left for Geneva to participate in the negotiations Thursday in Geneva between Iran and the six major powers – the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany – on the enrichment level of uranium in Iran’s nuclear program.

In advance of the negotiations, Israel issued a statement calling on the West to keep the strong economic sanctions against Iran in place. In response to reports that the U.S. was planning to ease the sanctions in return for an Iranian declaration that it would limit its uranium enrichment, the government statement said that the sanctions needed to remain in place to ensure that Iran actually limits its nuclear activities, instead of just talking about it.

US proposes 6-month freeze for Iran’s nuclear program – Israel News, Ynetnews.

As second round of negotiations set to begin in Geneva, senior US official reveals proposed deal: Iran will get access to oil funds trapped abroad if it stops nuclear program for six months

Yitzhak Benhorin

WASHINGTON – The United States intends to present Iran with the first step of a future agreement that will stop the “doomsday/nuclear clock” for six months. On the eve of negotiations between the six powers and Iran in Geneva, the US wants a complete six-month halt in nuclear activity. During that period negotiations will continue towards a final resolution.

The US government will offer slight relief from the current economic sanctions, but will not permit any easing of the central sanctions on energy and banking, which have ground the Iranian economy to a halt, without a final agreement with visible, practical results.

Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, who leads the US delegation to the talks in Geneva, told MSNBC: “I have very clear instructions from the president and from the secretary, that we need to make sure in a first step we stop the advance of Iran’s nuclear program.

“To put time on the clock, that in return for that, if they deal with all of the issues that we want them to deal with, there will be very limited sanctions relief. It would be temporary, targeted, and reversible… and that indeed the fundamental architecture of our sanction regime would remain for a final comprehensive agreement.”

Negotiations: not a cover

The US government does not want the negotiations to provide Iran with cover to continue its work towards a nuclear weapon. In a New York Times article, a senior American official is quoted telling the Grey Lady’s reporters. “Put simply, what we’re looking for now is a first phase, a first step, an initial understanding that stops Iran’s nuclear program from moving forward for the first time in decades and that potentially rolls part of it back.”

The initial thaw of sanctions by the US would allow the Iranian government to use funds deposited in countries which purchased Iranian oil. According to a report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which tracks the impact of sanctions on Iran, the sum made available to the Iranian government would total $90 billion. The aforementioned senior American official defined the deal as “limited, targeted and reversible sanctions relief” in return for first steps by the Iranians to curb their nuclear program.

Capitol Opposition

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, Senator Bob Corker, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has drafted an amendment that would prevent any sanction relief until Iran adheres to current UN Security Council Resolutions regarding its nuclear program.

The president has the authority to issue an executive order to freeze the amendment on national security grounds; theoretically, Obama could use this option to stop the senator.

Senator Corker, a second-term senator from Tennessee, is asking for a congressional resolution to deny President Obama the aforementioned option, though sources in Congress clarified that Democratic senators would refuse to act against the president. But the Democratic senators would agree to increase the severity of sanctions against Iran if there is no progress in the talks over the following weeks, and Iran continues its quest for the nuclear bomb.

Turkey’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Monday, 14 October 2013

Al Arabiya Institute for Studies – Mohammad Abdel Kader

Since the June 30 revolution in Egypt, Turkey has become the regional hub for the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organization. Istanbul has played host to many meetings planning what steps are to be taken against the military-backed Egyptian government after the July 3 ouster of President Mohammad Mursi.

These Ankara sponsored events were part of Turkey’s attempt to outlaw “the foreign legitimacy” of the new Egyptian leadership, a move made in addition to its previous role as a political boot camp after the January 25 revolution.

Turkey’s defense of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the tears of Recep Tayyip Erdogan when the Egyptian security forces attempted to storm the sit-in of Rabaa al-Adawiya, proved Erdogan’s ties with the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organization and their mutual interest in restoring “the era of Islamic rule,” seen by the Brotherhood as the basis for protecting “the Islamic nation.”

After the end of the Ataturk party’s rule, and the start of the democratic party’s era, the Brotherhood started collaborating with Necmettin Erbakan, who in 1969 founded Milli Görüş, the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood.

In 1996, Erbakan attempted to facilitate the rise of a new Islamic power, the Eight Islamic countries group, made up of Libya, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Malaysia. Also, the Brotherhood fielded a strong presence at the 2006 celebration of 533 years’ occupying Constantinople.

Although Erdogan attempted to showcase the image of a civilized Islam, based on the Sufi teachings of Shamsuddin al-Tabrizi and Jalaluddin Rumi, the Turkish Islamists were fascinated by the Egyptian experience to an extent that they started translating the letters Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and the teachings of 20th century Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb, among others.

Even the Justice and Development party was, to a certain extent, considered a Muslim Brotherhood faction, giving business opportunities to Brotherhood businessmen for example. Erdogan was an open follower of the master of Islamists in Turkey, Necmettin Erbakan.

In that era, many Brotherhood leaders moved to Turkey which launched “historic reconciliations” between the Syrian and Egyptian regimes and the Brotherhood. This was done in order to create a favorable environment for forming Brotherhood branches, without much success before the Arab Spring.

Turkey and Brotherhood meetings

Many reports showcase Turkey’s role in supporting the Brotherhood with weapons and activists, including the Turkish Intelligence officer Irshad Hoz who was arrested in Egypt. Turkey received many fugitives after the June 30 revolution, in coordination with Hamas in Gaza and the state of Qatar.

In this context, Istanbul hosted two main conferences; the first was on July 10, it was held at a hotel near Ataturk airport and featured leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organization, such as Youssef Nada (the offshore tycoon who is one of the main supporters of the Brotherhood), Rashed al-Ghanoushi and Mohammad Riyad al-Shafaka, and representatives from the Hamas movement. This conference was held in the shadow of a globally popular conference held by the Turkish Saadet Party to support democracy.

The conference adopted a “patience strategy” from a study assessing the situation after “the military coup against the [legitimate leaders] in Egypt,” prepared by the Brotherhood’s International Center for Studies and Training. These strategies consist of launching awareness campaigns, bringing to trial the figures of the Egyptian Army, igniting the conflict within communities, calling for civil obedience and besieging the key government institutions.

The second meeting was a cover-up for the Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Lahore and it adopted an action plan to face what happened in Egypt. The meeting also studied the repercussions of what happened to the Brotherhood in Egypt on its brother organizations in Tunisia, Sudan, Jordan and Algeria. It also discussed the obstacles to their free movement in the GCC countries. The meeting witnessed a large attendance from the Brotherhood’s international membership, including participants from Morocco, Malaysia, Mauritania, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Kurdistan-Iraq.
In parallel, Istanbul hosted another meeting on September 25 and 26, and the Brotherhood participated as members of the “Islamic Parliamentarians union” and “parliamentarians for transparency.”

The future of the relationship

Turkey still seems to be supporting the line of “democracy restored through elections,” neglecting its previous slogan of supporting “the legitimacy made by revolution” which was adopted to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak.

This means that cold relations will not only occur between Turkey and Egypt, but concern will spread to other Arab countries which are against Turkey’s hosting of Brotherhood leaders and their meetings.

Although the Turkish leadership still considers that the alliance with the Brotherhood isn’t as harmful, at the national level, as ties with any other sort of Egyptian government, it still sees the rise to power of (Sunni) Islamic movements as an opportunity for the Justice and Development party to rise as a leader of modern Turkey and the post-revolutionary Arab region. This would allow Turkey to play a dominant role in regional politics by hosting the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organization as long as the Justice and Development party, under the leadership of Erdogan, remains in power.

Netanyahu’s Nay-Saying on Iran Is Working « Commentary Magazine.

For weeks, even people who share Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suspicions of Iran have been loudly proclaiming that his tactics are all wrong: He’s alienating the world with his negative attitude toward the Iranian charm offensive.

“His bombastic style is his undoing,” proclaimed Haaretz military analyst Amos Harel. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the former head of the Union for Reform Judaism, similarly warned that Netanyahu “should lower the tone, dispense with bluster,” since “In America, Israel is losing the debate on Iran.”

Given that nobody else on the planet even comes close to Netanyahu’s record of success in generating movement on the Iranian issue, I never understood why anyone would think they knew better than he how to do it. But I hadn’t noticed how effective his recent “bombastic bluster” has been until today, when a senior Israeli official pointed out something I’d missed: “We changed the conversation in which everyone was talking about easing the existing sanctions to a conversation in which everyone is discussing the need for preventing additional sanctions,” he said.

Nothing proves this better than President Barack Obama’s decision to convene an urgent meeting with American Jewish leaders last week to ask them not to press for more sanctions (two of the four groups present laudably refused). And while much of the credit for this goes to Congress, which has refused to take the threat of new sanctions off the table, there’s no doubt Netanyahu’s pressure contributed significantly.

First, that’s because nobody can be more Catholic than the pope: If Israel, which views Iranian nukes as an existential threat, weren’t vociferously objecting to the removal of existing sanctions and demanding new ones, it would be much harder for anyone else do so–certainly for American Jewish groups, but to some degree even for Congress.

Second, Israel’s track record shows that if it feels pushed to the wall by an existential threat, the chance of it taking military action can’t be ruled out. And since the world doesn’t want an Israeli attack on Iran, it has consistently tried to keep Israeli angst below that line. Netanyahu’s current campaign was thus aimed at convincing the world that easing sanctions would risk pushing Israel over the line–and he seems to have succeeded.

This isn’t the first time Netanyahu has successfully used similar tactics. His credible threat of Israeli military action is what originally persuaded Europe to impose an oil embargo on Iran, as a French official acknowledged openly at the time: “We must do everything possible to avoid an Israeli attack on Iran, even if it means a rise in the price of oil and gasoline,” he said. This same credible threat is what bought time for negotiations by persuading Iran to curtail its 20 percent enrichment–as even the Washington Post, not usually a Netanyahu fan, acknowledged in April. And finally, it helped bring Iran to the negotiating table–something Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged this week, but which Iran’s own Intelligence Ministry acknowledged a year ago, when it issued a report advocating diplomatic negotiations over its nuclear program to avert the threat of a “Zionist” attack.

None of this means the danger of a bad deal with Iran has passed; far from it. But the first step toward preventing a bad deal was to prevent a hasty removal of sanctions, and that, Netanyahu seems to have accomplished.

He certainly knows that threatening military action and dismissing Iranian charm offensives as meaningless won’t make him popular. But so far, it has proven effective–and as long as that remains true, he will quite rightly be prepared to dispense with being loved.