splash
Antoun Issa

"The role of a writer is not to say what we all can say, but what we are unable to say."
- Anaïs Nin
Loading images...
 

Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

Lebanon crisis a test for the US

Posted By antounissa on January 22nd, 2011

My piece on ABC’s Unleashed:

Lebanon’s national unity government collapsed last week following the resignation of Hezballah and its allies in protest at a controversial UN investigation into former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination in 2005.

Deposed Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, son of the slain former premier, and his Western-backed March 14 coalition have refused Hezballah’s demands to end co-operation with the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which is expected to indict Hezballah members.

The crisis has spurred regional powers into action, aimed at preventing the troubled tiny Arab country from relapsing into civil war.

Regional talks have hit a snag, however, as Saudi Arabia – a key player in Lebanon – announced in frustration its withdrawal from negotiations this week.

Nevertheless, the emergence of new regional players signals a clear decline of US influence in a region where it once held exclusive hegemony.

It is not only the typical arch nemeses of Iran and Syria that are challenging the US in the Middle East, but friendly states in Turkey and Qatar that are becoming increasingly assertive on the regional arena.

The Turkish alternative

Turkey, in particular, has in recent years distanced itself from Washington in its Middle Eastern approach. Gone are the days when Ankara turned a cold shoulder to its east. Turkey is today asserting its own agenda in the region that is visibly independent of American interests.

The Turks – a NATO ally – have refused to take sides in the regional battle for influence between the US and Iran, and instead have pursued friendly relations with Tehran and continue to conduct trade and business with a country under increased US sanctions.

The rise of a Turkish, democratic and Sunni alternative to the US and Iran is proving to be increasingly popular among ordinary Arabs resentful towards American and Israeli regional hegemony, and wary of Iran’s intentions.

Public and vocal condemnations of Israeli policies in Palestine have made Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan among the most popular figures in the Arab world.

Turkey’s drive to the forefront of regional politics has pushed long-time Arab Sunni powers, and key American allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt out of the spotlight.

Many Lebanese analysts – as well as Hezballah leader Hassan Nasrallah – blamed the US for scuttling months-long Saudi-Syrian efforts to prevent the current crisis from occurring. Washington’s refusal to play ball would have infuriated its Saudi allies after Riyadh reportedly reached an agreement with Damascus and local Lebanese factions.

Obama’s failing Lebanon policy

Entrenched in a regional contest with Iran, the Obama administration has inherited Bush’s legacy of a divided, tense Lebanon.

The neoconservative Bush administration included Lebanon in its plan to transform the region into a New Middle East. Bush sought to expel Syrian and Iranian influence from the country – a feat the US already failed to accomplish in the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War – and destroy Hezballah.

The Israeli onslaught of 2006 failed to achieve the key goal of eradicating Hezballah. To the contrary, Bush’s confrontational policies in Lebanon only empowered Hezballah, with Iran enjoying unprecedented levels of influence in the country.

American scholar and expert on Syria Joshua Landis accurately writes that “President Obama finds himself trapped in a Lebanese civil war that President Bush reignited and that he cannot win”.

Obama’s insistence on the STL in an attempt to strike a blow to Hezballah, Syria and Iran risks backfiring. Hezballah’s local Western-backed opponents do not have the capability to confront the Shi’ite group in a civil war.

The “military and popular” pressure of Hezballah is greater than White House statements, according to key Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who holds the balance of power in determining the next Prime Minister.

Should the Americans continue to squeeze Hezballah, its Iranian and Syrian backers may give their local ally the green light to take control of the state by force.

The US is pursuing an aggressive Lebanon policy that will inevitably lead to conflict, a game the Iranians are willing to play. Tehran is aware it holds the upper hand, and there is little the Americans can do to dislodge Hezballah, which enjoys widespread popular support in addition to its unrivalled military presence in Lebanon.

Internal Lebanese strife raises the stakes of regional conflict as Israel has previously warned it will not allow a Hezballah-ruled Lebanon on its doorstep. Any future war with Hezballah, according to Israeli strategists, is likely to draw in Syria.

Aware of the spiralling effect war in Lebanon may have on the region, emerging regional powers such as Turkey are countering with their own drive and interest for regional stability. The current Lebanon crisis is most certainly a test to see which regional will prevails.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Jumblatt’s defection may prevent civil war, Hezballah to rule Lebanon

Posted By antounissa on January 22nd, 2011

Political kingmaker Walid Jumblatt’s defection to Hezballah effectively ends Western-backed Saad Hariri’s hopes of retaining his post as Lebanon’s Prime Minster.

Jumblatt’s support will give Hezballah and its Christian allies the necessary numbers to form government without the need to compromise with Hariri’s March 14 coalition. It’s a major victory for Syria and Iran over the US in the latest round of Lebanese chess, with a pro-Syrian government set to return to office for the first time since 2005.

Hezballah is leaning to nominate former Prime Minister, and staunch pro-Syrian Sunni figure Omar Karami. Karami’s government was brought down in 2005 amidst mass protests against Syria’s occupation of the country following Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination.

Irony may deliver Karami back into power, with the looming STL prompting Hezballah to flex its political muscles and install a government friendly to the Party of God.

Jumblatt’s decision will sting his former close ally Saad al-Hariri, and no doubt a strong sense of betrayal will be felt in the March 14 camp. The Druze leader is insisting his defection was made as a result of strong Syrian and Hezballah pressure, as if claiming he had no choice in the matter in a bid to appease disillusioned supporters of the once fierce critic of Syria. He may not be lying about this one.

Despite his status as a deceitful warlord, Jumblatt’s decision may in fact stave off the threat of civil war for the time being. Hezballah made its intentions loud and clear when it resigned from government that it was in no way going to tolerate a Beirut leadership that was a threat to its weapons and legitimacy.

If Jumblatt had nominated Hariri as Prime Minister, Hezballah would have most likely swept the country by force, raising the prospect for civil war.

The Americans were gambling that the STL would have, indeed, pushed Hezballah to use its force in Lebanon, potentially drawing Israel into another round with the Iranian ally.

The US and Israel are perhaps also pushing for the fragmentation of Lebanon, as hinted by the Saudi Foreign Minister last week when he stated the country could be partitioned into sectarian cantons ala the Lebanese Forces’ federalism model.

America’s strenuous effort to have the STL – originally a Bush project – imposed on Lebanon and drive the troubled state to conflict appears to have been thwarted by Jumblatt’s decision to award Hezballah official rule of the country. It also ensures the country remains united, as the now Shi’ite-Christian-Druze coalition is set to establish government with strong Syrian support.

Dangers still remain, however, as the Americans and Israelis are unlikely to back down on the quest to eliminate Hezballah. The STL’s indictments are still to be released. Lebanese analysts warn it may take months for Hezballah and its allies to form government. Should the indictments be issued before a government is announced, the STL could still have a divisive impact on Lebanon and raise tensions.

March 14, now to be in opposition, may also resort to Hezballah’s old tactics of turning to the streets and sparking uproar amongst the country’s Sunnis who will no doubt feel marginalised. Such demonstrations will receive maximum American and Saudi support, with widespread media coverage in the West and Saudi-owned Arab media.

But it’s clear that with the major Druze and Christian parties now firmly behind Hezballah, there’s little room to move for Hariri and his few remaining allies. Civil war is now incomprehensible as Hariri now finds himself increasingly isolated against the bulk of the country. In roles reversed five years ago, Hezballah has successfully shifted from being the isolated outcast in Lebanon, to the inclusive ruler with allies in every region and sect of the country.

Hezballah is no longer a state within Lebanon, it is Lebanon.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Russia-Israel: Was the Kremlin behind the MV Arctic Sea?

Posted By antounissa on November 23rd, 2010

 arcticsea 300x170 Russia Israel: Was the Kremlin behind the MV Arctic Sea?

An investigative report by the SBS Dateline program this week posed a number of questions on the mysterious events surrounding the MV Arctic Sea last year.

To watch the documentary, click here.

To briefly summarise what happened, and what the documentary alleges:

  • The Maltese flagged MV Arctic Sea bound for Algeria was reportedly hijacked off the Swedish coast by men pretending to be Swedish narcotics police in July 2009. The Russians allege the ship was carrying timber from Finland to Algeria, which is, of course, a story no one believes.
  • The ship then mysteriously disappeared following the hijacking, arousing international intrigue as the Russians sent their navy to hunt down the ship.
  • The MV Arctic Sea somehow showed up at Cape Verde, not Algeria. Cape Verde maintains close ties to Moscow, and hosts Russia’s main air and naval bases in the Atlantic.

The Russians maintain that the hijacking took place, dismissing allegations that it was smuggling weapons to Iran, with the supposed hijackers facing court in Russia last week. Two apparent hijackers - one Russian and one Latvian - have already been sentenced.

But rumours continue to persist that the “hijackers” may have been innocently caught up in a James Bond-esque secret service mission. Could these men have been framed as part of a larger operation?

This is what the documentary appears to suggest, and indeed, most media analyses have arrived at a similar conclusion.

It is not difficult to see through the Russian smokescreen. Why on earth would Moscow send its navy to chase down a ship carrying timber? It’s hardly a commodity that’s worth a) hijacking, and b) a naval expedition.

s 400 missile system bg Russia Israel: Was the Kremlin behind the MV Arctic Sea?

Subsequent investigations by Russian journalists – interviewed in the documentary – appear to soundly point to an Israeli commando raid on the MV Arctic Sea. To boost rumours of an Israeli raid, the incident was suspiciously followed by unannounced visits to Moscow by the Israeli President Shimon Peres, and later Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Logic, as presented by the Dateline report, suggests that the MV Arctic Sea was in fact smuggling the advanced S300 missile system to Iran. Israel intercepted the ship off the Swedish coast to prevent the smuggle, framing the hijackers in the process.

Did the Kremlin try to smuggle weapons to Iran?

There appears to be valid arguments and counter-arguments on both sides of this question.

Russian maritime journalist, Mikhail Voitenjo – who has since fled to Thailand for safety reasons – believes government officials were behind the attempted smuggle.

However, if that were the case, there is one aspect of the tale that I fail to grasp. If it were true that Russia, or elements within the government, were trying to smuggle a sophisticated weapon to Iran, why not choose the more simpler route of the Caspian Sea, which borders both Russia and Iran?

Russia’s silent response has also been unusual for a country that has long had military ties with Israel’s foes, Iran and Syria. This suggests that elements within Russia - those that were to profit from the sale of the S300 to Iran - may have arranged for the smuggle without the knowledge of either Putin and Medvedev. Once the story broke of Israel’s interception, it would have been potentially damaging and/or embarrassing if it were revealed that sophisticated weapons were being smuggled out of Russia illegally.

Is corruption that rife in Russia that it has such poor control over its arms exports?

The documentary appears to suggest as much, however, one problem with this hypothesis is Israel’s knowledge of the ship. For the Israelis to have conducted such a sophisticated operation, including the framing of hijackers, required extensive planning. The Dateline report reveals that the men were recruited from various countries for a one-off job. This process would have taken several weeks.

In fact, the BBC reported that Mossad informed the Russian government of the ship.

How could the Israelis have such prior advanced knowledge of the smuggling attempt, yet Russia’s leaders kept totally in the dark?

Israel and Russia continue to maintain their silence in regards to the affair, and little has come out of Iran either.

As usual with secret service operations, many questions remain unanswered. However, two things are certain: the MV Arctic Sea was not carrying timber, and someone in Russia with significant power orchestrated the smuggling attempt, which the Kremlin has since been desperate to cover up to avoid international embarrassment.

The framing of the hijackers has, thus, served the interests of both Israel and Russia in keeping the mysterious incident aboard the MV Arctic Sea secret.

Will it be the last time someone in Russia attempts to smuggle the S300 to Iran?

Russia-Lebanon arms deal goes ahead

Meanwhile, Russia has decided to donate helicopters, tanks, cannons and shells to Lebanon. Israel has expectedly expressed outrage, but the donated weapons are unlikely to cause much angst.

Russia has been gradually rebuilding its influence in the Middle East for the past decade, as US influence wanes. Israel will have to adjust to a new Middle East involving a variety of actors that will counter its regional dominance, and in some cases, even challenge it. Iran, Turkey and Russia are each increasing their stake in the Middle East as a decline in US power leaves a void.

Perhaps this is why the Israelis are so keen to improve their ties with Moscow. The Russians, however, continue to ignore Israeli pleas to cease military ties with its regional foes, as noted in Haaretz last week. The latest Lebanon arms deal is unlikely to improve the mood in Tel Aviv.

A change of tact needed?

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Wikileaks reinforces dark reality of war

Posted By antounissa on October 26th, 2010

It’s been a few days now since Julian Assange dropped another bombshell with the revealing of dark and gloomy details of the Iraq War.

The media frenzy is still ongoing, the blogosphere is boasting “we told you so”, and Western politicians are scrambling to deal with the fallout.

But the Wikileaked documents reveal nothing out of the ordinary of what many believed was taking place in Iraq. Wikileaks simply confirmed what we all knew, but ignored for the past seven years.

Nevertheless, Wikileaks certainly has given us much to talk about. Most important to note are:

  • Modern warfare/rules of engagement: Whilst the US has attempted to reassure the public that modern wars are less brutal due to military technological advancement, the truth as revealed by Wikileaks depicts a starkly different picture.War is still brutal, entails despicable atrocities, and brings out the most evil in mankind. Technology cannot remove the human elements of war. The emotions that drive a man and woman with a gun or a missile are no different to a medieval soldier and his sword.
     
  • Media: Wikileaks is an embarrassment for mainstream media. Once again the multinational media organisations have been upstaged by activists, reinforcing the need for MSM to re-alter its approach in its coverage of conflicts, particularly those that involve home countries.Indeed, Wikileaks has only validated what the blogosphere has been reporting since US forces first set foot in Iraq in 2003. As independent online media, The Nation, recently tweeted, Wikileaks confirmed what they had already been reporting about Iraq.Whilst major media outlets such as Fox News lead the race to the bottom in news coverage, the blogosphere and independent media are picking up the pieces and proving to be more reliable sources of information.It is the media’s responsibility to tell the truth on war crimes, it is the media’s responsibility to hold warring parties accountable for their actions by divulging them to the public. It has grossly failed to do so in regards to both Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving it to small, but devoted teams of activists to fill the void ala Wikileaks.
     
  • US management of war: Wikileaks should serve as a serious reality check to the US and all great powers that embark on war adventures in the age of mass communication and information technology: You are going to be caught on camera, and your actions will be revealed to wide audiences.The battering Israel’s public image received after the highly publicised Second Lebanon War 2006, Gaza 2009 and the Flotilla killings is a clear indication of the diplomatic consequences states face in war. Accusations of Israeli war crimes were being made as the Gaza War was ongoing.

    Equally in Iraq, it is no longer the case where post-conflict analyses by academics reveal the brutal nature of war, but rather the powerful tools of mass media – from Wikileaks to a civilian’s smartphone – that bring us the news as it unfolds.The US has simply failed to manage this reality. Wars cannot be fought as it once was. We live in a highly transparent world, and the US – for reasons of legitimacy as the world’s most responsible superpower – had to be transparent in its investigations into war crimes committed by its forces and/or Iraqi security forces under its watch.

    It is extremely doubtful that either American or Iraqi security personnel will face The Hague, diminishing the hopes of many human rights activists.

    However, at a crucial time when the US is struggling to maintain its prestige as the world’s reliable superpower in the face of the emerging BRIC giants (Brazil-Russia-India-China), Washington can ill-afford to be seen as a hypocrite in regards to international law.

    Losing international legitimacy as a responsible power will render it more difficult for the US to effectively deal with emerging powers that are increasingly becoming more emboldened to challenge American supremacy. 
     

  • Human rights: Despite the constant reminders, from Hollywood and more, on the need not to repeat the horrors of World War II, the human rights of civilians during wartime still appear to vanish as soon as a bullet is fired.In an era where international organisations are attempting to regulate war, the facts – as revealed by Wikileaks – show that those regulations count for very little. No US soldier or politician will face war crimes charges, despite having violated many of the international laws on war put in place to safeguard civilians and bring justice.

    So do we continue to pursue an effective international law system that restrains conduct of war, regardless of it being routinely dismissed when it matters the most? It certainly puts into question the training methods and programs in the US military. Are rules of engagement and international law not part of the curriculum? What training did the US provide the now notorious Iraqi security forces, who happily torture their own citizens? Will Wikileaks prompt the US and other Western powers to rethink their military training, and place more emphasis on the need to be disciplined in action, and not allow the kind of emotions and recklessness that lead to atrocities? Easier said than done.
     

  • Iran: For the short-term political equation, this is perhaps the most important ramification … a reminder more so for the Arab world. For those Arabs looking to Iran as a reliable counter to Israel, look again. Iran’s actions in Iraq have shown it is as self-interested in expanding its power as the US, and – contrary to its propaganda – it is not the saviour and liberator of the Arab world.Iran champions the Palestinian cause on the one hand, and on the other allows its Iraqi Shia militia proxies to torture and execute Palestinian civilians in Iraq. And any sense of Shi’ite victimhood is now truly evaporated. Instead of reconstructing and mending fences in Iraq, the Iranians have permitted their Iraqi Shia proxies to run on rampage revenge killings that will only fuel anti-Shia sentiments among many Sunni circles in the Middle East. Iran’s hand in Iraq is equally deadly, and severely undermines the sovereignty and stability of the country. Neither the US nor Iran are delivering the war-ravaged country any benefits.

The majority of us were aware the Iraq War was a political and strategic blunder. We knew that the West had condemned the Iraqi population to years of pain, devastation and horror. This is all war has to offer, and Wikileaks has sent us a timely reminder of what we gave Iraq in 2003.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (0)

Shuffling and reshuffling – conceding Lebanon to Iran

Posted By antounissa on October 16th, 2010

Interesting comments by several Lebanese academics were quoted in this article by The Age’s Middle East correspondent, Jason Koutsoukis, more or less surrendering Lebanon to Iran in the latest round of regional chess:

“It’s not just the Israelis who are hysterical about Iran,” says Hilal Khashan, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

”Saudi Arabia and Egypt – countries that have meddled in Lebanese politics for so long – have given up here. It’s Iraq they are trying to save from Iranian influence. They believe Lebanon is already lost.“

Whatever else Mr Ahmadinejad was hoping to achieve with this week’s visit to Lebanon – including an array of economic, trade and cultural agreements – he provided tangible proof that Iran is in virtual control of Lebanon’s southern border, heightening security concerns within Israel and embarrassing the United States, which put significant pressure on Lebanese President Michel Suleiman to cancel the visit.

Many believe Lebanon, which emerged from 15 years of war in 1990, is once again headed towards internal rupture.

A United Nations Special Tribunal investigating the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri is soon to deliver findings that seem certain to implicate Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah will not tolerate it, because they cannot live with such an accusation,” says Professor Khashan. “So the current Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, has a choice.

”He can denounce the tribunal’s findings, or he can leave the government. But he can’t support a finding that Hezbollah were involved in his father’s murder. He does not have anything like the power to do so. His time in politics has, in my view, already expired.“

It was clear when Obama took office, and withdrew from Bush’s neocon drive to reshape the Middle East, that Lebanon would be surrendered to Syria and Iran.

As soon as the US changed course, Saudi Arabia threw in the towel, King Abdullah kissed and made up with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, and ordered Hariri to do the same. The wayward Jumblatt rescinded on insults made towards Syria and Hezballah during the Bush years, and won forgiveness in turn.

To demonstrate the helplessness of Hariri at present, the Future Movement leader will most likely not dare to confront Hezballah over the possibility that the Shia movement was involved in the murder of his father.

Civil war is highly unlikely, simply because it’s impossible for any other faction to stand up to Hezballah. If Ahmedinejad’s visit signified anything, it was a clear warning to Hezballah’s Lebanese opponents that Iran is the guarantor of its ascendancy in the country, and any challenge to it will be quashed.

Ironically, the Saudis and the Hariri camp are turning to Syria to calm the situation. This is how Syria plays its cards in Lebanon, and it plays it well. Syria will always seek to ensure it is the major player in Lebanon, and thus shares an interest with Saudi Arabia and the US to not allow Iran to become overly dominant in the country.

History shows that Syria has sought to contain Iran in Lebanon once before, when it backed the Lebanese Shia Amal movement against Hezballah in the 1980s.

Of course times have changed. Hezballah is a crucial part of Syria’s military defence strategy vis-a-vis Israel, and will not abandon it. It will also not abandon its alliance with Iran, as Assad has reiterated in recent times. But as has been Syrian policy in Lebanon since the French separated the multi-confessional state from Damascus, the Syrians will seek to maintain some level of balance between the various factions in the country.

This effectively works as a guarantee for Lebanon’s non-Shi’ite communities against an ever-powerful Hezballah. The only thing Syria will ask in return is that Hariri abandon the UN’s Special Lebanon Tribunal. With strong Saudi backing, Hariri will have little choice but to accept this deal.

The irony that March 14 would find itself turning to Bashar al-Assad to contain Iran’s influence and Hezballah’s rise.

Simply another round of Lebanese chess.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (1)

New blog, new look … Ahmedinejad in Lebanon and Turkey’s play

Posted By antounissa on October 14th, 2010

Master degree out of the way … tick

Chosen a city to live in for at least a year … tick

Ready to write again. I must say it’s quite refreshing to be sitting here typing away after a near year hiatus.

And what a better way to restart my political blog, the week of Ahmedinejad’s visit to Lebanon.

A lot is happening in Lebanon this week, with Turkey’s Erdogan to meet Ahmedinejad in Beirut on Friday.

What is the significance of this trip?

As noted by Hezballah expert, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, the visit reinforces the Iran-Syria-Hezballah-Hamas alliance in the face of the US and Israel. Perhaps it is a signal of contempt towards Obama’s recent drive for peace talks  - although the Israelis poured cold water on this move before it ever gathered pace – or simply a reminder to Washington that it is not the only force in the Middle East with the ability to influence the end game.

For Hezballah: Hezballah is also showing its strength to its domestic rivals, currently at loggerheads over the UN Special Lebanon Tribunal that is expected to indict several Hezballah members in the Hariri assassination. Is it a case of ‘don’t mess with me, look who’s behind me’, an attempt to scare Hezballah’s domestic allies from provoking it?

For Iran: Josh Landis comments in the same Bloomberg article that Iranian domestic issues are also at play in Ahmedinejad’s visit to Lebanon. Landis states that the Iranian leader is trying to “shift the focus from his internal failures” by highlighting the one success in Iranian policy, Hezballah/Lebanon.

Erdogan: A get together between long friends in Iran and Hezballah is not exactly going to raise too many eyebrows. However, Erdogan’s attendance to the after party will perhaps be the most significant element of this visit. Turkey’s shifting regional policy has been well documented, reaching fever point with the flotilla raid.

Erdogan’s visit will further cement that shift, potentially complicating any American/Israeli attempt to exert maximum pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. More importantly for Israel, Erdogan’s public appearance with Ahmedinejad in a visit to Hezballah will automatically signal Turkey’s symbolic support for the Lebanese Shia group.

Whilst Erdogan’s visit to Lebanon is undoubtedly going to heighten concerns in Tel Aviv and Washington, Turkey is actually increasing its stocks as a very important player in any final peace settlement in the region.

Let’s not sugarcoat Obama’s charade that are the peace talks. Time and time again the US invites Israel, the PA and its local Arab puppets in Mubarak and Abdullah to a meeting in the White House, and dubs it a renewed regional peace track. Egypt and Jordan are not the two states the US needs to gain support from for the peace talks to work.

No peace deal is going far without Iran and Syria. And with Hezballah’s continued rise in Lebanon, coupled with their leverage over Hamas, any “peace talk” between an already reluctant Israel and PA is hardly going to reap any rewards.

The only power in the region that has best positioned itself to broker peace talks between all sides is Turkey. Erdogan keeps his phone book full. Indeed, his strong criticism of Israel in recent times and his accompanying visit to Lebanon with Ahmedinejad this week is a clear sign to the US that Turkey is no American foot soldier in the Middle East (ala Egypt and Jordan), but a friend nonetheless that brings benefits with its connections.

Will the US smarten up and utilise Turkey’s potential?

*Also, a good read here from the Huff Post on Iran’s growing soft power in the Middle East.

Posted in Uncategorized
Comments (2)