Middle East News since February 28th 2012

In Egypt, Islamist parties now hold about 80 per cent of the seats in parliament. Given the majority of demonstrators in Tahrir Square were liberal secularists, has Egypt's Arab Spring been hijacked '

No, because the liberals of Tahrir Square did not force Mubarak from power. The military took advantage of their mass demonstrations to dispatch a president it had had enough of, in large part because of his intent on handing power to his son, Gamal.

Is the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood bad news for Egypt's Coptic Christians and secularists '

Yes, but the Copts have fared badly under the military as well, which engaged in a pogrom against them a half year ago. I doubt the Muslim Brotherhood has had a victory but rather see the parliamentary elections as basically fraudulent.

Is there a risk that the major beneficiaries of the mass demonstrations in the Middle East will be well-organised Islamic parties '

Yes, well-organised Islamic parties are in a position to seize power in a number of countries including Libya, Jordan, Syria and Yemen. But I see this less the result of fleeting economic tribulations than the consequence of a deep frustration about the weakness of the umma, the Muslim community, over the past two centuries. I call this the trauma of modern Islam.

Had the US not gone to war in Iraq, would Saddam Hussein have been toppled by his own people anyway '

No, because Saddam Hussein's regime was unique in its brutality and in his determination to hold on to power. The Syrian regime is probably the closest parallel to it. I doubt whether the Iraqis would have revolted against Saddam; if they did, I doubt whether they would have succeeded. Remember, Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people in 1988.

Is Iran's regime weakening '

It's certainly feeling the heat. The European oil boycott is having an effect and the current struggle between President Armadinajad and Supreme Leader Khamenei reflects serious internal divisions between the clerical elite and military veterans like Armadinajad. I see Iran as comparable to the Soviet Union in the 1970s: a powerful and bellicose state but a hollow one because most of its subjects are alienated.

What is the likelihood of a US and/or Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities '

I can't answer that but I do sense that the Iranians will be prevented from acquiring nuclear arms. Tehran is as dead set on building nuclear weapons as the North Korean leadership.

Wouldn't a military strike against Iran galvanise the population behind the theocratic regime '

Perhaps, but it might cause them to turn in anger against the government. This is hard to predict.

You're more pessimistic about Turkey than Iran, aren't you '

Yes. When the Islamist party, the AKP, came to power in 2002, it trod carefully around the military and did little to overturn the secular principles established by Ataturk in the 1920s. When it was re-elected in 2007 the AKP's Islamisation project became much more evident, especially weakening the military's political power. Since its re-election last year the AKP's gloves have come off and the bullying has increased.

Can Syria's President Bashar al-Assad survive '

No. Increasing resistance from the soldiers, growing economic problems and burgeoning international opposition doom the regime.

Is fundamentalist Islam increasing or decreasing in influence '

It is peaking about now. The collapse of the Islamic regime in Iran would be a key event in its decline.

A deal in the works with Iran '
The Australian Online
David Ignatius, Washington Post Writers Group
Thursday April 19, 2012

THE nuclear talks with Iran have just begun, but already the smart money in Tehran is betting on a deal. That piece of intelligence comes from the Tehran stock index, which on the day after the talks opened posted its largest daily rise in months and closed at a record high. Tehran investors may be guilty of wishful thinking in their eagerness for an agreement that would ease the economic sanctions squeezing their country. My guess is that they probably have it right. So far, Iran is following the script for a gradual, face-saving exit from a nuclear program that even Russia and China have signaled is too dangerous. The Iranians will bargain up to the edge of the cliff, but they don't seem eager to jump.

The mechanics of an eventual settlement are clear enough after Saturday's first session in Istanbul: Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium to the 20 per cent level, and would halt work at an underground facility near Qom built for higher enrichment. Iran would export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 per cent, for use in medical isotopes. In the language of these talks, the Iranians could describe their actions not as concessions to the West, but as "confidence-building" measures, aimed at demonstrating the seriousness of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's public pledge in February not to commit the "grave sin" of building a nuclear weapon. And the West would describe its easing of sanctions not as a climb down, but as "reciprocity."

The basic framework was set weeks ago, in an exchange of letters between the chief negotiators. Catherine Ashton, who represents the "P5+1" group of permanent UN security council members and Germany, proposed a "confidence-building exercise aimed at facilitating a constructive dialogue on the basis of reciprocity and a step-by-step approach." The Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili, responded that because the West was willing to recognise Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, "our talks for cooperation based on step-by-step principles and reciprocity on Iran's nuclear issue could be commenced." Jalili's status as personal representative of the supreme leader was important, too. "Step-by-step" and "reciprocity" are the two guideposts for this exercise. They mark a dignified process for making concessions, much like the formula that President Obama used in his January 2009 inaugural address when he first signaled his outreach to Iran: "We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played his expected role in this choreography, criticising the negotiators for agreeing to another round of talks on May 23 in Baghdad without getting concessions in return. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie," Netanyahu said. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition." A perfect rebuff — just scornful enough to keep the Iranians (and Americans, too) worried that the Israelis might launch a military attack this summer if no real progress is made in the talks.

The Iranians seem to be preparing their public for a deal that limits enrichment, while preserving the right to enrich. In an interview Monday with the Iranian student news agency, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi explained that "making 20 per cent fuel is our right," but that "if they guarantee that they will provide us with the different levels of enriched fuel that we need, then that would be another issue." Salehi seemed to be reviving a 2009 Turkish plan to export Iran's low-enriched uranium abroad, and receive back 20 per cent fuel for its Tehran research reactor, supposedly to make the isotopes. That earlier deal collapsed because of opposition from Khamenei, who apparently is now ready to bargain.

Jalili struck the same upbeat tone in comments printed in the Tehran Times. "We witnessed progress," he said, explaining that the supreme leader's religious edict renouncing nuclear weapons "created an opportunity for concrete steps toward disarmament and non-proliferation." He said "the next talks should be based on confidence-building measures, which would build the confidence of Iranians."

Translation: The Iranians expect to be paid, in "step-by-step" increments, as they move toward a deal. At a minimum, they will want a delay of the US and European sanctions that take full effect June 28 and July 1, respectively.