Mediaboss Marketing

Foreign Ministers Mevlut Cavusoglu (L) of Turkey and Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran attend a meeting in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 20, 2016. (photo byREUTERS/Maxim Shemetov)

Author:Fehim Tatekin Posted February 24, 2017

For hundreds of years, since the 1639 Qasr-e Shirin Treaty, Turkey and Iran have maintained a pretty peaceful coexistence, not letting occasional political spats and regional rivalry affect their economic relations. Both sides have become masters of not crossing critical thresholds in their relations. But political tensions arising from the Syrian civil war have eroded that mastery, and economic relations are now threatened.

Sometimes, Turkey just can't seem to help itself. Other times, its diplomatic lapses seem intentional. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu both managed to insult Iran recently in high-profile venues, resulting in high-profile economic damage.

In a statement last week in Bahrain, Erdogan accused Iran of trying to split Iraq and Syria by resorting to Persian nationalism, which he said had to be prevented. Cavusoglu, speaking Feb. 19 at the Munich conference, said, Iran is trying to create two Shiite states in Syria and Iraq. This is very dangerous. It must be stopped.

Not surprisingly, Tehran was angry. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi replied strongly, saying those who support terror organizations, who cause bloodshed, who lead the way to tensions and instability in the region cannot escape from their responsibility by accusing others. We are acting patiently, but there is a limit to that. If our Turkish friends repeat these type of remarks, we will have to respond.

The tension cast a shadow over the Turkey-Iran Business Forum scheduled for Feb. 25 in Tehran. Turkey was going to be represented by Minister of Economy Nihat Zeybekci, and Iran by Minister of Industry, Mining and Trade Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh. Because of the polemics between the two countries, Zeybekci canceled his trip. The forum was then postponed. It's not known if new dates are being set.

This was major. The Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEIK) had arranged for executives from about a hundred Turkish companies to attend. Officials also had planned during the forum to inaugurate the Turkish Trade Center in Tehran.

Turkish businessmen had been waiting for such a forum, hoping to find lucrative opportunities in energy, petrochemicals, mining, construction, retailing, logistics and tourism as some sanctions on Iran are being lifted. DEIK issued a statement saying that the meeting could have been instrumental in increasing the volume of trade to the desired level of $30 billion in two years.

Turkish companies that had not already prepared to go to Tehran soon after the sanctions started being lifted aren't sure if they can manage their projects in Iran. None of them have pulled out, but they are taking their time to engage, worried that doing business in Iran might not be as easy as before. For example, the Iranian Civil Aviation Department has been delaying the issuance of permits for charter flights to Turkey. This began before the current tension arose, but it contributes to economic uncertainty and caused severe disappointment in Turkeys tourism sector, which hosts an average of 1.5-2 million Iranians every year.

Organizers felt the Turkey-Iran Business Forum could have gone a long way toward facilitating trade.

It's important to understand the background of the tension between Ankara and Tehran. No doubt, Turkey is trying to find someone to blame for the disaster in Syria and for Ankara losing its influence in Iraq. Turkish officials try to explain their situation by saying they could succeed were it not for Iranian interference. But there are three other important factors.

First is Turkeys desperate need for hot money from the Gulf to ease its shortage of market funds. Ankara hopes that by adopting an anti-Iran stance, relations with Shiite-phobic Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries will be smoother and profitable.

Second, while looking for markets for its all-important defense industry, Turkey has noted that Gulf countries spend generously on armaments. The political masterminds in Ankara are trying to promote an exaggerated sense of the "Iranian threat" to encourage Gulf countries to buy Turkish weapons.

Turkeys pro-Islamic daily, Yeni Safak, a virulently anti-Iran newspaper, has run headlines such as Before missiles hit Mecca and Before Mecca wars begin, before tanks surround Kaaba that reflect the Turkish governments motivation.

Ibrahim Karagul, the dailys editor-in-chief, wrote Feb. 16, "Though the US and Europe largely supply the region's defense needs, and billion-dollar arms agreements are being made with these countries," Turkey's defense industry will see new opportunities, partly because of rising security threats.

"It is no longer speculation that the Gulf funds that were directed toward different sectors until now are going to create a new wave in Turkey's relations with the region," he wrote. Joint defense agreements also breed rapport, though "the situation is beyond economy for Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries like Qatar and Bahrain; these countries are under serious threat.

He added, There is concern about an Iranian expansion that would target the entire Arab world, which it feels no need to hide, with plans to take over Mecca. The Iranian missiles sent through Yemen to Jeddah and Riyadh have revealed Tehran's intentions."

The third factor is a desire to grab a partnership opportunity with the new US administration. Gulf countries are delighted that President Donald Trump has again made Iran a target. This is the concept Erdogan has his eyes on.

Read More: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/02/turkey-iran-tensions-hit-turkish-economy.html

Read the original here:
Is Iran-Turkey tension intentional? - Al-Monitor

After negotiations between the officials of Iranian and Malaysian central banks, the two countries agreed to integrate their bank card systems and discussed conducting business in local currencies. Iranian banks are now connected to TARGET 2 and trade with Europe is underway. Iran is also eager to expand its banking ties with Malaysian banks, said Gholamali Kamyab, the deputy governor for foreign exchange affairs at the Central Bank of Iran, as reported by IBENA. TARGET2 is an interbank payment system for the real-time processing of cross-border transfers throughout the European Union. An Iranian banking delegation is in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, meeting with the senior managers of Malaysian commercial banks and officials of the Malaysian central bank (Bank Negara Malaysia). The Iranian delegation is headed by Kamyab who held a meeting with the Assistant Governor of the Central Bank of Malaysia Adnan Zaylani Zahed. The deputy governor of CBI explained the situation of Irans economy after the sanctions were lifted and assessed ways of boosting bilateral trade relations. Kamyab noted that the Central Bank of Irans policies are aimed at easing business ties with other nations and using local currencies for trade. In line with the aforementioned policy, we welcome the interest of Malaysian banks to open accounts in Iranian commercial banks in local currencies. Malaysian banks can also transfer money in the currencies of other countries, if the Iranian side approves, he added. Adnan Zaylani Zahed also expressed Malaysias interest in transferring money in Japanese yen and Chinese yuan. Currently Malaysia is using yen and yuan for business and transfer of cash. Trade ties between the two countries looks promising under this framework, he said. The delegation also included representatives from Iranian banks, Melli, Mellat, Pasargad, Keshavarzi and Middle East. They had back-to-back meetings with the officials of Malaysian banks like Islam Bank, Exim Bank, Me Bank and CIMB on boosting bilateral relations.

Read more:
Iran, Malaysia Integrating Banking Transactions - Financial Tribune

Acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and playwright Bahram Beyzaie was censored for decades in his home country and was not able to screen or publish many of his artistic works.

Now a Stanford lecturer, Beyzaie directed and staged a nine-hour, two-part play last spring as part of the Stanford Festival of Iranian Arts initiative, launched by the Hamid and Christina Moghadam Program in Iranian Studies.

Go to the web site to view the video.

Video by Kurt Hickman

As part of the Stanford Iranian Studies Program, the initiative on Art, Social Space and Public Discourse in Iran features art exhibitions, film screenings and music.

He said he felt a freedom he once believed was unattainable.

It was hard to leave my country, Beyzaie said. I love my country but this was not believable for me to do in Iran.

Since the Stanford Iranian Studies Programs inception 10 years ago, its director, Abbas Milani, has worked on bringing artists like Beyzaie to Stanford to highlight different forms of art in Iran and promote discussion about Iranian and Iranian-American culture.

One of the most telling facets of every culture is the art, said Milani, who is also a co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution. And you cant understand Iran today unless you understand what is happening on the street, in the underground theaters, poetry readings, fashion shows and raves. All of that is part of Iran.

Irans rich history of culture and art can be overlooked against the backdrop of its governments actions, notably its targeted censorship toward art and film after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

AcclaimeddirectorBahramBeyzaie(center),theBitaDaryabariVisitingProfessorofIranianStudies,sharesthestagewithhisactorsafteraStanford performanceoftheIranianplay Tarabnameh. (Image credit: Vahid Zamani)

Beyzaie, 78, whose films focus on Irans history and cultural identity, lived under the governments censorship for many years while working as the director of the Theater Arts Department at Tehran University. But life was hard for him and his family, he said.

It was very difficult to survive, Beyzaie said.

In addition to being constantly censored, Beyzaie was eventually banned from teaching at Tehran University because of his parents Bah faith, which came under persecution after the Islamic Revolution. The followers of that religion, which is considered to be the worlds youngest monotheistic religion, have faced harassment, discrimination and even execution in Iran.

When an opportunity to teach at Stanford arose six years ago, Beyzaie said he had to leave to ensure a better future for his then 14-year-old son, who wouldnt have been able to get an education in Iran because of their familys association with the Bah faith.

It was disappointing, but we had to leave, Beyzaie said.

Beyzaie said his first time putting on a play at Stanford was liberating.

Thats when I realized: Oh, we could do that here? Oh, we are free, Beyzaie said. It was a mixture of happiness and sorrow.

In addition to attracting Iranian artists and scholars, the Iranian Studies Program also has created several initiatives, including sponsoring the recent effort on Art, Social Space and Public Discourse in Iran, to bring art exhibitions, film screenings and music from Iran to Stanford and the surrounding communities.

The new effort aims to showcase different types of Iranian public art, stimulate discussions about public art and its definition, and foster collaborations between Iranian artists and artists in the San Francisco Bay Area through new classes, events and panels.

One of our objectives with the initiative was to open a window to Iran that goes beyond media representation and what occupies contemporary popular imagination, said Ala Ebtekar, a lecturer with the Department of Art and Art History, who is leading the new initiative. It is precisely in these public practices that we find connections and similarities to other social practices across cultures.

A unique aspect of Iranian arts history is Naqqali, a genre of oral storytelling primarily performed in coffeehouses. As part of this performance, a Naqqal, which means a storyteller in Farsi, retells a well-known story from classical Persian poetry.

This celebrated art form, which was unofficially banned in Iran for some time after the 1979 Revolution largely because of its association with political activism, was added in 2011 to UNESCOs List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding.

But in recent years, new generations of artists in Iran have rediscovered the practice of Naqqali as well as experimented with other forms of public art, such as graffiti.

The art scene in Iran is booming right now, Ebtekar said. Galleries are popping up everywhere.

Bringing attention to the old and new art forms of Iran was part of the goal of a three-day symposium in the fall that kicked off the public art initiative. As part of the event, two Naqqals performed at Darvazeh Ghar coffeehouse in Tehran, which hasnt held a Naqqali performance since pre-revolutionary time. Segments of the show were broadcast live at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco.

This special performance reignited the performative potentialities of the site and introduced a unique type of storytelling to a new audience at the Asian Art Museum, Ebtekar said.

As part of the initiative, Ebtekar is also teaching a course, Public Space in Iran: Murals, Graffiti, Performance, where Stanford students learn about Irans older traditions of performing arts as well as contemporary art practices.

In the course, students interacted with Ghalamdar, a U.K.-based Iranian graffiti artist, who created three new art pieces during his month-long stay at Stanford, one of which was displayed inside the Coulter Art Gallery at the McMurtry Building. His other two works, on which he collaborated with local artists, are murals that are located in San Franciscos Mission District and at Jack London Square in Oakland.

The Iranian Studies Programs art initiatives have not only illuminated the current art scene in Iran but also brought together members of the Iranian diaspora community, a large portion of which is located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

A recent highlight of that collaboration was the nine-hour performance of the traditional Iranian play Tarabnameh last year. Directed by Beyzaie, the play was staged with an ensemble of 40 largely nonprofessional actors, most of whom were part of the Iranian diaspora in the U.S. or in Europe. Some traveled directly from Iran to participate in the play, which Milani described as a historic moment for Iranian theater.

Beneath the radical veneer of Irans current regime, there is another Iran, Milani said. Appraising the full complexity of Iran requires understanding the country in its entirety, and art and cultural history is essential to that.

Read the original here:
Stanford's Iranian Studies Program highlights Iran's art, culture via new initiatives - Stanford University News

He also said that the agreement with Iran to limit its nuclear program -- brokered in 2015 by the US, Iran and five other world powers -- will stay in place, despite noises to the contrary from members of US President Donald Trump's administration.

Speaking on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Zarif said there was an international consensus not to let the agreement -- which took two years to negotiate -- unravel.

"I believe everybody, including experts in the United States, know this was the best deal possible for all concerned, not just Iran but the US too," he said.

"It was a triumph of diplomacy over coercion, because coercion doesn't work any more."

Regarding Syria, where Iran is in alliance with Russia in supporting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, the 57-year-old Iranian diplomat said it was the US "occupation" of Iraq that had created ISIS.

"We cannot commit to solutions that are part of the problem," he said. "I believe that the presence of foreign troops in Arab territory is a recipe for those extremists to rally behind and gain new fighters from disenfranchised youth."

Zarif said that sanctions won't work with Iran.

"Everybody (in) the past who has tested Iran know we don't respond well to threats. We respond well to mutual respect and mutual interests."

Zarif said the Obama administration tried to use economic sanctions to curtail Iran's nuclear program, but eventually failed, with Iran increasing their number of nuclear centrifuges tenfold in that period.

"The reason Obama came to the negotiating table was because sanctions did not work," Zarif told CNN.

Zarif said Trump's proposed, but currently stalled, travel ban on seven mainly Muslim countries including Iran "was an affront to the entire nation."

"You cannot find any Iranian who has committed a single act of terror against Americans, in any of these atrocities that have taken place," he said. "Iran has always condemned every single terrorist incident in the United States since 9/11."

Zarif said the ban was a departure from previous US policy that took issue with the government but not the Iranian people, and added that Iranians were among the most successful immigrants to the US.

"They (the US) don't understand in a globalized world you cannot contain threats to one locality. Syria is now a training ground for terrorists creating havoc everywhere," Zarif said.

Amanpour asked the Iranian Foreign Minister why Tehran chose to intervene in Syria on behalf of President Assad. "There are 500,000 people dead, there are twelve million refugees, there is torture, there is mass hanging -- it is not my impression, those are the facts," she said.

"Mistakes were made in Syria, as in the past mistakes have been made," he replied. "The same people who armed Daesh [ISIS], armed the terrorist groups, were the same people who armed Saddam Hussein, were the same people who created and armed al Qaeda."

"We should not continue to repeat history and then blame people who were on the right side."

Responding to a question about people fearing Iran -- partly because of its support for Hezbollah -- Zarif said the Lebanese Shia militia entered Syria on the request of Assad "to prevent these extremist forces (ISIS and other Sunni Islamist groups) from infiltrating into Lebanon, which would be a threat against all of us."

See more here:
Iran: No to US troops in Syria, nuclear deal to stay - CNN.com

The pretense for leaking information about a late-December call between General Michael Flynn, then Donald Trumps designee for national-security advisor, and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak was that the call presented some sort of grave threat to U.S. national security, and it was therefore worth committing a felony to get the word out. But so far, the only hint of criminality in this affair is in the leak itself, not in anything Flynn said to the ambassador.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that Flynns subsequent departure from his post had everything to do with trust (he had denied making any call to Kislyak) and nothing to do with lawbreaking. It may be too early to know for sure, but it is curious that the leakers have yet to release the transcripts of the call.

Regardless of how the whole Flynn saga shakes out, the newfound concern from the national-security apparatus and mainstream media about U.S. cooperation with authoritarians and government officials negotiating secret side deals is striking. Attempts by the Trump administration to forge a new, positive relationship with the Russians should be viewed skeptically, but reasonable people will save their loudest objections for when and if this administration starts dealing with Russia the way the previous administration did.

Bear in mind that President Obama and his team brokered side deals with the Russians (and Iranians, for that matter) that resulted in enormous advantage for them and loss for us during his entire presidency.

For instance, in 2009 President Obama surreptitiously sent a letter to the Russians, offering to cancel plans to install a missile-defense site in Poland and corresponding radar apparatus in the Czech Republic. These would have provided an additional layer of protection for the United States and its allies from Iranian long-range missiles. All Russia had to do for Obama to cancel the plans was to agree to help pressure Iran to stop its nuclear-weapons program. Whats the big problem with that?

Well, for starters, the missile-defense site had nothing to do with Russia. Its purpose was to protect and defend the United States and its NATO allies from a threat that was just over the horizon. By offering this concession to the Russians, who opposed the site because they didnt want U.S. troops in Poland, the Obama administration showed in its earliest days that it was willing to cave in to Russian demands, even if it meant damaging relations with a NATO ally and canceling a plan that would bolster U.S. security. The Obama administration did end up canceling the planned missile-defense deployment, and the United States to this day remains underprotected from Iranian ballistic missiles, even as the Iranians exploit relaxed U.N. Security Council missile restrictions (thanks to the Obama administration) and test long-range ballistic missiles.

Along those lines, President Obama was caught on an open microphone telling thenRussian president Dmitry Medvedev to pass along a message to thenprime minister Vladimir Putin. That message: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but its important for him to give me space....This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility. In other words, there are certain things the president would like to do for the Russians that would not please the American people, and those things would have to wait until after Obama had been reelected and no longer needed to worry about doing something the pesky American people would object to. Amazingly, this remarkable incident seems to have gone down the memory hole definitely so for at least one media personality.

Then Congress grew increasingly frustrated when it repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought answers from the Obama administration about allegations Russia was in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In 2014 the Obama administration finally, publicly admitted that Russia had been testing cruise missiles prohibited by the treaty as early as 2008, and that the United States had determined Russia was in violation of the treaty in 2011. What made this episode so maddening to Congress (and likely would have for the American people if it had been adequately covered by news media) is that the president and his State Department negotiated yet another arms-control treaty with the Russians, the New START Treaty, while Russia was in violation of the INF Treaty. How convenient that it did not publicly announce that Russia was cheating until several years after the Senate ratified the New START Treaty. Now the Russians have gone beyond testing the prohibited missiles and have deployed them.

Then there was all that Russian hacking that went on throughout the Obama presidency. Russian entities hacked private companies, Nasdaq, and banks, as well as government agencies including the State Department, the White House, and the Pentagon. Sure, government officials testified in open hearings about some of what Russia was up to, but other than that, the administration didnt raise the profile of the issue with the American people. Ask the average American if he recalls the onslaught of Russian attacks and pilfering of American intellectual property. Its likely that the only hacking he recalls is what went on leading up to the most recent American presidential election, which earned Russia a very public and direct, however belated, slap on the wrist from the White House. Hacking the Pentagon? Worth managing quietly. Hacking the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta? Time for a public scolding and sanctions.

Perhaps the main driver behind the Obama administrations unwillingness to confront Russia, and its decision to ignore or downplay Russias trespasses, is thatit wanted Russias help with what would become Obamas signature foreign-policy achievement, the Iran deal. And help it got. From billion-dollar anti-missile sales to cooperation in bolstering Syrias Bashar al-Assad, the RussianIranian partnership wouldnt be flourishing the way it is now if it werent for the Obama administration.

Although several of the deals problems are well known, many details about the Iran deal were negotiated secretly, avoiding congressional oversight and public scrutiny, and remain classified to this day. As the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, David Albright, recently testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, First, the workings of the deal have been far too secret. Some portions of the parallel or side deals and secret Joint Commission and Procurement Working Group (PWG) decisions and actions have been publicly revealed. Although the Joint Commission decided after Donald Trump won the presidency to release its major decisions, likely feeling increasing pressure to do so, much still remains secret. Congress repeatedly fought for access to the side deals and annexes related to the Iran deal. Two such prominent officials were Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and then-Representative Mike Pompeo, who is now the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

And of course we cant forget the time the Obama administration released Iranian criminals to Iran and shipped $400 million in cash on pallets to Iran on the day the Iranians released some American hostages. The Obama administration insisted that the hostage release and the pallets of cash did not amount to the United States paying a ransom, and that the transactions were unrelated. Members of the media reported this narrative as though it were true, even after the State Department spokesman eventually conceded that the timing of the cash transfer was leveraged to secure the hostage release.

Then, while the media frenzy was focused on the American election results and whether the incoming U.S. president was saying nice things about the Russian president, the United States and the five other world powers that negotiated the Iran deal (including Russia) authorized the shipment of 116 metric tons of natural uranium from Russia to Iran. David Albright noted to the press that the amount could be enriched to make more than tennuclear bombs.

Bottom line: Russia is an adversary of the United States. It was true during the Obama administration despite Obamas insistence to the contrary, and because of his constant stream of capitulations, it remains true today, only now Russia is more powerful.

Rebeccah Heinrichs is a fellow at the Hudson Institute. She can be reached on Twitter @RLHeinrichs.

See the original post:
The Left's Blatant Hypocrisy on Russia and Iran - National Review