Fraying Friendships in the Middle East

Image credits: farrokhi

Following her previous article on relations with Iran, Features Columnist Thea Osborne assesses what the latest developments really mean for the Middle East region.

The recent agreement reached in Geneva between Iran and the United States is truly monumental and it is difficult to really understand the scale of the potential shift in power balance and international relations that it might cause within the Middle East region.

Obama has made a major breakthrough during his troubled second term and finally displayed a real change and awareness within the American attitude towards the region. It has been perfectly timed to fit the new opportunities available to them due to the election of the new, more moderate, Iranian president, Hasan Rouhani. The temporary agreement was reached after the second round of talks between Iran and six world powers. The key terms of the deal include Iran’s halting of enrichment above five per cent and dismantling the connections required to do so, along with daily access for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect the Iranian nuclear sites. In return world powers have promised not to impose new nuclear-related sanctions for the next six months and to suspend certain sanctions already in place on gold, precious metals, cars and petrochemical exports. The potential repercussions of the agreement are not just important for the US and Iran but for the entire region as it could cause seismic shifts in power relations.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has clearly had his feathers seriously ruffled by his long-term friend and sponsor, the USA, showing such friendship towards his sworn enemy. On Sunday Netanyahu declared, “today the world has become a more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon.” Obviously aware of the potential isolation of Israel if it loses support from the US, Netanyahu tried desperately to present a strong independent state of Israel: “Israel has many friends and allies, but when they’re mistaken, it is my duty to speak out… the regime in Iran is committed to destroying Israel. And Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself from any threat.”

Israel is understandably worried that Iran will only become stronger with the lifting of sanctions and become an even more powerful player within the region particularly with its strong links to the Assad regime in Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. Israel is also convinced that Iran’s sole purpose in terms of nuclear power is to make a bomb with which to destroy Israel. A potential realignment of the US towards Iran is going to going to force Netanyahu to seriously reconsider his lifelong policy of scaremongering about the imminent dangers emanating from Iran.

The Iranian foreign minister who had negotiated on Iran’s behalf, Mohammah Javad Zarif, was greeted by cheering crowds on his return to Tehran. He quickly warned people, though, that this temporary deal could still be reversed in the future and assured that Iran had by no means agreed to completely stop their nuclear program. It is obvious, however, that he was extremely pleased and has become one of the most prominent and popular Iranian diplomats, both internationally and domestically, in the last thirty years. It is the largest step forward in Western-Iranian relations since the Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the incredibly pro-Western Shah. Moreover, arguably, more than any of the huge changes that have occurred in the region in the last few years it could indicate a massive move in the power balance of the entire region away from the monopoly of power held by Israel and the Gulf states over the West.

This will not happen without at least a brutal war of words, as Benjamin Netanyahu has already started to display.

Thea Osborne, Features Online Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Middle East: Iranian Discussions

Image credits: yeowatzup

 

In her newest piece, Features Online Columnist Thea Osborne talks about the Iranians’ talks…

The recent Iran talks in Geneva, despite ending inconclusively, are being generally hailed as a step in the right direction. The talks, between the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran, lasted three days and were focused around reaching a deal in which Iran would promise to curtail their nuclear programme in return for a reduction in international, particularly US, sanctions against the country.

Iran’s nuclear policy and capabilities are immensely unclear and therefore perceived as a potentially lethal threat to the region and particularly to the States’ allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is known that Iran has a nuclear programme and it considers it as a matter of national pride and technical achievement that it should be allowed to continue to do so as is permitted through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty allows nuclear power for domestic civil power but Iran’s programme is on a far larger scale than that and is thought to be close to levels needed to make a bomb. There is, therefore, a need for transparency about Iran’s ambitions for the programme, which it insists is not for a bomb, and outside investigations and regulations in their enrichment programmes. Naturally Iran will not agree to this without clear incentives, not necessarily simply concerning sanctions, but also its wider position in the region and its relationship with the US.

The talks concluded with a statement from the exhausted-looking Iranian foreign secretary, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. In their statement both suggested progress had been made and refused to clearly comment on the apparent “scuppering” of the talks by France: the surprise spanner in the works in the form of French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius’ refusal to accept a stopgap deal which aimed at defusing tensions and creating more time for discussion and negotiation. The hiccup appears to have caused much fury amongst diplomats and speculations as to French motives.

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu
Image credits: IsraelinUSA

Unsurprisingly due to their long-term hatred and rivalry, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken out clearly about his disapproval of Iran’s ‘deal of the century’. Having spent much to the last twenty years propagating the unfathomable dangers that emanate from Iran it understandably seems to come as quite a shock and upset to Netanyahu that his best friend and supporter, the US, is willing to discuss the lifting of some of its thirty year old sanctions on Iran.

Another key ally of the US, Saudi Arabia, is also concerned about the new Iranian-US diplomacy. As the dominant Sunni nation within the region Saudi Arabia has had a long-term rivalry with Shia-dominated Iran; it recently played out, with horrific results, that the two nations backed, funded and armed opposite sides within the Syrian civil war. Saudi Arabia, however, has been less vocal than Israel about its view, partly due to the way that the Saudi monarchy does things and partly to ensure not to be seen as siding with Israel in a public debate.

It has been suggested therefore, that France’s lack of cooperation at the Iran talks was a measure to try and gain favour with Israel and Saudi Arabia, particularly when they might be disappointed with their previously unwavering American ally.

It is undeniable that both the US and Iran seem willing to make more effort than either have been before. The US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif took part in at least eight hours of bilateral talks; by far the most contact between the two nations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. More progress, even if inconclusive, has been made in the last week than in the last ten years, and with further talks arranged to begin on the 20 November there seems hope for a deal to be reached.

However, Iran and the US, are perhaps two of the most secretive, proud and self-motivated countries in the world, and there is little doubt that they will both be holding back certain bits of information along with strict agendas as to what they are willing to agree on. That alone is an incredibly daunting and insecure start to negotiations. Moreover, when it is combined with the complications of the complex power relations surrounding any international deal involving a Middle Eastern state it seems, as illustrated by the unlikely example of France in the latest talks, that there is immeasurable potential for upset and derailing.

Thea Osborne, Features Online Columnist

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

Review: Out There

Katherine Perrington watches in horror as Stephen Fry explores what it means to be homosexual across the globe.

Its easy for us, who are living in a largely tolerant society, to forget just how many human beings are out there spouting homophobic vitriol. Stephen Fry’s two part series is a powerful and revealing look at the treatment of gay people across the world, with interviews from some of the most prolific homophobes on the planet.

Stephen Fry with a victim of ‘corrective’ rape.
Image Credit: BBC

But first we start with a cosy scene of a couple, Andy and Steve, getting married (not quite Adam and Steve but close enough) with Stephen Fry sitting in the audience, shedding a tear of happiness at how far we have progressed since being gay was a crime in this country. 

However after starting on a positive note, Stephen meets Iranian asylum seeker Farshaad who is facing the death penalty if he is sent back to Iran. The Home Office do not believe he is gay and apparently require proof if he is to stay in the country. What exactly they expect him to do to provide proof is unclear and unhelpful. He asserts he would rather commit suicide than go back to a country that would humiliate and execute him. 

Next, Stephen travels to Uganda, where, in a radio debate, he encounters Pastor Solomon Male, a homophobic preacher. I was shocked at his ridiculous assumptions about gay people and his obsession with the idea of anal sex and its sinful nature, to which Stephen beautifully counters with, “Why are you so obsessed with anuses? It’s about love!” Its almost funny until you remember this hateful rhetoric is aimed at making life a misery for gay people in Uganda.

Stephen also speaks to the minister of ethics and integrity, Simon Lokodo, (possibly one of the most inappropriate titles ever) who near enough accuses Stephen of planning to spread gay propaganda through his country, rendering intelligent discussion impossible.

Still in Uganda, Stephen hears a heartbreaking testimony from a woman named Stosh who at the age of fourteen was subjected to “corrective rape” which left her both pregnant and HIV positive. This was a very distressing scene and as someone who never cries I can honestly say I was brought to tears by the cruelty she suffered at the hands of evil and ignorant people.

Episode 2, wherein Fry travels to India, is available on iPlayer
Image Credit: BBC

The programme does however, end on a positive note with a charming interview with gay actor Neil Patrick Harris, about his optimism that people are becoming more accepting of the gay community. However, we clearly still have a long way to go as next weeks episode will explore the alarming new laws in Russia and why life for gay people there is about to become even harder than it was before.

How did Out There make you feel? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

Syria: doing nothing is a mistake

Crowds in Syria
Image credits: FreedomHouse

From on the ground in Amman, Jordan, Gareth Browne explains why he is pro-intervention in Syria.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

With a track record in the Middle East such as that of the United States, the United Kingdom and the West in general, it is not beyond the realm of comprehension that governments have to give serious thought to intervening in Syria. Not least of the considerations are public opinion and concerns about the possibility of provoking a return attack.

However Syria is not Iraq. Nor is it Afghanistan and I wish that our governments will not allow the risk of bad public relations to stop them from intervening and doing as our morality compels us. To act so late is regrettable, but to not act at all is indefensible.

For the past few years, a massacre has been allowed to take place. The Syrian regime has murdered and displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent people and my nation has shamefully stood back and watched. We are so paralyzed by the fear of failure and the hard lessons learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan that we believe if we do nothing then we can do no wrong. This is a fallacy; a sickening policy of isolationism which allows innocent Syrians, many of whom share our values, to be slaughtered like animals. How can we justify our position on the UN Security Council or indeed being a free and progressive nation if we do not defend the innocent against such malice?

There are those who will make the excuse that we will be supporting terrorists and Al-Qaeda, which is a lazy and ill-conceived assumption. No one denies that there are distasteful elements involved in fighting the regime but to suggest that the opposition in its entirety is made up of these zealots is wrong. There are many groups fighting for a democratic and secular Syria and we have no reason to believe that they are cooperating with Islamist militants; in fact, several top commanders of the Free Syria Army have publicly come out against groups like Jabhat Al-Nusra.

These groups exist both alone and as part of the Syrian National Council but they do not get the attention or publicity they deserve. The  tragic irony of the situation, for those that subscribe to this idea, is that the longer the international community does nothing and allows the situation to deteriorate the only groups gaining strength are the Assad regime and those groups who are backed by Al-Qaeda. In some parts of the country, for example Idlib and Aleppo, an absence of governmental control has allowed very organised and opportunistic Al-Qaeda groups to step in. They provide medicine, food and weapons, all of which are required whilst the assistance of the West remains non-existent. The longer the status quo continues, the more opportunities like this spring up for Al-Qaeda, and the more the UK and other Western nations should be concerned.

This oft-discussed “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons was never necessary for action in Syria. Indeed, what sort of message does it send out if we only feel compelled to act after chemical weapons are used – that regimes are free to massacre their own citizens provided that they only use conventional weapons? Britain must lead the international community decisively, not to spread democracy or police the world, not to combat Iran and curb their potential usage of these weapons but to stop a massacre, and to prevent the implosion of a beautiful nation by bringing to a halt the ethnic cleansing taking place against the Kurds. We must fight the evil wherever it may be, whether within the regime or the opposition groups.

Gareth Browne

Awards Season Review: Argo

If Argo wins Best Film on Sunday night at the Oscars it will be the first film since 1989 to win the award but not to be recognised for Best Director, reflecting further the strangeness of this year for the Academy, with it being one of the most open races for Best Film in decades.

Image Credit: BBC

Upon accepting the Bafta award for Best Director Ben Affleck (The Town) described Argo as his ‘Second Act’; his third stint behind the camera is proving to be a hugely successful one, with Argo favourite to win Best Film at the Oscars in a few days.

 

Affleck both directs and stars as the main character, the daring CIA agent Tony Mendez. The film follows the imaginative agent as he constructs the bogus sci-fi film ‘Argo’, to be filmed on location in Iran in order to extract six American diplomats hiding in the Canadian embassy in revolutionary Tehran. Adapted from a true story, Chris Terrio’s head spinning script entertainingly mixes the glam of Hollywood with the unstable Middle East, and showbusiness with government bureaucracy.

 

Billed as a comedy, the film’s selling point is CIA agent Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston) sarcastically describing it as “the best bad idea” they had. However, the gripping suspense and paranoia is also its founding appeal. As the film flits between three settings of crowded and volatile Tehran, the claustrophobic offices of the CIA and sunny L.A, you are left biting your nails as Mendez and the six diplomats attempt to literally scramble out of Iran. Performances by the always captivating Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) and Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad), who is really growing into serious roles, added real class to the cast of the film.

 

Through Affleck’s directing, Argo refreshingly combines a big issue with beautiful cinematography. Each location has its own cinematic feel in order to assist the audience through the fast narrative. For example, all the footage in Tehran is on handheld cameras, reminiscent of news footage or a documentary.

 

Where Argo falters however, is the failure to create any great measure of audience empathy for the diplomats in Tehran. Despite being hooked into the suspense of the six diplomats hiding in the embassy, there is no real feel of personal attachment to them, despite the inclusion of the home footage monologues for each character. The spectacle and the entertainment of the film aren’t in any doubt but there isn’t real substance to the horrific situation of the six individuals, nor that of Iran itself.

 

At the core, although it brings the shocking realities of Iran to the attention of Hollywood (both in the film and today) it fails to get its hands dirty. You feel there could be more done with this goldmine of a story by getting under the skin of the audience about an event that still scars the country. The film is also strictly from an American perspective, the Iranian people are portrayed as merely religious and violent, whilst the role of the CIA is glorified and the impact of the Canadian Embassy is downplayed.

 

Film critic Peter Bradshaw perfectly described it as ‘semi quirk’. It is as if Affleck grapples with what kind of film he wants Argo to be, which is endearing, but ultimately harming. This is reflected through the last ten minutes, where Affleck’s work of laying down the foundations of a ‘quirky’ film is lost through a Spielberg-esque cheesy hugs and tears montage of celebrations, which is fitting for the American patriot theme of these awards. However, the film’s ending, with the US flag waving outside a picture book American house, is just a little too much American nationalism to be swallowed comfortably.

 

Argo is a safe option for the Academy, appealing, entertaining and fun, but it will show a reluctance to again reward a certain Quentin Tarintino for Django Unchained and a foreign speaking production in the French film Amour.

 

My Rating: 3 Stars.

 

Flora Cresswell