Did the three suspected Iranians terrorists in Bangkok reenact a scene from the early 1920s silent film comedies — the Keystone Kops featuring clumsy and incompetent fictional policemen? At first look, it would seem so.

On Monday, Feb. 13, an explosion shattered a house in Soi Pridi Banomyong 31, in the Klongtan district of Bangkok, an upscale neighborhood where many Thai Muslims live. Thailand’s chief of police, Gen. Prewpan Dhamapong, said the explosive devices found in the rented house resembled those found in Georgia and New Delhi terror attacks this week, and were intended to be used against the Israeli ambassador in Thailand. The C-4 explosives were hidden inside two radios. C-4 is favored by terrorists because it can only be set off by a small detonator, or blasting cap, because a fuse or fire will only make it burn. Three men fled from the house. One of the men, Iranian citizen Saeib Moradi (28) fled to the street bleeding, holding three hand grenades. He tried to stop a passing cab, and when the driver refused, Moradi hurled a grenade toward the cab. The driver escaped unscathed. When police arrived at the scene, Moradi, standing in front of Kasem Phithaya School, hurled a second grenade at them. Trying to flee, Moradi hurled a third grenade at the police, but it hit a civilian pickup truck, bounced back, exploding, amputating his legs. In Moradi’s bag, Thai police found Iranian, US and Thai currency. Moradi arrived to Phucket, Thailand on February 8 on a flight from Seoul, South Korea, and travelled to Chonburi, a region two hours away from Bangkok. On the same day, Mohammad Hazaei also arrived in Thailand. Mohammad Hazaei and Masoud Sedaghatzadeh, a third Iranian national, were seen leaving the house after the explosion in hurry, carrying backpacks and a portable radio and boarding a taxicab. Mohammad Hazaei was later apprehended at Bangkok Suvarnabhumi airport as he tried to board an Air Asia flight to Malaysia, and Masoud Sedaghatzadeh (31), was arrested by the Malaysian police on February 15, 2012 in Kuala Lumpur. When arrested, Masoud Sedaghatzadeh was scheduled to board a flight to Tehran. A third terrorist, Leila Rohani, an Iranian woman managed to escape to Iran. She rented the house in Klongtan for the terrorists’ use about a month ago.

The media rushed to label the incident as an Iranian-backed terror attack. The veracity of that allegation, which currently seems to be accurate, will soon be determined. Intriguing questions linger.

Why now? Feb. 12 marks the anniversary of the violent death of Imad Fayez Mughniyah, the head of Hezbollah’s security section, and one of the founders of the organization. Mughniyah has been linked to the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and U.S. embassy bombings that killed over 350, and with the kidnapping of dozens of foreigners in Lebanon in the 1980s. Mughniyah was indicted in Argentina for his role in the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy attack in Buenos Aires. Mughniyah is believed to have killed more United States citizens than any other terrorist before 9/11. Little wonder that he has been under the sights of every intelligence service in the region. On Feb. 12, 2008 he died when his car exploded. Hezbollah and Iran promised revenge, and therefore an attempted attack by Iranian citizens on that day could be attributed to Hezbollah and Iran making good on their promise. Incidentally, Feb. 12 is also the 31st birthday of Masoud Sedaghatzadeh. There are no reports as to whether he received a birthday cake in prison.

The three Iranians appeared to be so clumsy that one wonders what motivated their planned attack. First, the house in Bangkok was rented for the three of them using Iranian passports. Hello! Was it a clandestine operation or a scene from a Keystone Kops movie? What trained terrorist would do that? The names on the passports are probably fake. At least two of these Iranian passports have almost sequential numbers. But the photos?

Second, when the devices in their house exploded, probably as a result of a “work related accident” of untrained terrorists, they fled the house without a pre-planned escape route, failing to use false passports to ease their escape out of the country. Thirdly, like another scene from Keystone Kops, instead of running away, one of the clumsy wannabe terrorists threw grenades in the street, drawing attention to himself and losing his both legs.

Was that for real? A botched terrorist attack by one of the world’s renowned terrorist-sponsoring state and its proxy terrorist organization? Since neither the Iranian Quds Forces of the Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah can be regarded as stupid or incompetent, there are at least two plausible explanation: One, the planners, whether Iranian, Hezbollah or both, wanted the perpetrators to be identified. The planners wanted the attack on the Israeli ambassador to Thailand to be painful, sending shockwaves throughout the region, but at the same time, by sending untrained men to do the job, the planners allowed themselves tongue-in-cheek plausible deniability. However, to make sure that Israel and the U.S would take the “hint” the planners probably sent individuals without proper guidance or training, allowing them to use their real names and Iranian passports. Thus, the planners hoped, they could kill a few birds with one stone: cause damage, deny responsibility, but not hide too deeply who was behind the perpetrators. The second plausible explanation is that the pressure on the Iranian leadership caused by the increased sanctions is resulting in orders to carry out immediate attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets. Such pressure led to the unprofessional manner in which the three Iranian terrorists acted. If that is the case, then expect some heads to roll in Tehran.

Now, compare that botched operation to another terror attack on the same day in New Delhi, India, also attributed to Iran or Hezbollah. A man on a motorcycle attached a sticky bomb to the car of an Israeli diplomat, occupied at the time by his wife and a local driver. Both were injured but the perpetrator fled without a trace. The modus operandi resembled the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists in Tehran. Although no one took credit for these assassinations, Iran was quick to blame Israel. Was the attack in New Delhi a copycat retaliation by Iranian intelligence?

Based on past experience and unveiled threats made by the Israeli Foreign Minister, it is likely that Israel will retaliate. When and where is yet to be seen. To be continued, etc. etc.

With the winds of Israel-Iran war looming, albeit thus far primarily in the media, many observers speculate whether Israel will launch an attack on Iranian nuclear installations. With the Holocaust as a fresh memory, Israelis do not take lightly the Iranian leadership’s repeated threats to wipe Israel off the map. In 1929 Adolph Hitler used the same rhetoric when he called for the annihilation of all European Jews, but his ideas were brushed off as “just talk.”

Are 2012 threats similar to Hitler’s message in 1929? Outside the files of the US top secret files, there could be no safe and sober assessment regarding Iranian intentions and capabilities. The intentions are manifested loud by their leaders. But do they have the capability to produce a nuclear bomb, mount it on a jet or missile to accurately hit Israel? Intelligence sources say, not yet, but soon.

A close review of the geo political situation in the region shows that we have been exposed to a first rate propaganda campaign that fools many with respect to the Iranian intentions. Iranian leaders may be zealots, but they are far from being stupid. They know that if attacked, Israel will deliver Iran a retaliatory strike that would send Iran to the stone age or earlier. Many Israelis are convinced that their government, although sounding thick hints while it rattles the saber, Israel will not attack Iran. There are multiple reasons for that belief: among them is the understanding that nuclear Iran is more an American and European problem than Israeli. Israel’s small size, its mixed Jewish and Arab population, and the location of sites holy to all Muslims make an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel less likely. Apparently, many in Iran do not share the thought that Israel will not attack first. That explains why Israelis enjoy life on the beach and in the cafés, while Iranians are readying themselves for a strike.
There’s little doubt that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Then, if Israel is not the target, who is?

Think of the 1992 U.S. presidential elections when James Carville, Bill Clinton’s strategist created the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps it’s time we describe the current crisis as, “It’s Saudi Arabia stupid!” Sunni Saudi Arabia is Shiite Iran’s decades old nemesis over the leadership of Islam. It’s Iran major contender for the leadership of Islam. Saudi Arabia is home of the sacred city Mecca and the Kaaba, the most sacred site in Islam and the Saudi King is regarded as the patron of the sites holy to Muslims.

Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world. It is the world’s top oil exporter and producer. The Saudi Ghawar oil field is the largest in the world and accounts for about half of Saudi’s oil production. Ghawar is estimated to produce 6.25% of global oil production. The problem is that Ghawar is located near the Persian Gulf, just opposite Iran. To hurt the world’s oil supply, Iranians need not block the Strait of Hormuz and face the huge flotilla the U.S., the UK and France are assembling near the Strait. Why engage in a maritime war with no chances of winning when the Iranians can torch the worlds’ largest oil field in a matter of hours with short range missiles? Obviously, such an attack would not be taken lightly by the US 5Th fleet docked close by. However, the immediate damage to world’s economy would be significant. With that attack, the Iranians could send a double message: To the U.S. – if you continue to hurt us with the sanctions, we will hurt your economy by sending oil price to the stratosphere. And to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States the message would be: the Americans can’t protect you. Therefore, you’d better come under our wings, recognizing that Iran is the leader of the Ummah el Islam, the Islamic Nation. That term was coined by Ayatollah Khomeini when he aspired to crown Iran as the leader of the Islamic world. And the Iranian nuclear bomb? That would be a shield rather than a dagger. Iran will use it as a deterrent against the West from attacking it for subjugating the major oil producers of the world. With the Ayatollah’s hands on the world’s major oil spigots, the Iranians could doom Western economies unless their new conditions are met. Among them, a coveted seat as a permanent member in the UN Security Council with veto powers.

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister was quoted as saying that he prefers an end of horror rather than endless horror. Which part of his phrase will become a reality in the region? Weeks away we will find out.

Was it an accident that on January 11, 2012 in the Seyed Khandan neighborhood
of northern Tehran an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed when a bomb was attached
to his car by two passing motorcyclists?

The fact that this attack was operationally similar to an attack on an Iranian nuclear
scientist a year earlier suggests that it was not an accident but an intentional killing with a
message.

The semi-official Fars news agency identified the victim as Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, 32, “a deputy director of Natanz uranium enrichment facility for commercial affairs.” Other reports describe him as a chemical engineer with an expertise in polymer membranes, essential for uranium enrichment. For the first time, Iran promised revenge against Israel and the U.S.

Roshan is not the first Iranian key military or nuclear person to die young. On November 17, 2011 Major General Hassan Moghadam, the head of Iran’s ballistic missile program, was killed in a huge explosion at a missile base of the Revolutionary Guards. Was that an accident as well?

Given these mysterious past events, it is too much of a coincidence to label that huge explosion that killed 17 as a mishap in handling explosives, as the official Iranian narrative wants us to believe. No Iranian fingers pointed at Israel or the U.S. on that occasion. Obviously, the Iranian government doesn’t want Iranians and the world to believe that its enemies could penetrate so deeply into one of the most guarded areas in Iran, sabotage it and walk away with impunity.

It appears that the life expectancy amongst Iranian nuclear scientists and military personnel in sensitive positions is being shortened. This marks the second explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in one year, and the sixth fatal accident in the past four years. All coincidences?

In November 2007, a series of explosions at Parchin military missile site south of Tehran injured several military personnel. In July 2008, a truck convoy carrying missiles intended for delivery to Hezbollah exploded. In August 2009, an airplane carrying missiles and explosives intended for Hezbollah crashed. In June 2011 an aircraft carrying Russian scientists working in the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr crashed, killing five scientists.

On January 15, 2007, Ardeshir Hassanpour, an Iranian nuclear scientist working at a nuclear plant in Isfahan died. There were conflicting reports as to the cause of his death, which was reported only six days later. First, the cause of death was given as poisoning caused by a faulty heater. Other reports suggested that the cause of death was radioactive poisoning.

In January 2010, nuclear physicist Masoud Ali Mohammadi was killed by an explosive attached to motorcycle parked outside his home detonated by remote control.

In November 2010, Fereydoon Abbasi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization was wounded when a motorcyclist detonated a magnetic bomb hidden under his car by remote control. Abbasi was listed on a U.N. roster of people sanctioned for suspected links to nuclear
activities.

On the same day, Majid Shahriari, a nuclear physicist was killed by a bomb attached to his car by a motorcyclist.

In July 2011, Darioush Rezaeinejad was shot in the neck outside his daughter’s Tehran kindergarten by two gunmen on a motorcycle. Reports associated him with the development of a nuclear detonator.

In March 2007, a retired Iranian General and former deputy minister of defense Ali Reza Asgari disappeared in Turkey, never to be heard from again. The Iranian government accused the Mossad of kidnapping him. Western and Israeli media suggested that Asgari defected.

In Spring 2009, Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist disappeared while on pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. He later resurfaced in the United States. About a year later, two video clips appeared in the media and in each Amiri was narrating conflicting accounts. In one, he claimed that he had been kidnapped and tortured by Saudis and Americans; in the other video he stated that he was in the U.S. of his own free will. Then, in July 2010, Amiri appeared at the Iran Interests Section of the Embassy of Pakistan, in Washington DC seeking help to return to Tehran. He flew back shortly thereafter and in a press conference in Tehran he alleged that he had been kidnapped, tortured and bribed to cooperate with the CIA, but had refused. Unconfirmed reports indicate that now he is on trial in Iran for treason.

Whodunit? Who carried out these black bag operations? As always, and as customary with most intelligence services, neither the Mossad nor the CIA has had any comment.

However, one should not rule out that all or some of these operations were carried out by Iranian opposition groups, or even by the Iranian government itself. Iranian opposition groups claim that the government kills dissident scientists and then blames the murders on the CIA and the Mossad. For example Iranian opposition groups suggest that Mohammadi, a particle physicist, had been killed by the Iranian government because he was a supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi, whom may have actually won the 2009 Iranian presidential elections before vote-tampering made Ahmadinejad president.

Does the killing of nuclear scientists stop or delay the Iranian nuclear weapons plan?
Hardly.

There are thousands of scientists and technicians on the job, and killing a few dozen individuals does harm the development of nuclear bombs, but only marginally. However there are ancillary by-products which could be the intended side effect of each of these operations: to instill fear and practically immobilize other scientists still working. The untold warning is clear: if you continue with your work in developing weapons of mass destruction, then you may be next on the hit list. In intelligence lingo it is called “white desertion.” The scientist continues working, but his mind is elsewhere, he fears for his life and quietly seeks a way out of the program. The unsolved sabotage and assassinations portray the Iranian government as incompetent, a severe blow to a regime whose culture demands honor and respect from the world.

If outside intelligence services carried out all or most of these operations, then much credit must be given to their multitasking ability; to gather combat zone intelligence with real time synching, along with an ability to execute complex dark operations in sensitive areas or against individuals under the Iranians’ close watch. Each of these actions requires not only accurate real time intelligence but also careful planning before, during and after the operations. Each require at least 15-25 operatives present on hostile Iranian soil. Careful and meticulous preplanning is needed, ways to enter and exit Iran surreptitiously, housing, transportation, communications, escape routes and contingency plans to extricate the combatants if something goes wrong. The fact that the Iranians were unable to identify any of the operators, let alone capture them, indicates that whomever was behind these operations is a well-organized professional clandestine entity with astounding capabilities that would make Hollywood thriller screenplay writers jealous.

Why don’t the Iranians retaliate? Its Revolutionary Guards include the Quds Force, a powerful unit that has shown its capability in carrying out assassinations and bombings in the West. One possible explanation is that the Iranian government fears retaliation by the West that would include an attack on Iranian nuclear installations. Furthermore, if the retaliation should target Israeli or Jewish targets, then Israel could respond. Israel would destroy the Hezbollah’s huge rockets arsenal financed and constructed by Iran. The Iranians supported the construction of these rocket sites also as deterrent against an attack on its nuclear plants by Israel. Therefore, the Iranians are currently grinding their teeth, but do not retaliate. Will that abstention continue? Only the supreme leader of Iran knows.

It took only 30 seconds of a gunfight at the O.K. Corral, in Tombstone, Arizona on October 26, 1881 to make history, when only Wyatt Earp remained standing at the end of a seven-man gunfight. One hundred thirty years later, is the world facing yet another historic gunfight, this time in the Strait of Hormoz, between Iran and the U.S. and its allies?

On December 27, 2011, Iranian Vice President Reza Rahimi threatened to block the entire oil supply passing through the Strait of Hormuz should the U.S. economic sanctions limit or prevent Iranian oil exports. On Tuesday, January 3, 2012, Iranian Army Chief Ataollah Salehi said the United States moved an aircraft carrier out of the Gulf because of Iran’s naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the vessel returned. “Iran will not repeat its warning… the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,” he said.

These belligerent statements show that Iran is rattling its saber when its military and political leaders are engaged in an escalating war of words against the U.S. They are saying out loud should the U.S.> and the West continue with the debilitating sanctions — this time hurting Iran’s oil exports, then, they will suffer similar consequences should their oil imports stop.

The strait is a narrow waterway between the Gulf of Oman in the southeast and the Persian Gulf. On the north coast is Iran and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman. At its narrowest point the strait is 34 miles wide.

The strait constitutes one of the world’s most strategically important choke points. About 14 tankers carrying 15.5 million barrels of crude oil pass through the strait daily. In 2011, that amounted to 35% of the world’s maritime oil shipments. The Iranians believe that blocking the strait would allow them to successfully counter the U.S. mega power, in spite of their inferior military force because the U.S. could not logistically bring its superior military power to bear in the narrow strait.

The Iranian’s brinkmanship may be miscalculated. The Strait of Hormuz is not within the territorial waters of Iran. Iran signed the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which defines territorial waters as the belt of coastal waters extending at most to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark of a coastal state.

Therefore, if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz it would violate international law, because a naval blockade on the high seas is a breach of the international legal principle of the freedom of navigation. The United Nations Charter, Article 2 (4) prohibits the use of force, subject to an exception under Article 51 of the Charter for the right of a nation to engage in self-defense which can be invoked during an armed conflict. Measures taken by States in the exercise of their right of self-defense are required under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to be notified to the Security Council. Such notification enables the Security Council to monitor any implications of a naval blockade for international peace. The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea provides in paragraphs 10, 67, and 146 useful references in identifying applicable rules. Once a blockade has been lawfully established, the blockading power can attack any vessel breaching the blockade if after prior warning the vessel intentionally and clearly refuses to stop or intentionally and clearly resists visit, search or capture. However, an unlawful blockade is a just cause for a confrontation to break it. Under the present conditions in the strait, Iran has not met the burden of attaching legitimacy to blockading the strait.

From the manner that Iran is escalating its belligerent statements, it is possible that it is seeking to provoke a military conflict with the United States rather than wait for the U.S. to attack its nuclear installations. Therefore, notwithstanding their military inferiority, the Iranians believe they can gain from a limited scale military confrontation. They expect any clashes to be limited and localized to the strait, until the U.N. Security Council intervenes, and the Iranians could declare victory, regardless of the military outcome of the battle. That would be a major miscalculation. The U.S. may regard the naval blockade of the strait as casus belii — a legitimate cause for war, and refuse to limit its operations to the strait, and proceed to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. If such an extended move by the U.S. is taken, then it will also yield a by-product: weakening Syria and Hezbollah, the Middle East cronies of Iran.

The world is anxiously waiting for the next move. If President Obama gives the order, there’s already enough power in the region. The battle group of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis is sailing in the region. Additionally, the U.S. has an impressive presence in the Gulf region: two bases in Kuwait — the Ali Al Salem and Ahmed Al Jaber bases; the Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates, and Al Adid in Qatar and the Thumrait in Oman.

Who will blink first? Will Iran act on its warnings and block international waters preventing commercial oil shipments? Will the U.S. move and strike Iran? Whether to attack an enemy militarily is a tough question for every U.S. president, and it’s tougher during an election year. The Iranians are probably gambling on the fact that President Obama will blink first. Iran can’t blink: it has made too many threats to back down unless of course it gets a bloody nose first. Even if the U.S. behaves like the responsible adult, a confrontation might just happen, with only the U.S. left standing.

Ahmad Rezaee (31) an Iranian national was found dead on November 12, on the floor of room 23 on the 18th floor of Gloria Hotel on Sheikh Zayed Road in Dubai.

When discovered, he had already been dead for three days, with a copy of the Holy Koran laid out next to his body. Unconfirmed reports indicate that there was a slit on his left wrist. Since the deceased was a healthy young man, the Dubai Police could declare the death a suicide, and move on.

Then came the discovery that turned the routine police investigation into potentially, a quintessential twilight zone espionage case: Ahmad Rezaee was not just an Iranian citizen, he had a pedigree. He was the son of Mohsen Rezaee, the Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Before taking that office the senior Rezaee was the Chief Commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for 16 years.

The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution ( Sepāh-e Pāsdārān-e Enqelāb-e Eslāmi, or Sepāh for short) is a military militia intended to protect Iran’s Islamic system, including the suppression of internal dissidence and military uprisings. With more than 125,000 militiamen in the ground, air and naval forces, the Revolutionary Guards is also used for clandestine operations outside of Iran.

The elder Rezaee’s background made the cause of his son’s death suspicious. After retiring from his elite position at the Revolutionary Guard Corps, the senior Mohsen Rezaee became a political rival of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and was openly condemning his regime. During the 2009 Iranian presidential elections, Mohsen Rezaee ran as a conservative candidate, finishing in third place, behind incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and reformist runner-up Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the chief opponent of Ahmadinejad. But Mohsen Rezaee could not escape from his dark past.

In November 2006, an Argentine judge issued international arrest warrants for Mohsen Rezaee, six other Iranians and one Lebanese national in connection with the July 18, 1994, suicide bombing of the Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The bombing resulted in the death of 85 people and 151 injured. This was the second attack in Argentina against Jewish or Israeli targets in a few years. In 1992 the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was bombed. The 1994 bombing and the subsequent arrest warrant earned Mohsen Rezaee a top mention on INTERPOL’s Wanted list for allegations of “crimes against life and health, hooliganism, vandalism and damage.”

Ahmad Rezaee, Mohsen Rezaee’s son, now found dead in Dubai, defected in 1998 to the United States, and sought political asylum. He told officials that the attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was planned in Tehran. The son told U.S. authorities that he had accompanied his father to Lebanon to witness the training of the perpetrators. In 2005, Ahmad Rezaee ventured back to Iran and recanted his previous statements regarding his father’s involvement in the bombing.

When word of Ahmad Rezaee’s mysterious death spread, conspiracy theorists were quick to finger the Israeli Mossad as responsible for his death. Indeed, his shadowy death was reminiscent of the death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, the Hamas liaison officer with Iran which was attributed to the Mossad. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh too was found dead in a Dubai hotel. However, this is where the similarities seem to end.

Who wanted Ahmad Rezaee dead? For one, he wasn’t popular in Iran. While his dad was still the top commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Ahmed appeared in foreign media and harshly criticized Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. That is not done in Iran without consequence. Ahmad Rezaee was even interviewed by the Israeli national radio program in Persian. For the Iranians, that was worse than the acts of William Joyce, also known as Lord Haw Haw, a British traitor who was Nazi Germany radio’s most prominent English-language propagandist during the Second World War. After the war ended, William Joyce was convicted of treason and executed by the British in 1946.

Ahmad Rezaee also went as far as offering Israel to use his contacts in Iran to obtain information about Ron Arad, an Israeli soldier missing in action in Lebanon since the early 1980s. However, his monetary demands seemed excessive and the promised results dubious and therefore, his offer was rejected by Israel. Ahmad visited Iran frequently trusting that his father’s high position would continue to protect him. He was married four times and made Dubai his permanent home. However, the Iranian secret service suspected him of being an American spy who used his frequent travel to Iran to gather intelligence.

Was Ahmad Rezaee blind to the fact that his once almighty father had lost his power, and in fact became a threat to the Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and to President Ahmadinejad?

The senior Mr. Rezaee was also aligning himself with the former Iranian president Rafsanjani, another enemy of the current regime; was that another reason to send him a message by murdering his son?

The question remains: was it a suicide or murder that ended Ahmad’s life? If homicide, then whodunit? Was it intentionally orchestrated to mimic the death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, so that the Israeli Mossad would be blamed for this murder as well?

Eliminating the regime’s rivals by staging suicide, home or road accidents was previously
attributed to Iran on multiple occasions, a state also known to favor black bag operations.
Is that how Ahmad Rezaee died? Did he commit suicide without leaving a note?

Whodunit? We may never know. Ahmad Rezaee is no longer alive to tell, and black bag operations tend to be kept in the dark.

The League of Arab States has issued an ultimatum to Syria: cease all hostilities against your rebelling citizens by November 16, or face expulsion from the League. This is not a token threat: The next move could be an Arab military intervention condoned by the League. On Monday, November 14, the League announced that it was sending 500 observers to Syria to monitor the situation.

President Assad of Syria recognizes well the risk of facing the Arab states’ armies. In fact, such a move sanctioned by the Arab League would be putting an official seal on events already taking place. Jordan, Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are supporting the rebels with weapons, ammunition and intelligence. Turkey, Syria’s northern neighbor allows the rebels to train in Turkish camps. On Saturday Assad responded. Thousands of his supporters raided the Turkish embassy in Damascus and burned a Turkish flag. Others stormed the Qatar embassy chanting “Qatar is not our friend anymore.” The French and Saudi embassies were also attacked. There were smaller demonstrations in Aleppo, Lattakia, Sweida and Raqqa. On Monday, November 14, Protesters removed the Jordanian flag from their embassy in Damascus and replaced it with the flag of Hezbollah, hoping that the Jordanians will understand the message.

The League of Arab States is a political organization that was formed in Cairo in 1945 “[to] draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and interests of the Arab countries.” Currently, the League has 21 member states (with a total population of 360 million- 15% more than the US living over 5 million square miles, an area 30% bigger than the US).

The League’s threat emphasized Assad’s dilemma if he steps down from power; if he’s lucky he would face the same fate as Mubarak, the former Egyptian president who is currently on trial. And if Assad is unlucky, he could end up like Khadafy, in the morgue. The League’s potential call for assembling Arab states’ armies to fight another Arab State is not new. Military units from Turkey and Jordan joined forces with NATO in combating against Khadafy’s army in Libya. Therefore, Assad was quick to label the League’s ultimatum as motivated by the Americans, calling the League’s leaders “puppets.”

74% of the Syrians are Sunni Muslims, while the country is ruled with an iron fist by Alawite Muslims — a 7% minority, who are religiously close to the Shia Muslim sect. The Alawites dealt themselves the best cards in Syria and members of their community control most of the important government positions particularly in the army and in the security services.

Some attribute the origin of the term “a bear hug” to a scenario when a man is wrestling an attacking bear while his petrified friends around him shout “leave the bear!” to which he answers, “I can leave the bear, but will the bear leave me?”

If Assad steps down, he could face a serious problem from his own sect’s bear hug, the Alawis, also known as Alawite, who are most likely to lose their positions of power and money. That problem should not be taken lightly by Assad in a country where the army routinely shoots its own vocal protesting citizens, more than 3,000 thus far and counting.

If Assad is gone, the struggle for power among the Sunni majority and the Alawite minority could bring a bloodbath. To avoid a power vacuum, Alawite officers of the Syrians Army could decide that they should depose Assad and take over the regime, rather than wait for him to escape.

Assad feels the heat. While only dozens of soldiers and officers deserted the Syrian army to join the rebels when the uprising began in January 2011, to date, there are reports that daily desertions are in the hundreds. On a larger scale, Assad’s wobbly throne is watched with great concern particularly by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. Assad has been Iran’s loyal ally in the region and allowed weapons and ammunition to pass from Iran to Hezbollah through Syria. Intelligence reports also indicated that Iranian arms shipment to Shiite forces in Iraq was transferred through Syria. If the Alawite regime in Syria collapses and the Sunnis take over, the Iranians would have to look for other routes for their weapons supply to Hezbollah which help maintain Hezbollah’s grip over Lebanon, and Iran’s grip over Hezbollah. What is to become of them if Assad is gone and with him also their access to Iran? Since the Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and is well trained, the chances that they will join Assad in protecting his regime and their interests with it are increasing.

Additionally, Assad has been the Russians’ comrade in the region allowing them to build a new port in Tartus, thereby giving the Russian coveted access to the Mediterranean. With a Sunni regime, it is unknown how long the leftover friendship with the Russians would last.

The question remains whether the Arab League will make the call to attack Syria with Arab states’ armies. Will NATO, with or without US forces jump on the wagon to vicariously defeat Iran by causing a regime change in Syria, Iran’s ally in the region?

The clock is ticking for Assad, who faces a lose-lose situation, and knows that in the Middle East, dictators never get to retire peacefully to write their memoirs. Therefore, his struggle to remain in power is in fact a fight for his life. That could force him to do the unexpected.

Huffington Post Op Eds 10/23/2011

Last week President Obama announced that all US troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year. That would formally end more than eight years of combat that cost the U.S more than 4,400 lives, more than 33,000 injured servicemen and servicewomen, and up to one trillion dollars in direct costs.

Other than keeping his 2008 campaign promise to end the war, the straw that broke the camel’s back for Obama was the Iraqi refusal to guarantee legal immunity to US servicemen in Iraqi courts. That refusal probably triggered frustration or even rage. In the Iraqis’ eyes, shedding US soldiers’ blood in protecting their regime is expected and accepted, but granting the soldiers legal immunity is unacceptable? Surely this is a new definition of “chutzpah.”

In May 2006, Sen. Joseph Biden, then the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed in a New York Times op-ed that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad. Biden meant to decentralize Iraq, not to break it up. However, almost six years later, Biden’s dream may materialize — with a “few” modifications — rendering the potential outcome a nightmare.

With the US out, Iraq could be torn apart: its southern Shia-populated, oil-rich region would be devoured by Iran. Iraq’s northern area bordering with Turkey could become a Kurdish independent state, leaving Sunni Iraqis with the areas around Baghdad with practically no oil, without any visible source of income, but with a million mouths to feed.

Who is going to stop that doomsday scenario from happening? Iraq has no meaningful national army that can prevent an Iranian invasion “at the request of the Shiites in southern Iraq to protect them,” a likely excuse that could be used by the Iranians. Since the US war against Iraq weakened Iraq to the point that it cannot effectively defend itself from Iran, the unintended result of the US withdrawal could be delivering southern Iraq to the Iranians on a silver platter. Guess what would happen then.

The Iranians are motivated to tear Iraq up not only because of the Iraqi oil; in the Middle East, injury to honor is never forgotten and must be avenged. Saddam’s Iraq started a war against Iran in 1980 that ended with an Iranian defeat that forced it to sign a cease fire agreement in 1988. The Iranians have not forgotten that. Arab nomads used to say “I waited forty years for my revenge, and when it finally came, I said to myself, perhaps I was too hasty.” It has been only 23 years since their defeat, so the Iranian memory of their humiliating defeat must still be fresh.

What will happen to other major US allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran’s biggest enemy? Does the US withdrawal from Iraq also signal the diminishing importance of the Saudis to the US if the fears that its oil reserves are dwindling are true? According to confidential cables released by WikiLeaks, U.S. diplomats expressed concern that Saudi Arabia might have overstated its petroleum reserves by 40%. If true, has the US knowingly acquiesced to the potential increase of Iranian control of a region that supplies 30% of the worlds’ oil, even while it’s still flowing? With no troops in the region, and with the US Congress and the public opinion reluctance to start a new war in the region, how would the US stop the Iranians? There must be a plan to counter that eventuality behind Obama’s decision to withdraw, or perhaps the plan is “Après moi, le deluge” (“After me, the deluge”) a saying attributed to the King of France Louis XV (1710-1774)?

Northern Iraq faces a major but a potentially positive change. For the first time in their history more than 30 million Kurds scattered in Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran may finally achieve independence. In recent months PKK, the Kurdish rebel movement, has killed scores of Turkish soldiers in eastern Turkey, prompting Turkey to launch cross border incursions into Kurdish strongholds Iraq in hot pursuit. Although the Kurds enjoy limited autonomy in several regions, the Turkish government has imposed severe limitations on the Kurds who try to preserve their culture and language.

The 2003 US invasion into Iraq gave the Kurds a powerful position they never had: the power to tip the scale toward either the Sunnis or the Shiites. That power enabled them to demand and ultimately receive substantial oil royalties from the sale of oil produced in Northern Iraq. That money has given the Kurdish city of Irbil a visible significant economic boost.

The US withdrawal from Iraq and the recent escalation of Kurdish military battle in eastern Turkey prompted an emergency meeting last week in Ankara between the Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers. They publicly announced their countries’ determination to fight PKK and its Iranian branch PJAK. They certainly realize that the possible establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq would be dangerous for their countries. With an independent Kurdish state, it is likely that Kurds currently living in northern Iran and eastern Turkey would demand to attach their regions to the new Kurdish state, tearing these regions from Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq At stake are not only honor and the respective countries’ territorial integrity and sovereignty.

There’s money involved. Big money. The area populated by the Kurds, commonly known as Kurdistan, is rich in oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, chrome ore, copper and iron. Geologically it’s an extension of the world’s richest petroleum fairway, extending from Saudi Arabia to Kurdistan. Kurdistan’s oil reserves are estimated to have 50- 100 billion barrels of oil, making it one of largest oil reserves in the world. Kurdistan’s natural gas reserves are estimated at around 20 trillion cubic meters.

Just a month ago, Turkey agreed that an early warning radar, a part of NATO’s missile defense system, would be installed in Kurecik in the Malatya province approximately 435 miles west of the Iranian border. The radar system is capable of countering ballistic missile attacks from Iran. Iran was quick to warn Turkey that deploying that system would escalate regional tensions.

Turkey and Iran also disagree on their respective Syria policy, with Turkey critical of Iranian ally Syria’s brutal killing of Syrian civilian protesters and other hostilities exacted by the Syrian regime, which has sent thousands of Syrian refugees into Turkey seeking shelter.

Did Iran forget about these disagreements with Turkey when it rushed to join them in the battle against the Kurds? Has Iran withdrawn in its demand that Turkey removes the radar system aimed at Tehran, or are the Iranians waiting for the right opportunity? Because in the Middle East, you don’t forget, but wait for your break.

Huffington Post Op Eds 11/01/2011

Ekaterina “Katia” Zatuliveter insists that she is not a Russian spy operating in the UK. Russia also insists that she was not their spy. MI5, the British internal intelligence service insists that she was working for Russian intelligence and wants her deported from the UK. Zatuliveter is currently fighting in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in central London a decision to deport her for ‘being not conducive to the national interest.’ Zatuliveter is originally from Dagestan, a former province of the Soviet Union, but left as a child following the conflict in Chechnya, and moved to Britain, subsequently obtaining a degree at Bradford University. She then became an assistant of Member of British Parliament Mike Hancock, a member of the Parliament’s Defence Select Committee.

As no meritorious and legally admissible evidence to MI5’s accusations against Katia became public during the hearing at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and since she obviously cannot prove the negative, the entire sexpionage matter remains a mystery for the public.

Why sexpionage? Because Katia Zatuliveter was also a lover of Mike Hancock, and British media says that she had access to Hancock’s documents, some of them were classified. Zatuliveter raised MI5’s attention for some time, and in August 2011 when she returned from a trip to Croatia she was questioned several times until arrested at the request of MI5.

“Zatuli Veter” translates in several Slavic languages to “howling wind,” a suitable name for a vivacious young woman blowing older men off their feet. Was it just a coincidence that at least three men falling for howling wind Katia had access to information that would make any intelligence case officer salivate: a Dutch diplomat, a UK Parliament member with access to classified documents and a senior NATO official?

Then there’s another unanswered question: if Katia is a spy, why the UK government wants her expelled instead of putting her on trial for espionage? The answer could be trifold: first, the evidence MI5 has against her could be more “raw intelligence data” than evidence admissible in court. That could include information obtained from a mole within Russian intelligence services working for Britain; or unauthorized eavesdropping and break-ins in the UK and perhaps also in foreign countries, and therefore, it cannot be presented in court, even behind closed doors, without triggering local and foreign complaints against MI5 agents; Even if the available evidence was obtained legally, MI5 could still be reluctant to disclose it. Disclosure would reveal surreptitious means and methods applied to unveil the suspected un-parliamentary relationship Katia allegedly had with the elderly Member of Parliament. More particularly, MI5 was probably investigating what Hancock allegedly gave her, if anything. Secondly, it appears that MI5 probably concluded that Katia was a small fish and they should just as well throw her back to the water — Russian waters, instead of pushing for a trial that would cost millions and at best send Katia to prison for only a few months. Thirdly, MI5 may have concluded that this is not the time to sour the UK-Russian intelligence services’ relationship which was on the colder side during the past several years. There was an alleged KGB assassination in London of Alexander Litvinenko a former intelligence officer of the Russian Federal Security Service FSB escaping from prosecution in Russia and receiving political asylum in the United Kingdom. He died from a lethal dose of polonium-210-induced acute radiation syndrome.

The Brits didn’t have to look far for precedence for expelling suspected Russian spies with just a slap on their wrist. In the United States, Anna Chapman (28) and 9 other Moscow moles were exchanged for four valued American secret agents. The spies for the West included a former colonel Alexander Zaporozhsky who provided information that led to the capture of American traitors Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames. The swap came a day after the 10 Russians admitted in a Manhattan federal courtroom they were Russian secret agents who had tried to pass as Americans. Federal Judge Kimba Wood sentenced them to time served — 11 days — and dispatched them to board a plane headed for Russia.

Moscow with an egg on its face was probably happy to take its ten moles back rather than have the public realize during trial that their clumsy moles unearthed nothing of value — and had been under the FBI prying eyes for years.

In the meanwhile Hancock resigned from his membership in the Defence Committee. In his letter of resignation he said, “It is not appropriate for me to provide running commentary on on-going legal proceedings; however, I would like to make clear that at no time did I pass on material to M.s Zatuliveter which was not in the public domain or which was classified.” It appears also that Hancock can now take a deep breath. The British government attempt to expel Katia signals also that there are no criminal proceedings contemplated against him. If there were such plans, the British government would have wanted Katia to remain in the UK and testify against Hancock at trial.

Such as in the U.S. case against Chapman and comrades, it is possible that Katia was cultivated more as a planted sleeper than as a spy. In these cases, the sending country instructs its sleepers to associate themselves with people who are expected to rise to a position of power, and when it happens, it would enhance their ability to influence policy or gather valuable information. Perhaps whoever planted Katia in Hancock’s vicinity hoped he’d become Minister of Defense or hold similarly important position. It is unlikely to happen now.

If Katia Zatuliveter is not a spy or a sleeper, then one question still remains unanswered: if it was not classified information that she was looking for from the married Hancock (65), 40 years her senior — then what she found so attractive about a man that looks a bit like your friendly grocer that made her continue with their affair for four years? Happens all the time.

To bomb or not to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations, that is the question asked by many world leaders following the UN International Atomic Energy Agency report which provided the smoking gun: Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Inevitably President Ahmadinejad immediately rejected the report. The summary of his response is: defiance defiance defiance.

Immediately after the UN report was published there were calls for more sanctions against Iran. Ahmadinejad vowed that his country will not be deterred by sanctions. He is perhaps telling the truth on this matter for the first time.

It is unknown whether before rushing to reject the report, Ahmadinejad asked himself, “To defy or not to defy?”

Approximately four hundred years ago William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet; the question Prince of Denmark asks himself has become frighteningly relevant. Hamlet is tormented as to whether he should commit suicide and says,

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die, to sleep,
No more;

On the 21st century real world stage, the players’ positions are clear. Iran says its nuclear program is intended solely for peaceful civilian purposes. World leaders and now a UN agency as well, say that the Iranian program has military ends.

Iran is a country whose values are underpinned by fervent Shiite Islamic beliefs and the pursuit of honor and respect from others. Therefore, if anyone believes that Iran will yield to sanctions and discontinue its military nuclear plans, then he would be a likely buyer of the moon when offered at a bargain price, if shipping and handling are included.

A nuclear Iran is just another step in their national effort to “export the Islamic revolution” and crown themselves as the Muslim worlds’ leader. Conceding and acknowledging that it was overpowered by the West, would be a deadly blow to a regime that sanctifies honor and self-esteem. That will never happen. Iran like Iran, soon after hastily rejecting the report, said that they are now open to negotiations provided that the sanctions are lifted. With this, the Iranian adopted a new tone which the world has already heard ad nauseam, delay delay delay.

If Iran is unlikely to give up its nuclear plans, then why impose sanctions? Because there is no other way to express the world’s concern over the Iranians becoming a nuclear power. And to an even darker picture, it is clear that even with the strong rhetoric of the US, the UK, France, and Germany, any newly imposed sanctions will not include Iranian oil exports. Any curtailing of these exports through sanctions and definitely if oil installations are sabotaged or bombed, will send world’s oil prices to new heights. That will be a highly undesirable consequence for the US with its struggling economy, or for Europe with its own monetary problems.

Would these gloomy predictions regarding the inability of the sanctions, present and future, to stop Iranian nuclear plans, increase the likelihood of a military strike? The odds are against an attack. Bombing Iran would result in a regional war, seriously risking both US and European interests. Iranian subsidiary terror organizations such as the Islamic Jihad in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon would shell Israeli civilian cities indiscriminately with thousands of rockets which Israel could not effectively stop. Obviously, in an effort to stop the shelling, Israel could opt to send Gaza and Lebanon smoking back to the Stone Age, but that too will not happen. Israel has always aimed to spare uninvolved enemy civilians even when its enemies intentionally targeted Israeli civilians. Thousands of remaining US soldiers in Iraq would also become targets of the Iranian Kuds Forces which are already spread in Shiite populated Southern Iraq. Other US favored countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan would also become Iranian targets.

Even with the escalating war of words by the West on one hand, and the religious fervency and defiance of Iran’s leaders on the other hand, the chances it would turn into live fire are unknown. The Iranians probably hope that they will cause the world to grind its teeth, but not to attack. They are apparently right. The West would have to tacitly accept nuclear Iran, continue with clandestine operations within Iran, infect nuclear installations with immobilizing computer worms and help Iranian opposition cause a regime change. That could be the reason why most of the sanctions are carefully designed not to devastate the Iranian people.

Is the projection that there will be no military hostilities certain? Definitely not, and far from it. During the 1962 missile crisis in Cuba, the Soviet Union blinked realizing that mutual US-Soviet nuclear destruction was not worth deploying their missiles in Cuba. The US kept its part of the bargain and the fear of a nuclear threat was removed.

These realistic principles do not apply to present-day Iran. Their leaders do not fear a doomsday scenario. In fact, some of them are looking forward to it. The Iranian Constitution in Article 11 exhorts the government to achieve unity with other Islamic countries to establish an Islamic world order founded on “solidarity,” a buzz word for Iranian hegemony as the head of “the Islamic Ummah” — Nation of Islam, which according to Iran will include the worlds’ more than one billion Muslims. That explains why, Iranian scholars describe the current regime as taking the “ideological approach based on the governance of supreme jurisprudence — Velayat-e Faqih — in which all power is solely derived from God.

Thus, the importance of the material and temporal has been downplayed and Western norms and values which have been held as defining the international system, are challenged.” In plain language it means that Iranian official policy puts the word of God ahead of all other considerations, and who is better — according to Iran — to bring up the wish of God than its Shiite clergy, the Ayatollahs?

It was during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war that Ayatollah Khomeini, the forefather of the Iranian Islamic Revolution that said that it is better to die then to compromise with those challenging the Shiite interpretation of Islam, meaning the Sunni Iraqis. Little doubt that these words could be extended to apply to Christians, Jews and others.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s teaching are followed by Ayatollah Mazbah Yazdi, a spiritual advisor of Ahmadinejad who was publicly recruiting would be suicide bombers to enlist with the “Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison.” Yazdi and his student Ahmadinejad are preparing for the Islamic equivalent of Armageddon that would bring back the messianic Islamic Mahdi who is regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad. Mahdi is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, Shiites believe that the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace. Ahmadinejad seems to accept that belief. In his debut speech to the United Nations he said, “I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.”

Will the world be safe with messianic Ahmadinejad’s fingers on the nuclear trigger while his other hand controls the spigots of 30% of the world’s oil supply? Will reason direct his actions or will his messianic doomsday beliefs prevail?

At the end of the play, Hamlet does not commit suicide, but dies by the sword in a duel.

Therefore the question is where do the present-day similarities with Hamlet’s question and fate end?

To bomb or not to bomb? We shall soon find out.

Huffington Post Op Eds 09/06/2011

One day before the publication of the UN report on the Israeli-Turkish conflict, Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister has issued a 24 hour ultimatum to Israel to “apologize, or else…” The Turkish foreign minister has demanded Israel’s contrition for the May 2010 raid on the MV Mavi Marmara, a Turkish civilian vessel that together with five other vessels tried to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza. The objective of the blockade was to prevent smuggling of arms and ammunition used for the continued indiscriminate shelling of Israeli towns. The “Flotilla” operation cost nine lives including eight Turkish citizens when Israeli Navy SEALs boarded the Marmara, and a violent battle ensued.

Israel and Turkey have both agreed to the appointment of a Panel of Inquiry on the incident by the UN Secretary-General. The Panel was led by the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Geoffrey Palmer, and the outgoing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, as Vice-Chair. The Panel had two additional members, one each from Israel and Turkey.

Turkey demanded an official Israeli apology, payment of compensation to the victims’ relatives and lifting the blockade on Gaza. Davutoglu tells Zaman, a Turkish newspaper that the deadline for an apology for death of eight Turks “is the day the UN report gets released, or we resort to Plan B.” The report was published on September 2, 2011.

“Plan B” refers to a threat made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that without an Israeli apology Turkey would downgrade ties with Israel and aggressively oppose it in international forums. Erdogan has also threatened to cut economic ties as part of that “Plan B.”
However, just over a year ago, in an article published on Sunday, July 4, 2010 Ahmet Davutoglu told the Turkish daily Hurriyet: “Israelis have three options: They will either apologize or acknowledge an international-impartial inquiry and its conclusion. Otherwise, our diplomatic ties will be cut off.” Israel accepted the international inquiry. However, when it became apparent that the leaked results of the inquiry did not favor Turkey, the Turkish government quickly changed course and demands an apology instead. Under public international law, Israel has a right of self-defense even while a foreign vessel does not enter her territorial waters. It is noteworthy that recently, Greece stopped several boats from leaving its harbors when it learned that they intended to attempt to break the blockade on Gaza.

What’s the Turkish rush? Why was Turkey accelerating its pressure on Israel? The answer lies within the findings of the Palmer Report. The report found that under international law, Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is justified. At the same time the report found Israel’s use of force in stopping the Turkish vessel was excessive and unacceptable.

The report says in its opening paragraphs, “Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza,” And, “The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.” The report criticized the flotilla, asserting that it “acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.” The report indicated that while the majority of the hundreds of people aboard the six vessels had no violent intention, that could not be said of IHH, the Turkish group that organized the flotilla: “There exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.”

Israel repeatedly refused to apologize, but was willing to express “regret for the loss of life” and offer financial compensation to the families of the dead. Even the latter gesture was not easily made, since Israel’s public opinion objected to any compensation to families of well-trained activists who tried to kill the raiding SEALS that attempted only to stop the vessel. The SEALS were armed only with pistols for self-defense. Seven of the SEALS ended up in an Israeli hospital. Israel claimed that the Turkish casualties were well trained and uniformed activists armed with knives, at least one gun and metal rods cut from the ship fences and dressed in protective gear.

Apparently, Turkey’s demand for an apology from Israel was countered by a demand that Turkey apologize to the Kurds in Iraq. Reuters has reported on Aug 26, 2011 that lawmakers in Iraqi Kurdistan demanded neighboring Turkey to apologize for a week of air strikes across their border and called for a closure of Turkish military bases inside Iraqi territory. Tensions have flared between Turkey and Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region after local officials reported a Turkish air strike killed seven civilians on Sunday, triggering protests in the capital Arbil and other towns. Turkey launched its first strikes in more than a year on suspected Kurdish PKK rebel bases in Iraq after more than 40 members of its security forces were killed in Turkey over the last month in PKK assaults.

No Turkish apology has been issued to date despite the cross border airstrikes that killed seven civilians. A double standard?

Why does Turkey need to hear the words “We are sorry”? After all, they are just words. Why does Israel refuse to utter them and move on? Because an apology will not be enough. Erdogan wants also the lifting of the naval blockade. Israel cannot agree to waive its right of self-defense now officially recognized by a UN Panel, and expose its citizens to rocket shelling, just because Erdogan wants to show that when he flexes a muscle Israel bows. When the deadline for an apology passed and the report made public, Turkey has announced that the Israeli ambassador is “expelled.” However, the Israeli ambassador’s original term was set to expire in two weeks, and he’s in Israel on vacation. That also means that Turkey will not accept a new ambassador and the relationship would be through lower level diplomats.

There are cold political calculations in Turkey’s seemingly petty demands. Turkey is embroiled in a race for leadership in the Muslim world, in subtle and not so subtle competition with Iran. When Turkey’s attempts to join the EU were rebuffed and their alliance with Syria collapsed last year, Erdogan found a new ladder to climb to the top: threaten Israel, hoping that by getting Israel on its knees by offering an apology and lifting the blockade, he will receive recognition that he and Turkey are the new anointed kings on the block. I can almost hear him announcing to the cheering crowd in the city square, if Israel apologized and lifts the blockade, “Until now, nobody has managed to force Israel to put its head down and beg for mercy, nobody before has got Israel to its knees, it is I and Turkey who did that. Next, we will liberate Jerusalem and Palestine.”

Israel could offer he listen to Elton John’s song “Sorry seems to be the hardest word,” that includes the lyric “It’s sad, so sad, and it’s getting more and more absurd.” Why absurd? Because Erdogan is making yet another policy mistake. He further alienates the U.S and EU by appearing to be an unreasonable and unpredictable leader, not admirable traits for someone angling for foreign political recognition. He is also risking his country’s multibillion military procurement agreements with Israel. The Turkish military will soon find itself at a stand-still without Israeli continued technical support and spare parts. Obviously, Israel stands to lose these continued sales as well.

But in the Middle East where honor is worth more than money and is a political weapon both sides hold, the Israeli-Turkish future relationship seem bleak.