Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan says the UAE will cooperate with the possible additional international sanctions against Iran, according to peiknet.com. In an interview with Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar earlier in the week, the President of the UAE and Ruler of Abu Dhabi expressed concern regarding the possible consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as his strong desire for a near-term solution to the Iranian impasse. Further, he said that if additional international sanctions are imposed on Iran, the UAE will abide by them, as it had done in the case of Iraq. While the contents of discussions between Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed and President Bush at Camp David last weekend were not revealed to the press, the UAE’s relationship with Iran had to be on the top of the agenda. [See Chorin’s posting “A Delicate Balance” below].

After attempting to out “Enriched Iranium” solo for several months, I’m thrilled to welcome Miss Negar Mortazavi as a contributor to the blog. Negar, who immigrated to the States from Iran when she was thirteen, is currently a senior at the University of Virginia, where she studies Middle East policy and Foreign Affairs. Most of Negar’s contributions to “E.I” will deal with women’s issues and Iranian media and culture. Negar is insightful beyond her years, and her fluent Farsi and Azeri is certainly a huge asset. Negar’s first posting is below.

In Iran the holy month of Ramadan is airtime for the the most promising TV-series. Last year’s hit, Madar-e Sefr Daraje (Zero Degree Turn) portrays the Jewish plight during World War II. During the course of the series’ 22 episodes Habib Parsa travels to Paris for his studies, falls in love with a Jewish woman, then helps her and her family to escape Nazi-occupied France. Although Parsa’s character is fictitious, it is based on the life of Iranian diplomat Abdul Hussein Sardari, sometimes referred to as the ‘Iranian Schindler.’ In the 1940’s Sardari rescued some 500 Jews from persecution by forging Iranian passports.

The fact that such a series-the most expensive in Iranian TV history-could be produced in today’s Iran strikes a dissonant chord, particularly in light of President Ahmedinejad’s famously anti-Semitic rhetoric and denial of the Holocaust. Many critics argue the series exhibits an unambiguous sympathy towards Jews. Others disagree, citing the fact that the Jewish characters are seen to accept and offer bribes, and speak an improper form of Persian. Non-Jewish Iranian characters express the view that Palestinians should not pay the price for European atrocities.

One reviewer argues that one cannot draw any positive link between the series and members of Ahmedinejad’s government, given production on Madar-e Sefr Daraje began before Ahmedinejad’s election in 2005. All the same, all Iranian programming requires state permission for broadcast, and is governed by the state’s guidelines and standards. Beyond the political overtones, the series is unique in its storyline, costume design, and site selection. Madar-e Sefr Daraje caters to an array of audiences as it satisfies one’s appetite for a love story, a history lesson, or just to provide an excuse for family gatherings.

Perhaps it should be titled “1953 All Over Again?” Seymour Hersh, in an article published today in the New Yorker on-line version, says President Bush sought and received Congressional approval for $400 m to support destabilizing covert ops in Iran, about the time of the release of last year’s controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Hersh expresses concern that the funds may be used to support activities—such as the use of ‘lethal force’ within Iran—not covered by a mandatory Presidential Finding, delivered to leaders of the House and Senate.

Anonymous sources speculate these funds may already be being used to back domestic armed opposition in, for example, Baluchistan and Sistan province, which Iranian and Arab press say Iran is seeing a heightened level of anti-regime violence (see previous posting).  See also, Late Edition interview with Hersh on his article, in which he says he firmly believes this administration is determined either to stop Iran’s enrichment or attack, and questions why Democratic leaders ‘turned a blind eye’.

Iran’s Speaker of Parliament characterized reports of a U.S. proposal to establish an “interests section” in Tehran as “deceitful rumors.” Ali Larijani added that the U.S. record on “exchanges” of various kinds has not been good, as Iran has not received a response to certain proposals submitted two years ago, including one for a direct U.S.-Tehran air link. Other sources speculate the Islamic Republic may in fact agree to the alleged U.S. proposal, if tied to increased U.S.-Iran exchange in the area of culture and education. An article in the Financial Times late last week quoted a U.S. official as saying a decision on the matter of an Interests Section—along the model of the U.S. presence in Havana, Cuba, encompassing consular and possibly political and economic reporting functions—would not be made in the ‘near future’.

In other news, the Friday print edition of the Arabic-language Asharq Alawsat, carries an article on unexplained/vaguely-attributed attacks on Iranian soil. Iran claims Thursday to have arrested “tens” of armed individuals suspected of plotting to attack targets within Iran. The Iranian News Agency IRNA says those arrested in its South-East Baluchistan 0 Sistan province were “trained outside of Iran”, and armed with sophisticated weapons, including missile launchers. Asharq Al Awsat quotes other Iranian press sources as saying planned attacks were meant to sow fear and chaos within the local population. The paper further notes that Iran has in the past “frequently accused the U.S. and U.K. of backing subversive elements” in regions like Baluchistan, home to Sunni minorities. In an incident earlier this month, members of “Jundillah” (God’s Army, a Sunni group supposedly linked to Al-Qaeda) allegedly kidnapped 16 Iranian police, drove them across the border with Pakistan, killed two of them, then threatened to kill the others if compatriots in Iranian jails were not released.

Western characterizations of the UAE’s position on Iran typically place Abu Dhabi firmly “against” its neighbor to the north, and Dubai, the free-wheeling commercial hub, pretty much “for” everything that involves trade and the Islamic Republic. This view obscures the fact that the Gulf states are trying their best, along with many of their Gulf neighbors, to avoid conflict in the near and long term. Roula Khalaf, Middle East Editor for the FT, sees the UAE-Iran relationship more as a conscious, and convenient, ‘good cop’/’bad cop’ routine: Abu Dhabi sticks to its traditional stern line towards the Islamic Republic, “while Dubai hosts companies trying to get around restrictions imposed by US sanctions.” Khalaf notes that Qatar, which at one time invited the US military in to protect its oil and gas assets, has tilted towards Iran “as the US presence became a liability, it started flirting with Iran, aligning some of its Middle Eastern policies with Tehran, not Washington” [See Roula Khalaf, “The Growing Contrast of the Arab World’s Two Faces”, April 28, 2009, FT, also my piece, “US Unwise to Deny Iran’s Key Role in the Gulf,” in the May 28, 2008 edition of the same publication.]

According to an article published last week by Iranian news service IRNA, the National Islamic Pact (Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society), a leading Bahraini Shi’a opposition party, has warned its government against letting outside powers push the country towards the “abyss” of sectarian conflict. In the context of the piece, one understands “influential parties” to include Iran.

Gaining strength in recent years, Al Wefaq has pressed for fundamental re-orientation of Bahrain’s legislative system in favor of the (local) Shiite majority. The party, which boycotted elections in 2002, won 17 seats in the 40-seat lower house of Parliament in 2006. In addition to pushing for proportional sectarian representation, the party platform is strongly critical of what it says is the government’s persistent inattention to problems of housing shortages, unemployment, corruption and engagement in “discriminate allocation of resources,” all of which affect Shi’a disproportionately (Source: The Centre for Iranian Studies at Durham, U.K.).

These pieces are interesting in that they both suggest a Bahraini Shi’a agenda independent of Iran, and the contrary, i.e. the Shi’a parties are also using the spectre of Iranian influence as a wedge in their efforts to force a redistribution of power.

The author of an editorial published in Tabnak.ir doubts the U.S. and Iran will agree on anything soon. That said, the chances for a change in the relationship are much better under an Obama than a McCain administration, given the combination of three elements: the ‘particular’ character of Obama himself, the character of the Democratic Party and the current standing of the U.S. in the world.”

The author credits Sen. Obama for correctly distinguishing between ‘hard’ and ’soft’ power [seems the author read Nye’s June 12th pro-Obama piece, “Barack Obama and Soft Power,” see posting below]. While Iran and the U.S. continue down the slope towards hard conflict, Democrats are more apt to use both threats and economic incentives, whereas the Republicans prefer the ‘stick’ of military action.

America is in bad shape, its domestic economy needs attention and its international image needs mending [file under ‘pot calling kettle black?’]. Obama has the moral standing to address some of these problems. At the same time, if America thinks sanctions on Iran will have any effect, it is mistaken.  Due to a combination of internal economic weakness, the American mentality, and the influence in Washington of ‘certain lobbies’, the U.S. will not talk to Ahmedinejad, and is likely to wait to see what happens with the 2009 Iranian election before engaging in any serious discussions. Meanwhile, as before, the two countries will speak to each other through intermediaries.

According to Tabnak.ir, Iranian authorities are miffed that the Qatari airline Qatariyya has taken advantage of what Iran refers to as something like ‘temporary absences in relevant expertise’ on the Iranian side to poach long-haul passengers. The Iranians allege that Qatariyya, which traded 6x weekly flights Tehran-Doha for some used aircraft (which have yet to arrive?), has upped the number of weekly Tehran-Doha flights by almost a factor of two, while cutting fares by 100-120 dollars on connecting flights to Europe—with out even asking! This is to the great benefit of Qatariyya, which has found a great way to fill empty seats on flights to Europe…with Iranians. Given the state of Iran’s airlines, Qatariyya might not even have to lower its fares to steal business.

Commentators from a range of political orientations have over the last two years–if not always concurrently or consistently–touted the merits of a mixed carrot-and-stick approach dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Here are a collection of relevant articles, followed by an interesting piece on an alleged ‘favorable response’ to the “Luers- Pickering-Walsh” proposal regarding internationalizing Iran’s nuclear enrichment program–plus a comment by Joseph Nye on Sen. Obama’s promise as a Soft Power Warrior [Nye makes a hard distinction between “carrots and sticks” and “powers of attraction”, which he asserts Obama has in spades].

Patrick Clawson, “Dealing With Iran”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 9, 2007;
Dennis Ross, “A New Strategy on Iran” in The Washington Post, May 1, 2006.
William Luers, Thomas Pickering and Jim Walsh, “A Solution for the US-Iran Standoff”, New York Review of Books, March 20, 2008.

Robert Naiman, “Iran Accepted Pickering’s Enrichment Proposal: Did Anyone Notice?”, The Huffington Post, June 3, 2008

Joseph Nye, “Barack Obama and Soft Power”, The Huffington Post, June 12, 2008