By: Mahmoud Hedayatpanah*

The Turkish army, considering itself as the only founder of the Republic of Turkey and seeing itself as the guardian of Atatürk’s legacy, has always been trying to exert undue influence over and interfere in the politics of modern Turkey in order for them to be on right track for maintaining secularism.With the AKP (Justice and Development Party) rising to power and a process having kicked off in the 1980s, however, the influence lessened over time. The army leaders in Turkey are not that much pleased with it though. The fact that the army does not really have a great deal of room for maneuver in the political affairs originates from the growing political support for the parties.

Another reason given for the army’s reduction in power is the attempt made by Turkey so as to join the EU; as one of the key criteria for gaining admission to the EU is acceding to the parameters of Western liberal democracy, one of which is keeping the army under control by civil and political institutions, that’s to say only the political institutions have the authority, a situation which Turkey has stricken out;  Chief of the General Staff of Turkey, Doğan Güreş, had also claimed in 1992 that Turkey is a military state.

Such processes and the constitution change caused a reduction in power of the military interfering in the political affairs, but its natures did not change whatever. There is evidence showing that the government had nothing to do with the recent incident or at least did not, at all, intended to act as such, but in actual fact it was an attempt by the army to discredit the ruling Justice and Development government. Firstly, Turkey is a member of NATO, so it participates in the military exercises of NATO; it is common, however, for the Russians and NATO members, to intercept planes by jet fighters especially in the Baltic Sea, a trend having been continuing ever since the Cold War. Both the Russian and NATO aircraft have repeatedly approached and even violated one another’s airspace, but they had never clashed; that’s why NATO will not support Turkey regarding this incident as a probable reaction is expected to be done against NATO in the Baltic Sea by the Russians; Barack Obama, as well, in a phone call with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan suggested that they should think out well in order for similar incidents to be averted.

Secondly, a marked increase in trade between Turkey and Russia in 2014, which was $33 billion, was going to reach $100 billion up to 2010. So it is obvious that Russia is considered one of the most principal trading partners of Turkey, at the same time heavily dependent upon the Russian gas resources. Unprecedented, hostile act by the Turkish side may cause a breach between the two countries, and it seems very unlikely that Turkey would act with the aim of getting an important message across to Russia while Erdoğan was able to successfully tackle the economic problems and bring about a slight economic stability. That’s why he would not have intended anymore to get back to the past fragile economy.

A third point holding the attention is the Turkish statesmen backing down, such as Ahmet Davutoğlu stating that Russia is their friend and partner and they tend to keep the channels of communications open with Russia, or both Erdoğan and Davutoğlu pointing out that if they had been informed of the fact that the fighter belonged to Russian, they would not have acted as such, or the failed attempt Çavuşoğlu made in order for him to make contact with Russian Foreign Minister Segey Lavrov. If Turkey tried to get a message across to Russia, they would persist in the fact that the Russian fighter violated Turkish airspace and would be in a strong position against the Russians; but, they showed no insistence on their act in the aftermath of the incident, erroneously, for the sake of maintaining a good relationship between the two countries on Turkey’s part.

At last, it can be stated that with regards to a reduction in power of the army in having influence over internal affairs, the army tends to rely on the international scene so as to discredit the government, thereby reducing his power in Turkey and also causing the Justice and Development Party face domestic crises in order to ruin their reputation and efficiency; an opportunity of which the Turkish generals have taken definite advantage.

* Mahmoud Hedayatpanah, MA in Persian Gulf studies, is a military expert. His studies concentrate on Russian and American  military capabilities. He is fluent in English, Russian and Farsi.

The post Who in Turkery Shot the Russian Jet Down? first appeared on .

Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

following is the Interview of Mojtaba Mousavi with Dr. Joseph Nye which first published in the October issue of the Age of Reflection monthly. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

 That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

 Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when,  in an interview  he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control.  In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence.  Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran.  Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World”, are pointing to the same challenge. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge? 

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others.  There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:  “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

The post Interview: Joseph Nye on Iran and the End of American Exceptionalism first appeared on .

“The US and other so-called human rights advocates remain silent on the massacre of innocents in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, but they cause a ruckus after a few blasts in the United States,” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday in a meeting with the country’s Army commanders and personnel.

“Based on Islamic teaching The Islamic Republic condemns and rejects any kind of attack on innocent human beings, whether they occur in Boston or Peshawar or Baghdad or Syria,” he said.

“Despite America’s claims of opposing the WMDs, the United States’ drones, massacre innocent people, children and women in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the terrorists who are overtly or covertly supported by the US are killing people in Iraq and Syria,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

Only in Pakistan, US’ Drone attacks have claimed the lives of more than 2500 people since 2004, a report by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated on March 2013.

The report also shows that 314 out of the 366 drone strikes in Pakistan were under President Barack Obama’s administration.

The drones have been used by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Iran’s Supreme leader criticized the “The US military’s spirit of dominance”, saying “When such military complexes are deployed somewhere, they will cause immorality, troubles and killing for the people.”

“The attitude of the US and other so-called supporters of human rights towards the killing of innocent people is contradictory. So we believe that the United States and the front standing against the Islamic Republic of Iran are irrational,” the Commander of the Iran’s armed forces said.

“Because of these paradoxical and illogical behaviors and the denying of human principals, the Western civilization is on the verge of decline and collapse.”

The post US Hypocrisy, Boston Highlights the Contradictory Policies: Iran’s Leader Explains first appeared on .

Two explosions hit the Boston Marathon as runners crossed the finish line. Officials said three people were killed and 100 people were wounded as a result of Monday’s explosions.

President Barack Obama promised to hunt down whoever was responsible for the attack on a day when tens of thousands of spectators packed the streets to watch the world-famous race.

White House officials and investigators said it was too early to say whether the Boston attacks were carried out by a foreign or homegrown terror group or to identify a motive.

Alternative Stories to the Official Version of the Incident

In the social media and Western alternative media, lots of people are discussing other versions of the story. The most popular doubt raised about Monday’s incident says the explosions were in fact part of a drill by the Boston bomb squad.

“It’s now becoming clear that members of the Boston bomb squad had advance notice of the horrific bombings that took place at the marathon today. As an eyewitness reports, once the bombs went off, officials began announcing, ‘this is just a drill’,”an american blogger wrote in a piece.

 Russia Today also posted a piece titled “’Neither liberty nor safety’: Has American freedom’s race been run at Boston Marathon?” and suggested this incident can be used as tool to bring more fear to american people and limiting their freedom.

What Iranians say About Boston Incident?

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned the Monday bomb blasts at the Boston Marathon.

“We believe all governments must try to maintain calm and security for everyone. Acts of extremism and terrorism have to be uprooted across the world and no effort should be made to justify violence,” the ministry’s spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparas said.

In the social media, Beside expressing regret and condemning the bombing incident in Boston, Iranian users on Facebook and Google Plus networks critiqued:

“It is really sad that people were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing but why does no one care when Iraqis are dying everyday in terrorist attacks? “ wrote Mohsen, an Iranian student in his Google plus profile.

“I recalled [American involvement in] Iraq and Afghanistan when I saw the sad photos of the Boston bombing.” another user posted in Facebook.

“In the footage of the explosion it is only smoke, no buildings are destroyed and it seems to be a weak explosion, nothing flew into the air. Casting some doubt on the magnitude of the official claims of destruction” Mahnaz wrote in in her Facebook page.

 KhabarOnline, Iranian news site close to Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran’s Majlis in an interview with a political analysts suggested “Involving internal extremists in the Boston bombings is the most plausible story. ” The incident happened on Patriot’s day and there are many extremists who could try to show their objection to US foreign policy.”

Raja News, the news website close to Paydari front, one of the Principalist’s political wings, asked in its post about the Boston bombing, “Are the Boston explosions another Sept 11?” Raja believes, contradictory statements published by the White House and local authorities, suggests that it was another controlled attack.

The post From Russia to Iran: Reactions To Boston Bombing first appeared on .