by Richard Javad Heydarian

After three decades of frosty relations, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a historic visit to Cairo on 5 February 2012, making him the only post-revolutionary Iranian leader to set foot in the Arab heartland. His trip marked the culmination of at least three years of gradual warming up [...]]]> via Lobe Log

by Richard Javad Heydarian

After three decades of frosty relations, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a historic visit to Cairo on 5 February 2012, making him the only post-revolutionary Iranian leader to set foot in the Arab heartland. His trip marked the culmination of at least three years of gradual warming up between the two regional heavyweights — a trend that has accelerated since the downfall of Hosni Mubarak.

Ahmadinejad’s trip came at a particularly difficult time for Iran, as the Shiite-majority country faces growing isolation over its nuclear program and staunch support for the Alawite regime in Damascus. Confronting the prospects of a region-wide sectarian conflict as well as internal economic conflagration, Tehran has been more than eager to expand its ties with the emerging Islamist regime in Cairo. In addition to earlier talks about large-scale energy deals, Ahmadinejad went as far as offering a “big credit-line/loan” as well as a “visa-waiver” to his Arab host.

Banking on President Mohammad Morsi’s (perceived) maverick credentials, Tehran has hoped to achieve four main goals by reaching out to Cairo: form a new ‘axis of resistance’ in the region; favorably resolve the Syrian crisis; find a new interlocutor with the West and the greater Arab world; and tap into Egypt’s energy-starved economy. Iran, however, also faces a whole host of obstacles en route to its vision of a Tehran-Cairo duo.

The year 1979 marked a decisive year in Iran-Egypt relations, as a new revolutionary regime in Tehran went head-to-head with Egypt over the latter’s decision, under President Sadat, to enter into a peace treaty with Israel and host the deposed Shah of Iran. Shortly after the dissolution of bilateral diplomatic ties, Iran made a provocative decision to name one of its main streets after Sadat’s assassin, Khalid Islambouli.

When Hosni Mubarak took over, he quickly transformed Egypt into a regional anti-Iranian bulwark, supporting Saddam Hussein’s 8 years of destructive war against Iran and constantly thwarting Tehran’s regional maneuvers, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean. Yet, towards the end of his reign, Mubarak –- recognizing Iran’s regional influence and economic potentials – reciprocated Iranian efforts to mend bilateral ties. In late 2010, the two countries kicked off a series of diplomatic flirtations, which would intensify after Mubarak’s downfall. After three decades of cold war, they began discussing the resumption of direct flights between the two nations, while Egyptian political heavyweight and then-head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, urged Arab countries to acknowledge the new geopolitical realities in the region, namely the rise of non-Arab countries such as Turkey and Iran — a position he would reiterate after the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. After Mubarak ousting, Egypt’s military junta — despite vehement opposition from Washington and Israel — marked another milestone in Iran-Egypt relations: It allowed Iranian warships to cross the Suez Canal. By this time, Iran’s diplomatic charm offensive was in full swing, with Iran’s Arab-speaking Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi repeatedly exchanging cordial remarks with Egypt’s representatives, starting with former Egyptian Foreign Minister, Nabil El-Arabi,

Morsi’s ascent to power and his subsequent maneuvers to wrest control from the military and strike an independent tone on regional issues, further raised Iran’s hopes for a lasting partnership. In contrast to all Sunni powers, notably Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, the new Egyptian leader decided to not only visit the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in Tehran, but also (despite his harsh rhetoric against Assad) proposed a new Syria ‘Contact Group’ to include Iran as part of resolving the ongoing crisis. Later, Morsi would break with tradition by quickly jumping to Hamas’ rescue, to head off a prolonged crisis in Gaza. There were even reports of close Iran-Egypt security ties.

Prior to Ahmadinejad’s historic visit to Cairo, FM Salehi led a high profile trip, where he met top political and religious leaders in Cairo, in a bid to discuss Syria, project a post-sectarian Iranian image, and prepare the ground for Ahmadinejad’s visit. However, both Ahmadinejad and Salehi had to contend with the realities of Egypt-Iran relations. Egypt’s top religious figures and Salafi Islamist groups chided both Iranian leaders, in their separate visits, over Tehran’s support for Assad and the alleged marginalization of Sunni communities in Iran — underscoring the depth of the sectarian divide. With Saudi Arabia junking the Syria Contact Group, Morsi has also hardened his position on Syria, calling for regime change, much to Iran’s disappointment.

Given Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s huge offers of financial support to Egypt’s struggling economy, Morsi has remained silent on the Shiite democratic revolution in Bahrain, while demurring Iran’s earlier offers to hold the next round of nuclear talks in Cairo. Morsi is also in no mood to compromise crucial strategic relations with the US, which has not only provided billions in military economic aid (and possibly even debt relief), but also stubbornly stood by the embattled president amid the ongoing political crisis in Egypt.

Overall, Ahmadinejad was able to set a new milestone in bilateral relations by setting foot in the Arab heartland, a step which could mark the paving of a path toward normalized bilateral ties, but it still remains far from certain whether Iran can find a major strategic and economic partner in Egypt.

Photo: Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi shakes hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran during the Non-Aligned Movement Summit on 30 August 2012.  

Since the advent of the Syrian Revolution and tightening transatlantic sanctions against Iran in 2011, Tehran and Ankara have had a particularly tough time maintaining a facade of mutual amity and cooperation.

Last December, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hastily cancelled a cultural trip to Turkey, where he was scheduled to meet [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Since the advent of the Syrian Revolution and tightening transatlantic sanctions against Iran in 2011, Tehran and Ankara have had a particularly tough time maintaining a facade of mutual amity and cooperation.

Last December, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hastily cancelled a cultural trip to Turkey, where he was scheduled to meet Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the sidelines of a ceremony commemorating the 13th century Persian poet Jalal al-din Rumi. While Iran’s Mehr News Agency cited Ahmadinejad’s busy agenda as a pretext for the decision, it is widely believed that it came in response to the Iranian regime’s admonition of the Turkish agreement to install NATO Patriot Missiles on its Southern border with Syria.

Then, earlier this year, Turkish President Abdullah Gül, in an interview with Foreign Affairs, went as far as to say, “Turkey will not accept a neighboring country possessing weapons not possessed by Turkey herself…we are not underestimating this matter in any way.” What is striking about his statement is not so much the knee-jerk anti-proliferation diplomatic correctness echoed among NATO members’ officials, but rather the emphasis on the regional balance of power: Turkey will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon because that would mean Turkish vulnerability and Iranian superiority.

These tit-for-tat expressions of disenchantment underline the degree to which Turkish-Iranian relations have entered a renewed period of estrangement, after years of progressive rapprochement between Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Iran’s clerical establishment, which saw Ankara emerge as Tehran’s key energy partner as well as interlocutor with Washington.

Although the recent discord is neither a novelty (the Safavid and Ottoman empires competed for regional hegemony for centuries) nor a big surprise, what is most astonishing is how the very same issues that served as the linchpin of Iran-Turkish partnership in recent years — namely Syria and the Iranian nuclear conundrum — are now pitting the two neighbors against each other.

Yet one thing that continues to bind the two countries is the simple, old-fashioned issue of hydro carbon riches. This is precisely why both sides continue to exercise caution with their mutual engagements, including Syria’s future, despite occasional rhetorical flare-ups. Indeed, Turkey has heavily resisted Washington’s recent calls for reduction of energy imports from Iran (and the suspension of precious metals trade as payment), underscoring the importance of bilateral energy relations.

However, with the Iranian nuclear saga entering a crucial stage of high-stakes negotiations this year, and the Syrian revolution turning into an all-out civil war, both sides are headed for a decisive moment in their bilateral ties.

As early as 2010, Iran and Turkey projected an image of solid partnership, anchored on a straightforward bargain: Turkey needed Iran for energy security and international influence while Tehran needed its neighbor to resist sanctions and reach out to the West. The partnership, albeit transient and conditional, was multifaceted, covering a variety of issues ranging from trade, finance and energy to cultural exchanges and politico-security cooperation.

While Turkish and Iranian security forces are said to have jointly engaged Kurdish separatist groups on multiple occasions, Ankara has also played a prominent role in facilitating Iran-West nuclear talks, culminating in the 2010 Brazil-Turkey-sponsored  nuclear swap deal, followed by the Istanbul I (2011) and Istanbul II (2012) high-level nuclear talks between Iran and the 6-world powers P5+1 group.

However, at the heart of their relationship lies a key economic issue: (i) Turkey’s high energy import-dependence, 93 percent in oil and 95 percent in natural gas (2008 figures) and (ii) its over-reliance, in that regard, on Russia, from which it imported 66 percent of its gas in 2005. While Iran’s vast hydrocarbon reserves are important to Turkey’s energy security, the two sides have also laid their gaze on a broader trans-regional pipeline network, which could transform both sides into global energy brokers. In 2011, bilateral trade stood at more than $16 billion, projected to expand up to $30 billion in 2015.

But by mid-2011, a promising partnership appeared to be heading for the rocks. Turkey agreed to station a NATO missile defense shield on its Eastern borders, despite Iran’s vehement opposition, prompting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s (IRGC) aerospace chief, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, to warn, “Should we be threatened, we will target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey and then hit the next targets.” This was followed by another incident wherein Iranian security-intelligence personnel temporarily detained and interrogated three Turkish academics on charges of espionage. Then, under US pressure, Ankara reduced its Iranian oil imports by as much as 20 percent, followed by prevarications on its willingness to act as a financial intermediary — through the state-owned Halk bank — to process Iran’s multi-billion oil trade deals with countries such as India — in effect, contributing to the economic siege on Iran.

As the Syrian revolution turned more violent and Turkey transformed into the Free Syrian Army’s (FSA) main foreign patron, bilateral ties suffered further, with the Iranian Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi ominously warning Turkey, “it will be its turn [if it continues to] to help advance the warmongering policies of the United States in Syria.” To up the ante, Iran suspended visa-free arrangements with Turkey and hinted at potentially downgrading security cooperation with Ankara, perhaps on the Kurdish issue.

Turkish officials struck back, accusing Iran of hosting PKK rebels and contributing to the oppression of the Syrian people. Then came Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç’s warning that his country would do “whatever is required” to counter the Iranian threat, ignoring incessant efforts by Iran’s foreign ministry to downplay statements from the security branches. To cool bilateral tensions, Ahmadinejad extended a letter of invitation to his Turkish counterpart to attend the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in Tehran, to no avail. A few months later, when Turkey responded to Syrian artillery attacks by agreeing to host Patriot missile-defense systems, Iran — along with Russia — criticized the decision vehemently, fearing Ankara (or NATO) could also use it against Tehran in the future.

Depending on how the Syrian conflict unfolds, as well as the dynamics of the Iranian nuclear program, we may be entering a renewed phase of confrontation between the two powers in which either side can inflict considerable damage on the other. Serious recognition of that fact by leaders in both countries may yet work to stabilize an increasingly volatile relationship.

Photo: Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim (L), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C), Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (2nd L), Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan (2nd R) and Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu hold their hands as sign of unity during the 32nd Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of G-15 in Tehran May 17, 2010. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl (IRAN – Tags: POLITICS ENERGY)