The US treasury has recently expanded its blacklist on Iran to include another state-controlled bank, a shipping line, and more of its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The latest move is the first step by the US in implementing new restrictions adopted by the UN Security Council last week. The Treasury also took a separate step to squeeze Iran's energy sector by identifying some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control--an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.

On Wednesday, Iran announced that it will build four new reactors to expand its atomic research. It denies Western allegations that it is seeking atomic weapons, insisting that it only wants to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In a televised speech, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to force the West to "sit at the negotiating table like a polite child" before agreeing to further talks, adding that Iran will not make "one iota of concessions."

The Obama administration says the goal of the punitive measures is to deter Tehran from its nuclear-enrichment program. Will these sanctions further that goal? Not really.

Lest we forget, the sanctions that were passed at the UN have been watered down during negotiations with Russia and China rendering them practically ineffective. The additional sanctions by the US and the ones planned by the EU have no crippling effect on Iran's economy and do not entail an oil embargo. Sanctions can be effective only if they threaten the regime's survival, and since these sanctions are all based on Iran's nuclear energy program and not human rights, they remain ineffective. The vast majority of Iranians support their government's nuclear-enrichment policies.

Additional sanctions will most likely come at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable, as they did in Iraq from August 1991 through March 1998.

"[The sanctions] will most probably lead to the suffering of the people of Iran and will play into the hands of people on all sides who do not want dialogue to prevail," according to the Brazilian ambassador to the UN, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti. Brazil, along with Turkey, voted against the draft resolution of the UN Security Council to impose new sanctions against Iran.

Furthermore, the sanctions would allow Tehran to blame outsiders for its economic woes. In fact, the sanctions will do Iran a favor that the Iranian government can't do for itself.

As for making a dent in Iran's import- export traffic of energy products, the sanctions will have little effect. Turkey has indicated that it plans to increase its imports of natural gas from Iran. Also, according to The Wall Street Journal, oil traders and oil industry analysts say Iran will have little trouble finding other gasoline supplies in the Persian Gulf, where a black market in fuel products thrives, even if Washington passes measures that would penalize firms or individuals with business in the U.S. that supply gasoline to Iran.

Capt. Mousa Murad, general manager of the United Arab Emirates' Port of Fujairah, says gasoline sanctions will likely give a lift to a thriving black-market fuel trade in the Gulf. The region has no shortage of suppliers, he says, who will continue to hide gasoline shipments to Iran because "prices will go up two times, three times."

What options does the US have?

Those who are anxious to stop Iran's nuclear program keep reminding us that the "military option is still on the table." For years, the US has tried to stop India and Pakistan from joining the nuclear club and briefly turned off aid to them. Today, it works secretly with Pakistan to secure its arsenal and has signed a treaty with India permitting it to buy nuclear material. The Unites States option might be no option.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

First came the clash at Davos in January 2009, when Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum. Then came the surprise uranium deal with Tehran, undermining Western pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear program, followed by the Israeli assault on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which sailed under Turkish flags, sending shockwaves throughout the world. Most recently, Turkey and Brazil have become the only countries that voted against UN sanctions to impede Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons capabilities.

There was a time when Turkey had looked west and never looked back. Some say that the drift began in 2002, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP), rooted in the country's Islamist movement, came to power. But others, like the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, lay the blame for Turkey's increasing independence squarely on European states opposed to Turkey's EU accession process, which has ground to an almost complete halt since it kicked off in 2005.

"I personally think that if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought," he said.

This assessment has merits; the reality is that some EU member states - notably France, Germany and Austria - have become openly hostile to Turkish membership in recent years. France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, have stated that they would prefer Turkey to be granted what they call a 'privileged partnership' with the EU, instead of full membership. This came as a shock and an insult to the Turkish government and people, who had witnessed Eastern European countries, once hostile to the West ascend to the EU.

But why shouldn't Turkey look east?

Trade between Turkey and all 22 members of the Arab League has more than doubled over the past five years to just under $30 billion a year, still a fraction of its trade with the EU. However, since the recent global economic downturn, coupled with the collapse of the Euro, Turkish economists have been urging the government to expand its trade with the Middle East and the Far East.

Turkey recently signed a deal with Arab neighbors Syria, Jordan and Lebanon to establish a cooperation council to create a zone of free movement of goods and people. Although the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that the deal should not be seen as an alternative to the European Union, he invited all other interested countries to join.

In addition, with Turkey having no energy resources of its own, Iran is its second biggest source of energy imports after Russia, supplying roughly one-third of Turkey's total natural gas consumption last year, 10 billion cubic meters.

The West's loss of Turkey has frightening strategic consequences, as was evident in Turkey's stance on Iran. Its stance against Israel has also embarrassed U.S.-allied Arab states such as Egypt, which have shied away from confronting Israel despite popular demands to do so. Since his Justice and Development party (AKP) came to power in 2002, Erdogan has been accused by his detractors that he is trying to reclaim the former "grandeur" of Turkey's Ottoman Empire era. Did he succeed?

Perhaps not, but in Egypt, a reader of al-Masry al-Youm newspaper dubbed Erdogan as the "Caliph of the Muslims" in comments posted on its website, and his namesake is now popular with newborns in Gaza.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

As thousands of outraged demonstrators poured into the streets of Ankara and several capitals across the globe in the aftermath of Israel's bloody attack on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip early Monday, an Israeli sergeant stood in front of reporters claiming that the activists on board "were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns." He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle.

"It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," he said; yet, at least nine activists were killed, including a 19-year-old American who was shot in the head four times, and scores were injured.

Soon after, a video was released on the official website of the Israel Defense Forces and was made available to the media. It showed Israeli paratroopers jumping onto the international Gaza aid flotilla; a clip showing IDF commandos being beaten as they boarded the ship and one thrown overboard was looped endlessly. The military video did not show how and when the activists were shot, although the Israeli helicopters' infrared cameras would have easily recorded the flashes caused by gun discharge. Instead, the IDF has selectively released only a portion of the tape that showed its commandos under attack but has omitted the killings. Both Al Jazeera and reporters from Turkish TV news channels were reporting that the Marmara was under gunfire.

The "lynch" scenario came next. The victims were not the nine dead activists, nor the dozens of internationals who were beaten, humiliated, and dragged against their will to the Israeli port of Ashdod, instead they were the IDF's finest. What a departure from the days of Entebbe, when Hollywood made legends out of Israeli commandos.

Israel's Foreign Ministry then started showing pictures of sticks, knives, slingshots, and bottles which they said were the activists' weapons. The message is that several hundred activists gathered from all over the world to confront one of the best equipped and trained militaries in the world with these. But we are then told that the activists weren't really activists at all, but rather terrorists with ties to Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Yediot Ahronoth, one of Israel's most widely circulated papers broke with the headlines, "A Brutal Ambush at Sea." Arutz Sheva, the official news site of the settler movement attacked Associated Press for its "biased" reporting with an article entitled "Media War on the Flotilla Clash: AP Anti-Israel Bias Exposed." And the IDF website had this blaring story: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers are found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries," later to be reported in the Jerusalem Post as, "IDF: Mercenaries to blame for violence."

Israel's hasbara at its best. But is it working?

"Hasbara is only succeeding in Israel," says veteran journalist David Michaelis.

Michaelis believes that there is a disconnect between the way Israel sees itself and its actions, and the way they are viewed by the rest of the world.

"That was not a love boat. That was a boat of hatred," said Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A nice sound bite for FOX News, and headlines for the New York Post but this time hasbara is not working...not after the War on Lebanon, Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and a Mossad assassination caught on tape in Dubai.

Article originally published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

Israel expressed "deep disappointment" Thursday over a meeting the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev held this week in Syria with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, saying the organization must play a role in peace efforts.

Calling Hamas "a terror organization in every way," Israel's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it expected Russia to stand by Israel in its struggle against Hamas.

"Hamas is a terror organization whose declared goal is the destruction of the state of Israel...Hamas is responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians, among them immigrants from the Soviet Union and also Russian citizens."

Russia, the United States, European Union and the United Nations, make up a quartet of Middle East mediators. The U.S., EU and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist group. Russia insists that Hamas should not be isolated.

But Israel is not the only country that has expressed disappointment over the Russian president's trip to Syria. On Wednesday U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told reporters that Washington was cautious over any nuclear deal that included Syria. His comments came after reports surfaced that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad had discussed the possibility of nuclear collaboration in Damascus earlier this week.

Russian news agencies quoted Assad as saying that he and Medvedev had discussed the possibility of building power plants, including nuclear ones, in Syria.

In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a site in eastern Syria, which the U.S. later claimed was a nuclear installation aimed at building an atomic bomb with aid from North Korea.

Also this week, Turkey and Russia agreed on a $20 billion project in which Moscow will build and own a controlling stake in Turkey's first nuclear power plant, as the two Cold War-era rivals try to build a strategic partnership.

The Middle East was a staging area for Cold War conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union for many years until the USSR collapsed in 1991. Are the Russians making a comeback into the region?

Recently there have debates and articles published warning about the revival of Cold War-style regional confrontation due to Russia's recent activities in the Middle East; I disagree. Russia has no interest in repositioning itself as a regional superpower, nor does it have the desire to maintain a military strategic foothold in the region. Unlike the United States and China, Russia is not dependent on the Middle East for its energy supplies. The Russians are interested in economic opportunities, and for the past several years Russia has been re-establishing economic links and developing new interests in the region, including cooperation with Israel.

Although Russia differs with the US and Israel over Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, its objective is to establish regional stability. For instance, Russia and the United States share the objective of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and agree on many issues about Iran's nuclear file. Russia's engagement in the region should be viewed positively. The advantage Russia has over the United States is its ability to talk to all parties. The Russians are back, but this time in a positive way.

Article first published on the Huffington Post
Watch the Video

On Wednesday, an Egyptian court convicted 26 men of spying for Hezbollah and plotting attacks on Egyptian soil on behalf of the Lebanese militant group.

The men, including Lebanese, Egyptians, Palestinians, and one Sudanese, received sentences ranging from six months to life in prison.

Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has strongly criticized the Egyptian courts for jailing the men accused of working for his organization. He said the judgment by the Security Court in Cairo was "unjust and politicized."

Amnesty International on Thursday called for a retrial of 26 defendants, criticizing the use of an emergency court.

"These men should be retried by an ordinary court which gives them a chance of getting a fair trial," said the London-based rights watchdog.

Hezbollah’s differences with Egypt hit a pinnacle during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Egypt’s decision to keep the Rafah exits from Gaza sealed infuriated Nasrallah, who, on December 28, 2008, called for the Egyptian people to help the besieged Gazans and called on the Egyptian government to open the Rafah border crossing.

“Oh Egyptian official, unless you open the Rafah border crossing, unless you help your brethren in Gaza, you will be accomplices to the crime, accomplices to the killing, accomplices to the siege, and accomplices in generating the Palestinian catastrophe,” he said in a televised speech.

His statements at the time were interpreted by the Egyptian government and state-controlled media as meddling with Egyptian affairs and a call for a military mutiny and overthrow of the regime in Egypt.

But now Egypt has another issue to account for; on Thursday the Islamic Resistance Movement in Gaza, Hamas, accused Egyptian security forces of killing four Palestinians by pumping poisonous gas into a cross-border smuggling tunnel, a claim Cairo denied.

"Hamas holds the Egyptian side responsible for the killing of four innocent workers after Egyptian security forces pumped poisonous gas into one of the tunnels," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told reporters in Gaza.

Egyptian security officials said, however, that their forces had destroyed four smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border but were not aware of any casualties.

Many analysts in the region believe that the Egyptian government is afraid that having a successful Islamic regime such as Hamas on their doorstep would strengthen their own Muslim Brotherhood, which poses a serious political threat to the regime of President Hosni Mubarak. Some Arab media commentators have upped the ante by accusing Mubarak of declaring a war on Muslim organizations. But the Egyptian government and its media have been pointing the finger towards Iran and describing Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies to Tehran.

Egypt, which for many years took the lead in championing Arab causes in Palestine, Algeria, and Yemen, has been replaced by non-Arab countries like Iran and Turkey. For the past several years, the popularity of the ruling regime has been on a steady decline both in Egypt and in the region. Being popular with the people, however, has long ceased being a priority for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: the popularity battle was lost a long time ago to the likes of Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Recep Tayeb Erdogan.

Watch the Video