• The view from Turkey  - Saban Disli
Bringing the Palestinian-Israeli problem to an end will constitute the most important step in the elimination of the Middle Eastern problem.

• Uncertainties and challenges  - Ramin Jahanbegloo
The first issue for the policymakers in the Middle East will be to determine an exit day for the US-led coalition in Iraq.

• Another year of violence  - an interview withKamran al-Karadaghi
Unless the Iraqi government and the coalition come with a plan of action to confront the insurgents they will be in trouble.

• Chaos or renewal?  - Ghada Karmi
In one phrase, the single most important determinant for developments in the region for 2005 is the US fear factor.

The view from Turkey
 Saban Disli

First of all, we the people of Turkey wish a very good, prosperous and peaceful new year to the people of the Middle East.

Like the last five decades, the year 2005 will also be a year filled with efforts aimed at stopping the bloodshed in the Middle East, bringing violence and clashes to an end, and establishing and developing democratic regimes.

The operation initiated in March 2003 by the United States and the coalition forces for the purpose of bringing down the regime of the dictator Saddam Hussein has unfortunately failed to restore stability and confidence in the region. Having been oppressed and tortured for years under Saddam Hussein's unjust regime, the Iraqi people have not attained a peaceful and democratic life in the last two years without Saddam. The most important of all achievements made so far in the political process initiated in Iraq is the drafting of the constitution, or Transitional Administrative Law. The elections scheduled for January 2005 will be the second prominent milestone for Iraq. We are hoping that after the scheduled election, democracy will come to Iraq and training camps for terrorists will be closed down.

The political process in Iraq is in place. Within the framework of the elections planned for January 2005, the High Commission for Elections in Iraq has been created. Turkey's Iraq policy is based on the principle of preserving Iraq's national unity and territorial integrity, and supports the development of the democratic process. In this context, we have been supporting the continuation of the political process with the broadest participation of the Iraqi people, together with the activities carried out for preparing a better future for the Iraqi people. To that end, we have been in contact with the coalition member countries, Iraq's neighbors, and the political parties and groups in Iraq led, of course, by the Iraqi Interim Government.

For the same reasons, Turkey participated in the Madrid conference in 2003 and decided to provide financial aid of $50 million for use in mutual projects, with $4.5 million of this made available to Iraq in the form of humanitarian aid.

We wish that there be no deviations from the objective of holding the elections of January 2005 for the higher purpose of preserving Iraq's national unity and territorial integrity. The election, which is an important democratic experience for Iraq, should be held without any delay, unless on vital grounds, and with the full participation of all ethnic and religious groups.

Like human beings, countries too can determine their own destinies. Democracies are processes of maturation for countries. Therefore after the establishment, with external contributions, of such basic elements of democracy as the parliamentary system, elections, a constitution and the rule of law, countries should be left to their own destinies during the maturation of their democracies. The culture of democracy may differ from country to country and from society to society.

The whole world agrees that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the core issue in the Middle East. Bringing it to an end will constitute the most important step in the elimination of the Middle Eastern problem. Here international and regional organizations and the leading powers of the world can play important roles. We think the environment for peace this year is optimal. Especially after the election in January, with an elected leadership in Palestine, long expected peace talks could start. Turkey has already offered to contribute to this process.

First of all, it is a prerequisite that the external actors convince the parties that they are impartial and fair regarding proposed peace plans. In this context the Quartet's roadmap, proposed on April 30, 2003 by the United States with the participation of the Russian Federation, the UN and the EU, is a very significant move. The first step should be the cessation of terror and violence, including the improvement of Palestinian living conditions, the cessation of Israeli settlement activities on occupied territory, and support for the restructuring process of the Palestinian Authority.

In addition, the unilateral disengagement plan adopted in principle on June 6, 2004 by the Israeli Cabinet and envisaged to be completed by the end of 2005 is an important recent step. This decision has been welcomed by Palestine and the western countries. Yet, it would be more appropriate if the withdrawal plan were contained within the roadmap.

Yasser Arafat, who was regarded by Israel as one of the most important obstacles in the peace talks, was replaced until the elections by Mahmoud Abbas, who is known to be a more moderate figure. The first months of 2005 will and must be spent on the internal restructuring efforts of Palestine rather than on the elimination of the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The Palestinians need to come up with a shared vision in this new period. This vision should comprise, first, the holding of a transparent and democratic election, and secondly, the electing of a new leader who has the potential to bring all Palestinian organizations under the same peaceful umbrella. Israel should provide an infrastructure that ensures the elections work to that effect. Otherwise it will not be possible to lay the groundwork for any peace plans to be introduced in the period that follows.

We hope that our foreign minister's visit to the region, beginning on January 3, 2005, initiates a new start regarding peace negotiations. If this succeeds, our prime minister's visit in the near future will be the best opportunity to launch such talks.

For Turkey, 2004 was mainly devoted to efforts aiming at the commencement of negotiations with the European Union. As the whole world knows, Turkey realized the fruits of these efforts on December 17, 2004. The resolution of the European Council to commence negotiations with Turkey on October 3, 2005 has also been welcomed in Middle Eastern countries. Syria, the Iraqi Interim Council and Iran have, on occasion, stated that Turkey has made them neighbors with the EU, that a country with a Muslim society will contribute to world peace by taking an active part in one of the most prominent regional organizations of the world, and that the trade opportunities of their respective countries with Europe have been broadened.

For the European Union, seeking to establish more direct relations with Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean countries and the Middle East, Turkey's membership will have a direct impact. Our move toward the EU will have a catalyzing effect on Turkey's democratization process. We hope it will have the same effect on the countries in the region.- Published 6/1/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org

Saban Disli represents Sakarya in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. He is deputy chairman of the ruling Justice and Development Party, in charge of international affairs.

Two years ago, when the United States became engaged in a war against Saddam Hussein, many commentators on the Middle East in general and on Iranian politics in particular, as well as the majority of Iranians inside and outside Iran, quickly concluded that the true reason for the US military action against Iraq was in fact to destabilize the Iranian regime. At the same time, Iranian officials recognized that democratic developments in Iraq might send ripples across the border and create a series of civil rebellions inside Iran.

Today, democratic developments in Iraq are taking a slower pace than what was expected, and the Iranian population has no more hope of a future American intervention in Iran. Following the 2004 US election and the advent of a second four-year term for the Bush administration, many in Iran, in Israel and in the Arab countries are eager to see how President Bush achieves his lofty goals of a democratic, peaceful and nuclear-free Middle East. In this regard, the year 2005 will witness a rare confluence of uncertainties and challenges in the Middle East--elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, presidential elections in Iran, as well as Iranian-European talks on nuclear disarmament--that might help to create a new rapprochement between the United States and the region.

Certainly, the first issue for policymakers in the Middle East will be to determine an exit date for the US-led coalition in Iraq. The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the more the US presence will undoubtedly be seen as an occupation by the Arab street. Perhaps the best alternative for the new Iraqi government would be to go to the United Nations, which mandated the current coalition, and request a replacement force. This measure would allow others, especially European countries such as France and Germany, to play a bigger role in the stabilization of Iraq.

As long as US troops are in Iraq, the democratic transition in the Middle East will be a failure and the principles laid out in the roadmap will fail to end terrorist violence against Israel and to produce a stable Palestinian state. To make progress in the direction of peace in the Middle East, the US and its partners can offer several incentives.

First, they can require Israel to freeze Jewish settlements and to acknowledge that dismantlement eventually will include West Bank settlements.

Second, they can mobilize international resources to help the new Palestinian government and its poor economy.

Third, they should press Egyptian President Husni Mubarak to lift prohibitive laws in Egypt and empower the liberal and progressive elements of Egyptian society against the Islamic fundamentalists.

Fourth, they can challenge Iran with diplomacy by ending 25 years of containment against this country. The key is to find ways that address concerns on both sides. This could include Iran terminating its nuclear enrichment program and its support for extremist Palestinian groups and Shi'ites in Iraq in exchange for security guarantees in a vulnerable nuclear neighborhood and the eviction of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization, the largest Iranian opposition group, from Iraq.

Behind various closed doors, the leaders of the Islamic Republic have reached the conclusion that Iran would do best not to associate itself too closely with the Americans. Nonetheless, Tehran has repeatedly stated that it wants to be part of an international, UN-led effort against terrorism, though not one that is unilaterally spearheaded by Washington. Tehran is likely to make limited bargains with the Americans. As an indication of such willingness to cooperate, Iran has kept the door open for a limited dialogue with the US through a number of direct and indirect channels.

Arguably, what has the most impact on Iran is the threatening tone adopted by the United States. This issue goes considerably beyond the famous "you are either with us or with the terrorists" quote of President Bush. Now that the Americans have overthrown the Taliban and Saddam, the Iranian leaders, mistrustful of the Americans to start with, are obviously deeply concerned with the issue, not knowing if Washington would turn on regimes like that in Tehran. According to some analysts, Iran's "toothless policy" has given Washington the assurance it needs that Iran will play its part and be a good sideline observer in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Some supporters of democratization in Iran might come to see the US threat as a way to accelerate reform. But this presumes that democratization really matters to the Bush administration. If this is the case, Bush administration endorsement of the student movement may already have helped hardliners legitimate their suppression of intellectuals, journalists and students as a measure to guard against "foreign forces". If this is not the case, the Islamic regime is less likely to respond to US threats by conceding democracy and human rights to Iranian citizens, than by offering concessions such as oil deals and a cooperative stance regarding weapons of mass destruction and the future of Iraq.

This is another way of saying that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between Iran's domestic and foreign policies. The fact that they are intertwined exposes the Iranian state to both domestic and external legitimacy crises with which it has to come to grips. Iran will have to cooperate more with the international community if it wishes to avoid the isolation that it experienced for the past 25 years.

In parallel, the grand expectations formulated by President Bush during the first term of his presidency are far from being satisfied. The Bush administration now faces new challenges and opportunities during its second term, which will require a greater diplomatic engagement and perhaps a more imaginative attitude toward Iran and the Arab-Israel problem.- Published 6/1/2005 (c) bitterlemons-international.org

Ramin Jahanbegloo is professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He is the author of "Talking Politics" (with Bhikhu Parekh , Oxford University Press, India, 2010).