Remember Me



1-   From today’s Turkish press


DEATH OF 1980’S COUP GENERAL EVREN: Hikmet Cetinkaya laments the legacy of former 1980 coup leader general Kenan Evren in secular, Kemalist Cumhuriyet: "Evren was a coup maker who exploited Kemalism and religion; a dictator who was the enemy of democracy and freedom. He stole the lives of the generation of 1968 and 1978; he ordered the hanging of 50 people including children (such as Erdal Eren who was in only 17 years old). He was a cruel man who ordered the arrest of 650 people and murdered 178 people by torture. He had no conscience! He died at the age of 98. Besides, he went without being held accountable for what he did: stealing our youth and our lives. However, the political, social and legal order that he founded continues to grow at an accelerated pace."

Umit Kivanc sees little change over the past decades in centre-left Radikal: "[Evren’s] September 12th 1980 coup represents the epitome of the anti-democracy culture that has successfully taken root in this country. September 12th is a record of the fact that the evil the state can inflict on this society has no limit. There have been many aides, collaborators and accomplices in this. The social atmosphere, the institutional structure and the operational style created by September 12th is still fully in charge today." 

Melih Asik argues that Evren’s regime is still growing in centrist Milliyet: "The state and the government are not going to offer their condolences. But was Evren not hosted at Cankaya presidential palace by former president Abdullah Gul? Did anyone object to this? Why this sensitivity now? Kenan Evren is being criticized for the constitution he put in place as well as his coup crimes. The current constitution is being described as the 1980 coup constitution. It is quite ironic that those in power today have suspended even this narrow constitution." 

Gungor Mengi adopts a historical perspective in centrist Vatan: "September 12th is one of the two most significant coups in Turkey’s republican history! History does not forget coups no matter if they are civilian or military even after a thousand years. The September coup and Kenan Evren's role in it will not be forgotten either. In recalling what this coup brought about, one first remembers the issue of the 'independence of the judiciary' and the 10% electoral threshold". 

Mumtazer Turkone insists that Evren’s system remains in place in moderate, pro-Islamic, pro-Gulen Zaman: "Evren has died, however, the government system he formed remains in place. Turkey is still being ruled by the Evren constitution. The 10% election threshold, which is also Evren’s invention, is being used by the new owners of his chair as a means of controlling politics. Even if it has lost some of its power, the National Security Council is busy pursuing missions similar to those of the Evren era."

Fadime Ozkan has nothing good to say in centre-right, pro-government Star: "Evren will be taken to a state grave today via a military ceremony. When the imam asks 'how do you know him', we will see who will say what. May God forgive him. The coup’s courts ordered the hanging of 50 people, including Erdal Eren. And Evren tried to prove how fair they were by saying 'we hanged one from the right wing and one from the left'. Today no one looks to him either from right or left. The capital is silent."

Ali Bayramoglu looks for constitutional change in moderate, pro-Islamic, pro-government Yeni Safak: "Despite all the legal changes that have been made, Turkey is still being ruled by the Evren constitution and its remedies are standing there at the centre of everything. The death of Evren should remind us at least of why we need a new constitution. It should remind us that a constitution gives sense and order not only to the state’s inner powers such as a presidential or parliamentary system, but to state-society relations as well."



2-From today’s Iranian press


U.S./IRAN: Hard-line Javan is hard line:" The foreign ministry’s decision to engage American officials on expanding offices for Interests Sections is hasty and against our national interests regardless of the outcome. As we show flexibility in the nuclear talks, the West issues more excessive demands. If the expansion of the U.S. Interests Section in Tehran is for the purpose of gradually changing it into an embassy, such an action will be detrimental to our national interests. Those who pursue this consciously or unconsciously serve the interests of the U.S. rather than Iran." 


CAMP DAVID SUMMIT: Reformist Mardom Salari explains: "America needs Iran's support and help to resolve a variety of matters. The only key to opening this lock lies in resolving the nuclear issue and lifting hostile sanctions. The Islamic Republic and the United States have many common interests despite their radical positions about each other. Except for ideological disputes, these common interests push away from enmity towards friendship. Following the Lausanne agreement, the concern of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council has turned into fury and even rebellion against their biggest supporter; the U.S.. Some Arab leaders are not going to participate at the Camp David summit, where the White House hopes to win Arab support for the nuclear deal with Iran. The Arab spring and the lack of U.S. support for the dictators allied with Washington have reinforced the view among Gulf Arab dictators, especially Saudi Arabia, that U.S. Democrats have prepared velvet revolutions for them that will become operational after the agreement with Iran." 


NUCLEAR TALKS: Reformist Arman expects success: "The nuclear talks are in Iran's favour because of disputes between Russia and the U.S.; Iran stands to gain from these disputes. The Americans want to prolong the talks to resolve all their problems with Iran and normalize ties. However, Iran is not willing to sit at the table with the U.S. on any issue other than the nuclear one. The problem in the current talks is not the negotiating parties - but Saudi Arabia, some Gulf countries and the Zionist regime. Their sabotage and interventions cause difficulties. Because of Iran's strong role in the region, its importance for America has grown and this is why the U.S. wants to resolve its problems with Iran; therefore these talks can be expected to succeed." 


SAUDI ARABIA/YEMEN: Conservative Khorasan sounds ominous: "The Yemen crisis is the first taste of a new Saudi strategy in the region. Following events in Syria, the Iraqi crisis and Saudi incapacity, Saudi Arabia is trying to stabilize its position as the region's main player. Saudi brutal air attacks on Yemen cannot be stopped by merely relying on military tactics like asymmetric warfare. Saudi threats cannot be countered merely by relying on traditional diplomatic language and foreign policy interactions." 

Centrist Jomhuri-ye Eslami is pessimistic: "Judging by past performance, it seems unlikely that the Saudi ceasefire will hold for long. With the ceasefire, Riyadh hopes to stop the growing advance of tribal forces within its territory and to get an opportunity to revise its defeated and failed strategy."  


SAUDI/U.S. TIES: Reformist Sharq observes: "The Saudi government is not pleased with President Obama. It does not want to accept that the Middle East has changed. Two years have passed since Hassan Rowhani came to power, and his moderate government has tried hard to break the anti-Iran climate in the world and negotiate with the West. His administration has been successful to a great extent. Intractable Saudi behaviour and mistakes regarding ISIS and groups related to Al-Qa’ida have diminished Western trust in them. It is obvious that the absence of the heads of state of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Oman at Camp David would reduce the effectiveness of the meeting and will further weaken relations between Arabs and the U.S.." 


IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA: Conservative Quds surveys: "Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran/Saudi relations have been turbulent. During the era of the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi relations with Tehran turned sour because Saudi Arabia was a main supporter of Saddam. Iran and Saudi Arabia have different interests in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and even Palestine. Extremist elements in the Saudi foreign policy establishment and the cooling of ties have blocked possible ways for resolving these differences." 


UK/EU: Conservative Khorasan expects Cameron to play a balancing act: "Officials in Brussels do not want to see Britain leave. The Union does not want to be humiliated and reach the verge of collapse because of Britain leaving. Benefiting from these circumstances, Cameron will try to win further privileges from the EU. He also knows that to leave the EU will have political consequences, most important of which is isolation in Europe." 


CRITICISM OF ROWHANI'S ADMINISTRATION: Hard-line Keyhan is censorious: "One of the flawed views of the government is thinking that the world means the P5+1! This bitter approach, which unfortunately has been fully institutionalized in the Rowhani administration, does not only relate to nuclear negotiations; it is prevalent in most of the affairs of the current government. The government's administrative body is extremely weak. It is so weak that even some of the strong supporters of the government have been compelled to raise their voices!" 

Reformist E'temad is constructive: "Though the government properly identified its main priority, that of resolving the nuclear issue, it made a big mistake by ignoring domestic policy. What can overshadow the possible positive outcome of the nuclear talks after the end of negotiations, are the serious gaps that exist in the domestic policy of the government. The argument that there are internal disruptions of the government is comprehensible, but it cannot be accepted as an excuse to justify not paying attention to domestic issues. The government has only one way to succeed and satisfy society, and that is the restoration of domestic policy. It should start with repairing the cabinet, which sometimes seems to act even contrary to the policies and inclinations of the president". 


TURKEY/SYRIA: Conservative Resalat does not welcome Davutoglu’s visit of Syria: "After the failure of his theories and strategies in Syria, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has decided to enter Syria himself. Davutoglu who is responsible for many crises in the region, does not intend to change his wrong and doomed policies towards Damascus. His illegal visit to Syria is unjustifiable. Davutoglu's confusion about developments in the region in recent months has reached its peak. Washington and Ankara have been the main supporters of ISIS, but currently; disputes have arisen between them over how to manage this terrorist group."



Copyright: Mideast Mirror.

This email is intended for the recipient only.

Access to this message by any other person is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely upon this email.

The materials available through Mideast Mirror are the property of Alef Publishing Ltd or its licensors, are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.

Mideast Mirror - Alef Publishing Ltd.

Tel: ++ 44 020 7052 96 00

Fax: ++ 44 020 7052 96 09


Editorial and Enquiries:

Tel: ++ 44 773 4426 113

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.