Con Coughlin: From Arab Spring to Boiling-hot Summer
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Iran is ruthlessly exploiting the pro-democracy movement for its own ends.

When the term “Arab Spring” entered the collective vocabulary this year, it was meant to encapsulate the youthful exuberance of the pro-democracy movements that had sprung up throughout the Middle East. After enduring decades of stultifying and repressive rule by the ancien re[é]gime, this was the moment that the region’s poor and dispossessed at last laid claim to certain basic rights, such as the freedom to express their political opinions, and to a more equal share of their nations’ wealth.

Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution quickly led to the overthrow of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, while in Egypt, mass protests forced the resignation of Hosni Mubarak.

Within weeks, the contagion was wreaking havoc throughout the region, threatening the ruling elites in such disparate countries as Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain.

Four months later, however, the worldwide enthusiasm that greeted this seemingly spontaneous outpouring of democratic fervour has been replaced by mounting concern at the way these protests have developed. In Egypt and Bahrain, as well as Libya and Syria, the hopes they inspired have been nipped firmly in the bud. Continue reading and comment » | Con Coughlin | Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Con Coughlin: Nick Clegg Is Clueless When It Comes to Fighting Terrorism
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH BLOGS: With every day that passes Nick Clegg gives us yet further proof of why he is totally unsuited for high office. As the country’s deputy prime minister, he will have been made fully aware, from the regular briefings he receives from our intelligence and security services, of the very real threat this country faces from Islamist terrorism.

Indeed, it was only through the skill and diligence of dedicated security officers that a major terrorist attack was narrowly averted over the Christmas holiday. The targets apparently included Parliament itself, which you might have thought would have driven home even to pacifist-minded politicians like Mr Clegg the very real and present danger we all face from this pernicious threat. Read on and comment >>> Con Coughlin | Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Libya Has Made Fools of Us All Over Lockerbie Bomber Megrahi, and Much Else Besides
THE TELEGRAPH: Gaddafi was playing Tony Blair long before the release of the Lockerbie bomber, argues Con Coughlin.

It doesn't matter how much money BP stands to make from its deep-water exploration off the Libyan coast – it is never going to compensate for the humiliation Britain has suffered over last year's decision to repatriate the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Britain's leading oil company says it has postponed plans to drill its first deep-water well in Libya's Gulf of Sirte until later in the year, because of the concerns that have been raised by the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. But that is not the only reason BP is holding fire: its senior executives fear that if work commences just as Megrahi is celebrating his first year of freedom, it would further infuriate the members of the US Senate who are already demanding a full Congressional inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Megrahi's release.

The fact of the matter is that Megrahi, according to what we were told at the time, should not be alive, and certainly not the subject of the sickening spectacle that has been arranged today by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the Libyan dictator's son and political heir. This will see 500 teenagers, flown in from around the world at vast expense, acting as guests of honour at a ceremony to mark the one-year anniversary of Megrahi's return home from his Scottish prison cell.

Precisely what role BP played in securing Megrahi's release, or what bearing this had on its $900 million oil exploration contract, remains unclear. The company says it did no more than lobby the Scottish Parliament for a prisoner swap. But many senior officials in the Obama administration believe that BP was more deeply involved. They point to the role played by Sir Mark Allen, a former senior MI6 officer who headed the negotiations that persuaded Libya to stop work on its nuclear weapons programme, in late 2003, and wrote to the Foreign Office seeking Megrahi's release.

The lenient approach that Scottish officials adopted in dealing with Megrahi's case, in which no serious assessment appears to have been made of the terrorist's medical condition, certainly fits with the approach that Tony Blair encouraged British officials to adopt towards Libya following the nuclear deal. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might remain one of the region's less appealing dictators, but that did not prevent Mr Blair from working tirelessly to bring him in from the diplomatic cold. Continue reading and comment >>> Con Coughlin | Friday, August 20, 2010

Con Coughlin: Turkey's Alliance with Iran Is a Threat to World Peace
TELEGRAPH BLOGS: Turkey’s decision to veto the latest U.N. Security Council resolution on Iran should be of concern for all those, like me, who desire a peaceful resolution of the international crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Turks are apparently upset that the West has not responded positively to the nuclear deal it recently negotiated with Iran, with Brazil’s assistance, whereby Tehran would ship some of its stockpile of enriched uranium to Ankara in return for fuel rods for its so-called research reactor in Tehran.

In fact this deal was nothing more than a watered-down version of the agreement Iran negotiated with the world’s leading powers in Geneva last year, and then reneged upon. Crucially, it made no provision for Iran to call a halt to the controversial uranium enrichment programme at Natanz that allows it to produce another 100 kilos of fissile material each month. (Iran now has about 2.5 tons of enriched uranium, more than enough to make an atom bomb.)

But the Iran-Turkey deal is indicative of a far more worrying trend in relations between the two countries. I now gather that Iranian officials were in close contact with the “aid” activists responsible for organising the flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Read on and comment >>> Con Coughln | Thursday, June 10, 2010

Turkey's Role in the Gaza Flotilla Affair Should Worry Us All in the West
THE TELEGRAPH: Ankara is losing patience after being rebuffed in its attempts to join the EU, writes Con Coughlin.

A demonstrator holds a Palestinian flag during a protest against Israel in Istanbul . Photograph: The Telegraph
For a country that has aspirations to join the Western comity of nations, Turkey certainly has a strange way of going about it. Its government may not have personally sanctioned the dispatch of a flotilla of militant aid activists to Gaza, but it has lost no time in leading the international chorus of condemnation for Israel's cack-handed response.

Ahmet Davutoglu, the foreign minister, has claimed that the military interception of the flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of nine "peace" activists, has become Turkey's 9/11. The Turks even achieved the remarkable feat of persuading the Nato alliance to come to its aid. But throughout the tumult, they appear to have conveniently overlooked the damning evidence that, far from being innocent aid activists, many of those on board the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish-registered ship that led the flotilla, were hell-bent on an armed confrontation. How else do you explain the presence of gas masks, bullet-proof vests, knives and axes on the vessel?

The team of Israeli commandos that rappelled from a helicopter on to the ship's upper deck were met by a lynch mob, some of whom had openly professed a desire to achieve martyrdom prior to the voyage. In some cases, it appears their wishes were met.

While the Turkish government says it was not directly involved in sending the Mavi Marmara on its doomed mission, Israeli security officials claim the charity responsible for chartering the ship does have links to Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party. >>> Con Coughlin | Friday, June 04, 2010

Star comment by instansaver:

The Islamist ruling party in Turkey has been waiting for years to become more overtly Islamist. We in Europe should not kid ourselves that our correct rebuffing of their entry into the EU was the principal factor. Admitting Turkey would be demographically and culturally disastrous.

Erdogan spends half his time these days dining with Assad and Ahmadinejad. Turkey's great geopolitical priority right now is to prevent an independent Kurdistan arising out of the ashes of post-Saddam Iraq. That explains the majority of what is driving Turkey's (literal) reorientation.

The earlier dispute with Israel featuring Danny Ayalon centred around the production of an anti-semitic tv series in Turkey - a fact which was lost in the West due to the typical propensity for succumbing to anti-Israel spin.

We in the west would be greatly mistaken by thinking that the best way to handle Turkey right now is to mollify or appease it. The best hope for Turkey is if the secularist politicians get their act together. The Islamist ruling party needs a bucket of cold water throwing over it, not a bunch of flowers and the keys to the house. – (Edited by a moderator) [Source: Telegraph Comments]

Con Coughlin's article is excellent, well-written, and logically set out. But it is based on a false assumption! The assumption that if Turkey is allowed into Europe, all will be well. But this will clearly not be the case. Mr Coughlin, it appears, has little understanding of the true nature of Islam and Muslims. All Muslims have Islam coursing through their veins. Turkish Muslims are no different. They may appear to be more 'moderate' – whatever a 'moderate Muslim' is – but do not be fooled. Muslims are Muslims, and Islam is Islam. There is but ONE Islam, and therefore, by logical extension, ONE true Muslim.

Israelis understand the true nature of their Muslim neighbours. Con Coughlin, apparently, does not.

Allowing Turkey into Europe will be nothing short of a disaster for Europe. It will change the course of its future. The continent will be transformed in no time at all. If people like Mr Coughlin want to throw away our Judeo-Christian civilization in one fell swoop, then all that needs to be done is to allow Turkey into the Union. That will clinch it for them! But this will be one foolish step too many. – © Mark

Con Coughlin: Has the West Got the Will to Carry On Shedding Blood for Afghanistan?
THE TELEGRAPH: The strategy is finally right, but our resolve could be starting to waver, writes Con Coughlin.

It has taken the best part of a decade, and we have sacrificed an inordinate amount of blood and treasure in our ill-conceived and badly executed attempts to bring some stability to Afghanistan. However, it can now be said with confidence that we have the basis of a strategy for resolving the conflict.

But have we found the formula for resolving the country's ills too late? With no let-up in the death toll, do Britain, America and the other Nato states committed to rebuilding Afghanistan really have the willpower to see the job through? >>> Con Coughlin | Friday, January 29, 2010

THE TELEGRAPH: You cannot stop the terrorist threat if you are unable to profile it: Tony Blair understood the scale of the terrorist threat, and the most effective way of preventing attacks is to target the most suspicious, says Charles Moore. >>> Charles Moore | Friday, January 29, 2010

Why Is Britain Harbouring Bahrain's Dissidents?
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOG – Con Coughlin: I’ve just attended a seminar on Bahrain hosted by Field Marshall Lord Inge at the House of Lords where I was alarmed to learn that London has become a safe haven for a group of Islamic radicals who are trying to overthrow the Bahraini government.

I suppose, on one level, I should not be surprised by this revelation. After all “Londonistan” has long given sanctuary to Islamic militants of all persuasions – including several key al-Qaeda leaders.

But I am nonetheless surprised that, in the post-September 11 world we live in (not to mention July 7), the British authorities are still giving asylum to those who are trying to harm one of our key allies in the Gulf region.

Apart from being viscerally pro-British, the genial, Sandhurst-educated King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa is a key strategic ally in a region where the antics of Iran’s Islamic republic poses a major security challenge to the West. Bahrain provides the U.S. with a massive naval base, and would prove to be a vital asset to the West in the unfortunate event that a military conflict erupted over Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.

Bahrain has, I know, had its problems in the past, where relations between the Sunni ruling family, and its citizens, who are predominantly Shia Muslims, have, on occasion, been strained. Nor have these problems been helped by the unwelcome interference of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards which, on at least two occasions, have orchestrated plots to overthrow the royal family. >>> Con Coughlin | Wednesday, November 11, 2009

If Gordon Brown Really Wants to Fight Terrorism, He Should Have Blocked the Release of the Lockerbie Bomber
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOGS: Gordon Brown can’t have it both ways. On the one hand he claims that his determination to fight terrorism remains “absolute”. On the other he says he had “no role” in the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of carrying out the Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people.

Well, if Mr Brown really is determined to fight terror, then he should very much have made it his business to have a role in the decision to repatriate Megrahi to Libya. He should have called up the Scottish government and ordered it keep Megrahi firmly locked up in his Scottish prison cell, no matter how ill the terrorist claimed to be.

It was so clearly in Britain’s national interest not to release Megrahi that the prime minister of the United Kingdom - and that includes Scotland - should have used all the powers at his disposal to play a central role in deciding Megrahi’s fate. >>> Con Coughlin | Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Why Iran Hates Britain So Much
THE TELEGRAPH: Britain has taken America's place as Tehran's most loathed nation. The antipathy goes back centuries, says Con Coughlin.

Not so long ago, Britain was held in such low esteem in Iran that it was simply dismissed as the "little Satan". So far as the ayatollahs were concerned, the real enemy was America, the "great Satan", whose love of liberty and free market capitalism was thought to pose the gravest threat to the Islamic revolution's survival.

It was for this reason that the American embassy, rather than the British, was occupied by the Revolutionary Guards in Tehran soon after Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in 1979, and its 66 staff held hostage. The expansive grounds of Britain's diplomatic mission, which hosted Winston Churchill during the Tehran conference in 1943, were briefly occupied by the Guards during Iran's revolutionary turmoil, but then evacuated because the mullahs did not regard Britain as being of sufficient importance to hold it to ransom.

But 30 years later it seems all that has changed as it is now Britain, rather than America, that finds itself on the receiving end of the ayatollahs' ire. After initiating last week's tit-for-tat diplomatic expulsions, which saw two middle-ranking British diplomats expelled from Tehran for allegedly fomenting anti-government demonstrations, the Iranian authorities have arrested a further nine British embassy employees. Although some of the workers have since been released, there has been no let-up in the regime's anti-British rhetoric.

After Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, launched the initial anti-British tirade by denouncing Britain as the "most treacherous" of the regime's enemies, there has been no shortage of prominent Iranians lining up to denounce the "devious" British. At the heart of the dispute is Tehran's insistence that British spies have been responsible for stirring up the worst street protests Iran has experienced since 1979.

Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's Foreign Minister, even went so far as to accuse Britain of sending planes filled with agents to Iran "with special intelligence and security ambitions".

In the past, Iran's purges and executions have been directed against those accused of spying for America or Israel. But the emergence of Britain as the mullahs' latest bête noire [sic] suggests Anglo-Iranian relations are about to undergo another period of intense strain. >>> Con Coughlin | Monday, June 29, 2009

Con Coughlan is the author of 'Khomeini's Ghost: Iran Since 1979', published by Macmillan