'Rescue the nation': Thousands hit Jordan streets despite parliament dissolution

Thousands of supporters of local Muslim Brotherhood branch marched in the capital, Amman, to slam corruption and speed up political reforms, a day after King Abdullah ordered dissolution of Jordan’s parliament.

­Over 50,000 people were expected to take part in the "Friday to Rescue the Nation" demonstration called by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Action Front (IAF) political arm. AFP reporters estimate some 15,000 people joined, but this was enough to make the rally one of the largest since Arab Spring-inspired protests erupted last year.

"The corrupt are God's enemies" and "For how long will the regime protect corrupt officials?" read the placards of the protesters flocking to the main street leading to the Husseini mosque in downtown Amman after Friday prayers.

“Democratic electoral law, constitutional changes, parliamentary governments, independent judiciary, constitutional court, effective anti-corruption efforts and preventing security services from interfering in political life,” said another large banner spelling out the demonstrators' demands.

The Friday protest focused on demands for reforms that would create a less centralized government and ensure more opposition seats in parliament. The IAF is outraged that the 120-member lower chamber of the parliament still provides only 27 seats for party candidates, even after the MPs managed to raise this number from just 17 seats.

The demonstration also insisted on the right to elect the prime minister. At the moment, this is the king’s privilege.

Some 2,000 police were deployed to the capital of Middle Eastern country, while pro-king demonstrations had got suspended as organizers want to prevent clashes.

The protest convened despite King Abdullah’s Thursday orders to dissolve the two-year-old parliament. Though the monarch did not elaborate on the dates of new elections, the poll is expected to take place by the end of 2012.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the only effective opposition in the country, is already threatening to boycott the election, as they did in 2010, unless demands for wider representations are met. They say that while the dissolution was “expected”, this is “not the right step forward.”

There should be democratic election law reform and "real" changes to Jordan's constitution, says IAF Deputy General Secretary Nimer Assaf.

Abdullah, who ascended Jordan's throne in 1999, has been facing waves of unrest since January 2011. The current laws allow the king to personally appoint senators, the cabinet and the prime minister. The ruling system has also been slammed by the opposition for political discrimination of Jordanians of the Palestinian origin, who feel they are kept from power by the native Jordanians.

With tensions escalating, Abdullah pledged in June 2011 the government would in the future be elected, not appointed. But this initiative was left without any specific timetable.

On Septeber 2, the Jordanian parliament signed a motion of no confidence against the government of Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh. The PM was blamed for rising fuel prices and accused "of recent appointments in top posts based on nepotism," the official local news agency stated.

'Strike on Iran unlikely, would not have US support'

Washington is hoping and waiting for a positive outcome for its sanctions against Iran, and will not go along with Israel’s demands to attack the country, Iranian political scientist and professor Nasser Nadian-Jazy said in an interview with Russian Media.

Nadian-Jazy believes that if President Obama is re-elected, he will be more willing to take a risk on diplomacy with Tehran and work out a plan to resolve tensions in a way that will be mutually beneficial for both America and Iran.

RM: Iran has just hosted a huge international event – the Non-Aligned Movement summit. There were 120 countries present, regardless of the US and Israel's warnings not to do so. What message exactly is Iran sending out there?

Nasser Nadian-Jazy: Basically, Iran attempted to say that we’re not isolated the way the West attempted. Thus, the principal message for Iran was convincing the international community, particularly the West, that Iran is not isolated, let’s resolve our issues on the basis of negotiation rather than sanctions, political pressure and isolation.

RM: One could call it probably diplomatic power – you had 120 countries coming to you – regardless of America saying ‘don’t go.’ Does this immunize you from a possible strike [on Iran]?

NNJ: Of course not. Although, I’m not all that convinced that the Israelis would attack Iran, because that does not serve their interests. That would not help them to achieve their objectives. It would be costly for them, too. They can begin the strike, the war, but they are not sure how and when Iran is going to respond. In fact, no one can predict it.

RM: Do you have a guess how much the war with Iran would cost to the world economy?

NNJ: No doubt that as the first planes and missiles are flying over Iran, the price of oil is going to jump up – at least for a while. Considering the current economic problems now, I doubt it would be very helpful to the global economy.

RM: Since we’ve started talking about this possible strike, the US and Israel have different views on whether this strike should take place or not. What will happen, in your opinion, after the US presidential election?

NNJ: My guess is that if President Obama is re-elected, he would attempt to somehow work out a plan that would be beneficial for both America and Iran. Up to this point, America should basically consider the pressure. They cannot dismiss the presidential elections, they cannot dismiss the pressure from Israel. But after that, President Obama will be more willing to take risks with diplomatic efforts.

RM: You mentioned you don’t actually think that Israel would go ahead with the strike. But does it actually have the capability to fight the war?

NNJ: Up to this moment I’m almost convinced – though not totally convinced – that Israelis are putting pressure on the international community, particularly America with its presidential election. They want to get more; they want to make America accept their red line, which is zero [uranium] enrichment for Iran. They feel this is the best time to pressure America to accept that red line. America has not accepted that red line. For America, the red line is Iran having actual [nuclear] weapons.

But in case they decide to attack, they will not achieve their objectives. They do not have the capability to attack Iran. At most they can attack a few places by missiles and war planes. That would not convince Iran not to pursue its nuclear program.

If effectively put that way, it can bring out the radicals of Iran – those who are arguing for nuclear weapons. An Israeli attack is the best-case scenario for them. Basically, Israelis would strengthen the [Iranian] radicals who want them out. But the absolute majority of Iranian pundits and elites and officials – they don’t want this [nuclear] weapons. What they want is the capability [to make them]. I’ve been arguing that since 2003, Iran does not want [nuclear] weapons, Iran wants the capability

RM: What is your personal take on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that he wants Israel to be wiped off the face of Earth?

NNJ: To me it is mostly a wish rather than a plan.

RM: But it is something a president of a country comes out and says to the world media.

NNJ: That is very unfortunate that the president of the country would say that, but I’m not convinced at all or rather convinced the opposite, that there is no plan for wiping Israel off the map.

RM: The world is still not convinced that Iran doesn't want to make a nuclear bomb. What other cards does Iran have to prevent a war?

NNJ: I’m not sure about the rest of the world, you can say a few countries.

RM: A few countries that really call the shots, let’s put it that way.

NNJ: Exactly, I fully agree on that. Yes, they are not convinced that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful. They might decide to attack and wage war on Iran. But what can we do to prevent a war is to convince the international community, particularly the IAEA, that our program is peaceful. We also can bring influential figures of the world to Iran, presenting our case to them and convincing them there is no reason for Iran to have [nuclear] weapons.

A number of important international relation theoreticians have argued [with me] that, considering the situation, Iran should have nuclear weapons. I provided a number of reasons why Iran is not pursuing and does not want to have nuclear weapons. The reason is that they do not enhance security in the region. That would be very stupid of Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.

RM: Let’s talk about sanctions. Iran’s oil revenues have declined since the Western sanctions went in place. Iran’s government said it has not really affected anything, but these sanctions really eaten into Iranian economy, haven’t they?

NNJ: Of course, sanctions have an impact on Iran, but are they enough to convince Iran not to have the enrichment? No, they are not. In the long term, sanctions are going to hurt Iran very much and that is why I’ve been arguing all along that in fact the current situation is very good for the Americans. Why should they change course? That is why they are arguing with Israel “we can achieve our objectives in long term, don’t push it.”

This is an excellent and very low-risk plan for the Americans. They have cornered Iran, put a lot of pressure on it and they say “let’s wait and see what will happen.”

For Iran the situation is not good. Iran should change that element of strategic calculus, so that the Americans think it is not going to be the same. The introduction of a new element – like a military option – would change the entire strategic landscape. That’s why Americans are pressuring Israelis not to take any action.

RM: Another topic the US and Iran disagree on is Syria, and whether [President Bashar] Assad should stay or leave. How long does Iran want the current government in Syria to hold on, and if Assad is ousted, would Iran feel vulnerable?

NNJ: Unfortunately, due to particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar and to a lesser extent Turkey, the situation in Syria is bad, many people are being killed. I doubt that with Assad leaving things are going to be resolved there for at least next decade. Syria is not going to be the same because so many parties are engaged.

RM: What does it mean for Iran, especially if Assad goes? He will probably go sooner or later.

NNJ: It depends. For Iran the best scenario is preserve the regime – at least the state – but let Assad go. To come up with a resolution so that a sort of national unity government can be formed in the same state, but without Assad. Otherwise, it is going to be chaos for years to come. And it is not going to be contained within Syria. Iraq and Lebanon are going to be influenced, and once they’re influenced, Yemen will follow. Saudi Arabia won’t be immune from the situation, or Iran and Turkey. The whole region is going to be impacted if the conflict is not contained within Syria.

Middle East détente: Iran launches new era of Egyptian relations

Egypt and Iran are set to restart bilateral relations after more than three decades of animosity. Iran will place no limits on the strengthening of relations with Egypt, said President Ahmadinejad in his first phone call with his counterpart.

He invited newly-elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to a summit of Non-Aligned Movement nations to be held in Tehran.

The non-Aligned movement is a group of countries that see themselves as set apart from the mainstream politics of the major world powers. 

"Egypt's role in this movement is undeniable, and constructive cooperation between Iran and Egypt in this movement can have many positive outcomes,” said Ahmedinejad.

He added that Iran was prepared to bolster ties in the fields of technology, industry and economy, stressing the necessity of political dialogue to discuss problems that affect both nations.

Ahmedinejad congratulated Morsi on his election success, and said that the two nations shared a cultural heritage, underlining that Iran would always stand by the Egyptians.

Morsi for his part said “the Non-Aligned Movement is an important meeting which is like an umbrella covering many Islamic and non-Islamic nations, and I hope to witness the realization this international organization’s aims,”  the Iranian state news website Mehr reported him as saying.

Iranian-Egyptian relations fell into a period of stagnation following the signing of an Egyptian peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

However, upon assuming the Egyptian presidency, Morsi voiced his wishes to rekindle diplomatic ties with Iran and possibly reconsider the peace treaty with Israel.

Egypt is predominantly made up of Sunni Muslims, while Iran belongs to the Shiite group of Islam which has been a source of contention between the two nations in the past.

Meanwhile, the ascension of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood party was met with concern by the Israeli press who view an Islamist in the seat of Egyptian power as a potential threat.

Morsi announced that he wished to reconsider the terms of the peace treaty with Israel on the grounds that the accords were unequal and made under pressure from the US.

In response Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu sent a letter to Cairo, urging the newly elected President to honor Egypt’s contractual agreements with Israel.

Facts about Egypt as election results expected

Egypt's transformation from monarchy to military coup to Arab Spring uprising.

The following is a factsheet about Egypt, where the results of an election runoff for a new president are to be announced Sunday:

• Population: 82 million in the country, along with another estimated 8 million citizens living abroad.

• Religion: About 90 percent Muslim, 10 percent Christian.

• Land Area: About 1 million square kilometers (620,000 square miles), bordering the Palestinian Gaza Strip, Israel, Sudan and Libya. The population is concentrated on about 7 percent of the land, mostly along the Nile River.

• GDP growth in 2011: 1.8 percent.

• Unemployment rate in 2011: 10.4 percent.

• Literacy: 71.4 percent.

• Inflation in 2012: 8.3 percent, according to Central Bank of Egypt.

Key moments in modern history:

Egypt was a monarchy until a 1952 military coup. Since then Egypt's last four presidents have all hailed from the military. The late President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist militants after signing the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state. His vice president at the time, Hosni Mubarak, assumed power.

Mubarak ruled for nearly 30 years, allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to contest parliamentary elections as independent candidates while banning the group from officially forming a party. Thousands of people were tortured and some died in the country's notorious prisons during Mubarak's rule. Many believe his son, Gamal, was being groomed to take over the presidency.

Corruption, widespread poverty and curbs on freedoms sparked the Jan. 25, 2011 uprising engineered by youth activists inspired by a successful revolt in Tunisia. Nearly 900 deaths and 18 days later, Mubarak was forced to step down and his longtime Defense Minister Mohamed Hussein Tantawi heading a council of military generals assumed power.

 

Lavrov Squeaks - Moscow urges uniform OSCE election monitoring rules

Members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) should introduce “generally acceptable” and clear regulations for election observation, says Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is in charge of vote monitoring and currently lacks any clear rules “that would be based on uniform criteria rather than double standards, as is not the case,” Lavrov pointed out.

“Unfortunately, our Western partners flatly refuse to discuss such rules,” he told journalists. (SW -  This from a man who completely ignores Human Rights in his own country, suppresses Freedom of Speech,  supports Syrian State terrorism,  accepts Putin as President in a 'fixed election, is Putin's babbling mouthpiece and dares to  preach to the West)

Many OSCE member states “have ignored their obligation to incorporate the provision obliging them to invite international observers to monitor elections into their national legislation,” he said, as cited by RIA Novosti.

“We have done this and expect the same from our partners,” the Minister stressed.

"The OSCE has a CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organization] proposal that was actively co-authored by Russia and Belarus that suggests approving basic principles of monitoring national elections in the OSCE member states," he said.

Moscow and Belarus are going to push for the OSCE monitoring system reform at the upcoming seminars and meeting between the members of the organization.

“Right now there is only one obligation in force: to invite international observers, as we do. As to how many, on what grounds and how the election monitoring should be organized – all these issues have yet to be agreed. So far, not such agreement has been reached in the OSCE and unfortunately its achievement has been blocked by Western countries,” Lavrov said.