Author: Kalashian Nyrie

EUROPEAN RESOLUTION NOT BINDING ON GOVERNMENTS, BRITISH ENVOY SAYS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
March 7 2006
Baku, March 6, AssA-Irada
The European Parliament’s recent resolution concerning the alleged
desecration of Armenian graves in the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan
represents the opinion of only several MPs, British Ambassador
Laurie Bristow has told journalists. According to the diplomat,
the opinions of parliamentarians almost never correspond with those
of their governments. Therefore, even though the idea was tabled by
British MPs, it should not be seen as reflecting the position of the
British government.
Bristow said he was not familiar with the issues raised in the
resolution. He added though that Britain always condemns acts of
vandalism wherever they take place.
“I think it is important to respect cultural and national heritage
in all parts of the world,” he said.

USA WELCOMES MILITARY-POLITICAL COOPERATION WITH ARMENIA
ARKA News Agency, Armenia
March 7 2006
YEREVAN, March 7. /ARKA/. The USA welcomes military-political
cooperation with Armenia, Deputy Assistant of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza told reporters. “This cooperation
depends on the Armenian Government, and we welcome it,” he said.
“I do not think that Armenia will advance in this cooperation at such
a rate that would be too rapid for us,” Bryza said.
He pointed out that he was satisfied with the level of cooperation
with Armenia in this sphere. Particularly, the representative of State
Department pointed out the development of Armenia’s interaction with
the NATO in the frameworks of the IPAP program.
“I highly appreciate Armenia’s support in peacemaking missions,”
Bryza said and added that the USA will do everything to deepen these
processes.

SHARJAH RULER RECEIVES ARMENIAN AMBASSADOR
Emirates News Agency
March 7, 2006 Tuesday 10:59 AM EST
H.H Dr. Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Supreme Council Member
and Ruler of Sharjah received here today outgoing Armenian Ambassador
Arshak Poladian, who called on the Ruler of bid him farewell at the
end of his tenure in the country.
Sheikh Sultan wished the envoy well and hailed contributions to
promote relations between the two countries.

LEBANESE SPEAKER EXPECTS POSITIVE OUTCOME OF NATIONAL DIALOGUE
Al-Nahar website, Beirut
4 Mar 06
Lebanese Speaker Nabih Birri said that he expected the outcome of
national dialogue to be positive, according to a report published by
Lebanese paper Al-Nahar on 4 March. While participants were said to
agree that leaking information to the media would be counterproductive,
the paper reported agreement on various themes of the dialogue:
the removal of President Lahhud; the need to disarm Palestinians
outside camps and for weapons inside camps to be removed through
dialogue and without the involvement of the army; the Lebanese
identity of the Shab’a Farms; and discussion on the weapons of the
Islamic Resistance. The following is the text of a report by Rita
Shararah headlined “Three meetings on second day of National Dialogue:
Removing Lahhud, resolving Palestinian arms inside and outside camps,
Lebanese identity of farms”, published by Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar
website on 4 March; subheadings inserted editorially
The outside scene not just reflects the real picture of the
interlocutors but of Lebanon’s current state as well. A journalist
following the developments of the national dialogue gathering would
have ample time to observe, especially the commercial scene, which
has become an isolated field whose silence is only interrupted by the
motorcades of politicians. In order for the picture to be complete on
the outside and inside as well, the escorts of the meeting participants
gather around their round table. Every politician has his own security
detail that helps the state and its security forces offer the necessary
protection. Even if the ice has been broken between the interlocutors
– which is what happened – the strict security persists to make sure
that the round table’s membership remains complete.
What positive developments have emerged and prompted House of
Representatives Speaker Nabih Birri to affirm that the outcomes “will
be good”, keeping in mind that the positive signs of the first day
have caused Solidair’s shares to rise to 8 per cent as former Bank
of Lebanon governor Harut Samulian disclosed to Al-Nahar?
The second of the historical days in Lebanon did not start in
the House of Representatives, but at the shrine of martyr comrade
Al-Hariri, where Deputy Sa’d Al-Hariri and Hezbollah Secretary-General
Hasan Nasrallah made certain publicity of the philosophy of their
meeting. They meant to read the opening verses of the Koran for
the soul of Prime Minister Al-Hariri, the architect of Al-Ta’if,
in order to send a clear signal that there is no Shi’i-Sunni discord
in Lebanon and that fishing in murky waters here will not succeed in
reaching its evil goals. The meeting was held at that location to set
the atmosphere for the discussions that will be held in parliament
over Resolution 1559.
Lahhud
After the dialogue participants proved – by staying in the parliament
building seated at the round table – that they support the first
[operative] paragraph of that resolution, in which the Security
Council “affirmed its call for the strict respect of the sovereignty,
territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon
under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon
throughout Lebanon,” it was neither difficult nor complicated to
agree on the fifth paragraph of the same resolution pertaining to the
unconstitutionality of extending President Emile Lahhud’s term. It
was thus not difficult for them to agree in one form or another on
the petitions submitted to the House of Representatives or those
signed by citizens petitioning to remove Lahhud in accordance with
that paragraph. In the paragraph, the Security Council expressed its
support “for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon’s upcoming
presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional
rules devised without foreign interference or influence”.
However, the resolution was not discussed by the interlocutors in the
manner planned and they did not cover it paragraph by paragraph;
rather, the resolution was discussed as a single unit and was
summarized under three issues: The presidency, Hezbollah’s arms,
Palestinian arms inside and outside the camps.
Palestinian arms
After the participants unanimously agreed on the need to remove Lahhud
from office, they moved on to discussing Palestinian arms.
They also unanimously agreed on the ministerial statement’s mention
of the need to remove these weapons that exist outside the camps
providing the camps themselves disarm through dialogue and without
involving the army. Moreover, the Palestinians should be allowed
to exercise their right to live in dignity, receive medical care,
education, employment and other human rights. This would give the
government of Prime Minister Fu’ad Al-Sanyurah a renewed push to
continue its work according to the cabinet statement on whose basis
the parliament granted his government confidence.
Probe into killings
The government received its first boost on the first day of the
dialogue when the participants agreed on an international court and
on expanding the investigation into the crimes committed, starting
with the attempted assassination of Minister Marwan Hamadah and ending
with the assassination of deputy and colleague martyr Jubran Tuwayni.
Weapons of the “Islamic resistance”
The weapons of the “Islamic Resistance” were then discussed from the
viewpoint of the coordinates set by Nasrallah for the existence of
such weapons in the document he drafted with the Free National Current
and its leader, deputy Michel Awn, on Tuesday, 7 February, 2006:
– Liberating Shab’a Farms from the Israeli occupation.
– Liberating Lebanese prisoners from Israeli jails.
– Defending Lebanon against Israeli dangerous through a national
dialogue that would formulate a national defence strategy that the
Lebanese agree on and become involved in through bearing its burdens
and benefiting from its outcomes.
Based on the above, the participants unanimously agreed – after
a presentation by Speaker Birri that included the use of maps and
documents – that Shab’a Farms are Lebanese and must thus be liberated
from Israeli occupation.
So far, the participants have agreed on the possibility of naming a
successor other than Awn to take over the Presidency to guarantee the
implementation of the three articles stated in the document. Owing to
the atmosphere that prevailed, it was necessary to resume discussions
today in order to finalize an agreement over the rest of the articles
so that the features for the president of Lebanon would emerge.
“Great positive atmosphere”
The great positive atmosphere of the dialogue was manifested in a
statement by one of the deputies in which he said they needed an
hour and a half to finish their work but that the attendants were
tired from the two rounds of dialogue that lasted from 3pm to 9pm
with only a 30 minute break at 6pm.
What did the House of Representatives Speaker say in his short press
conference that he has held in the past two days at the main hall?
Birri expected “the outcomes of the dialogue between the leaders of
the main political forces in Lebanon to be good”. He said all matters
were discussed, including the Presidency, Palestinian arms inside
and outside the camps, the arms of the resistance, Shab’a Farms,
the eastern sector of southern Lebanon and the controversy over its
identity, and putting a stop to Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Without
going into details, the Speaker described the dialogue as “serious,
responsible, and very open.” He stressed that the “national angle”
dominated the scene “with no reservations”.
After the second round of the dialogue ended at night, some of the
participating deputies expressed their opinion. Muhammad Al-Safadi,
minister of public works and transportation, said the “discussion
was positive and will have positive outcomes.”
Deputy Hagop Baqradian said “discussions in the first evening
session focused on Shab’a Farms and the fact that all factions
are in agreement over the Lebanese identity of the farms; we are
convinced of their Lebanese identity and need to convince the rest
of the world of it. Everyone is talking about selecting a president
through consensus but no names were discussed.” On the issue of arms,
he noted that “every leader expressed his viewpoint transparently,
openly and courageously.”
Samir Ja’ja, chairman of the Lebanese Forces’ executive body, said
“the Presidency issue needs detailed discussions and more time.”
Labour Minister Pierre Al-Jamil described the general atmosphere as
“good and open; the talks touched on all topics. Every side gave its
opinion and we agreed during the session to not leak any information.
We are at the negotiating table and the negotiating table, not media
positions, will determine what happens inside. Media posturing may
even obstruct this outcome, which is why the dialogue is held in an
atmosphere of absolute honesty without any fears and in a constructive
atmosphere.”
Deputy Jawad Bulus expected the discussions to last for days owing to
the sensitive nature of the topics being discussed in a very serious
atmosphere and with utmost honesty, seriousness and calm. Everyone
feels the national responsibility. He noted that preparations for
this conference were adequate “contrary to what is said; everyone had
their files and were ready to stay for as long as necessary until an
agreement is reached over contentious issues.”
Yesterday’s morning session was inaugurated in a commemorative
manner with the absence of deputies Walid Junblatt and Marwan Hamadah
because of travel engagements. Junblatt was replaced by Information
Minister Ghazi Al-Uraydi, who was assisted by deputies Ali Hasan
Khalil and Samir Azar. Deputy Al-Hariri was assisted by deputies
Bahij Tabarah and Nabil De Furayj. Ja’ja was assisted by deputies
Elli Kayruz and George Udwan. Nasrallah was assisted by Energy
Minister Muhammad Fanish and Deputy Muhammad Ra’d. President Emile
Lahhud was accompanied by Minister Pierre Al-Jamil and Deputy Antoine
Ghanim. Deputy Michel Awn was accompanied by deputies Abbas Hashim and
Ibrahim Kan’an. Deputy Elias Skaf was assisted by deputies Asim Araji
and George Qasarji. Deputy Muhammad Al-Safadi was assisted by Deputy
Qasim Abd-al-Aziz. Deputies Butrus Harb and Jawad Bulus represented
the independent Maronite deputies. The Orthodox were separately
represented by deputies Ghassan al-Tuwayni and Michel Al-Murr. The
Armenian parties were represented by deputy Hagop Qasarjian on behalf
of Ramgavar and was assisted by Baqradunian on behalf of Dashnak and
Yigya Gargisian on behalf of Hunchakian.

AZERI PARLIAMENT SLAMS EUROPEAN RESOLUTION ON ARMENIAN CEMETERY
Interfax News Agency
Russia & CIS General Newswire
March 8, 2006 Wednesday 10:35 AM MSK
The Azeri parliament’s commission for international relations has
held closed-door parliamentary hearings on the European Parliament’s
February 16 resolution addressing the demolition of an Armenian
cemetery in Djulfa, Azerbaijan’s Nakhichevan autonomous republic.
The commission dismissed the resolution as “biased” and called on
the European Parliament to revisit the issue, a parliament source
told Interfax-Azerbaijan.

CE SECRETARY GENERAL SENDS LETTERS TO FOREIGN MINISTERS OF 37 CE
MEMBER STATES, INCLUDING ARMENIA

STRASBOURG, MARCH 10, NOYAN TAPAN. The Secreatry General of the
Council of Europe (CE) Terry Davis sent letters to the foreign
ministers of the 37 CE member states, reminding, in the context of
secret arrests and transportation of prisoners in Europe, about
honoring the commitments of the CE member states within the framework
of the European Convention of Human Rights.
These countries are Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxemburg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, “the Former Republic of Macedonia Jugoslavia”, Turkey, Ukraine
and the UK. The letter to Albania was sent on February 22.
According to the CE press service in Armenia, the governments of the
above mentioned countries were requested to make additions to or
explain the responses given during the November 21, 2005 survey. The
deadline for providing answers is April 7.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE TO INTRODUCE NEW BILLS

Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
08 March 2006
NKR Ministry of Agriculture is going to introduce a new bill on
veterinary medicine to the government. The law currently in force,
which was passed in 2001, already does not regulate the sphere duly,
says V. Baghdassarian, Minister of Agriculture. `The amendments were
so many that drafting a new bill was preferable. The new law will
define the functions of the privatesector,’ he says. The minister says
the new legislation will enable adopting subordinate legislation if
necessary to react to new conditions. He mentioned that the new law
corresponds to the requirements of he international veterinary
medicine legislation. The bill includes articles on public health,
measures for the prevention and management of diseases transmitted
from animals to people. The next bill the ministry will introduce is
the bill on seeds. The minister of agriculture said so far the sphere
was regulated by the law on seed breeding, put in effect in 2001. The
minister of agriculture said the adoption of this law is important in
the creation of legislation on seed farming in NKR.
SRBUHI VANIAN.
08-03-2006

RIA Novosti, Russia
March 11 2006
Military solution of Karabakh conflict ruled out – minister
14:54 | 11/ 03/ 2006

YEREVAN, March 11 (RIA Novosti) – Armenia’s foreign minister ruled
out Saturday a military solution for the breakaway region of Nagorny
Karabakh.
“Azerbaijan must realize that the problem cannot be resolved other
than by peaceful means. The military option is ruled out.
[Azerbaijan] will not be able to intimidate the Armenian side or
force it to change its position,” Vardan Oskanyan said in an
interview with the Armenian TV company Shant.
He said Azerbaijan was not ready for war.
“If the Azerbaijani side is not ready or will not risk resolving the
problem through simple compromise, it will never risk using force,”
the minister said.
Earlier, Oskanyan reiterated Armenia’s position that Nagorny
Karabakh’s right to self-determination was crucial for a peace
settlement.
The conflict between the former Soviet republics of Armenia and
Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh, an Azerbaijani region with a
largely Armenian population, first erupted in 1988, when the region
claimed independence from Azerbaijan to join Armenia.
Over 30,000 people were reported dead on both sides between 1988 and
1994, and over 100 others died after a ceasefire was concluded in
1994, leaving Nagorny Karabakh in Armenian hands, but tensions
between Azerbaijan and Armenia have persisted.

Kenya Times, Kenya
March 12 2006
Ndingi wants Raila’s allegation probed
By Agathat King’oo
CATHOLIC Archbishop Ndingi mwana a’ Nzeki has called for
investigations into the alleged presence of mercenaries in the
country.
Speaking yesterday after a service at the Holy Family Basilica,
Nairobi, Ndingi termed allegations by Langata Member of Parliament
Raila Odinga as serious adding Kenya’s security is at stake.
Raila first made these claims early this month when he said Russian
mercenaries were used to raid The Standard Media Group and were also
assigned to assassinate some opposition leaders.
`These are very serious allegations and Raila should be questioned to
establish the presence of any mercenaries. How did they get into the
country? Who brought them and why? And are Kenyans safe?’ he queried.
By Sunday police detailed to investigate the claims had not
questioned any of the suspects despite circulation of copies of
Armenian passports of two men.
The Criminal Investigations Department (CID) only confirmed seeing
the said documents in the media last Friday.
The travel documents indicated that the two men arrived in the
country early this year from Dubai, but have also visited Kenya in
the past on unknown missions. Ndingi said there is a possibility that
Raila’s claims are true and called on the government to investigate
the issue and make the findings to Kenyans.
`Kenyans are entitled to know the truth about these claims. After all
it is their security that is at stake,’ he said. Ndingi further
called upon Kenyans to rally behind the new team that President Mwai
Kibaki appointment recently to look into constitutional review
process.
He said he has confidence in the team led by Ambassador Bethuel
Kiplagat arguing that the chairman is an honest and courageous man.
` If I have been called a traitor by members of the Orange Democratic
Movement (ODM) because I support the Kiplagat team then so be it,’ he
said.

VIKTOR YAKUBYAN: “KARABAKH CART” – AN OBSTACLE IN THE IRANIAN HIGHWAY
Regnum, Russia
March 14 2006
Right after the presidential talks in Rambouillet, it became clear
that no miracle happened in the Karabakh process, things in Armenia
were about to fall back into place, but the place turned out to be
displaced. In Azerbaijan it also got harder to fall back into. You may
call Rambouillet as you are pleased to – fiasco, failure, unexpected
off-the-way or logical half-way, but the fact is that the two societies
have suddenly realized that they have come to a new stage they need
to comprehend.
Dangerous cart
2006 was preceded by resounding statements by western non-governmental
and then official organizations about early Karabakh agreement. The
talks in France have seen no success, but the time is not over yet. One
can be sure that the western “optimists” will not give up that easily
and will bend over backwards to get this heavy cart – the Karabakh
process – off the ground. But they also know that there is one very
important peculiarity about it – once they get the cart moving they
will hardly be able to stop it, even more, predict where it will move.
Theoretically, in Rambouillet one should have expected a face-off
of Armenian constructivism, “sure” that inapplicable, and Azeri
radicalism, affected, that’s why inapplicable.
But for all the schemes and theses proposed, the zero result was
obvious and quite correctly forecast by both Armenian and Azeri
analysts. Then what were the mediators so optimistic about? There can
be only one answer. Namely… Their optimism was for show, but, more
importantly, for purpose. Their purpose was obviously not to cheer up
the presidents, to put them off their guard and to slip the cherished
agreement for their signing. Not at all. It was to create acoustics
that would make “a zero” in Rambouillet sound dully dissonant with the
whole logic, mood, and, if you please, “the new reassuring freshness”
in of the sore negotiating process. They got their purpose… And
what did the co-chair states (Russia, France, the US) get net? They
got a new reality – something some, if not all, of them sought.
Back to the cart… Quite recently the mediators realized that to
get the cart off the ground they will have to remove the ground and
as urgently as possible – for they heard something very unpleasant
from Russia: about universality of the Kosovo precedent, and had to
loosen the hard grip of the Karabakh conflict sides before this might
happen and cover the only trump of one of the conflicting sides –
the principle of territorial integrity. This principle would simply
die then, giving place to a so-far lower quoted card – the right of
nations to self-determination – and Azerbaijan would have nothing left
but to stop the Karabakh talks and to engage in preventive activities
in its other regions. In fact, the task of the West (mostly of the
EU) now is either, until the Kosovo status is finalized, to draw an
absolutely new line for the Karabakh process to move it outside the
conflict of the above principles, or to freeze the Kosovo process
until there is clarity in Transdnestr, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
Karabakh. (By the way, the sudden death of Milosevic has brought this
scenario into focus).
Following the same logic, one can’t help noting that it was exactly the
Armenian side – expectedly less cooperative – who came to Rambouillet
under the “mask” of readiness for compromise. Such tactics would
allow it to blame Baku for the outcome – to say that Azerbaijan has
once again refused to meet half-way. On the whole, the Rambouillet
talks could develop in two ways: either Ilham Aliyev rejects the
proposals of the mediators and the concessions of the Armenian side
and continues his militarist populism (a behavior the international
community would hardly take as serious) or he agrees to a real dialogue
on all key points, leaving no chances for status-quo.
The former scenario would allow Kocharyan to complain of Baku’s
destructive position and to make off. The latter scenario would see
him signing (orally securing) some framework agreement or employing
his arsenal of diplomatic tricks to get things right.
Judging from the post-Rambouillet developments, Armenia’s purely
tactical constructivism must have come across some illogical maneuver
by Azerbaijan. For example, Aliyev might show some real commitment
to go from words to actions and, for the beginning, to satisfy
the mediator’s proposals on how to overcome the status quo. It was
all but just a wish to make some nice surprise. Simply Aliyev had
obligations to the West, who was silent when he was breaking the back
of his opposition.
Preceding Rambouillet was a rigorous campaign for several key ideas:
the deployment of an international peacekeeping contingent in the
Karabakh conflict zone, the opening of transport routes, the return
of refugees and – a new referendum as a way to determine Nagorno
Karabakh’s status. Even if Aliyev agreed to the referendum after all
his previous aggressive and radical rhetoric on TV, Kocharyan would
rush headfirst to specify details – when, how and on what legal bases
the referendum will be held. Or Kocharyan might raise one more hard
question – whom the sides want to see in the peacekeeping contingent.
And so, Baku’s constructivism might crush against Yerevan’s
super-constructivism – quite a risky game: relieving for the sides
and tricking for the mediators.
“Post-Rambouillet” – chronology
Back from the talks the Armenian side got down to measures to prevent
possible pressure by the US. The US State Secretary’s pre-Rambouillet
phone talks with each president were in vain. Something went wrong…
In a special interview on Rambouillet Kocharyan said that “the sides
failed to agree on one important principle.” What principle he is
talking about – the status or the composition of the peacekeeping
force – we can only guess. What we can be sure of is that the Armenian
president did not mean “Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.”
“In any case, Yerevan has decided not to make further ado and to
show its claws – just in case – while Baku has cooled down a bit,
preferring to wait and see what will happen next. In fact, after
Rambouillet there is no more sense in war bravado – they should either
start the war or not even mention it.”
As regards the reaction of Karabakh President Arkady Gukasyan and
the following response of Armenian President Robert Kocharyan – this
polemic is just to show how elastic the Armenian diplomatic arsenal
is. No coincidence that Gukasyan’s interview was broadcast by RFE/RL –
it was for export. Gukasyan advises Armenia to withdraw from the talks
(which are almost inexistence after Rambouillet) and insists that
Karabakh should be involved therein – which is secretly and openly
good for Yerevan.
Armenian Ex Foreign Minister Alexander Arzumanyan says that “Gukasyan
might have coordinated his statement with Kocharyan and after the
failure of the Rambouillet talks this may be a joint threat to
Azerbaijan and the world community – a threat to withdraw from the
negotiating process.” But, in fact, Gukasyan said what the whole
Armenian nation wanted to hear – while Kocharyan’s reaction has
raised Armenia’s responsibility to both Karabakh and the OSCE MG
co-chairs. In their turn, the Armenian Defense Ministry’s regular
reports of state border firing have had a colossal mobilizing effect.
As you may see, the Armenian side has taken a whole series of tactical
steps to transform the public and negotiating moods.
It would be naïve to think that the US – the key lobbyist of
peacekeeping in Karabakh, would be moved by the moves of Yerevan
and Stepanakert. Having almost fully brainwashed Azerbaijan,
Washington was ready for predictable steps by Armenia and sent right
away its leading functionaries to Yerevan. For now – Matthew Bryza
(Assistant Undersecretary of State for Europe and Eurasia) and soon –
his boss Daniel Fried and OSCE MG US Co-Chair Steven Mann with their
situational recognizance. In quite a short time the US Department of
State appeared with a row of slating reports that qualified Armenia
as a corrupt country whose authorities do not fight drugs trafficking
and violate human rights.
Meanwhile, in a Mar 9 meeting in OSCE Yerevan Office the OSCE
ambassadors passed an urge to the Armenian authorities not to waste
time and to start actively preparing for the parliamentary and
presidential elections in 2007 and 2008. “The coming elections will
be decisive for Armenia,” that’s what they said. In such a situation,
the mediators are meeting in Washington, while the next FM meeting
is scheduled for Mar 20 in Istanbul! Why not Baku then? In his turn,
OSCE MG US CO-Chair Steven Mann says to AzerTag that if the sides fail
to agree in 2006 it will be a tragedy. If the sides miss the chance
there will be a tragedy, Mann said, not specifying though what kind
of tragedy there will be.
Conclusion
The Americans are systematically preparing the South Caucasus for
possible excesses in Iran. No doubt they are – judging from their
military activity in the region. The Karabakh conflict the way it
is now is an impassable jam. The region has in fact been turned
into a very inconvenient ground – in both military-tactical and
communicational terms. One can say when the US will launch its massive
pressure on Iran if one looks at its tactics in the Karabakh peace
process. If Washington is forcing the sides to solve the problem in
2006, it will probably close the circle around Iran no later than
2007-2008. Washington needs to take the Karabakh cart off the Iranian
highway. Bush simply can’t linger with Iran any longer – he is facing
presidential election in 2008. Already today over half of Americans
want Bush to resign, blaming him for starting war in Iraq and allowing
phone tapping, which is also a part of the “Big Near East” adventure.
Viktor Yakubyan – expert for South Caucasus problems
–Boundary_(ID_+aSZ8jMvirY0CVArdEvNeg)–