 Okay. How are you doing today? Is everything all right? I'm here. It's me. Okay. Just two quick reminders. First is the date of simulation will be the 28th, not next week. The week after that, Tuesday. And we will start on Tuesday at like 10.30. And we normally have two hours, but there is this lunch time. If it is necessary, we are going to use that lunch time as well. So I don't know whether the simulation will last more than two hours or maybe two hours and a half. So we will do our best to wrap up things. And this is up to the Secretary General to conduct these discussions. And the second thing about the op-eds, while some of you keep sending me topics that, you know, you think about, well, fine, it's always good to share with me. But the first thing about op-eds that I repeat, I don't know, maybe 28th time, it is important that you have an opinion. It is important that you have a viewpoint that you sort of aggressively, so to speak, put in and discuss in the paper. And of course, you have to substantiate it. You have to pick it up. You have to support it with if there are any facts, figures, data, or other people's views or some statements made, et cetera. So you have a viewpoint and you support it. You believe in something. You propose something. You discuss something. But op-ed is not something that you present everybody else's viewpoint and just in a descriptive manner and leave it that way. You have to have your own opinion. Your personal point, your personal stance must be there. And the thing about op-ed is that the deadline was actually supposed to be, first of all, 3rd of December, which was not so much a realistic deadline. But we postponed it to the 17th, meaning this Friday, but I postponed it to the next Friday. So 24th is the deadline and it's the ultimate deadline for op-eds because I have to have the op-eds by the end of two years so that I can sit and read your op-eds. Before I give you the final exam, I will have to read them as well. So I cannot read op-eds coming from 44 students and the final exams because I think it's on the 13th, is it? The final exam? All right. And it's going to be one of the last days of final. So the administration wants us to submit the papers, the grades, actually, within a couple of days. So those who give the final exam at the beginning of the final exam schedule find because they have time for reading, grading, making all sorts of evaluations and also, I don't know, making adjustments if necessary based on the requests coming from students. As always the case at the end of each semester. But so I will not have much time giving you the exam on the 13th that will leave me with a few days before the final submission. So it is essential that you submit your op-eds on the 31st, sorry, 24th of December, OK? So that I may have time for reading because I, myself, have my own schedule, too many deadlines, chapters, articles, papers, conferences. I don't know how I'm dealing with all this, but I still survive. So since I can come here with a couple of hours of sleep, that means I can deal with them. But you should not put extra burden on my shoulders by submitting your papers late. Because late submissions will not be accepted. Please take note of this, 24th of December, last day for submissions of op-eds. And with respect to the simulation, actually, I was planning to talk about terrorism issues because it's not a new subject for those who are in the field. Terrorism has been around for at least more than half a century. Actually, it's as old as humanity. So we can go as far back as BC times, I mean before Chris, I mean minus dates, so long as you want to see something from terrorism perspective. But of course, terrorism is also a phenomenon of this contemporary age, modern age, which of course attracted the attention of many scholars, scientists, of course, administrations and experts. So this is something that I would like to discuss before the end of the semester because we have to be in conformity with the syllabus that I distributed at the beginning of the semester. And we have sort of kept a certain balance in terms of meeting the schedule. I may have assigned a little bit more importance to Iran's nuclear program and its implications, not simply to what Iran was doing, but we have looked into what others were doing with respect to Iran and its nuclear program. But I believe it is necessary for you to make some preliminary readings before we go into the subject of terrorism. So you will receive a number of articles, chapters, which are easy to read, which give you a background about how or what were the initial sort of events, preliminary things about terrorism, how this issue evolved into a much bigger problem. What was the impact of 9-11 or what were the cause and consequence of 9-11? All this you will receive these articles, chapters, by the end of today, possibly the latest tomorrow. So, and I want you to make these readings. I may also suggest you some sort of an order for reading. So you may want to read in the order that I suggest you to read chapters so as to understand things better because terrorism, as you might have followed from the news, especially cyber-terrorism, other than terrorism that we knew so far, has become one of the most important subjects for governments. I mean, as you again, I believe you follow from the news, in one of the most recent executive council meetings of the Nation Security Council, cyber-terrorism was included in the threats the Turkish government and the state as a whole actually perceived as something that must be tackled with for something that you cannot just let go. And something that has actually confirmed was the leaking of files through WikiLeaks. Well, this is not a terrorist attack, of course. You cannot put the WikiLeaks event in the basket of terrorism, but it's something that gives us an idea as to what are the possibilities in the cyberspace. So it is something that is necessarily very, very interesting. As you know very well, I am the academic advisor of the NATO Center of Excellence Defense Against Terrorism, where over the last several years we have convened workshops, week-long courses, symposia conferences where we have discussed almost all dimensions of terrorism and what are the measures, countermeasures, what are the threats, what are the dimensions of threats, et cetera, et cetera. So you will have a number of readings for this Friday this week, next Tuesday, and next Friday, we will confine our attention to the issue of terrorism. And I would like to take advantage of today, having many of you here, to actually get your contributions. I mean, you're sort of participation more in this discussion about Iran's nuclear program because you should definitely not forget the fact that in two weeks time, about this hour and Tuesday, we will start simulating this emergency meeting. And in that meeting, the major issue, the subject matter will be the positions of states with the threat or with the contingency of United States and or Israel planning or preparing, we don't know how the Secretary General put this issue before you. She sent you a letter already, an email, email. I don't know whether there were any backups and follow-ups and feedbacks. But it is important to, at least at this stage, have an understanding of what are the implications of Iran's nuclear program? How are these issues being perceived by the countries in the region? We so far confine our attention to actually Iran's position. Iran is being the country which is blamed for, which is accused of having a clandestine program. And actually they are doing certain things that do not necessarily provide enough assurances for the international community. And it is not totally baseless. But at least you cannot just say it is totally unfounded for other countries to have suspicions at least. Of course, we are not in a position to make any judgment where Iran does have or doesn't have any such ambition. But the point here is we have looked at the issue from Iran's perspective as to how they present themselves or what are their claims. Then we also looked at the situation from the European Union perspective, from the United States perspective, from Russia's perspective. These are the key players as the title of the presentation that I use here as a template. The key players, the major players in the Iranian nuclear puzzle. So it is a puzzle not only for the big players, but also for Turkey and something that I mentioned here on Friday last week. Because the reason why I put a little bit of emphasis on Turkey's position was on Tuesday, I said there is no way but to have this P5 plus 1 plus 1 formula, meaning P5, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. And we have to add to this picture Turkey. And on Tuesday, we spoke about the subject here in the morning and in the afternoon toward the evening, we heard on the news that the meetings between the negotiations between Iran and the P5 plus 1 would be conducted in Istanbul next January, about a month from today. So that in a sense confirmed our conviction that Turkey should be part of it. Well, for reasons that not only for just Turkey having more or higher profile in international political arena over the last few years or several years, but also because it is something that definitely affects Turkey for the time being and also is likely to affect even more in the future should Iran advance its capabilities even further. So Turkey doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Well, there might be people in the public domain for some reasons who might not be very much concerned where Iran has or doesn't have nuclear weapons or some might even support Iran's nuclear organization. These are individual thoughts in the public domain because of the sympathy that exists among the Turkish population for understandable reasons. Not only because it is stemming from the common history, but also it is because anti-American sentiments in the Turkish public domain because whatever is bad for the United States is good for sort of the other. So this is therefore something that we looked at as to how this situation as it is today affects Turkey, Russia, the US, et cetera. So now that you are going to represent all these countries like Egypt, for instance, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others, Israel. So I suggest you should take the floor right now based on your research and what you have discussed with the diplomats if you had any such connections already. If you haven't had any connections by this time, it's not that late, it's not too late, it's not still an impossible situation, but I would strongly recommend to have access to these people at least to conduct some interviews or just get their opinion. But based on your research, because this is not only based on discussions, interviews with the embassy people, but as I said many, many times, you have to conduct research through the internet, through library, through, I don't know, resources available. All right, for instance, I can see the Israeli team right in front of me here, all four of them being present. And it was, we were about to talk about Israel on the PowerPoint here and this PowerPoint available for I don't know how many years on my website and I suggested you a couple of times at least to have a look at the PowerPoint beyond the class hours that we touch upon this subject. So then I will come to other groups and please prepare yourself because it is very good to know at this stage to see whether you are really up to the task that you will be doing in two weeks time. And if there are any problems, it is now time to see your weaknesses as well as your strengths, if any, all right. So how do you think, well, you are not going to speak now as the representatives of Israel or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Syria, but being students who have undertaken this role, I mean to play the Israeli or the Syrian or the Saudi Arabian or the Iraqi, et cetera, et cetera, representatives having studied these subjects from their perspective, now in your own capacity as Turkish students, I'm some of them are American students here, how do you see the situation, for instance? Israel, what actually in your opinion? I mean, so far that we have discussed Iranian nuclear program more than two weeks already, maybe we put a lot of emphasis, but this is a subject matter that almost the whole world is concerned. So being the students who have carried out a certain degree of research so far, Mehtinege, Shuai, Bishra, how do you see, how do you assess the situation now? I mean, the Israeli position, I mean, in my presentation there is this, no, such and such Israeli position in my perspective, based on what I have discussed with Israelis or what I read about Israeli position or, of course, filtered through my own understanding, my own logic, and what scenarios are more realistic than others, yes, go ahead, Shuai. And then Israel tried to emphasize that not on the region, but also the world security. Generally Israeli diplomats and Prime Minister Netanyahu emphasized that really the strict ambitions should be applied on the Iran. Carry on. Not only the strict sanctions, but also the year last year, maybe there will be some concrete action towards the Iranian, either by the United States, mostly it's by the government and diplomats make reference to the United States diplomats and their action towards the Iranian and the United States. You see the level of preparedness? Congratulations, go ahead, carry on. I mean, by the way, let me just pick up two points out of what you have said so far. Two important things. I mean, just to bear in mind, because you cannot always memorize things. I mean, it is essential to understand, because as I always say, for getting my driver's license, I memorized the whole booklet. I got 100 out of 100 from everything. Next day, I knew nothing, I forgot everything. So, but of course, half like and right. So the point is that you have to understand things and you have to keep things in your mind in such a way that you can remember at least the logic, the framework, even many years afterwards. So what is important from all of these one point that Israel emphasizes is that it is not only Israeli or Israel's problem with respect and Iran's next program, or let's put it, let's put it that way, Iran's next for ambitions. It is not only Israel's problem. And this is something that is also emphasized almost in every speech that US authorities extending from Obama to Clinton and lower it as you go down in the hierarchy. You hear something, Iran's next program is something that will have far reaching consequences for the region. It is not only a problem of Israel, so it is not only Israel who should tackle with this problem and its neighbors, I mean Iran's neighbors must also have this concerted action to put pressure on Iran, et cetera. This is what we hear from Israelis and the Americans most of the times. Where did that, what does this have any impact? I don't know, because, well, from the WikiLeaks as we now learn, some regional governments actually express their opinion, their position that they are actually supporting Israel's concerns as well that Iran is a problem for them and that the United States and Israel and or Israel should do something. And this is something that also Israelis say. US must do something, if I'm not. So US is the key to take any action if at all it's gonna be any Fatih, you have a point here. This is the Israeli point of view, this is the US point of view and because they want to, in a sense, expand the front against Iran. So it's not to be seen as something at the bilateral level between Israel and Iran. It is, therefore, this is not actually the situation and for reason that I just mentioned here and also last Friday, Turkey, in my opinion, as I've put in my published articles already, not something that I say right now, Turkey will be the most negatively affected country if and when Iran acquires it to repents. We cannot, of course, make this claim at this point because Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons and they always emphasize that they are not really one and we, of course, have to take all these official statements into consideration. We're not in the position to make any claims without any hard evidence or whatever, but we say if and when Iran gets nuclear weapons, Turkey will be the country whose position will be most negatively affected. There will be other countries who will be negatively affected as well, but because of the existing parity, the balances between Turkey and Iran, Turkey's position will be actually negatively affected the most out of all the other actors that are involved in the picture. Yes, and would you please complete your sentence? Yeah, I mean, of course, Israel, now we look at the issue from Israeli perspective. We have discussed Iranian perspective for quite some time and now I would like to hear from the country representatives not as representing these countries, but just to see whether they are really ready for the simulation and also to present their individual opinion as students here as to how they assess the situation, even learn the positions of the countries that they will be representing. So one thing that Israel says, it is not only my problem. Yeah, Iran says, of course Iran doesn't say I'm building nuclear weapons against Israeli nuclear weapons or they don't say my nuclear program is a response to Israeli nuclear capabilities. They don't say, they do not establish this connection but they make these statements actually in different fora and imply at all times or make reference to Israeli nuclear weapons. For instance, last time that was on six or seven, yeah, seven of December, just last Tuesday in the afternoon, as I just said, it was declared that next round of negotiations would take place in Istanbul and Jalili was interviewed by the international TV channel CNN International and whatever the person, the reporter asked him, regardless of what was asked, he made references to Israeli nuclear weapons and U.S. nuclear weapons. And he said, we should not talk about our nuclear program, but we should talk about Israel's nuclear weapons designers, they don't use the term Israel, the designer state, the nuclear weapons of Zionist state and United States. So this is something that we understand. They never say we build nuclear weapons as a response to Israeli nuclear capabilities but they reject to speak about nuclear ambitions. They do not accept having plans to build nuclear weapons but whenever this issue comes up, they make reference to Israeli nuclear capability and on the other hand, what we learn from the Israelis, I mean the Israeli as a state here, from time to time they make this statement, look, this is of course something that we wouldn't like to be realized. Israel wouldn't like to see Iran with nuclear weapons but it is not only my problem they say. And also, they turn their face to the United States and they actually believe it is the United States who should take the action if at all an action is going to be taken. And then back to you, Shavara, to any from the Israeli sort of team, again? Go ahead. Wow, there's consensus within the group, even in the explaining their individual views. Okay, go ahead. Appreciate with the last United Nations Secretary of the Council Resolution 19.9 because of the sanctions that applied on the Iranian government and despite the government's deliverance, the extraneture section on the Iranian government and on the other hand, the Israeli government, despite all the defying the past abuses, speeches towards the Iranian government but still stand on the more optimistic side and mostly- Optimistic in that respect, I mean they believe Iranians will quit their ambitions or it is going to be, or there's going to be a much bigger international coalition that will be mobilized against Iran, is it? Yeah, Israeli is hopeful in solving a problem with peacefulness. Good for them, yeah. So what do you say is from the Israeli perspective, the United Nations Security Council 19.29, the very resolution that Turkey voted no actually cast its vote as negative and that was something that created a lot of anxiety in the international arena as to how Turkey, a member of the Western Coalition, voted against this resolution which actually made the sanctions tougher. Well, for those who may not have had any chance to follow the details of this development, United Nations Security Council Resolution 19.29 was voted on June 9th, less than a month after this swap deal, the nuclear fuel swap deal that Turkey, Iran, and Brazil have signed in Tehran which was turned down by the United States and all the other members of the P5 and other actually except for the old three of them nobody seemed to give any support to the swap deal. For reason that we discussed here in my article, et cetera. So I'm not going to go into that detail but the important thing about the United Nations Security Council Resolution is that actually, yes, it's a little bit tougher in terms of substance of the resolution and the previous resolutions with respect to Iran and its nuclear program actually incorporate a number of sanctions, restrictions with respect to Iran's nuclear program. And these are not all out, these are not comprehensive sanctions. I mean, you cannot compare these sanctions with the sanctions that were imposed back in the 1990s on Iraq. So Iraq was under comprehensive sanctions, almost every single item was prescribed, was prevented from entering the Iraqi territory and that's why we discuss here in this classroom. Many people thought these sanctions turned out to be weapons of mass destruction because they led to the killings of large numbers, hundreds of tons of babies, children, women, elderly, et cetera because of lack of nutrition, medication, et cetera. So, but these are not that kind of sanctions. The UN sanctions on Iran aim at preventing Iran to advance its capabilities in the nuclear field and also in the military field and put restrictions on the trade of some technology, technical parts or whatever material that may have any implications with weapons program, weapons programs that Iran has and also nuclear program and also put restrictions on some key individuals who may have any connections with Iran's clandestine efforts, et cetera, et cetera. So, therefore the sanctions imposed on Iran are not sanctions that will prevent Iran from making trade with the rest of the world or buying food or this and that. So, actually that will run counter to the interest of many nations because Russia, China, they depend on the trade with Iran European countries also depend on the trade and also buying some oil, gas at different levels. I don't know about the content, the exact figures but many nations would not like to have comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iran but what is important here is they sort of looked at the issue from the political perspective, from diplomatic perspective, the resolution 1929 was indeed valuable in the sense that it reconfirmed or reaffirmed the stance of the international community that Iran's situation was being screened, was being sort of followed very closely and that there is this determination in the international arena not to let Iran become a nuclear weapons power. So, the significance was this. Why did Turkey cast a negative word? Well, this is something that has to be understood in its own context because there was this swap deal on May 17th less than a month ago. There was this deal between not only Turkey, Brazil, Iran, I mean among them but also between this group and the so-called Vienna group composed of the United States, Russia, IAEA, et cetera, who would give Iran the 20% enriched uranium that would be necessary for the research reactor in Tehran. And the Turkish representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Ertugla Pakhan made a statement when he cast Turkey's word as negative, he said we are sort of casting our word as negative because the Vienna group's decision not to implement the deal and their declaration that just came today on the very day of this voting is quite interesting. And therefore, this has had an impact on our decision meaning that Turkey's word might have been different. And also in the same sort of speech that he delivered at the United Nations Security Council, he said we are still sort of keeping some of our concerns about Iran's nuclear program. We suggest our Iranian friends, colleagues to provide more transparency and to be more cooperative in their relations with the International Autonomous Energy Agency, et cetera. So this resolution, 1929, something that might make Israel happier because of the reason that I just made here because it reaffirmed or underlined again, emphasize the international community's determination not to let Iran become a nuclear power. I mean, military power. And because, and this is something that is very much in conformity with what Israelis say. This is not only our problem, it is a problem of the whole world because if there is this nuclear nonproliferation regime, the nuclear nonproliferation regime is composed of not only the NPT, which prevents the non-nuclear weapons states who have agreed to become a non-nuclear weapons state and signed and ratified a treaty and therefore promised to never ever develop nuclear weapons. And the NPT aims at keeping them non-nuclear. There are also certain other arrangements such as the nuclear exports regime, some limitations on exports of some sensitive material to some countries of concern whose behaviors are not necessarily providing enough assurances that they are not going to use this technology that they will acquire through transfers for only and only peaceful purposes. So therefore, the Israeli position is that, yes, they are outside of the NPT. They have never signed or ratified at all the treaty and they have never expressed any interest in a treaty in terms of becoming a member, but they always emphasize, look, you are assigning a certain degree of importance to the NPT in their discussions with other groups and the NPT regime will remain in force so long as non-nuclear power comes into the center stage of politics. Yes, there is this example of North Korea. And North Korea after staying for long years outside of the NPT, they became a member of the NPT in the late 1980s under the pressure of the Soviet Union. Then throughout the 1990s, they always cheated their position finally when they found some sort of an opening, especially during the prior to the second Gulf War in 2002, war was in March 2003. And prior to that, they expelled the IA inspectors who were there based on some six-party talks and quarter-party agreement, all sorts of arrangements. And then they advanced and accelerated their program and they tested twice in October 2006 and also May 2008, I guess, two times when they actually revealed their nuclear capability. So therefore, the nuclear non-proliferation regime came under heavy pressure as to whether this regime, the NPT itself being at the very center of the regime, where it is a powerful element, where it is something that is worth sticking to, because especially this year in May 2010, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was reviewed again after five years because every five year, five intervals the NPT was reviewed on this year as well. So this is something that has to do with upholding the very basic principles of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, which doesn't allow Iran to advance its capabilities for major purposes. So there is no way Iran can use its capabilities for military purposes. So therefore, if Israel is going to be negatively affected, of course this is for sure, and we understand this from the statements made by the Iranian clerics, the one, the Mola's in the administration, and also others, including President Medinejad for ministers and other people at different levels, that Israel is actually one particular sort of actor which the Iranians put on target in terms of their statements, their very harsh, hostile statements. But of course, it is important to bear in mind whether this is actually also substantiated, whether Israel does anything to Iran or threatens Iran in the past with anything that would prompt the Iranian side to develop any weapons, because I mean, by looking at the situation between, for instance, India and Pakistan, you can see there is this hostility stemming from the years when India won its independence from Great Britain, and then this has led to the breakup of Pakistan. Or, so therefore there is this deep-rooted hostility and Indian nuclear program prompted the Pakistan nuclear program, and they said, I mean, we will do whatever is necessary to develop nuclear weapons because otherwise we cannot keep our sovereignty, we cannot survive. And the Indian nuclear program also owes much to the history between India and China, they had their territorial problems, wars, and a certain proportion of the territory claimed by India to be Indian now is under Chinese occupation from the Indian perspective. So we are not going to go into this detail and we don't know who's right or who's wrong. But there you can understand why India developed nuclear weapons after a 64 detonation of China, I mean, in 1964. Then this is something that prompted Indian nuclear program and Indian nuclear program prompted Pakistan nuclear program. So there is this chain reaction. But in the case of Iran's nuclear program, it is hard to say that Israeli nuclear program prompted Iranian nuclear program because there is not much in common in terms of posing direct challenges. Yes, of course, from Iran's perspective, what Israel is doing in the Middle East with respect to the Palestine issue, the position in Lebanon, it's hosted against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran, et cetera. These might be explanations, but whether they will be satisfactory, that's a whole different question. So what we have to bear in mind just in closing the first hour, Israel says it is a much wider problem than being only my problem. So everybody must be equal to concern irons into capability. Second, if there's any actor who can do anything, not only because of its military capabilities, but also its political weight, et cetera, et cetera, it is the United States. So in a sense they sort of hide themselves behind the United States, or at least they push the United States to the fore. And UN Security Council resolution is in a sense confirming that there is this international concern, something that makes the Israelis happy. So in the next hour, we will look at the position of other countries like Syria, like Egypt and Iraq maybe. Then I would suggest you to use this break for at least having some consultations among the members of the team. All right, I'll see you in 10 minutes.