So, I was in the UK, United Kingdom, in order to participate in a roundtable discussion. It was not a conference in the sense that some people speak and some others listen. That was a roundtable discussion where almost everybody around the table spoke with great enthusiasm about the problems of the Middle East. And of course, even though the subject matter was half to 3D Middle East from all sorts of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear, chemical and biological, and of course it was also unavoidable for every single person who attended that roundtable to make references to the events in the past. I'm telling you this because, for instance, this reading and some other readings talked so much about what happened in the past and you might be wondering why we are talking about the past events in the Middle East so much instead of, you know, speculating about present day situations and maybe about the future. Of course, in order for us to have an educated discussion here, a meaningful discussion and for you to understand issues properly, it is essential that we learn first at least the very basic developments and what happened, why such things have happened and what were the implications for other developments that followed. So therefore, I should not be surprised if I'm still going to give you another reading which is about, it is actually a United Nations report. It is the National Threat Perceptions in the Middle East which was published in mid-1990s, that is, I think, 1995 or 1996 and I was partly involved in this process in its final phase because it was right after my fellowship at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and I had attended another roundtable with the participation of most of the authors who have contributed to this research report. You see their perspectives about their countries' threat perceptions as of mid-1990s and I have seen just last weekend that the most recent reference point, for instance, during the deliberations this weekend with respect to the security situation in the Middle East, was the mid-1990s because that was an important development which was the review and extension conference of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nectarepens, the MPT, in 1995 and because this treaty, the MPT, has been reviewed every five year in five year intervals since its entry into force in 1970, 75, 80, 85, 90 and some of them were quite successful in terms of issuing a final, communicate a final document but some of them failed to get consensus opinion of the participants and in 1995, according to the terms of the articles of the MPT, the review conference actually was also an extension conference because the MPT would be extended but the problem was how or what kind of extension procedure would be decided upon and it was finally decided by consensus, of course, that the treaty be extended indefinitely and unconditionally. That means the MPT will remain in force as long as we can think of unless some countries take such actions that would render the MPT ineffective and therefore, you know, it doesn't make too much sense for the rest of the countries and David Rowe so MPT disappears. Of course, at least I and not many people would like to see something like that and it was also extended unconditionally. That is, its extension was not conditioned upon anything, upon any development. So therefore, this MPT review and extension conference was a success and that success, of course, was somewhat based on the compromise that was reached with respect to the situation in the Middle East. The MPT is a universal treaty. It is not only for the Middle East. There are now 195 or so countries which are members of the treaty and according to this treaty, five states have the right to maintain their nuclear weapons to keep them as legally and the rest promise not to produce the two weapons. Well, that's a different situation that I can talk more separately. I just don't want to go into this right now. But the Middle East, of course, is one of the regions in the world where proliferation is of great concern. Not only proliferation of chemical weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles being their deliver vehicles and other weapons, conventional weapons, etc. So, as I said, this review and extension conference in 1995 was a success partly because and or also because of this Middle East resolution. The Middle East resolution actually at that point was consisting of certain commitments of the parties to the treaty. That is, one of which was the sort of spanning efforts and serious and genuine efforts to create a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, actually a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. So, therefore, I've seen again this weekend while just watching around the people watching these people sitting around the table and commenting on the situation that they were making references again and again to this 1905 MPT conference and the Middle East resolution, which was part of the final document. And that was possibly one of the most recent issues. And other references were going back to the 1974 Iranian, Egyptian sort of cost-uponsored proposal for creating a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. So, again, that is something that goes back as far back as 74, some 36 years ago. And there were also some other references going back to as to when Israel may have acquired its nuclear weapons. And actually, well, as we all know, Israel has never acknowledged officially the presence of its nuclear weapons in its arsenal, neither have they denied at any time. So, this is part of their security strategy, security policy to create an ambiguity that is not either acknowledged nor denied the existence of a nuclear capability. And you know what, there were people sitting around this big, actually not round table but with a long straight table. And there were people and almost everyone knows everybody else. I mean, for so many years, having attended meetings like this and friends on other occasions in different fora. But when it comes to discussing their country's security issues, they all become hawks, while they are those outside during the coffee breaks or dinner or lunch. But when it comes to discussing their country's security issues, they all act as if they were the politicians of their country. Well, and some of them, even though we are all friends, well, some of them are quite elderly in a sense, and some of them are young, still the Israeli participants refrain from using the word nuclear weapons. Even though this is not an official setting, even though there is nothing to admit or just confess or nothing, but they still refrain from using the term nuclear weapons. They keep using nuclear option, nuclear power or nuclear capability, still living, even among friends, this issue ambiguous. Well, maybe this is how they feel more comfortable. Anyway, so because there was also a discussion about some of the information coming out or some documents coming out from the research of some people, which actually confirm what I told you here. Remember, during the Yom Kippur war, I told you that it was so believed or there are sort of information out there, or some people have written about this already, that the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, had seriously discussed the possibility of resorting to nuclear option, again, as a way to break this encirclement and sort of save the country from the brink of destruction. And some, when it came to the point of convincing the Arab countries that Israeli nuclear capability was actually not against any country to sort of bully them just to force them to do anything, but a weapon of last resort to protect the country from destruction in case, in the future, they have given this example. If we have not used our or resorted to our nuclear option back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war, when else would we sort of do this? So why don't you believe in us that we don't have any ambition to use our nuclear weapons against you? So this sort of discussion, actually, there are a couple of other conferences in the future, but I'm not going to attend because I just, I'm quite, you know, satisfied with this one. And I don't think I'm going to hear anything new. So therefore, I spent my time with you here rather than with, you know, my colleagues and friends whom I would like to see again, of course, but traveling, going back and forth and piled up work here while I'm away. So, and not so much breakthroughs in the developments from another month, from this month to another month. So therefore, this issue is likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future, meaning next year, next five years, 10 years, or maybe even longer. So as I said, there are references whenever an Israeli, a Palestinian, an Iraqi, a Jordanian, an Egyptian, an American, when they all sit around the table and talk about nuclear security issues, this is unavoidable for anyone of them to make reference to. You have done this in the past and you have done that in the past, et cetera, et cetera. So therefore, the past is important. I mean, of course, I would like to discuss the current affairs as much as, you know, time would allow us to do so. But without knowing the background of issues, it would be a fertile discussion. I mean, you would understand possibly what is going on here with respect to Iranian nuclear capabilities. But when you leave the classroom, some of the things that you might have discussed here would have just gone out of your mind. So therefore, it is essential that you understand the basics. And this is the reason why this is going to be your next reading. Well, this is something that I use in my courses quite frequently. And therefore, I believe e-copies of these sort of material, national threat perceptions in the Middle East must be present in the reserve or you must have access from the Internet. But if this is not the case, or just in case, I will still ask for my assistant to leave a hard copy of this to the reserve section and you can go ahead and make your own copies. And it is therefore important because Anul just asked if I could give some tricks about the midterm exam. Actually, I gave you a lot of tricks. I mean, I don't make tricks, by the way. When I give you an exam, I just want you to show me that you were serious in taking this course and that you did spend at least a certain amount of effort to understand the subject and learn subject. What is essential here is not me creating you. It is you to learn something when you leave this university, when you leave this classroom, this department, this university. Most of your parents or the parents of most of you actually pay large sums of money here. And there are highly qualified professors all around. So take this opportunity and learn the best you can. Otherwise you may regret in the future. So therefore, for the midterm, I always said I'm not going to ask you a question which is open to sort of subjective debate. That is, well, according to me, this is it. According to you, that might be different. No. Because I mean, if I ask you something like that and if you disagree with me, which is quite normal, I'm not, you know, in a position to say everything I say here is the rule. So therefore, there is not going to be any subjective questions. There is nothing that will be open to speculation or to sort of at least intellectual disagreement. But there will be questions most possibly and I'll try to make it as many as possible so that you can pick the ones that, you know, you feel more comfortable in answering. I may give you two or maybe three options in two parts and where you would just pick out one of them and then answer the one that you believe you know better. So and of course it is always important to make analysis. Writing something analytical is difficult and analytical thinking is essential which differs, differentiates you from all other living creatures including all of us here. So therefore, this cost and consequences issue or implications type questions might be significant. Excuse me. Would you put that away? So therefore, I mean I would recommend you to revise your readings and also go over the issues that we have discussed here in the classroom. There is this PowerPoint of course. When I ask you something if or I ask you something from the PowerPoints, I just don't want the bullet point type of answers. I want complete sentences right? So don't memorize this. Try to understand and reflect the essence, the gist of it. I mean not just one, two, three. So make complete sentences. Otherwise this is not analytical, this is memorizing. I mean well memory is a good thing but unless you have the ability to analyze whatever you have input in your mind, so it doesn't make too much sense. Anyway, so going back to our subject matter, the situation in the Middle East has been there, is there, will be there at all times. As far as I can see there is no big breakthrough in the near future but there are some chances which we have discussed again equally that they should not miss because some of you may have followed from the news and actually just a footnote here. If you are international relations students or political science students, I mean you should definitely follow the news. Read some magazines such as The Economist, Time Newsweek or Turkish magazines that you can find here reporting events, analyzing events or publishing analytical pieces and also you know keep abreast with the developments in the world. I mean just come in here listening to your professors and then going out and then going to coffees and watching some TV serials, well that doesn't make any difference if you're studying here or just not studying here. So take this and follow the world events. I'd like to sort of this reminded me another thing that I would like to share with you here, it was I believe two years ago. One of my students was the head of delegation of Syria in the assimilation and their student well on the day of assimilation and I was the UN Secretary General at that point because no one was here and I did not ask from anybody because actually I asked from some people but their friend they thought it would be too difficult and I believe Chala doesn't think that way and at some point in the second round of the simulation there was an issue with respect to Syria and I was amazed with when that student said something that had just taken place a few hours ago I mean when I say a few hours ago because it happened somewhere I think in New York and and the assimilation was in the morning and that student said what the Syrian ambassador had said or told at the UN I think UN body either the Security Council or the General Assembly I was really amazed with that because I had followed it myself but that was like 4 a.m. in the morning and which is a quite normal form because I'm staying up late almost every day but that student saying this I said how did you know that he said I checked the website of BBC before coming here and updated my knowledge so that's the kind of student what I expect to see at all times I know I don't want you to you know stay up late or maybe not sleep that much but I mean take it seriously all right this is an important thing and these years will somehow pass and most likely unless you have done so if you don't benefit you you may regret so all right this the Middle East the we have studied the situation in Iraq, Iraq invaded Kuwait and then in the hands of the coalition forces Iraq was defeated then was subject to sanctions which were part of the ceasefire resolution 687 and there was also this special commission on scum which did a certain job the IAA demolished the infrastructure nuclear infrastructure on scum went corrupt at some point not all of them but some of them and therefore was replaced by unmoving then we have seen especially there was if not a pause but just the shift of interest of world powers from the Middle East to the Balkans because of the war in the Balkans and more specifically some other developments like NATO extension in Europe centralists in Europe and then came 9-11 and after 9-11 again the United States in particular shifted its focus on Iraq again which paved the way to the second Iraq war in 2003 so all of these developments of course very negatively affected the Iraqi population in the first place many of them hundreds of thousands of them we don't know the exact figure because the last census in Iraq I mean population count in Iraq was conducted if I'm not mistaken 1957 and then onwards there was no such thing and we did we did we don't have any exact opinion about what was the population when the war broke out in 1991 and afterwards how many people died because of sanctions or because of this situation especially and after the second Iraq war 2003 there is this internal war a civil war or war among factions among the militia groups which seems to have been subdued a little bit not so much maybe as was the case back in 2004 2005 2006 but still you there is no single that we that we don't hear any news about explosions or suicide bombings or roadside bombs improvising explosive devices i.e. these etc taking lives or claiming lives of dozens of people sometimes but when compared to the past of course now Iraq is a little bit when comparatively speaking not so much yet even after the elections there is still not a government but things seems to be a little bit more promising when compared to back 2004 2007 period when the bloodiest civil war in the history of the country took place these are all things about Iraq and there is so much to it and we can talk about Iraqi situation maybe throughout the rest of the semester if you like to do so but of course this being a course on the Middle East security issue and Middle East is composed of a number of states 22 of them being Arab states and there's also Iran Israel and Turkey non-Arab nations well Turkey is not so much counter countered in the Middle East but for understandable reasons you know Turkey has now big interest in the Middle East and also following the events for reasons that we will discuss in the coming weeks but what happened in Iraq happened in Iraq and affected the lives of millions of people so what about the situation the rest of the Middle East how did the war in the Middle East in Iraq actually affect the situation the lives of people in all around the Middle East and also the the interests of states in the Middle East because what happens in Iraq definitely has caused a number of consequences had implications or precautions for the rest of the region so can you tell me I mean just before me going into the details of what happened here what happened that and how the of this particular country was affected in what way from you know Iraqi situation I like to hear more from you I mean what in your opinion and based on your knowledge on or raw knowledge let's say if you have not carried out any study so far on your own what is your perception so to speak about how the rest of the region was or might have been affected by the war in Iraq yes now I'm soliciting some answers excuse me the Iraq war I mean how did the situation in Iraq affect the rest of the region in terms of security situation Fatih go ahead speak up yeah I mean we will we talked about it we'll talk about it later but let's talk about other countries yes there is this situation in northern part which has implications for Turkey let's put aside Turkey and the internal situation Iraq but focus more on Syria if like Jordan Egypt Israel Saudi Arabia Kuwait Iran well there are too many of other countries so well when was it because there was why not security problem so many Iraqis have left their homes because of the war and you talk about post 2003 war I mean right after the 2003 all right so and Syria and because these borders between Iraq and Syria are not you know borders that you see in Europe where I mean you are stopped if there's a passage from another country to another country and if of course you're not part of the you're not one of the citizens of these one of these countries so these borders are not necessarily properly maintained or secured and they are called they are said to be porous I mean everyone and everything can except can pass through so many people left their homes behind wealth whatever they had sort of intangibles behind and they have taken their their money their some of their precious assets and themselves and went into Syria well this this is one thing that we cannot discount I mean this is important it is not something that that is trivial as Fatih just said it has caused a number of economic problems at least for Syria whose economy is not necessarily in very good shape and therefore with the influx of a number of refugees the situation has not got any better and of course same applies to Jordan for instance many Iraqis have crossed into the Jordanian territory and sought some refuge some some they look for some jobs some of them had a certain amount of money as I said they went to Jordan and both houses and started a new life in Jordan yeah this this is one thing that I would agree is important what are the things yes Issa so a Arab is an Arab which Arab use okay Arab suggest that Iran in a sense has become much more ambitious in terms of exerting its influence on specifically Iraq and also in general on the rest of the region especially the Gulf region yes this had a number of implications and well of course it is not possible to speak about some exact figures and some official sources although there are some official sources which speculate on this but it is not not always possible to provide evidence but there is this belief which is quite pervasive among the scholars and experts that Iran has at least some 35 up to 50,000 people or even if they are they may not be Iranians these are people who have had some trainings in the Iranian territory the Mahdi army Mahdi Hordusu and of course because of this Shia link because Iranians are overwhelming the Shia from the Shia sect of Islam and therefore there is this connection between Iran and the Iraqi Shia well this is of course somewhat if not superfluous but very general interpretation of the situation because when you talk with the representatives of Shia Iraqis they do not necessarily agree with you that they are under the influence of Iran and some of them outright you know reject the idea that they say no there is what is called Iraqi nationalism we are Iraqis not Iranians yes Shia is our common denominator but we are not under the influence of Iran who says what of course from at some point doesn't make too much sense and when you look at the situation on the ground it is not possible to deny that Iran has an influence and Iran has used this in some respects one of which as and we will talk more about this when we will discuss Iranian nuclear program here one of one of the ways Iran used its influence on the Shia Iraqis was to you know sustain a certain level of resistance against the coalition forces or now US forces and also to some extent the British forces and Brits have really sort of have been fed up with all these attacks on their soldiers and that was significant in the withdrawal of British soldiers from Iraq about a year ago so and also that was the reason why the American soldiers have suffered so many in terms of lives lost and also those who were wounded so Iran that's one particular country in the Middle East which also itself was affected from the situation in Iraq but also starting from a point onwards started to affect or at least use its influence or take advantage of the situation and this is so in foreign policy in international politics every country tries to benefit from the opportunities that emerge and try to avoid the risks that that somehow emerge as well all right what else who else who who is in yes go ahead oh yeah yeah this is correct for instance Saudi Arabia was affected from the Iraq war in many ways and this is of course not only limited to how Iran has increased its influence in Iraq as was in the region as a rising Shia power because Saudi Arabia they are Sunnis and they see you know the rise of Iran as well territorial wise so Saudi Arabia may be even bigger well actually it's bigger than Iran and in terms of economic wealth like oil and gas Saudi Arabia is still number one but when it comes to population Saudi Arabia's population is very low when compared to Iranian population and also materially speaking or speaking about military capabilities Iranian military capabilities are far more advanced or at least if not advanced maybe in some categories but sort of a much more significant in terms of numbers in terms of maintenance levels in terms of training and in terms of overall capability and you know maybe ability to conduct wars or out of other types of fighting so Saudi Saudi Arabia was definitely concerned and also took some steps in order to improve its country's security situation but Iran's position within Iraq and also in the region has caused of course serious concerns for Saudi Arabia again when it comes to our discussion with respect to Iranian nuclear program past present and the future we will see how Saudi Arabia reacted to that and what kind of implication there may be for the region and for Saudi Arabia in particular all right what else Mishra radical this is a this is a very good point it's an important point because actually this is something that leads the way to another dimension of the war I mean now we're talking about states as the actors but there's also this other dimension to it which is the non-state actors which of course have been there at all times maybe as long as we can go back in history because there's this talk of Muslim brothers in Egypt and other groups in other countries in Yemen and Saudi Arabia Iran Iraq etc and Jordan Palestinians but Mishra says because of the extended duration of the state of the United States in the region starting with of course the first deployment back in 1990 as a reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in Saudi Arabia Qatar United Arab Emirates and Iran here and just to expel the push the Iraqi forces out as part of the 678 678 resolution in order to free the liberated Kuwaiti territory then they they stayed there for a long time because not only that it was not that easy to sort of withdraw all 600 000 troops all the way back overnight but also countries in the region were concerned about their security in the in the coming years and decades and therefore ask kindly ask from the United States to stay there and the United States was of course looking forward to such an opportunity to have a reason to have a reason to have a foothold on in the region so therefore the US presence and but extended presence in the in terms of time a prolonged presence of the United States in the region fueled the hatred especially after the you know seeing people dying under sanctions or you know what was happening every day in Iraq so this has fueled the hatred with respect to the image of the United States or against the United States which made it all the more easier for radical groups to not only become even more radical but also to recruit new people and which this region was already conducive was already the ground was already fertile the soil was already fertile for such radical groups to emerge grow and expand their influence which finally led the way to 9-11 and one of the reasons why 9-11 happened many people believe because it is so said by Osama bin Laden was the you know freeing the this holy territory holy lands of Islam from the foreign troops and the presence of US troops non-Muslim troops on the holy lands of Islam caused deep hatred and also made them committed to take revenge from the United States and from all other you know western powers or the so-called infidels who are not part of the Islamic world so therefore this is one reason that we will separately discuss in the coming weeks under the title of terrorism and and the consequence of terrorist activities so what else and who else dollar in Iraq so Syria dollar says is it your opinion or is it something that you refer to other people because Syria has always denied it and no one accepts something like that you wouldn't accept you wouldn't expect the Syrian authorities to say yes we harbor terrorists in our territory this is not something that will come anyway even Turkish security forces security units intelligence units civil ministry and other units have sort of submitted the tick reports to their counterparts in Syria and even president demirel or as prime minister submitted to his counterpart Assad you know files of Syrian intelligence support to the pkk they always say we don't know anybody like Abdullah Jalan here I mean when the Turkish intelligence service people gave the in the transcripts of telephone conversations are Jalan from his house in Damascus well these things are never acknowledged but what do you say is after the Iraq war for a long period Syria was accused of harboring a number of if not the entire sort of personnel let's say elements of the insurgent course but their most important people the leading figures within these insurgents group and provided them refuge well this is what is so believed in the western circles especially in the united states and there was also remember this debate about where did the iraqi chemical biological weapons and ballistic missiles go because unscombed left in december 98th and issued a report which was accepted by the united nation security council with unanimity of votes in the presence of iraqi observer that some weapons and material that could be weaponized might have remained there implying this if not specific to stating that but then some four years later when the new inspection commission on Movic stepped into the iraqi territory and talked with their iraqi counterparts they said look we don't have any such weapons and we destroyed the remaining parts so but they couldn't prove or they couldn't provide any evidence about that many people believe that this material i mean chemical biological and ballistic weapons or material that could be weaponized might have gone into the syrian territory well of course if syrian authorities do not accept that that might be because they really may not have done anything well we should of course as academics and students here we're not in a position to judge anybody but they may of course not accept it because they may not really know what may have happened here because no one could claim to have full control of the borders and you may not know exactly who entered or what entered into the borders uh into the era syrian territory right so therefore if some intelligence report suggests that syria may have had a role then that might be true or not true we don't know so let's give a break here and we'll continue after 10 minute break