WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton set off tremors in the Middle East this week when she said a nuclear Iran could be contained by a U.S. “defense umbrella” — an offhand remark that appears to have emerged from obscure Washington policy debates and her own presidential campaign rhetoric. Clinton’s comments raised eyebrows because they seemed to go beyond the Obama administration’s current thinking on Iran, which has been strictly focused on preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons. Since making the remark on a television chat show in Thailand, Clinton has backpedaled, saying she was only restating existing policy and not referring to any sort of formal guarantees of protection under an American “nuclear umbrella.” And when Israeli officials raised alarms that she seemed to suggest the U.S. was resigned to a nuclear-armed Iran, Clinton and senior State Department officials hastily insisted such a prospect was still unacceptable and that no policy had changed. But her comments sounded uncannily like the harder-edged “nuclear umbrella” approach toward Iran that Clinton and several other top advisers to President Barack Obama had pushed before they joined his administration. Bringing both Arab allies and Israel under a protective U.S. “nuclear umbrella” is an idea that has been batted around Washington since fears of Iran’s ambitions first percolated in the late 1990s. Clinton herself raised the notion of such a policy during her unsuccessful presidential campaign last year. “We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” she said in an April 2008 debate with Obama. “Of course, I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region.” During that debate, Obama affirmed support for Israel’s security but did not suggest protecting Arab states. Some policy experts say Clinton’s umbrella reference was simple carelessness. Others wonder if it is indicative of an administration that has yet to show discipline in foreign policy thought and action. “This is something that a secretary of state, in an academic or off-the-record setting, might muse about,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator now with the Woodrow Wilson Center International Center for Scholars. “But saying it on the road and on-the-record is something else,” he said. “It reflects to a certain degree a problem. It reflects a certain confusion in the administration’s approach and the absence still of a coherent and cohesive strategy.” During her trip last week, Clinton mentioned a “defense umbrella” during an interview on Thai television Wednesday. “We want Iran to calculate,” she said, “what I think is a fair assessment: that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those (allies) in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon,” she said. A day later, she insisted to another interviewer that the “defense umbrella” was “nothing specific.” “It is a sort of general term that is used to describe our commitment to making sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon,” she said. The White House declined to comment on what options may now be under consideration for dealing with Iran. But it refused to rule out any measure. “As the president has said many times, we are using all elements of American power, including diplomacy, to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor. Despite Clinton’s insistence that her phrasing was general, the concept of an American “nuclear umbrella” protecting Mideast nations from Iran has wafted through Washington think tanks for several years. The concept is based on the Cold War era of deterrence and aims to stop a nuclear-armed country from threatening an unarmed neighbor. Dennis Ross, who worked for Clinton at the State Department and now heads Mideast policy at the National Security Council, and Robert Einhorn, now a special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control at State — both lent their names to consideration of the concept. Both advisers were formerly affiliated with the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, which in March of this year published a report that recommended studying the idea closely. The study noted that Ross and Einhorn, who had already resigned to work with Obama, had endorsed drafts of the report. The report noted there were some pitfalls with the idea. For one, Iran may not feel deterred by such a move, it said. For another, Israel would object on several grounds, including the possibility that it would limit its own deterrent capability. Ross, testifying before Congress in April 2008, also warned that “our security assurances may not be particularly relevant to the threats that most worry Middle Eastern regimes.” The concept of a “nuclear umbrella” to deter Iran first crystalized around 2004, according to experts. Patrick Clawson, Ross’ former colleague at the Washington institute, wrote about it in 2004, saying that “extending an explicit nuclear umbrella to those threatened by Iran” should be considered. But there is a sharp line, Miller said, between weighing policy notions in private and putting them out in public before they have been carefully explored and vetted. “You don’t discuss something like this in the open, particularly when you haven’t decided on policy,” Miller said, “because everything you say is going to be put under a microscope and dissected for clues about how we’re going to act.”

GAZA CITY, Jul 15 (IPS) – “No one is buying meat these days,” says Yousef Al-Jerjowi, sitting next to his butcher shop devoid of customers. “There are some people who buy frozen meat, because it’s much cheaper: 20 shekels (five dollars) per kilo versus 60 shekels for fresh beef.” According to the 45-year-old father of ten, while business is in general terrible, the better days are early in the month, when those with salaried jobs often receive their pay. “On average, I might make 200 shekels a day in the first five days of the new month. Before the siege, it was 450 shekels a day. I do have some more regular customers. But they have no money. They keep a tab, and pay when they can.” Like many Palestinians, Jerjowi used to work in Israel. “When Israel closed the borders, I had no work. So I opened a butcher shop.” On a normal day, Jerjowi says he only earns at best 100 shekels, not enough to cover the rent of his shop – 4,000 dollars a year – nor that of his family’s homes. “My three sons are all married. Together, our house rents are 200 shekels per month. We’re not earning that money. And there are daily expenses, like electricity and water.” With unemployment rates at 50 percent in Gaza, and 80 percent of Gazan Palestinians dependent on food aid hand-outs, it’s no wonder that Jerjowi’s business isn’t booming. But the problem lies not only with Gaza’s siege-shattered economy and the great poverty this has created; it is also the scarcity of beef. After the three weeks of the Israeli air, land and sea bombardment which killed over 1,400 people, Gaza’s agricultural sector is devastated, and that includes the beef farmers. The United Nations Development Project reports that 17 percent of Gaza’s livestock and nearly ten percent of the poultry were killed during the war. And even before the Israeli attacks, in November 2008 Gaza’s Ministry of Agriculture was already warning of a “real food disaster” due to the siege on animal feed and livestock, directly affecting the well-being of what livestock did exist in Gaza. Gazan Palestinians have tried to make up for the deficit of cattle by bringing calves and sheep through the tunnels from Egypt. Yet, the prices are high, above the budgets of most. On Jun. 19, for the first time since Oct. 31 2008, Israel allowed livestock into Gaza: 15 trucks. This number falls far below not only the nutritional needs of Gaza’s residents, but also the capacity of the border crossing to receive trucks. In 2008 and 2007, according to the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) the monthly total of livestock trucks entering Gaza varied from 20 to 207, keeping with the trend of severely restricting Gaza’s livestock imports under the Israeli-led siege. Prior to Jun. 19, the only cattle shipment overland into Gaza was on Oct. 31 2008, with a monthly total 78 trucks…to last nearly nine months. The Coordinator of the Israeli Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) previously suggested an amount of 300 cows weekly as the minimum for the nutrition of Gaza’s 1.5 million people. According to the UN and various non-governmental organisations, the trickle of goods entering Gaza now is just a quarter of that prior to the siege, the majority of which is limited to basic food aid items. The aid-dependent families have moved from a balanced diet to one consisting mainly of sugar and carbohydrates, lacking in vitamins and proteins. The World Health Organisation (WHO) cites an increase in growth-stunting malnourishment, now at over 10 percent of children, attributed to a chronic lack of protein, iron, and essential vitamins. The WHO further warns of increasing anaemia rates: 65 percent among children below 12 months of age, and 35 percent among pregnant women. The United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and Gaza’s Ard Al-Insan centre for nutrition, among various bodies, note the link between malnutrition and a deficiency of protein and vegetables in the diet. An International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) June 2009 report notes that the effects of a restricted diet also include “difficulty in fighting off infections, fatigue and a reduced capacity to learn.” The ICRC warns of the long-term ramifications on Gaza’s malnourished children. In June 2009, 38 NGOs, including Oxfam, Care World Vision, and UN bodies, called for an end to the siege, citing the need for normalised trade with Gaza. The ICRC June report likewise called for resumption of imports and exports, but warned that the situation has deteriorated to an extent that Gaza will need years to recover. For Yousef al Jerjowi, who has scaled down his opening hours due to the lack of customers, the siege couldn’t end soon enough. Jerjowi’s three sons work in his shop, saving him 40 shekels daily wages for an employee. “If my sons didn’t work here, I’d have to close the shop.”

AP -BEIRUT – Syria’s leader sent a July 4 message full of praise to President Barack Obama on Friday and invited him to visit Syria — the latest signs Damascus is hedging its bets in Mideast politics, warming up to its rival the United States at a time when its longtime ally Iran is in turmoil.

The United States and its Arab allies have been hoping to pull Syria out of the fold of Iran and Islamic militant groups in the region.

Damascus so far appears unlikely to take such a dramatic step, but it does appear worried about Iran’s reliability and the long-term impact of that country’s postelection unrest. Also, its Lebanese ally Hezbollah suffered a setback when its coalition failed to win June parliament elections, beaten out by a pro-U.S. bloc.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has been expressing hopes for better ties with Washington for months. But the latest developments may make dialogue look even more attractive.

Assad sent a telegram to Obama on the occasion of the July 4 Independence Day holiday, saying, “The values that were adopted by President Obama during his election campaign and after he was elected president are values that the world needs today.”

“It is very important to adopt the principle of dialogue in relations with countries based on respect and mutual interest,” Assad said in the telegram, which was carried by state-run news agency SANA.

In an interview with Britain’s Sky News, Assad invited Obama to visit Damascus to discuss Mideast peace.

“We would like to welcome him in Syria, definitely. I am very clear about this,” Assad said in English. Asked whether such a visit could take place soon, Assad said: “That depends on him.”

He added with a smile, “I will ask you to convey the invitation to him.” The last time a U.S. president visited Syria was a 1994 trip by Bill Clinton.

For the U.S., even pulling Syria only partly away from Iran and its militant allies would represent a major shift and could help ease Mideast crises. The U.S.-Syrian rivalry has fueled instability in Lebanon, and the U.S. and Israel say Syria’s backing of the Palestinian Hamas undermines the Arab-Israeli peace process. Syrian cooperation could make Obama’s fresh push for a peace deal take off.

The Obama administration has stepped up its wooing of Syria. The U.S. is sending back its ambassador to Damascus after a four-year break over terrorism accusations. Obama’s special Mideast peace envoy, George Mitchell, became the highest-level U.S. administration official to visit Damascus since 2005, and he acknowledged Syria’s clout, declaring Damascus has a key role to play in forging Mideast peace.

In a separate interview with Sky News, Assad’s wife, Asma, said she believed the Syrian and American leaders could work together.

“The fact that President Obama is young — well President Assad is also very young as well — so maybe it is time for these young new leaders to make a difference in the world,” she said.

In one sign of Syrian cooperation on regional issues, Damascus is believed to have played a behind-the-scenes role in ensuring Lebanon’s elections remained peaceful.

Damascus likely won’t move away from its Iran alliance easily. Iran’s regional clout has been key to boosting Syria’s status in the Middle East, and Tehran gives considerable financial and military backing. Assad was the first Arab leader to congratulate Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for winning the disputed presidential election.

But Iran is now mired in the fallout from that election, following the widespread protests that erupted amid claims Ahmadinejad’s victory in the June election was fraudulent. A heavy crackdown has largely quelled the protests, but the show of anger has raised questions over Ahmadinejad’s long-term legitimacy.

“All the world around Syria on which it built its policy is falling apart,” said Sateh Noureddine, managing editor of the Lebanese As-Safir daily, which tilts toward Syria’s Lebanese allies.

“Hezbollah lost the election in Lebanon, Hamas is being subjected to unprecedented attrition and Iran is drowned in its internal crises,” he told The Associated Press. “All the elements of strength they (Syrians) built on their foreign policy are collapsing, so for certain they are going to reassess and look for alternatives, without abandoning their past.”

Writing in the Saudi-owned daily Al-Hayat, Saudi analyst Dawood al-Shirian urged Syria to “take this opportunity and rid itself of having to pay a price for the Iranians’ reputation.”

U.S. ally Saudi Arabia — one of the bitterest rivals of Syria in the region since 2005 — has been working in recent months to thaw ties with Damascus in hopes of drawing it away from Iran.

The oil powerhouse sent a senior envoy to Damascus on June 28. Assad and Saudi King Abdullah have twice met in recent months in Riyadh and Kuwait, and there has been persistent media speculation that Abdullah will visit Damascus in July — perhaps as early as next week — to crown the renewed relationship.

Assad and Jordan’s king have also recently exchanged visits for the first time in several years.

Syria has several long-term aims in any reconciliation with the U.S. Assad has said he wants the U.S. to mediate Syrian-Israeli negotiations, in which Damascus seeks the return of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

Syria also wants U.S. economic sanctions lifted and foreign investment, particularly Gulf Arab money for its economy. It is also wary of an international tribunal set up to try the perpetrators of the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in Beirut at a time when Syria controlled the country.

A  long  report has appeared today in a leading Pan-Aarab newspaper , Alquds Alarabi, in its front page talking about the rumours in cairo about the future of the Egyption “throne” with a real worries from Gamal Mubarak ,the eldest son of Hosni Mubarak and the only real candidate to inherit his father like all the hereditary republics in the Middle East . According to the paper , Worries from the increase in the publicity of  Omar Suliman , The chief the Egyption general inteligence ,who is  appearing continously in the Media  between those who are supporting Gammal Mubarak.  The Egyption president has removed Amr Mousa , th former foreign minister , from the foreign ministry and exiled him the secretary of the Arab league to same reason ,increasing in publicity .

What is the fact in Egypt is that no  president can ascend the throne without a support from the military establishment . the advantage of Omar suliman over Gammal is that he is one of the big officers in that establishment while Gammal is not.

By Colin Freeman in Tehran
Published: 10 Jun 2009 | The Daily Telegraph

Yet as evening fell, the 100,000 seater stadium played host to what promised to be a crucial event in the run-up to Friday’s election campaign – Iran’s World Cup qualifier match against the United Arab Emirates.

Seldom can the outcome of a game of football have had such potential geopolitical consequences: If Iran won, they were still in with a chance of qualifying for the tournament after last week’s defeat in the “Axis of Evil” special against North Korea.

But if they lost, they would be knocked out – a devastating blow to national morale that would almost certainly translate into punishment for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Friday’s polls, and possibly usher in a reformist government.

“If we lose this game, I think about half the people in this stadium will no longer vote for Ahmadinejad,” fretted a nervous Mahmoud Arjomandi, 38, a shoemaker and Ahmadinejad supporter from Iran’s western province of Lorestan, as supporters banged drums and played loudhailers. “Iranians will be devastated to be knocked out of the World Cup, and many people will certainly blame the president.”

Just like New Labour politicians in Britain, Mr Ahmadinejad has always done his best to portray himself as a lover of the beautiful game. He regularly poses for pictures with the national team, and was recently presented with his own personalised strip with “Ahmadinejad” written on the back.

But just like many of his other attempts at the populist touch, it has tended to backfire. When he turned up to watch halfway through a World Cup qualifier against regional rivals Saudi Arabia in March, the Iranian team’s fortunes promptly about turned, squandering a 1-0 lead to lose 2-1. And his recent reshuffle of the directors of Tehran’s two government-owned teams, Persepolis and Esteghlal, has been cited by election rivals as indicative of his autocratic management style, which has also seen him replace numerous government ministers with idealogues.

Given the stakes involved, security outside the game was tight, with soldiers and riot police banning campaign flags for either Mr Ahmadinejad or his main reformist rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

But once on the terraces, the supporters quickly showed their respective political colours again. “Bye bye Ahmadinejad,” cheered the Mousavi supporters. “He hasn’t had a shower for two weeks,” they added, a cruel reference to the Iranian leader’s alleged personal hygeine problems.

The crunch game came as the Iranian election build-up showed a growing amount of dirty play off the pitch. In an unprecedented move, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, sent an open letter to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, complaining about “insults, lies and false allegations” made against him in televised debates by Mr Ahmadinejad. The letter, an implicit criticism of the Ayatollah’s endorsement of Mr Ahmadinejad, was seen as showing the growing cracks within the country’s leadership.

But could a simple football game really influence the outcome of a national election as important as this? Mr Arjomandi feared so. Combining the obsessive football fan’s love of statistics with a dab of amateur psephology, he had already done the maths. Defeat for Iran, he estimated, would cost Mr Ahmadinejad about three million floating voters nationwide, enough to prove crucial in a contest that is already neck and neck between the president and Mr Mousavi.

Much to his relief, Iran won 1-0. But even now, Mr Ahmadinejad’s fate remains linked to the football team’s. The election is widely predicted to end up in a tie between Mr Ahmadinejad and Mr Mousavi, necessitating a second-round vote a week on Friday. And once again, next Wednesday evening, less than 48 hours before the vote, Iran will play yet another World Cup qualifier, this time against South Korea.

For Mousavi supporters, it is a situation that defies regular footballing cliches. Yes, at the end of the day, it is of course the result that counts. The question, though, is which result is more important?

“Of course I don’t to see Iran knocked out of the World Cup,” said Mohammad Kerbashi, 26. “But I would also like to see Ahmadinejad lose. I don’t know what to hope for.”

MINGORA, Pakistan (AFP) — Grenades, rifles, knives and an ornate sword of the kind allegedly used by the Taliban to behead foes lay on a table in a Pakistan military base, an apparent victor’s bounty seized by the army.

Among the rocket launchers, Osama Bin Laden T-shirt and bombs hidden in pressure cookers are more mundane signs of life — passports, driving licences and a child’s biology book filled with careful handwritten notes.

Some signature black turbans of the Islamist movement sit next to a bottle of Russian vodka, which an official said was seized from the home of a senior militant in the military’s six-week push to crush the rebels.

Pakistan’s security forces are claiming massive gains in cities and towns in their bid to root out Taliban insurgents in three northwest districts.

But in the Swat valley, officials say they face a massive challenge to rebuild the shattered region after two years of Taliban insurgency to enforce sharia law and military offensives, as well as prevent the militants’ return.

“Unimaginable damage has been done,” said Fazal Karim Khattak, the top administration official for Malakand, a region which includes Swat and where three million people were put under sharia law in a failed peace bid this year.

“We have to re-establish the education system, the health system… we request the international community comes forward to assist the rehabilitation of Swat.”

“Billions and billions” of Pakistani rupees (tens of millions of dollars) of damage has been done, he added.

Pakistan launched its offensive in Lower Dir on April 26, Buner on April 28, and Swat on May 8, after the militants flouted the February peace deal and thrust within 100 kilometres (60 miles) of the capital Islamabad.

Last weekend, the military said it captured Swat’s business and administrative hub Mingora, now a ghost town where shops are shuttered and the only people on the streets are armed soldiers guarding a few charred buildings.

Of the population of 300,000, only 10 percent remain, the rest joining an estimated 2.4 million people who have fled the current military push.

Most of Mingora is free from serious battle damage. Only the notorious square where the Taliban allegedly dumped their victims’ bodies shows the scars of serious fighting, with windows smashed and crumbled masonry.

“Taliban are on the run, their command control infrastructure is in disarray. Their lower and mid-tier have been eliminated, the foot soldiers are melting away,” said Major General Sajjad Ghani, commander of northern Swat.

Nobody is under any illusions, however, that the battle is over.

Military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas says that although towns and cities should be clear of Taliban fighters within days, major combat operations in a fierce guerrilla war could last two more months.

Abbas said soldiers will likely stay on the ground for at least a year to oversee the building of civilian administration and local security forces.

“It is a process. You do not see success as one event in a counter-insurgency operation,” he told AFP on a ridge overlooking Mingora.

“When the military secure and clear the area, then it will require the civilian agencies, the civilian administration to fall back.”

Analysts say that to win the war against Taliban guerrillas, the army must avoid collateral damage and swiftly rebuild lives shattered by the offensive, or risk spawning more sympathisers for the extremist group.

Many of the Taliban foot soldiers are disenfranchised young men, drawn to the movement by high unemployment and hardship, seeing little scope for advancement in a country dominated by a wealthy elite.

Major General Ijaz Awan, in charge of the army’s Mingora campaign, says the long-term plan is to bring back elected representatives, village elders and police, then build up local militias to help keep the peace.

One of the main challenges will be ensuring that fighters who have melted into the mountains do not simply resurface when the offensive is over, reviving their campaign to enforce sharia law, kidnapping and killing with impunity.

The top Taliban leaders remain elusive, with the military operation now moving into the rugged Swat mountains to try and flush them out.

Malakand commissioner Khattak says he has faith that the local community will work with security forces providing intelligence on the identities of militants. Without that, he says, the task is immense.

“If a person throws away his gun and shaves off his beard, how will we know he is a Taliban?” he asks, as he rides through Mingora, the smell of cordite still stinging the air.

You can’t pass through any of Abu Dhabi major streets without noticing Dubai car  parking side by side to Abu Dhabi cars.It is the new phenomenon in Abu Dhabi  , the UAE capital which it was even forgotten as a capital before the collapse of Dubai’s real- state sector .

We can describe  this phenomenon as the new internal immigration in UAE. After years of Dubai’s boom which was built on the real- state sector and financial services , Dubai’s based employees are targeting Abu Dhabi as their new destination. Abu Dhabi in contrast to Dubai still has a constructions activities although a big amount of its projects has either cancelled or delayed. It is a matter of cash . Abu Dhabi has a huge oil reserves which make it away from what happened in Dubai .

Abu Dhabi authorities itself  save Dubai from the worst . It has bought  its bonds last February saving it from a  complete collapse and bankruptcy .

ISTANBUL // Mustafa Karaduman is one of Turkey’s leading self-made entrepreneurs – and a devout Muslim.

He has made a fortune in the textiles industry with a string of factories and shops selling conservative clothes in Turkey, the Middle East and Europe, earning him the nickname “Allah’s tailor”.

But he has never sacrificed his belief in conservative values for the capitalist dream.

Turkey’s secular elites have long looked on religious businessmen such as Mr Karaduman as uncultured arrivistes, but as the country braces itself for the impact of the global recession, it is the very same devout businessmen and religious middle class who are emerging as a buffer against its worst effects.

At the Tekbir clothing factory on the outskirts of Istanbul, Mr Karaduman surveyed 350 workers bent over sewing machines and irons and promised that the free daily midmorning soup and afternoon tea and cake breaks would continue.

The snacks are believed to add to productivity. Nicole Hill / The National

“We respect humanitarian rules, it takes precedence over other things; they don’t have to spend their salaries on meals,” he said. “We see these breaks as valuable and it adds to their productivity.”

The workers, men and women nearly all of whom have families to support, looked pleased.

Although Mr Karaduman is not expected to meet his turnover of US$50 million (Dh183m) this year, he does not plan to cut back on zakat, giving 2.5 per cent of his wealth to the poor, a religious requirement for all Muslims.

“This issue will be crucial in an economic crisis because many charitable organisations are funded by the middle class and religious businessmen,” said Prof Recep Senturk, a sociologist at the Centre for Islamic Studies.

“Who else will do it? Our capitalists traditionally are not philanthropic. That culture has yet to develop among rich businessmen. They give some but it is a token amount.”

Last year, Turkey had 34 billionaires with a combined net worth of $58.7 billion, Forbes magazine reported in its annual rich list in March, but this year there are only 13.

Turkey saw a massive economic boom and between 2002 and 2006, when the economy grew by an average of 7.5 per cent after the government implemented a series of International Monetary Fund reforms. As a result, billions of dollars in foreign investment began pouring into the country and Turkey began exporting goods such as textiles and manufacturing products, including furniture and appliances.

These dynamic businessmen, called the “Islamic Calvinists” in reference to their strong work ethic and origins in the poorer region of Anatolia, were at the forefront of the boom that has produced thousands of blue and white collar jobs for the approximately one million Turks who move to urban areas every year.

In 1950, 80 per cent of the population was rural; today 70 per cent live in urban areas.

“I believe we play an important role in the economy because it is up to business to produce this and expand it abroad,” said Mr Karaduman. He arrived in Istanbul from his hometown of Malatya in the east in 1969 with $50 in his pocket and advice from his father to “behave yourself”. Today, he has sent most of his seven children to England for education and drives a 2006 Mercedes.

The company’s clothes are designed by his cousin Esra, 23, and are modest but fashionable affairs with long sleeves, loose skirts and colourful scarves.

“We tried to design our clothes to best suit Islamic rules prescribed in the Quran that tell your daughters to become veiled and our focus is this,” he said. “We are the dominant business in this sector.”

Prof Senturk said economic development has led to a strong and politically active middle class.