(Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Steven Cook, writing in Foreign Policy, suggests that the Flotilla incident is the latest evidence that dreams of a “model partnership” between the United States and Turkey are mere fantasy. Cook suggests conceiving of Turkey as something closer to a “strategic competitor” with interests that sometimes converge but often diverge from those of Washington, particularly in the Middle East.
Cook says:
The Obama administration has yet to grapple with the ways the structural changes in the international system have affected U.S.-Turkey relations. All the talk about strategic cooperation, model partnership, and strategic importance cannot mask the fundamental shift at hand. The stark reality is that while Turkey and the United States are not enemies in the Middle East, they are fast becoming competitors. Whereas the United States seeks to remain the predominant power in the region and, as such, wants to maintain a political order that makes it easier for Washington to achieve its goals, Turkey clearly sees things differently. The Turks are willing to bend the regional rules of the game to serve Ankara’s own interests. If the resulting policies serve U.S. goals at the same time, good. If not, so be it…
Given the mythology that surrounds the relationship, the divergence between Washington and Ankara has proved difficult to accept. Once policymakers recognize what is really happening, Washington and Ankara can get on with the job of managing the decline in ties with the least possible damage. Obama’s goal should be to develop relations with Turkey along the same lines the United States has with Brazil or Thailand or Malaysia. Those relations are strong in some areas, but fall short of strategic alliances. “Frenemy” might be too harsh a term for such an arrangment, but surely “model partnership” is a vast overstatement. It’s time to recognize reality.
I agree with much of Cook’s analysis. He is certainly correct that Turkey and the United States are on opposing sides in the Israel-Palestine issue. The United States remains steadfastly committed to Israel, while Turkey under Prime Minister Erdogan has clearly distanced itself from the Jewish state and embraced the Palestinian cause. I also can see how disagreements between Washington and Ankara over Syria are likely to widen in the event of another conflict along Israel’s northern border.
On the other hand, there are areas of significant cooperation including, most significantly, in Iraq. Ankara’s influence there is widely considered constructive.
On Iran, yes there are differences between the Turkish and American positions, particularly in light of the recent uranium fuel-swap agreement. But Turkey can be forgiven for seeking to chart its own path given that U.S. policy toward Iran has failed for decades. I think Turkey is sincere that it does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and time will tell whether there is, in fact, less distance between the Turkish and American positions than may appear at the moment.
Cook’s full article can be read here.
– Ben Katcher
Fiorangela,
Israel will remain the strongest military power, in offensive capability, in the Middle East, for many years to come. Without taking nukes into account, and of course excluding Turkey.
Israel’s problem is that the demographical equation is not altered by obtaining dozens more high-tech jet fighter planes.
Rehmat,
I readily agree that the Israel lobby has virtually totally compromised the ability of the US to act in the best interests of the American people, in matters pertaining to the Middle East. This is one reason I think the US badly needs a lower profile in the Middle East, and why the American people benefit from a more vigorous Turkish diplomatic presence in Middle East affairs.
Are you aware that most American Jews opposed the invasion of Iraq? And most American Jews apparently want Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank.
Thank you for your responses, Alan. I’ll hang on to your view that Clinton will not prevail — hope springs eternal.
Cook was on C Span Washington Journal this morning, discussing his article as well as the flotilla situation.
If my words are incoherent it is because my brain has boiled inside my skull. Cook acted the shameless apologist for Israel, and C Span’s “journalist” moderator backed him up 150%. NO mention whatsoever that a 19-year old American, Furkan Dogan, was shot in the head four times, but Cook DID manage to discuss the killing of Neda (“or maybe it was one of the other people killed in Iran”). Cook said the situation in the Mediterranean, for which he shed the obligatory tear over deaths as IDF commandos “defended themselves,” was the result of Turkey’s provocation.
Ben may have been too irenic in his assessment of Cook’s article. I think it’s important to point out that Cook is an Israeli apologist, that Israel and its advocates sense a threat to their hegemony, and are pulling out all the stops to beat it back.
I lived in Maryland as the Wye Oak, Maryland’s (late) iconic state tree, was dying. As dying trees do, it dropped a bumper crop of acorns. Israel’s zionist regime is revealing increasing anomalies “incompatible with life,” and nuts are showing up everywhere in an attempt to hide Israel’s wounds and ensure zionism’s immortality.
The Wye Oak died.
. . .
James Canning
Henry Kissinger did what he was supposed to as a dual citizen – put Israel’s interests over America’s interests.
Some of Obama administration’s top official known for their loyalty towards a foreign country (Israel) include, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axelrod, Lawerence Summers, Dennis Ross, John Bolton and Richard Haass. In Bush administration we had Condeleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Peter Rodman, Rabbi Dov Zachkeim, etc.
Alan Sabrosky PhD in Al-Jazeera Opinion Editorial argued that US politicians’ loyalty to Israel – “There isn’t any longer a facade of ‘dual loyalty’, only loyalty to Israel – has reached a point where, despite its enormous power, the US is totally paralysed in the face of Israel…..Probably the only thing might jolt the Israeli-dominated train of US Middle East mismanagement off its tracks, would be a catastrophe following a US strike against Iran producing US casualties way beyond from those from the Vietnam War – something that could happen all too easily. And then, yet again, there is Gaza and the rest of Palestinian Bantustan….So perhaps we should just send them all some diplomatic kneepads emblazoned with the Star of David – although I do wonder what kind of a cigar Netanyahu will flash.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/what-dual-loyalty/
Fiorangela,
Is the Israeli government pretending it does not have options? Recognizing Hamas would be a good starting point.
The Israeli government wants to pretend it is willing to see an independent Palestine. It needs to get real.
Rehmat,
America’s interests in fact are not the same as Israel’s. Kissinger himself failed to observe the distinction, far too often.
Arnold Evans,
I agree with you that Obama has done little to improve relations with Iran. I put the fault with his administration. As Ed Luce comments in the Financial Times today, Obama “promised a transformative presidency. Buyt he has so far stuck to a conventional textbook.” Having Hillary at state seems a large part of the problem.
Arnold states it accurately.
So Alan, can you give me quotations or links to anything that would make you think the following statements are true:
“Obama does not like it, that much is crystal clear, and he has shown he is more than willing to turn Israel’s attempts to blackmail the US into US leverage over Israel.”
“Your assumption is that US policy is unchanged from Bush. I think there is categoric evidence that is not the case, that most of the problems that have plagued Obama’s attempts to deal with Iran have been created by Iran.”
“Their most pressing concern is how to disentangle themselves from that disastrous situation. That means how to outwit the Lobby, and that is by far the most complicated question facing them.”
I accept that these are all positions you would take if you were president. I’m not sure a person who would take those positions could be elected president given the US political process.
None of these are things Obama has said, or anyone in his adminstration has said directly. Administration officials directly say the opposite, in each case, routinely.
In our specific dispute, you believe Obama administration just wanted to trade medical reactor fuel for LEU with no strings attached. There is no coherent reason that requires exporting uranium from Iranian territory before the trade.
Also in November, it was Iran saying we’re willing to give 1200kgs of LEU for 120 kgs of reactor fuel, let’s come up with guarantees that you we’ll actually get the fuel. It was the US saying Iran must take October deal or face sanctions. That’s really just history. You’re well aware that the Leveretts right here have spoken about the US’ inflexible negotiating position, as has ElBaradei, who actually said the Kish proposal would have effectively removed any breakout option until Iran gets the medical fuel. And who thinks Iran is planning or considering breaking out in the next year that this would even matter?
I’m certain Iran’s leadership, including Ahmadinejad, did not accept the conditions the US applied, believed these conditions were applied for a reason, which was to give the US leverage to pressure Iran for a suspension, and did not receive any indication from the US that it was prepared to accept a deal that did not give the US leverage.
To this day, the United States has never publicly accepted any TRR deal that would fail to give the US leverage. You say an offer was made to store the LEU in Turkey, which is true, but the underlying question of can the US hold this uranium hostage in the territory of its NATO ally Turkey, if the LEU is under IAEA control and subject to the direction of the IAEA board of governors was not answered in November, February or April.
You assume it was, but with no tangible indication. You’re just making it up. What did Obama say that indicates that Iran would have the power to just recall its uranium at any time? What quotation could you provide from anyone in the Obama administration that that was the case? If that had been the case, what is the deal-breaking difference between that and the uranium being in Kish?
I really do not find your position that the US was the flexible party on the medical fuel deal coherent.
So I get that you think the US should try to ease tension with Iran. The Bush administration didn’t have to release the 2007 NIE. That was a real example of a confidence-building tension-reducing measure. The Obama administration has done nothing comparable. There is a strong possibility that your disagreement is more with the Obama administration than it is with me. I think you don’t want to allow yourself to believe that for some reason.
After the Brazil, Iran, Turkey deal was announced, the Obama administration had the option, that I was pretty sure it would take, of saying “damn, right when we were close to sanctions, this has thrown another wrench into the process. Now we have to at least make a gesture of negotiating and opening to Iran before we can resume the sanctions track.”
Instead, the administration reaffirmed the sanctions track. Actions speak. The Obama administration is not taking opportunities to reduce hostility, as much as you understand that it should.
This “model relationship” reminds me the wisdom of another CFR member, Henry Kissinger, who once said: “America has no friends. It has only self interests” – which naturally glued to Israel.
After the passage of Armenian genocide – a false flag operation by the Crypto-Jewish Turkish elites – by the Congress, Turkish leaders must realize that after supporting Islamic Republic and Palestinian resistance – they have no friend left at the Capitol Hill – just a few flowers coming from the powerless White House for maintaing its largest Middle East military base with 49-90 nuclear bombs in Turkey for the protection of Israel.
Both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama – during their election campaign promised the one million US-Armenian citizens that if elected – they would recognize the Armenian genocide as “holocaust” – but the citizens were reminded by the Israeli lobby, ADL’s president Abraham Foxman that the word “Holocaust” is reserved for the Jewish mass-killings. only. Abe even refused to accept Armenian tragedy as ‘genocide’ – resulting in several Jewish leaders demanded that he should step-down as the head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Abe cooperated with Kemalist Army in 2007 to kill the ‘Armenian Genocide Bill’ in the Congress to hide Jewish involvement in this WW I ‘false flage’ operation for which Turk Muslims are being blamed till today….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/armenias-forgotten-holocaust/
Fiorangela – sorry, I didn’t answer your direct question. In my opinion, there is no way that Clinton’s vision of foreign policy prevails. Others have a far greater depth of understanding of the issues than her, certainly in the Middle East anyway.
Fiorangela – I think the US could be keeping their powder dry at the UNSC. The two events there in the last week have been far less reassuring for Israel than what they would normally expect. Even though we all wanted more, it still fed the Israeli paranoia. There will be bigger issues before long – and I don’t mean that in a belittling way to the flotilla incident. For example, there is the prospect of Salam Fayyad’s unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state looming in August 2011, and if Palestinian support can be built behind that plan (which is far from certain), Israel will be pulling out the stops to derail it.
Who is in Obama’s “team”? Jim Jones would be one. The military in general have few illusions about Israel too. There is a sense on the ground in the West Bank that things genuinely are changing too. This is why Hamas and the other militant groups are so quiet. It is true that Clinton knocks that confidence from time to time, but people are still looking at (or for?) a bigger picture beyond her.
““25 thousand American troops permanently stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan would be just the ticket to send an appropriate message to both Turkey and Iran.”
25000 US troops in Kurdistan would be like manna from haven for Iran’s security from a possible US attack especially if like what I have heard that the Iraqi Kurdistan gets majority of its supplies through Iran and Iranian ports.
WigWag, I think you need to look at who will be the most influential power in Iraq. If it is the US (highly doubtful) then a Kurdistan base would be superfluous. If it is Iran (most likely), you will be dependent on Iran’s goodwill to get to Kurdistan. Supplying a permanent base of 25,000 men solely by air is extraordinarily impractical. The situation would be akin to trying to supply the army in Afghanistan once Pakistan has flipped and no longer allows US supplies through.
But I will argue no more. I hope you dismiss everything I wrote and I hope someone actually gives it a try.
Yes, Lysander, Kurdistan is landlocked by the United States can over fly Iraq anytime it chooses to; and of course i.t has numerous routes to chose from on the way into Iraq. Maybe you should take a look at a map.
“25 thousand American troops permanently stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan would be just the ticket to send an appropriate message to both Turkey and Iran.”
Yes WigWag. The US needs to put 25,000 troops in a land locked base where they will be completely dependent for supplies and access on Iran, Turkey, Syria and an Iraqi rump state allied with Iran. I hope strategic thinkers such as yourself and such as the Great George W Bush continue to manage US policy.
Alan, How do you interpret Susan Rice’s failure to appear for any part of the 12-hour meeting at the UN to discuss response to Israel’s boat party?
In your view, whose vision of US foreign policy prevails, Clinton’s or Obama’s? Who is on Obama’s non-Clinton team?
James Canning, re Pollack’s Orwelllian vision — one has to expect that Israel will pull out all the stops; it’s backed into a corner.
see Mad dog Diplomacy: A Cornered Israel is Baring Its Teeth
THAT comment went badly awry. where’s the edit button?
you’ll have to take my word for it: wigwag’s ears were firmly pinned back.
Wigwag @ 3:22
>>>>>There’s no Ambassador in Tehran because the American people despise Iran. In the last Gallup polling on the subject, Iran’s approval rating was around 10 percent. Iran’s approval rating is hardly better than Al Qaeda’s approval rating amongst Americans. The only other group to have a rating this low is Hamas.<<<<>>>> Wigwag:
In addition to the multitude of substantive reasons for not placing an Ambassador in Tehran there is one very practical reason; if Obama did it, he wouldn’t be reelected.<<<<>>>>There is no question that Turkey and the United States have diverged in their views on many issues. This is only likely to get worse; with recent Turkish political polls showing Erdogan’s political party falling behind their secular opponents in the next elections (2011)<<<<>>>> In addition to the multitude of substantive reasons for not placing an Ambassador in Tehran there is one very practical reason; if Obama did it, he wouldn’t be reelected.<<<<>>>>Erdogan can be expected to try to whip up support from his Islamist backers by taking an increasingly adversarial role with the United States.<<<<<
…
Obama foolishly raised expectations in the Muslim world and when those expectations are thwarted, in part by Turkish intransigence, the disappointment is likely to be palpable.<<<<>>>>Of course the real problem is that Bush was right and Obama is wrong; coddling the Muslim world accomplishes nothing. By projecting weakness, the Turks and everyone else feel perfectly free to snub Obama. From both his words and his actions, it is clear to the Turks that approaching friends and adversaries from a position of strength just isn’t in the Obama playbook.<<<<>>>>If Obama and his colleagues had an ounce of strategic sophistication, the first thing he would realize is that instead of withdrawing from Iraq, the United States should take up the offer of the Kurds to base American troops there; permanently. The United States should assist the Kurds in expelling Sunni interlopers in Kirkuk, most of whom were placed there by Saddam Hussein. The United States should be helping the Kurds stabilize Erbil (not that they need all that much help)) and if he really had any guts, Obama should be supporting the Kurds aspirations to incorporate Mosul into their territory. <<<<>>>>25 thousand American troops permanently stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan would be just the ticket to send an appropriate message to both Turkey and Iran. <<<<<
That being the message that the US is stuck on stupid? Wars and military encampments are so 20th century, wig; kewl guys never get suckered into spreading their resources all over the globe. Israel, so often presented as an example of security and killing efficiency, keeps the bulk of IDF close at home, only sending special forces on demand to assassinate this targeted leader or stir up dissension among that targeted population. That was Rumsfeld’s vision—small, mobile, specialized forces.
Castellio – it would probably be typical of my kind of boat that we would only swab and not scrub the decks. So thanks for the offer.
Arnold – during the Bush years, Israel’s influence over US policy was basically passive. That sounds ridiculous, but it’s true. The US already had all the hare-brained ideas it needed without Israel contributing any of them. The fact that they synchronised perfectly with Israel was all the evidence needed to prove they were insane. Who can forget the US “adopting Israel’s enemies as their own”?
Obama does not have the same world vision as Bush, and nor does his administration. That is not hope, that is a fact. Thus the prism through which Obama’s foreign policy is viewed must not be the same as the one used for Bush, despite him being in the situation Bush created for him. We have now returned to the historical position that has prevailed with regard to Israel – where Israel effectively blackmails the US into conflating US foreign policy with Israel’s. Under Bush, Israel never needed to do that (they did it once actually, over Sharon’s reinvasion of the West Bank).
Obama does not like it, that much is crystal clear, and he has shown he is more than willing to turn Israel’s attempts to blackmail the US into US leverage over Israel. Nowhere is that clearer, or more applicable, than with Iran.
With regard to direct US dealings with Iran, you insist on judging him by Bush’s standards, a man who refused to talk to Iran until they suspended enrichment. Your assumption is that US policy is unchanged from Bush. I think there is categoric evidence that is not the case, that most of the problems that have plagued Obama’s attempts to deal with Iran have been created by Iran. I believe Iran initially wanted a deal, then because of the uproar at home over it, needed to reset the clock and start again, causing all sorts of aggravation over changing negotiating positions. El Baradei says as much in the Brazilian interview (and others). They have finally got there now, as El Baradei says. Unfortunately, in the meantime they have added another 600kg of LEU and 20% enrichment to the mix. So Obama has never been able to get past the poxy TRR deal and talk about all the real stuff that needs to be talked about. We haven’t had the chance to see what would happen if that were possible.
Similarly, your assumption is that the US policy toward the IAEA BOG will be the same as Bush. I disagree. It will be different, because he is not Bush, but we don’t yet know how different. Legally, there is no future in insisting on preventing Iran’s right to enrich, because it has no legal basis. Bush would insist, because he was thick, and because he and his mates wanted to bomb Iran come what may.
Finally, no remotely level headed policy wonk in or near the White House can seriously think it is tenable for the US to tie their future foreign policy to Israeli whims. Their most pressing concern is how to disentangle themselves from that disastrous situation. That means how to outwit the Lobby, and that is by far the most complicated question facing them.
Pollack’s accusation was that Erdogan is a demogogue, and an opponent of Middle East peace.
The WSJ today had an editorial, “Iran’s Nuclear Progress”: “We now stand months from Iran reaching a nuclear breakout capability”. Amazing rubbish.
The Wall Street Journal had some foolish comments by Robert L. Pollack today: Erdogan and the Decline of the Turks”. Pollacks is the features editor at the WSJ. “[Erdogan and Davitoglu] are domogogues appealing to the worst elements in their own country and the broader Middle East.” Also: “The outstanding question is how much damage they’ll do to regional peace going forward”.
Amazing rubbish! Turkey has been trying to achieve peace between Syria and Israel for years. And the US has in effect tried to block such peace. So Pollack accuses the Turks of being opponents of peace!
Castellio,
Of course I agree with you vociferously, that the US should have an ambassador in Tehran – - and that the failure to have representation there has everything to do with the Israel lobby and nothing to do with advancing American interests.
irshad,
Russia would welcome better relations between Iran and the US.
Iran was a strong critic of the Russian punishment of Georgia (August 2008).
WigWag,
I’m the last person you need to persuade that Americans don’t like Iran. My point was that public popularity contests ought not to determine whether the US maintains an embassy, or at least some channel of communication with another country (though I recognize there are probably a number of back-channel connections with Iran). After all, Nazi bombs had been falling on England for quite some time before we packed up our embassy tent in Berlin.
“Can anyone throw any light on the recent public criticism/remninder by President Ahmedinejad about the Russians and their game playing between Iran/USA and their agreement to 4th round of sanctions? ”
perhaps a more enlightening analysis than that of nytimes..
http://www.iranreview.org/content/view/5692/1/
“I believe the real reason Israel attacked the Turkish originated peace convoy, was exactly a warning shot, to prevent turkey sliding away from US hegemony,”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19519
from above analysis by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya;
“There was no “bad intelligence” on the part of the Israeli military as claimed by the Israeli media and Israeli apologists. The Israeli cabinet had several advanced meetings prior to the multi-national Gaza Freedom Flotilla’s departure. The Israelis could also have prevented the ships from running without boarding. “
Alan: Your sense of humour is appreciated. I hang my head in shame and volunteer to swab the decks for a month. It was James who wrote: “Turkish interests are not directly threatened by Israel.”
Forgive me. At least your question mark allowed me to link to an interesting snapshot of some popular sentiment in Istanbul.
And, to James, it is true that the word “direct” softens the impact of your statement, whatever the “street” might think.
Hi All,
Can anyone throw any light on the recent public criticism/remninder by President Ahmedinejad about the Russians and their game playing between Iran/USA and their agreement to 4th round of sanctions?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html
In my opinion, the Iranians will hit back at the Russians by expanding their ties with Georgia and the Caucasus region, where Iran has historical connections to it and also in Central Asia, but this will be done very subtly.
If Iran and USA can resolve their differences, apart from Isreal, the other biggest loser will be Russia…
Wigwag repeats “whatever the merits of this assessment might or might not be” when discussing American popular antipathy to Iran.
The U.S. media presents Iran in a ridiculous light, as a caricature. Having an ambassador would be taking a first step to getting beyond the cartoon. That is in the interests of America, and hence is a responsibility of the administration. I don’t for a minute believe the administration does not take the obvious step from fear of a popular backlash, but rather from a backlash of a special interest group.
Castellio – you’ve sent your commandos over the wrong ship rail. I haven’t said anything about Israel and Turkey.
Eric/Arnold – no, I don’t think there is a legal/technical link between suspension and non-compliance.
The reason I mentioned it is really the exact opposite to that – Iran could/should have been in non-compliance since 2003, but I suspect they weren’t because the IAEA was trying to build a working rapport, while politically, the threat was there that the non-compliance could be pushed through if the EU3 negotiations went nowhere.
My point is there is a clear sequence of political moves and countermoves, starting in 2003, that have seriously complicated the ability of the IAEA inspectors, through no fault of their own, to get the non-compliances resolved. Both the US and Iran are to blame, and one of them needs to break the cycle.
It is certainly true that the US under Bush sought to get much more than they were entitled to, and had no interest in breaking that cycle. At this point I don’t think the same is true of the US under Obama.
I’ll look at your other stuff on the other thread Arnold.
“There’s no Ambassador in Tehran because the American people despise Iran.” How do they feel about Hugo Chavez? (Eric A. Brill)
I don’t know, I’ve never seen any polling on how Americans view Hugo Chavez or Venezuela. I think it’s an educated guess that most Americans don’t know who Hugo Chavez is; elites may know but I doubt a majority of the American public does. On the other hand, a significant majority of Americans do know who Ahmadinejad is, and they do have strong opinions about Iran.
Whatever you may think of the issue on the merits, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans strongly disapprove of Iran and Iran’s President. Americans remember the days of the hostage crisis and my guess is that most think Iran wasn’t adequately punished for it (but that’s only a guess; I haven’t seen any polling on the adequacy of the punishment).
But there is ample polling to show that Americans detest Iran; in fact the Iranian Government is uniquely unpopular with Americans. Polling shows that large numbers of Americans consistently support an American military attack of one kind or another directed against Iran. I don’t think that it’s hyperbole to suggest that had polling been done on how Americans felt about Nazi Germany in the days before World War II, that the German regime and the current Iranian regime would probably be neck and neck in terms of how negatively they are viewed by the American public. By the way, Iran is far more unpopular with the American public now than China was when Nixon opened up relations with the Chinese. Nixon’s decision met with quite a bit of acclaim; if Obama tried to establish diplomatic relations with Iran, Americans would be aghast.
Whatever the merits of this assessment might or might not be, there is an answer to James Canning’s question about why there is no American Ambassador in Tehran; there’s no American Ambassador to Iran because the American people don’t want one there.
Alan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831496.stm
Kooshy: You have me, it’s a bit cavalier to talk about a Turkish-Russian alliance, but I do think we are moving onto “new” territory. I also think that there is an interesting German-Russian alliance that is currently in the making, and God knows history has things to say about that.
Its the economic interests that I’m watching. There are economic reasons to match German and Russian interests, and perhaps that will be true of Turkey and Russia as well. In any case, I throw it out there.
Castellio:
“Alan: Tell the people of Istanbul grieving their dead and wounded that Israel does not threaten Turkish interests.”
?
WigWag,
“There’s no Ambassador in Tehran because the American people despise Iran.”
How do they feel about Hugo Chavez?
I don’t deny that’s the reason, but you mention it as if you feel it’s a good reason.
I don’t mean to minimize the importance of your other reason – that Obama would not be re-elected if he suggested sending an ambassador to Iran. But that may be the case only because it seems to have become acceptable for the US not to have an ambassador with a country because we don’t like the country. Countries at war recall their ambassadors, but they typically wait until things get quite bad before doing so. With the US, it’s gotten a bit out of hand.
Alan,
“Iran restarting those activities contributed to the United States pushing a non-compliance finding through a Board of Governors vote – for political/strategic reasons. When you write this, to me it gives off a sense, even though you don’t say it directly, that you believe there is a legal/technical connection between a suspension and the non-compliance finding.”
This thought occurred to me too. If suspension had not been formally required for Iran to be in compliance, why should the end of suspension place it in non-compliance? I’d planned to answer that question for myself, if possible, by reading the IAEA reports for that period, but if you can shed some advance light on it, Alan, I’d appreciate it too.
Castellio
“Arnold: That’s absolutely to the point. I think that there is very little stopping an eventual rapprochement between Turkey and Russia, especially as Turks realizes that NATO, now an arm of the Pentagon, has no real passion for Turkish interests.”
For obvious historic reasons it would be hard to imagine, that there could be a strategic alliance of sort, between Turks and Russians or Iranians and Russians, if any, only short tactical political corporations for broader economic reasons feasible, currently for strategic alliance with the US turkey is developing to have the same problem Iran has, that is, it is losing its main support in the Muslim streets of Middle East if it sides with US on US’s regional policies, which as I mentioned US could not part away.
Main issues that turkey can’t openly suport are Iran/West, I/P,
“For example, why is there no American ambassador in Damascus? Or Tehran? Sheer lunacy.” (James Canning)
FYI, the Obama Administration has named an Ambassador to Syria; it’s Robert Ford and he is awaiting Senate confirmation. Ford is a career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Algeria. In addition to English, he speaks four languages: German, Turkish, French and Arabic.
There’s no Ambassador in Tehran because the American people despise Iran. In the last Gallup polling on the subject, Iran’s approval rating was around 10 percent. Iran’s approval rating is hardly better than Al Qaeda’s approval rating amongst Americans. The only other group to have a rating this low is Hamas.
In addition to the multitude of substantive reasons for not placing an Ambassador in Tehran there is one very practical reason; if Obama did it, he wouldn’t be reelected.
Ben Katcher has become a real expert on Turkey and I enjoy his posts. The one thing that I’ve never seen him write about is whether the Turkish military (army, navy and air force) are under the control of the Erdogan Government.
We’ve seen numerous discussions of whether the possibility that the military would mount a coup is over. The consensus amongst the experts as far as I can tell, is that the days of “military coups” in Turkey are a thing of the past.
But I’ve never seen a discussion of whether the Erdogan Government has alot of influence (or even any influence at all) in the disposition of Turkey’s military resources.
Is it the Turkish military who decides when and how Turkey’s military apparatus is utilized or is it the civilian government in Turkey that makes these decisions?
It would be very interesting if Ben wrote a post about this or directed his loyal readers to other experts who might know something about this subject.
Alan: Tell the people of Istanbul grieving their dead and wounded that Israel does not threaten Turkish interests.
Kooshy: agreed. A warning was intended to Turkey.
Arnold: That’s absolutely to the point. I think that there is very little stopping an eventual rapprochment between Turkey and Russia, especially as Turks realize that NATO, now an arm of the Pentagon, has no real passion for Turkish interests. Interesting and historic realignments are possible… but, easy to speak about, harder to realize.
kooshy,
As you know, Turkey has been trying to achieve a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. The Bush administration very foolishly failed to give support to this effort, and of course the insane rampage in Gaza drove the negotiations off the tracks.
When is Obama putting his nominee for ambassador to Syria up for confirmation?
Castellio,
Turkish interests are not directly threatened by Israel; instead, it is insane American actions intended to help “protect” Israel, that pose the biggest problems for Ankara. For example, idiotic US invasion of Iraq, relentlessly stupid US approach toward Iran, etc.
I believe the real reason Israel attacked the Turkish originated peace convoy, was exactly a warning shot, to prevent turkey sliding away from US hegemony, if that true then for sure US knew in advance. Currently US has no choice but to support Israel all the way even if there would be a larger war, but now is Turkey that has to decide if it is feasible to slide off, and how far is willing to go, a tough decision to make, considering internal politics as well as economic prosperity. Us through its client state, Israel is telling Turkey to sit down and don’t try to rise up if you want to be in the class room.
WigWag,
Turkey’s actions make it easier for Obama’s outreach to the Islamic world to succeed. It is American stupidity that causes many of the difficulties. For example, why is there no American ambassador in Damascus? Or Tehran? Sheer lunacy.
The Turkish/US alliance has historically been aimed at holding Russian influence in check for Turkey and keeping Russia from land access to the Mediterranean for the US. Turkey turning against the US would allow Russia to expand its influence and in the long run might provide Russia with a secure naval base in Turkey.
If the US connection with Israel causes Turkey to assist rather than restrain Russia, then domestic political considerations will have had very important long-term strategic consequences.
WigWag is dreaming, unless he wants to see the eventual death of 25,000 US soldiers. His investment in the yet to be realized Mosul-Haifa pipeline may be of less interest to the American people than the life and death of their children in Northern Iraq.
Alan:
One thing you do get if you start earlier though is the implementation of the suspension of enrichment related activities agreed with the EU3, and how Iran’s restarting of some of those activities in August 2005 appeared to directly contribute to the formalising of non-compliance.
!
Iran restarting those activities contributed to the United States pushing a non-compliance finding through a Board of Governors vote – for political/strategic reasons. When you write this, to me it gives off a sense, even though you don’t say it directly, that you believe there is a legal/technical connection between a suspension and the non-compliance finding.
I have two points about this: 1) The US’ goal of protecting Israel is shared by enough of the Board of Governors, either directly or because many countries are heavily susceptible to US influence, that the US can get any BOG finding it ever wants or needs that it believes will contribute to protecting Israel’s regional strategic situation. Because of that I don’t look at the Board of Governors as a neutral body. I’m sure Iran shares that perception.
You obviously dispute that perception. You claim that over time Iran can reverse that. It seems to me that you believe that because you want to believe it, not because there is any real-world indication of it. Which specific countries do you think are going to change their vote and allow Iran to become as nuclear-capable as Japan – which Israel considers a threat with or without an actual weapon – after what specific actions by Iran after what specific length of time?
You vaguely hope that Iran can change the minds of the Board, and I vaguely hope so too, but it seems to me that you rest a tremendous part of your analysis on that hope, so much that there should be tangible facts upon which you base your hope.
2) I’m interested in your perception of the suspension demand. If Iran actually did have a stock of fissile material that was somehow undetectable, suspending its safeguarded program would not help make that stock any less dangerous. I don’t see any connection at all between this idea that Iran should suspend enrichment. Suspending enrichment does not, to me, advance any legal or technical objective – but it does advance the political/strategic objective of maintaining an Israeli nuclear monopoly in its region.
You’re far more inclined than I am to seek justifications for US policy. Barack Obama and many other administration officials have said Iran must submit to its “obligation” to suspend enrichment. Do you disagree with me and believe there is a legal or technical basis for this demand? If so, what is that basis?
I’ve duplicated this from a previous thread. Please respond there if that’s OK.
WigWag,
“25 thousand American troops permanently stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan would be just the ticket to send an appropriate message to both Turkey and Iran.”
It’s hard to imagine what would be more conducive to world peace than this. My hunch is that things would settle down very quickly and we’d be out of there in just a matter of weeks.
If the US chooses not to remain an ally of Ankara, or to position itself as a regional competitor, then it is only a question of time until Turkey itself begins to look towards a nuclear arsenal.
I do not believe Turkey seeks a nuclear arsenal now, but I do think the Turks will not forever defer to a nuclear Israel with lopsided American support.
If America is actually working for a nuclear free Middle East and will treat Ankara, Tehran and Tel Aviv fairly, there will not be a problem. If the US defends (in practice) the Israeli nuclear arsenal and continues to treat nations with the extreme asymmetry of the present… it’s only a matter of time before Turkey realizes that its position/existence is perpetually threatened by Israel and that Nato has no bearing on its actual situation and defense.
America steps up to the plate and sets Israeli borders and limits Israeli power (unlikely), or all other nations in the neighborhood begin to take care of their own future as best they can, and sometimes work together to do so. They will not remain supine, no matter how many CIA actions there are.
There is no question that Turkey and the United States have diverged in their views on many issues. This is only likely to get worse; with recent Turkish political polls showing Erdogan’s political party falling behind their secular opponents in the next elections (2011) Erdogan can be expected to try to whip up support from his Islamist backers by taking an increasingly adversarial role with the United States. Erdogan’s political problems stem primarily from Turkey’s dismal economic performance; the problems with the Turkish economy are unlikely to abate in the near future. As the Turkish economy gets increasingly bad and as Turks become increasingly disaffected with the AKP, Erdogan will almost certainly become even more strident in the effort to win political support. None of this bodes well for Turkish-American relations; at least over the next couple of years.
All of this is very bad news for the Obama Administration which came into office convinced that it needed to forge a rapprochement with the Muslim World; Turkey is likely to make it much harder for Obama’s outreach to Muslims to succeed. My guess is that within the next year or two, Obama’s relationship with the Muslim world will prove more problematic that the relationship between George W. Bush and the Sunni nations. After all, Bush was unambiguous about his opinions and rightly or wrongly, his approach to the “war on terror” was out in the open for all to see.
Obama foolishly raised expectations in the Muslim world and when those expectations are thwarted, in part by Turkish intransigence, the disappointment is likely to be palpable.
Of course the real problem is that Bush was right and Obama is wrong; coddling the Muslim world accomplishes nothing. By projecting weakness, the Turks and everyone else feel perfectly free to snub Obama. From both his words and his actions, it is clear to the Turks that approaching friends and adversaries from a position of strength just isn’t in the Obama playbook.
If Obama and his colleagues had an ounce of strategic sophistication, the first thing he would realize is that instead of withdrawing from Iraq, the United States should take up the offer of the Kurds to base American troops there; permanently. The United States should assist the Kurds in expelling Sunni interlopers in Kirkuk, most of whom were placed there by Saddam Hussein. The United States should be helping the Kurds stabilize Erbil (not that they need all that much help)) and if he really had any guts, Obama should be supporting the Kurds aspirations to incorporate Mosul into their territory.
25 thousand American troops permanently stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan would be just the ticket to send an appropriate message to both Turkey and Iran.
A major flaw in Steven Cook’s comments, is his failure to grasp the fact US policies in the Middle East are often idiotic, to say the least. The US cleary is incapable of acting in the best interests of the American people. Surely Cook comprehends that fact. The American people have to hope other countries with a more sensible foreign policy take a greater leadership role in the region.
Turkey’s foreign policy regarding the Middle East makes more sense, and is far more in the best interests of the American people, than what comes out of Washington. Turkey is being a true friend of Israel when it says Israel should accept Syria’s offer of peace.
In a piece in the Financial Times today, Gideon Rachman and Daniel Dombey report that Henry Kissinger was “surprised” that Turkey made the deal with Brazil and Iran!
Can this be true, or is Kissinger only pretending to be surprised? See “Mapped out”, FT June 3rd.