(Photo Credit: usembassylondon’s photostream)
This post also appears at The Washington Note.
As The Washington Note Publisher Steve Clemons noted on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night and in this post about a New America Foundation/American Strategy Program event tomorrow with Noble Laureate in Economics Thomas Schelling, the question of how to cope with Iran’s nuclear program requires a serious, non-dogmatic analysis of what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran would likely be and how other states would likely respond.
One of the keys to any successful strategy toward Iran will be to garner the support of regional stakeholders. Turkey, which shares a border with Iran, enjoys friendly diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, and has a seat at the United Nations Security Council, is undoubtedly one of the key players.
I had the privilege of attending a press conference yesterday at the Turkish Embassy in Washington with Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who is considered the chief architect of Ankara’s increasingly active, forward-leaning foreign policy posture. The Foreign Minister was in town along with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for President Obama’s 47-nation nuclear summit this week.
Not surprisingly, the session focused on the challenges posed both by Iran’s nuclear program and the American-led drive for sanctions.
Davutoglu’s position was very clear. Turkey respects the right of every nation to develop civilian nuclear energy (Turkey is cooperating with Russia on its own fledgling program). At the same time, Turkey opposes nuclear weapons anywhere and everywhere – especially in the volatile region of the Middle East. Therefore Turkey supports Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear program, but opposes any effort Iran may make to weaponize its program.
While steadfastly opposing an Iranian nuclear weapon, the foreign minister offered several reasons for Turkey’s reservations concerning the American-led drive for sanctions. He noted that Turkey opposes sanctions in principle because they lead to destabilization and increase the likelihood of conflict.
On Iran specifically, Turkey opposes sanctions for four main reasons.
First, Iran is Turkey’s second largest supplier of natural gas. Turkey is not blessed with sufficient energy resources to meet its needs and does not have the luxury to cut trade ties with one of its most significant energy partners.
Second, Davutoglu pointed out that the people of Turkey and Iran share a broad cultural and historical relationship. One-third of Iranians are Azeri Turks and Tehran is the second-largest Turkish-speaking city in the world. Turkey is hesitant to support sanctions which will inevitably harm ordinary Iranian people.
Third, Iranian cooperation is key to preventing crises in the region and resolving regional conflicts including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel-Palestine.
Fourth, Turkey suffered in a very visceral way from the U.S.-led sanctions on Iraq following the first Gulf War. Turkey’s impoverished Southeastern region suffered from the decline in cross-border trade with northern Iraq. This economic instability, in turn, contributed to increased violence between the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the Turkish Army.
Instead of sanctions, Turkey supports more diplomacy. The foreign minister said that he continues to talk to the Iranians on a very regular basis and is encouraged by progress on the Iranian position with regard to the TRR “fuel-swap” proposal, though he refused to elaborate on that point.
Davutoglu also refused to comment on whether Turkey might support a sanctions resolution at the Security Council, noting that he could not comment until Turkey is presented with the details.
– Ben Katcher
IsraHell- The Fox, Liver Man and Bibi
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israhell-the-fox-liver-man-and-bibi.html#entry7349186
Not related to the topic but is interesting
The Jewish State is currently the world’s most terrorist state, that it is a genocidal democracy and is, not only a danger to world peace, but also a danger to our notion of humanism.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-boomerang-effect-by-gilad-atzmon.html
One might add to this piece, that Turkey’s primary natural gas supplier has been Russia. To lessen its reliance on Russia, Turkey wants to increase its imports of Iranian gas. How much noise has been made by foolish US Senators et al, regarding how important it is for Europe to lessen its reliance on Russian gas? Plenty. Yet some of these same foolish US Senators et al, want Turkey to remain reliant on Russian gas, in order to put pressure on Iran! Total imbecility. But par for the couse for so many seriously stupid – - if one is kind – - American senators and congressmen.
Fiorangela,
We do well to recall the astounding incompetence of Colin Powell, that did so much to set up the invasion of Iraq. Clearly he was living in a bubble, and sadly was a stooge in the hands of a vicious group of warmongers. The director of the CIA sadly was yet another stooge.
I agree with you Hillary is a w**** chasing after political backing, and playing her own game no matter how dangerous that is for the national interests of the American people.
Fiorangela,
Great post. Yes, I sadly was aware that Saban has neoconned Brookings. This is a dangerous development, obviously, and kudos to you for underlining the problem.
David Sheegog,
Your belief that Obama comprehends the stupidity of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and especially regarding Iran, is very doubtful. And I very much doubt Hillary Clinton comprehends the stupidity of US policy. Is she just acting the role of a lawyer, and carrying out the instructions of the client? This raised the question: who is the client? Obama? The American people?
David Sheegog: Several days before the Annapolis Conference in Nov. 2007, the Israel Project, a US 501-c3 that advocates in the US on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu, held its own conference, with (among others) David Wurmser in attendance. Wurmser stated that the problem with Iran is that it was confident of itself, and challenging other Muslim states in the region to be similarly confident, and to stand up and work on behalf of their OWN national interests rather than submit to Israeli or US domination (or words to that effect. I’m paraphrasing; you can listen here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/202444-1
James Canning: Hillary’s New York senate seat was financed by Haim Saban, who also purchased a chunk of what used to be a reliable establishment think-tank, Brooking Institute. One of the wealthiest men in the world, Saban made billions in communications industries, is an ardent zionist/advocate for Israel.
HRC is dancing with him what brung her.
How can anyone understand anything else?
It is less obvious to me why Ellen Tauscher has so totally “gone to the dark side.” Tauscher was on C Span this morning and appears to be thoroughly zionized; even though at least two callers presented strong and rather new, for C Span, critiques of Israel, Tauscher dismissed them with a wave of the ideological wand and held to her unsubstantiated assertions: Iran is a rogue state; Iran is in violation of NPT; Iran is world’s greatest terror threat.
I believe C Span moderators took on the disgraced Colin Powell mantle today, in that C Span did not asked the questions journalism 101 would have demanded: “On what do you base that assertion? What is the evidence?” As Cyrus said, C Span amplified the “built in assumptions” about Iran that Tauscher voiced and that we must assume are doctrine in the Obama administration. Instead of digging for support for these hidden assumptions, C Span moderator Susan Swain echoed Tauscher’s claims, referred to Iran as a “rogue” state, and recycled Trent Franks’ labelling of Iran as a “monster.”
I equate C Span with Colin Powell because C Span is perceived to be trustworthy by many viewers; it has no advertisers or corporate sponsors that it is compelled to serve; it really does not need to kowtow to anybody to retain access to sources; rather, people who want to be heard clamor to get a seat at C Span’s table. For C Span to lower its journalist’s standards is a very bad omen.
Pirouz,
Great photograph of your great-grandfather!
Most Americans are not even aware that the boundaries of the Persian empire for many centuries included what is now Turkey, not to mention Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, etc etc etc etc. And the Ottoman Empire of course included what are now numerous independent countries in the Middle East.
Hillary Clinton would serve the interests of the American people better if she advocated a policy toward Iran that was close to that of Turkey. Instead, she panders to Aipac etc. to a much larger degree than best serves the interests of the US.
The US should encourage Iranian integration into the region, rather than pursue the foolish, and rather childish frankly, policy of trying to isolate Iran.
Ben, fine reporting.
One thing, tough. Azeris in Iran are not referred to as “Azeri Turks.” They’re referred to as “Azeri-Iranians.” (My grandmother was particularly sensitive to this kind of thing.)
My Azeri-Iranian great-grandfather was one of the most prominent statesmen in Iranian history. Here’s a pic of him in 1894:
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/552/imxs.jpg
Any “analysis of the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran” has a built-in assumption that IRan is acquiring nukes, which is not something that should be taken for granted, and so it really just amounts to scaremongering.
However, note that the oft-repeated claim that a nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a regional arms race is nonsense. If one country’s nuclear arms would lead other countries to seek nukes, then any such arms race should be traced back to the original regional proliferator: Israel. Why are similar gloom-and-doom predictions of regional arms races not made when it comes to Israeli nukes? And furthermore, note that other countries in the region already have their own nuclear programs. Egypt, for example, was recently caught conducting experiments with highly-enriched uranium that were not reported to the IAEA, and there are still unexplained traces of HEU in Egypt. Finally, note that Argentina and Brazil have both developed their own nuclear enrichment programs..and yet no one claims that Latin America is about to fall to a tide of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Ben,
Excellent article.
Every article and post in this blog reminds me that in Nov 2003 Iran suspended enrichment on a promise from the EU3+1 that if they suspended enrichment that they would have their relationship with the western world ‘normalized’ and be brought into the WTO. The ME operatives in the Bush Whitehouse were fully on-board with the Europeans’ offer to Iran – UNTIL Iran shocked them by accepting the offer and suspended enrichment. Near panic then consumed the ME section of the State Dept with envoys sent all over Europe, and enormous pressure brought to bear on the EU3+1 to renege on the deal they had made with Iran, which they finally did formally in Mar 2004. Iran restarted enrichment. This bait-and-switch has important implications to this day, and seems to me to support Eric’s notion that since 2003 most of the so-called diplomatic activity surrounding Iran’s nuclear program may simply be laying the ground-work for war. From the EU’s bait-and-switch Iran learned that the West was extremely untrustworthy, and their old suspicions of Washington were doubled. Hearing the same rhetoric and diplomatic push from Obama as they heard from Bush has done nothing to build confidence – just the contrary. So to ask again Fiorangela’s question “why?”, one must go somewhere near Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis that despite the exceptional power of the Israeli lobby on US govt, that US governing elites desire this ME shit-storm for reasons not revealed in any speech or article anywhere. You can’t tell me that Hillary Clinton or Pres Obama don’t know what they’re doing. They are as smart as anyone on this blog, and even with less foreign policy experience than most of us writing here, they are logical enough to know that US’s whole ME policy makes no political sense. Some geo-strategic rationale is in play that has nothing to do with Iran nukes. So, what could that be? Is it possible that “keeping the ME safe for war” is the rationale. In part. But why is that desirable? Our buddy Israel has no need to fear Iran nor any other country in the region. As Jacques Chirac said a few years ago while he was still President, “if Iran launched a nuclear missle toward Israel, a counter strike would come before the missle had risen 200 meters into the air… and Iran would be completely destroyed.” If Kissinger were still hanging about our foreign policy apparatus, one might conclude that Iran must be made an example of, that the Ayatollahs need to learn who’s in charge, that the US can’t lead the world with Iranian defiance slapping us in the face… or some such nonsense. (Remeber when Kissinger told Charlie Rose that the reason the US had to invade Iraq was “because Afganistan was not enough”?) Is the Kissinger/Nixon approach to foreign policy still the model? Or is Iran simply the exception to general US foreign policy because of all that oil? Looking back on the foreign policy of the US since WWII, it is hard to see much sense in any of it except to feed our military-corporate complex, keep the whole world safe for war, and keep the public as frightened as possible. Is this a sustainable model?
Thanks, Ben. This is the kind of information Americans should be getting via their mainstream media.
If I recall correctly, Turkey’s major industry supplying Iraq and Iran with green produce was seriously disrupted during the “recent unpleasantness” — US invasion of Iraq. Has that industry been reestablished? I recall that warehousemen had to shutter their generations-old businesses and supply chains were severed. Turkey seems to be acting quite confident of late; perhaps some of these old trade ties are once again functioning; I hope so.
I also recall that in about 2005 (??), as a consequence of US sanctions on Iran, Turkish citizens died because Iran was not able to supply Turkey with sufficient fuel to keep Turks warm in a particularly harsh winter.
Is there anyone on the staffs of our congresscritters who are once again hot on the trail of punishing Iran who is even vaguely aware of the potential consequences of their vicious and counterproductive actions that could harm an American ally whose assistance American troops could surely use (air bases/supply routes in Turkey? ring a bell?)
Were any congresspersons represented in the meeting you attended, Ben? Was MSM represented? Credibly?