“IRAN CRISIS"&TURKEY’S ROLE

[DEBATING SECURITY: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES FOR TURKEY”
22 - 23 October 2010,Istanbul
My paper was in Working Group 2 Turkey and Regional Politics: Country-Specific Analysis. Title of my paper: "Iran crisis & Turkey's role in the Middle East" Schedule: October 23, 09:00-11:00 Held by: Arı Movement, Bahçeşehir University, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung]


Iran’s foreign policy has classical allegations to the Middle East. Before Islamic Republic, some policies were also valid for Iran. Iran has two related approaches in the region. First of all, Shiah card is useful for Iran, on the other hand, Iran also manipulates some societies as “Persian”. Kurds are one of the sample. Shah supported Kurds against to Iraq central government during “1962-1975 rebellion” why Iraq became closer with Soviet Union after 1958 military coup. However, US encouraged Iran to sign “Algeria agreement” with Iraq in 1975 because Iraq was approaching to Western axis. Iran sustains to use Shiah card after Islamic Republic. Iran has gained “a new influence area” after Gulf Wars. Southern Iraq’s situation became a pro Iranian zone in the Gulf.
I. Lebanon War (1982) was a starting point of Hizballah’s challenge in Lebanon. II.Gulf War (2003) also strengthened Iran to have a periphery in Iraq. Hamas’ coup in Gaza (2007) gave a prize to Iran for manipulating Gaza entity. There is an interesting point, Hamas is Sunni. But Hamas’ sectarian structure is not a problem for Islamic Republic. The main cause is related Iran’s challnge. Especially Iran is trying to attract Arab populations with using anti semitic and anti western populist discourse. Currently Iran has proxy forces in Lebanon, Gaza Strip and Southern Iraq.
In this context Iran has a greater infrastructure which occupies a geography from Eastern Mediterranean to Gulf. So US-Iran clash occurres in the Middle East. Islamic Republic underlines some cooperations with Russia and China. Also Iran is an observer in Shangai Cooperation Organization. Iran’s president Ahmedinejad has met leader of Venezuela several times. Firstly, we will touch Iran’s influence zone in the Middle East, after concern nuclear issues and political effects.

IRAN’S GREATER INFLUENCE ZONE
Iran must not be evaulated with only “uranium enrichment plan”. It’s a important tool. But firstly, political content of Iran’s approach must be undestood. Iran’s political activities reach to Southern Iraq, Lebanon and some of the Gulf states; which was called as “Shiah crescent”. Beside the situation, Iran’s influence to Iraq, after 2011, would create a competition on Iraq. Main competitors are Iran and US. Beside these developments, Lebanon’s situation seems to be hard in the near future. Hizballah founded a tangible “state within state” in Lebanon. Iran’s influence to Lebanon could be realized with Syria’s support. In this context Turkey’s policies to Syria is parallel with US policies. US policies target to isolate Iran. But Iran’s challenge to Eastern Meditarranean has two wings. In Lebanon, Hizballah’s “state within state” creates Hizballahistan and Hamas’ policies in Gaza Strip concludes with a Hamasistan. Hizballahistan-Hamasistan axis is not only against Israel but also against moderate Arab regimes. So Iran challenges to Israel, moderate Arab regimes and consequently Western axis in the Middle East. Turkish pro Islamic government activities can be commented with some diplomatic efforts to Iran or Hamas. But mostly main route about Turkish Foreign Policy to conform US strategies. However Turkey voted against sanctions on Iran's "uranium enrichment program". The behaviour is the indicator of Turkish cabinet's approach to Iran. As it is remembered, Turkey and Brazil cooperated with Iran to prevent probabl sanctions from UN. The three countries prepared a "trilateral declaration" and "swap of uranium deal" in May 17.
Turkey's vote was estimated why Turkey kept her position with Brazil about uranium swapping and declaration.
Recently, Turkey lived a crisis with Israel and her 9 citizens were killed in "Gaza flotilla". Israel is criticized harshly on the other hand sending flotilla to Gaza is considered. Iran supported Turkish government’s discourse.
Turkish-Iranian relations is very problematic for Western countries. Turkey’s efforts which targeted to break pressures on Iran failed.
For Turkey, having a sympathy to Hamas in Palestine and to having a sympathy to Hizballah in Lebanon, include also contradictions with Arab regimes.
The all of the policies from Turkish administration seem to support Iran and Iran's periphery.
China and Russia urge countries to obey sanctions against Iran.
Current Turkish foreign policy reach to a dead end. Pro Iranian approach has no provision for Turkey's foreign policy.
The behaviour is not only against US policies but also Russia and China. It means a conflict with "international order".
Can it be commented as a second "March 1" crisis? It can be harder why obeying sanctions would be absolutely expected from Turkey.
Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis from Lebanon to Gaza Strip is a real problem about pro western relations. Aforementioned axis is related with Iran. Iran as we told, has an influence zone from Southern Iraq to Eastern Mediterranean and Caucus. One of the approach from Iran to Caucus concludes closer relations with Armenia but colder relations with Azerbajcan. Iran’s Azerbajcan region became a main problem for Iran after Azerbajcan’s independence. Iran also tries to manipulate Azerbajcan with Shiah card.
“NUCLEAR IRAN” ISSUE
Iran's "uranium enrichment program" is significant why it has occupied the agenda of world public opinion. "Iran" issue is highlighted again and it is brought to the agenda format.
Iran's nuclear activities’ "peaceful" purposes is suspected. US and Western countries meanwhile Russia and China questions Islamic Republic’s targets. U.S. and Israel highlighted Iran's "nuclear studies to make nuclear weapons” since for a long time. “Dialogue with Iran" was considered by U.S. President Obama during G-20 summit October 1 2009 meeting. He has made a joint press conference with the French president, Sarkozy and former British Prime Minister Brown. Obama made a speech in the name of the three leaders and he especially underlined, the UN Security Council permanent members and Germany (5 +1) expected "tangible progress" from Iran.
IAEA condemned Iran to plan nuclear weapons in November 2009. After the resolution Islamic Republic exercised new long range missiles which have capability over 2000 km. . For instance Iran has done one of them in December 2009. Siccil 2 missiles was announced by Iran’s state run TV which is broadcasted in language of Arabic . It’s capacity reach to Israel and Southeastern Europe. Iran is perceived as a “pivotal” country and can attract a wide range region militarily. If nuclear warheads would be added to these missiles, Iran’s allegations may be commented very differently. It does not mean that Islamic Republic challenge to only the Middle East but to Center Asia and Southern Caucaus. With these developments Gulf Cooperation Council decided to found a joint military force in the region at the same time. (December 2009).
U.S. President and European leaders reflected a common attitude. Russian president Medvedev informed Obama that “heavy sanctions" to Iran is concerned. U.S. is planning to deploy the "missile shield" project in Poland and Czech Republic. Russia’s approach to Iran is also related to prevent missile shields in those countries why the issue can be related with themselves.
Turkish prime minister also visited Iran in October 2009. "Efforts to persuade" to Iran about nuclear issue can be observed in Turkey. Turkey’s Iran policy clash with the Western axis. Iran can gain time with these efforts. In this context “shifting away from the Western axis” is considered for Turkey.

SYRIAN FACTOR FOR IRAN’S REGIONAL HEGEMONY

Turkish foreign minister’s book which is called "Strategic Depth" indicates that Turkey can found a regional periphery with a great power. The great power may be concerned as US. He has found an opportunity to practice his ideas.
In this context, Turkish-Syrian rapprochement does not clash with the United States. Since the September 2008 New York meetings, US-Syrian dialogue is developed. Delegations from the U.S. Congress visited Assad two times, then Obama’s Middle East special envoy Mitchell was sent to Assad , and also US embassy in Syria which was closed since 2005 reopened in June 2009. Syria is becoming closer to the axis of the West, but also keep her alliance with Iran. US strategy plan to isolate Iran politically. In this backdrop, the Syrian-Israeli talks were facilitated by Turkey but the talks were suspended in December 2008 related Israel’s Operation Cast Lead to Hamas’ entity in Gaza.
Syria-Iran alliance is realized in Lebanon. Lebanon's Shiite alliance, the most prominent component of this alliance and Hizballah, in a sense, the presence of Syria's, arising from its alliance with Iran to the logistical and political support owed. At the point reached today, Hizballah, in Lebanon, has become a phenomenon in itself. However, Syria lack of a source in the medium term may cornered Hizballah, Iran also "well into his shell" can be taken.
About the press, allegedly developed under the leadership of Turkey, Turkey-Syria-Iraq rapprochement or, in fact, still is an extension of U.S. policy. Now Iraq is ally of US. And the Iraqi government, made a harsh warning to Syria, not to deploy "terrorist groups" in her land. So, Turkey's "neo ottoman" approach, to use initiative, consists of a fantasy. In Turkish foreign minister Davutoğlu’s "Strategic Depth" book, his claims are met. Prof.Davutoğlu underlined Turkey behave with a great power’s "shadow" , to be "regional power", but such moves are not available to more than subcontracting.
Let come Patriots. What does Iran say? "Do not take Patriots, we are your friends". "Enforcement of the" slowdown is likely these days, the Organization of Islamic Conference Secretary-General Prof..Dr.Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, warned the Western world with the following words. "In the invasion of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction cause was manifest. Now we do not create a reason the case for Iran." (Turkish cabinet to choose, with the logic to explain and boasts its own compasses.)
A possible military options against Iran comes to the agenda. The Middle Eastern Order is under threat of militant organizations. Generally we underline Iranian influence in the Middle East (ME) against Western relations. Especially Hizballah-Hamas line transformed as a pro- Iranian front and target Israel in the region and Western vision.
In August 2010, Syrian president Assad and Saudi king Abdullah visited Lebanon together. It indicates a crisis in the country. Why UN prosecution committee would announce indictment about Hariri assassination and there are some allegations that Hizballah is blamed in it. The main question is related the situation if there can be a new tension between Sunni and Shiite masses. On the other hand, Hizballah founded a Hizballahistan and Sunni PM Hariri the junior expressed his trust to Hizballah to defend his country from Israel. It also to give his country's sovereignty to Hizballah or at least to share Lebanon with Hizballah.
Saudi king supports Hariri and came to Lebanon with Assad to prevent any sectarian clash in the country. Syrian approach to Lebanon can be considered to patronize Amal and Hizballah. Amal is pro Syrian but Hizballah is pro Iranian and it is the symbol of Syrian-Iranian alliance.
As it is known Israel and Jordan were striked by rockets today (August 2, 2010). The interesting point, rockets were launched from Egypt. But Egypt did not realize the attacks. It is wondered that who striked Israel's Eliat and Jordan's Aqaba?
And there is one more entity strikes Israel. The entity is Hamas' Gaza Strip. Or the other name is Hamasistan..
A common approach is expected from regional countries and global actors against to militant organizations. And Iran’s main policy is related with the militant organizations.

CONCLUSION: TURKEY’S ROLE APPEASE IRAN?
Turkey is ally of USA, member of NATO, in EU accession process and member of European Council. These base is evaulated as associational alliance relations. We mean Turkey’s deployment in Western axis.
Iran’s approach to Turkey is going further with pro Islamic Turkish government’s political trends. Rapid conservatisation of Turkish masses facilitate Turkish-Iranian relations. However, Turkey is urged by EU and USA to keep Western position to Iran, especially nuclear issues. Turkish prime minister signed agreement with Iran includes natural gas and committed to develop bilateral economic relations’ volume.
Obama’s approach facilitates Turkish-Syrian, Turkish-Iranian relations which target to make dialogue with these countries. On the other hand Islamic Republic’s nuclear issue and proxy forces in Lebanon and Gaza Strip create main barriers. Also, Syria’s situation still sustain to send logistic support to these territories.
Iran’s most important strategy would occur in the Southern Iraq. Iraq’s Shia majority got the power and sectarian connections gave a determinance to Iran. KRG’s position will be considered with Turkey why they are in the Western axis. Current close approaches between Iran and Turkey is not realistic. After 2011, Turkey and Iran can become main competitors in Iraq.
Iran tries to break her isolation. Turkey’s efforts in the Middle East could conclude contradictions with pro western Sunni Arab regimes. Beside Turkey’s attitude, Iran’s approach to Turkey can not be like Syria. Syrian-Iran alliance is distinctive. Islamic republic’s great challenge targets Israel to wipe out from the map. Turkish-Israeli cold winter may reflect an illusion in this context. Why Turkish classical alignment with Israel lives a break. A probabl Israeli-Iranian clash would clarify crossroads for regional countries and Turkey.
Iran is going ahead on her own road map. So Turkish efforts to appease Iran is useless. Why Islamic Republic’s own agenda does not let a Western approach in the Middle East.





REFERENCE
Books:

Davutoğlu Ahmet, Stratejik Derinlik, Küre Yayınları, 32. Baskı, İstanbul, 2009.

Maloney Suzanna, Iran's Long Reach: Iran as a Pivotal State in the Muslim World (Pivotal State Series), USIP Pres Books, Washington D.C., October 2008.

Gold Dore, The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C., 2009.

Internet Resources:

Heinrich Mark, "IAEA votes to censure Iran over nuclear cover-up", Reuters, November 27, 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AQ1BZ20091127?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2550821720090925?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604

Spetalnick Matt and Heinrich Mark, "Western leaders warn Iran over nuclear site", Reuters, September 25, 2009.

Reuters, "FACTBOX: Iran's missiles and recent tests", December 16, 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BF2OR20091216.


Reuters, "U.S. to send ambassador to Syria after four-year hiatus", Haaretz, June 24, 2009.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1095268.html

THE REAL ISSUE IN THE ME: MILITANT ORGANIZATIONS VS. STATES....

The Middle Eastern Order is under threat of militant organizations. Generally we underline Iranian influence in the Middle East (ME) against Western relations. Especially Hizballah-Hamas line transformed as a pro- Iranian front and target Israel in the region and Western vision.
Recently Syrian president Assad and Saudi king Abdullah visited Lebanon together. It indicates a crisis in the country. Why UN prosecution committee would announce indictment about Hariri assassination and there are some allegations that Hizballah is blamed in it. The main question is related the situation if there can be a new tension between Sunni and Shiite masses. On the other hand, Hizballah founded a Hizballahistan and Sunni PM Hariri the junior expressed his trust to Hizballah to defend his country from Israel. It also to give his country's sovereignty to Hizballah or at least to share Lebanon with Hizballah.
Saudi king supports Hariri and came to Lebanon with Assad to prevent any sectarian clash in the country. Syrian approach to Lebanon can be considered to patronize Amal and Hizballah. Amal is pro Syrian but Hizballah is pro Iranian and it is the symbol of Syrian-Iranian alliance.
As it is known Israel and Jordan were striked by rockets today (August 2, 2010). The interesting point, rockets were launched from Egypt. But Egypt did not realize the attacks. It is wondered that who striked Israel's Eliat and Jordan's Aqaba?
And there is one more entity strikes Israel. The entity is Hamas' Gaza Strip. Or the other name is Hamasistan..
PKK strikes Turkey from Northern Iraq or according to Iraq constitution Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). PKK has a political wing which name is BDP in Turkish parliament. The seperatist terrorist organization provokes masses against Turkey why it does not want to break arms in "Kurdish opening". PKK demands to share power in KRG and Turkey as an armed group which has political wings in Turkey and KRG.
AKP government has contradictions against PKK terror. Pro Islamic administration supports Hamas and gives its sympathy to Hizballah. But the behaviour is also against to pro Western Sunni regimes.
The main problem, militant organizations reached to a power which can strike or threat the states in ME.
A common approach is expected from regional countries and global actors to militant organizations.

WESTERN NATION BUILDING LABORATORY: KURDS

Western history includes many interesting social engineering stories. One of them is about the Kurds.
Turkish nationalism is accepted as "late nationalism" why Turks has been the founder element of Ottoman Empire. However, Ottoman state has been based on Islamic infrastructure.
Turks understood that "they are Turks" in early years of 20th century. National Liberation War was the starting point of the state which was described with Turkishness. Before Lausanne negotiations, sultanate was abolished by Turkish Grand National Assembly. After Lausanne Treaty, Republic of Turkey was founded by the Turkish parliament. All of these revolutional steps were realized under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's leadership.
Atatürk created a secular infrastructure for Republic of Turkey. And the state abolished caliphate in 1924.
Main opposition to the secular republic came from Islamist-Kurdist feudal elements.
In early Republic Era, Kurds in Southern Eastern Anatolia were provoked by Sheiks in the context of Islamism and it was related with Ottoman identity.
On the other hand, late 1930's showed Kurdishness in Kurdish upheavals.
Kurdish opposition kept its silence until 1970's. Socialist opposition facilitated Kurdish organizations.
PKK was founded in late 1970's by Ocalan which was the Kurdish seperatist organization.
PKK began its attacks in 1984. US intervention to Iraq developed PKK's violence. Because US operation created a no fly zone. And it meant Kurdistan in Iraq.
At last second Gulf War, concluded with a new Iraq. Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) became official with new Iraq constitution in 2005.
US withdrawing plan from Iraq implicated a consensus between Turkey and KRG. US policy reflected to AKP government's policy in the name of "Kurdish opening".
But PKK rejected the plan. PKK did not accept to leave arms. The seperatist organization demanded to be political organization and armed group in the same time.
AKP's government underlined IHH and Gaza flotilla for 18 days. (May 31-June 18)Erdogan dreamt to be Middle Eastern leader and used flotilla. AKP did not get attention to PKK attack to Iskenderun naval base in May 31. It preferred to provoke flotilla event.
PKK started its attacks again in June 19. AKP tried to ignore PKK attacks. But the attacks shaped a tension in Western provinces of Turkey. In each day new martyrs have gone to these provinces.
Inegol and Dörtyol events are the main risks for national heritage. Ethnic clash is occurring.
We can see that Western countries achieve to build a new nation in the Middle East.
But the score is wondered about Turkey as NATO member and US ally country. Turkey's instability would feed Western failure in the region.

ISRAEL'S "IRON DOME" TESTED...

If it is remembered, we have underlined "Israel's Iron Dome Missile Shield" in January 2010.

deniz tansi international, "Israel's iron dome missile shield", January 7, 2010.
http://dtansi-international.blogspot.com/2010/01/israels-iron-dome-missile-shield.html

Israeli media emphasized that, "Iron dome tested succesfully".

Associated Press, "Iron dome passes final tests", Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=181936

And according to the sources, it will be active in November 2010.
What does it mean? As it is known, there are some expectations for further wars around Israel.
One of them is related Lebanon's Hizballah. And it is called as "III. Lebanon War". Or any scenarios are considered about Gaza which is stated as III. Intifada.
Israel is preparing a missile shield against Iran's proxy forces. Hamas-Hizballah line is so motivated for "wiping Israel off the map". It can be seen a provocative story.
However, Iran's possible "nuclear power" targets to change regions' balances fundamentally.
Hamas-Hizballah activities are part of these efforts.
Israeli defense ministry explained that, first Iron dome batteries would be deployed in November.
Iron Dome is unique for her kind.
Katyushas and Al Quassam's will be useless?
It can be an another question for the Middle Eastern clashes...

OBAMA PLAYS A GAMBLE ON TURKISH-ISRAELI RELATIONS

Obama administration plays some gambles in the Middle East. After Obama's presidency, new government planned a new version of "Arab peace plan". And Jordan's king Abdullah was promoted by new US president. Revised plan could not have concluded. Especially, Netenyahu's government disturbed Obama's policies why new Israeli cabinet included radical parties. For instance Lieberman became new foreign minister of Israel.
Israeli cabinet rejected many offers from Obama. Even Netenyahu's administration planned new settlements and did not approach to new peace plans.
Obama did not prefer to clash with Israel directly. So pro islamic AKP government seemed very attractive for "Democratic government"s policies. Erdogan started with "one minutes" event for anti Israeli discourse.
In 2009 there were many crisis between Turkey and Israel.
(drill crisis, serie crisis, in 2010 lower sofa crisis and so on..)
And at last Turkey and Israel clashed in the Eastern Mediterranean on date of May 31, 2010.
According to Obama's mind, an NATO ally's attempt to break Israel's Gaza blockade could be effective.
However these approaches only legitimized political Islam in Turkey and in the region.
Recently Erdogan and Obama met in Canada.
After the meeting, Erdogan declared to Charlie Rose from PBS TV, "Turkey still friend to Israel".. However, he challenged to Israeli government and told that, "Netenyahu government is the biggest barrier to peace". He added that, there must be an opportunity to Hamas why it won the elections.

ynet, "Erdogan: Turkey still friend to Israel", June 29, 2010. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3912596,00.html

Obama's trend facilitated AKP's pro islamic utopias. Erdogan projected Turkish FM Prof.Davutoglu's "problem solver" and "founding order" policies.
"Changing Israeli government" and "to become Hamas as full Palestine's government" is the new mission of AKP.
Erdogan's approach welcomes a new adventure....
There are new missions to AKP government from Obama administration. But Obama's style is very problematic. Turkish-Israeli relations reached a very risky point and Obama administration's policies built it. Obama plays a gamble. He uses pro islamic AKP to press Israeli government. And new environment encourages Erdogan to challenge in the Middle East. That's why I underline the adventure.
Obama's gamble could damage pro western axis in the Middle East and Iran's approach would gain from US appeasement policies.
Israel's cabinet can be critiziced or US policies can try to compress her strategic ally. But using AKP government for changing Israeli government is a gamble. Cabinets can change but Turkish-Israeli relations' long term vision is effected from Obama's gamble.

TURKEY'S VOTE IN UN SECURITY COUNCIL...

Turkey voted against sanctions on Iran's "uranium enrichemt program". The behaviour is the indicator of Turkish cabinet's approach to Iran. As it is remembered, Turkey and Brazil cooperate with Iran to prevent probabl sanctions from UN. The three countries prepared a "trilateral declaration" and "swap of uranium deal" in May 17.
Turkey's vote was expected why Turkey kept her position with Brazil about uranium swapping and declaration.
Recently, Turkey lived a crisis with Israel and her 9 citizens were killed in "Gaza flotilla". Israel is criticized harshly however, sending flotilla to Gaza is considered. Iran supported AKP's discourse.
Turkish-Iranian relations is very problematic for Western countries. AKP's efforts for breaking pressures on Iran failed.
For Turkey, has a sympathy to Hamas in Palestine and has a sympathy to Hizballah in Lebanon, have also contradictions with Arab regimes.
The all policies from AKP show to support Iran and Iran's periphery.
China and Russia urge countries to obey sanctions against Iran.
AKP's foreign policy reach to a dead end. Pro Iranian approach has no provision for Turkey's foreign policy.
AKP's behaviour is not only against US policies but also Russia and China. It means a conflict with "international order".
Can it be commented as a second "March 1" crisis? It can be harder why obeying sanctions would be absolutely expected from Turkey.

ERDOGAN'S STRATEGY TOWARDS A MIDDLE EASTERN ANXIETY...

Turkish PM Erdogan's Konya speech was very significant.(June 4, 2010) He has declared that, "Hamas is not a terror organization". This declaration was a challenge to Western axis especially US. In the same day, Fethullah Gülen (Turkish cleric and called as Turkish imam) who has a worlwide social network and also has a hegemony on Turkish politics and bureaucracy, urged AKP government indirectly. He has reminded that, before Gaza flotilla's moving fom Turkish coasts, there must have been a permission from Israeli authorities. Gülen told, IHH's show can be commented as political targets. Fethullah Gülen's explanations indicated that, these aids can be realized with Israeli cooperation and could be silent.
Hizballah held a meeting in Beirut and supported Erdogan government. Hasan Nasrallah who is General secretary of Hizballah criticized Arab leaders and praised Erdogan. Erdogan was praised by Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus too.
Erdogan cabinet's tendency to Iranian nuclear studies is known. AKP's targets reach to Hizballah and Hamas which are proxy forces of Iran in the Middle East. However Erdogan's approach clash with Arab leaders. AKP makes its political investments to Hamas. But what about Fatah?

Hamas blames Egypt and lauds Erdogan's administration.
Washington Post reminds that, Turkey is NATO member and US ally. In the article, AKP-IHH relation is questioned and IHH-Hamas ties are considered.

Washington Post, "Turkey's Erdogan bears responsibility in flotilla fiasco", June 5, 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060404806.html

NY Times urges that "Turkey's rhetoric go way so far".

NY Times, "Turkey's Fury", June 4, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05sat2.html?scp=1&sq=Turkey+is+understandably+furious+about+Israel%E2%80%99s+disastrous+attack+on+the+Turkish-flagged+aid+ship%2C%22&st=cse

Turkey can behave with Iran until to which date.. In each day, rhetoric's content creates an anxiety to Western countries.
Obama administration failed on the Middle East. Is US losing Turkey? Also EU's demands legitimated AKP's policies...
According to Al-Mustaqbal newspaper Erdogan would go Gaza with a flotilla and Turkish navy?
Being a "new Nassir" requires some costs... The cost is not only related with Turkey but also Western axis in the Middle East.

AT LAST, ERDOGAN ACHIEVED TO CLASH WITH ISRAEL....

Recent events about Turkey seem very pesimistic. One of them occurred in Iskenderun. Iskenderun naval base was striked by PKK terror organization. Unfortunately, 7 Turkish soldiers were killed by rockets.
On the other hand, international aid flotilla to Gaza, was intervened by Israeli commandos. 16 activist were killed -at least according to international news agencies-. And among the dead activist, Turkish citizens exist. And the ship which was intervened belong to Turkey.
In order to understand current situation of bilateral relations, we must analyze some developments.
As it is known, Turkish PM, used an anti-Israeli discourse since January 2009 which was called -one minute polemic.-
Drill crisis, serie crisis, lower sofa crisis were lived in the year of 2009. And at last "flotilla crisis" has come in May 2010.
First time, blood was considered for bilateral relations.
Israeli intervention caused killings. However, "flotilla route" was scheduled clearly and announced to world's public opinion. Expectation converted to a reality.
To destroy Israeli blockade on Gaza, was very attractive.
But the score is a great problem.
We are questioning the Turkish Foreign Policy "...to shift away from the Western axis." for a long time.
Israeli intervention must be critiziced hardly. But on the other hand, AKP government is reaching a target, -to break relations with Israel-.
Turkish attitude in UN Security Council about Iran and to support only Hamas in Palestine and to exclude Fatah is significant.
We wonder the next step from Erdogan...

US IS FIGHTHING WITH ANTI SANCTIONS APPROACH TO IRAN...

What an interesting situation..
US seems to persuade Russia and China for applying sanctions into Iran about nuclear facilities. Both of them are permanent members of UN Security Council like US.
On the other hand, some temporary members of Security Council attempt to blockade sanctions on Iran.
Brazil and Turkey are significant..
But especially Turkey why she is ally of US, member of NATO and in EU accession process.
US Secretary of State telling to Turkish FM Davutoğlu that "Iran is not serious about accepting international demands to prove its nuclear program peaceful. She said Tehran must face fresh penalties unless it does a quick about-face and complies."

Matthew Lee, "US tries to blunt Iran anti-sanctions push", Associated Press Writer, Tulsa World, May 13, 2010. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_IRAN_SANCTIONS?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Turkish Foreign Policy has some suspicions on herself why there is a perception that she is shifting away from the West. Turkish approach to Iran is very problematic.
It is just like an "appeasement policy" on Iran's nuclear efforts.
What will Turkey do to a potential sanction resolution draft in Security Council?
Turkey's aim to be a facilitator or mediator between Iran and US? It is not realistic.
Turkish anti Israeli discourse has an ideological content. It targets to draw a spectacle periphery but includes contradictons. Arab countries and Iran has not a common axis. Anti Israeli propaganda can create an attraction on Turkish PM.
However, Arab regimes and Iran do not have a similar approach. Iran's nuclear efforts also distur Arabs.
So what is the construction of AKP's foreign policy..
To sustain relations with US, to appease Iran, to develop relations with Russia and to be leader of Arabs in spite of pro Iranian approach..
This is a dead end.
And has not a tangible future..

ERDOGAN: "MAIN THREAT IS ISRAEL"

In Paris, there was an interesting meeting. Turkish PM Erdogan visited French president Sarkozy. After his meeting with Sarkozy, Erdogan made some comments about Turkish-French relations. Meanwhile, Sarkozy accepted to come to Turkey as an official visiting.
But the significant point of Turkish PM's to the media was related Israel. He has blamed Israel about Operation Cast Lead again and he repeated his condemnation. Erdogan insisted that "Israel's reasons are not valid" like his previous declarations.
Recently, he had a polemic with Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman why Lieberman told "Erdogan behaves like Gaddafi". He responded that "Lieberman (that man) is not my counterpart."
Erdogan's most intensive and radical challenge occurred in Paris.
He allegated that, "Israel is main threat to Midddle East Peace." As it is known, there is a campaign against Israel about Middle East Peace Process. US president Obama lived a high tension with Israeli PM Netenyahu. US has urged Israel to conform new Middle East Peace Process. Israel was especially concerned to make new settlements in West Bank and Jerusalem.
Also Jordan King Abdullah who is the one of Obama's good friend declared his approach to Israel. According to him, Israel can not be trusted for new attempts which target to reach Peace Process in the Middle East.
However Turkish PM's prospect to Israel becomes more radical in each step. Turkey's status quo in the Western axis contradicts with Erdogan's aspects.
Turkey and Israel are allies of US. Both of the countries has relations since 1949 with each other. Turkey is the first country recognized Israel in 1949 which has a Muslim majority population and was unique until 1978. Why Turkey took place in Western bloc and constructively secular.
Currently there are problems in the Middle East. Israel's cabinet has paradoxes in the Peace Process and Palestine problem. Extremist elements in Israeli cabinet also create problems for Israel's foreign policy.
On the other hand, Turkish PM's two different statements reflect his real aims. He told recently "my dear friend Ahmedinejad" in one of his speech and the last declaration he challenged "Israel is the main threat in the region."
Turkey as it is known-NATO member and US ally country- and her PM prefers Iran in the Middle East and stated Israel as a "main threat." Beside US, EU has an appeasement policy on Iran.Pro islamic cabinet in Turkey uses the process.
If it is calculated, "more conservative Turkey" would clash with the Western axis in the long term. Erdogan also praises Hamas and Hizballah in the region.
Now, EU accession process is used to eleminate secular republic in Turkey. AKP's aim to support Iran ironically shows EU's political investments in Turkey. Also Obama's administration would not get Turkey's vote in UN Security Council.
Western countries can think now.
"Turkey Quo Vadis"

ERDOGAN'S CHALLENGE IN ARAB LEAGUE

Turkish PM Erdogan challenged to Israel during Arab League which is being held in Libya's city of Sirte.
Erdogan specially urges Israel for new settlements in Jerusalem, to give up announcing Jerusalem as united capital and declare tombs in east Jerusalem as Israeli cultural heritage. Turkish PM also stated that, Islamic countries never recognize Jerusalem as Israel's united capital. According to him, Israeli policies can be evaulated with the "madness" word.
Turkish pro Islamic government is living problems in domestic policies. New constitution offer to be rejected by opposition parties, trade unions and some NGO's. However, AKP tried to describe new offers as EU democratization process to Turkish public opinion. Plus, used "referendum tool" to press opposition. But the fact about new offers is clearly known, to press secular high judiciary. Despite AKP's plans, opinion polls show, new constitutional changes can be rejected with a 61% majority. Beside the situation, some of AKP's MP's, started to declare their negative attitudes to new offers.
In this context, pro Islamic government, applies foreign policy to gain new votes in Turkey. Neo Ottoman approach generally is concerned about AKP's propaganda.
Erdogan's anti Israel discourse is parallel with Obama's administration in US. Even though, there is a cold ambiance with Turkey and US related Armenian resolution from US Congress (House of Representatives International Relations Committee).
Turkish PM uses the high tension between US-Israel governments. Obama's behaviour to Israeli PM during Netenyahu's White House visiting, reinforced the process.
New Middle East peace process is encouraged by Obama, but Israeli government's policies and resolutions break US president's plans.
The important point, Arab League's general secretary Amr Moussa, urged Arab countries about Iran's efforts to make nuclear weapon. And Arab League is preparing a regional iniatative which would include non Arab countries (Turkey and Iran)
Erdogan's challenge is intensively related AKP's political situation. His approach to nuclear Iran, can be observed in his discourse.
But application is sensitive. If Turkey does not conform any UN sanctions or US demands to nuclear Iran, there can be constructional problems with her allies. So Erdogan's policy to Iran seems to be harder than to Israel.

ISRAEL-US TENSION

The year of 2009, became new administrations' taking office in US and Israel. Barack Obama started his presidency in January 20, 2009. In Israel; February 10, 2009 elections created a coalition environment as usual. Kadima concluded the race as a first party, on the other hand Likud raised her votes. Likud was fourth party in 2006, but in 2009 deployed as a second party.
Tzipi Livni who was the foreign minister and chairwoman of Kadima, was more popular than Netenyahu in the Western countries. However, Netenyahu founded the new government with far Right parties plus Labor Party.
Israel Beytinu's leader Lieberman was deputy PM about strategic relations in Olmert's cabinet, he was appointed as a new foreign minister in Netenyahu's government. Ehud Barak who is the leader of Labor Party kept his situation as a defense minister in new administration.
Obama seemed closer with Islamic world and there were suspicions on him from neo cons in US and Israel. Despite Obama's reason, Netenyahu's government used more radical discourse than Olmert. Middle East Peace Process was suspended in new era and Annapolis Peace Process was forgotten.
Netenyahu government has taken a base from previous cabinet with Operation Cast Lead. And preferred to freeze the peace process.
Netenyahu supported new settlements in West Bank. Recently Israel's interior minister announced new 1600 buildings in West Bank during US Vice President Biden's visiting to Israel. It raised the tension for bilateral relations.
Beside these developments, Israel announced about two tombs to belong to Israel's cultural heritage and opened a historical synagogue just near Al Aksa mosque.
Netenyahu has declared several times, "an independent Palestine air space would be controlled by Israel, West Bank-Jordan border would be defended by IDF.
And also rejects to negotiate Jerusalem's situation and refugees returning to Palestine.
The photograph weakened Fatah in West Bank and strenghened Hamas' position in Gaza Strip.
But there is a point which must not be forgotten. It is Iran.
Iran's nuclear program could shake the regions' balances. US does not want a possible Israel's unilateral intervention to Iran. However, underlines Iran's situation and running the anti Iran campaign about nuclear Iran.
Iran is the key of US-Israeli relations and the Middle East's future.

WHAT IS GOING ON "IN TURKEY"?

Recently, there are some articles on Turkey's political chaos. Especially, Soner Çağaptay and Daniel Pipes' comments reflected the situation about Turkey. Newsweek underlined Turkey's reason as "army is beaten" statement.
In fact, "what is going on in Turkey?"
From 1999, Turkey became an offical candidate for EU membership. Consequently, EU accession process started for Turkey. It means new EU adoption applications began to form Turkish politics.
Bülent Ecevit was the PM during the event. Turkey has lived a convulsive economic crisis in 2001. And "transition program to substantial economy was concerned." It meant that, a very hard economic-social policy against middle and lower classes. Why financial balances and public depth were alarmed. And new program came to agenda with IMF stand-by agreement. Kemal Derviş who was the vice chairman of World Bank was appointed to deputy PM about economic relations.
So, hard program was applicated successfully however middle and lower classes declined with coalition government.
On November 3 2002, Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the elections and gained 34% of votes.
AKP was fragmented from Milli Görüş movement. In February 28, 1997 Turkish army pressed for a radical change in National Security Council about National Security Policy Paper. Reactionism (irtica) means religious fundamentalism as a main threat for national security beside ethnic seperatism.
Necmettin Erbakan was the PM and chairman of Welfare Party (RP). Turkish Armed Forces intervened to the politics indirectly. Briefings to the media and high judicial instutions was given by Turkish army about irtica.
Erbakan had to resign from PM in June 1997. And was banned from politics. Erbakan's opposition in RP, started a challenge why he has fought with the West. Firstly "innovators" in Virtue Party challenged to Erbakan's approach which was founded instead of RP and determined a candidate for leadership. He was Abdullah Gül. FP gained 15% in 1999. And was the main opposition. FP was closed in 2001. Erbakan's friends continued with Felicity Party (SP). But Erdoğan's political team deployed in Justice and Development Party (AKP). Erdoğan was the charismatic mayor of Istanbul and was prisoned about a poem in 1998. He was punished for 3 months and became the other "banned leader". Supported Gül in FP.
At last, AKP was founded in 2001, in 2002 elections Erdoğan couldn't become a candidate for MP. Republican People's Party cooperated with AKP for constitutional change and Erdoğan was elected in mid-term elections as MP and founded new government in 2003 after Gül. The time was after March 1 crisis. Turkish parliament rejected US' demands for using Turkish territory for invading Iraq.
July 4, 2003 "sack crisis" was an another step about Turkish-US crisis. It was the operation to Turkish soldiers from US soldiers in Northern Iraq. Despite crisis, Bush administration collaboreted with AKP government in the name of "Moderate Islam".
US planned Turkish pro Islamic government to be ahead on pro western Arab regimes such as Lebanon, Jordan and the others.
AKP used first term (2002-2007) with EU plus IMF anchor. EU process eventually changed army's situation in Turkey. On the other hand, AKP manipulated the reason for her benefits. Army's role in politics is not resourced only from Republican or Ottoman history. It was about 2218 years. Turkish state tradition began with founding the army.
Some commenters concern only Republican process. Founder of Turkey Republic Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his friends were mostly officers. Atatürk preferred a modern state after National Liberation War. Main target was to reach democracy. After Atatürk, in 1946 Turkey passed to multi party system, it indicated Turkey to be deployed in the Western axis.
In Cold War era, Turkish army realized 3 coups and February 28. Interventions were parallel with US foreign policies.
AKP also has some ultra liberals supports. But the main contradiction, AKP's objection to found a new society. Some ultra liberal elites do not care the situation. September 12 1980 military coup pressed the leftists but to strength religious groups against communism. It was about green belt policy with parallel US, just like Pakistan's Ul Hak. General Ul Hak and General Evren behaved similar. Both of them gave compromises to religious policies. Fethullah Gülen bargained with General Evren to determine his supporter's to vote to the new constitution.
AKP, reversed its second term without EU anchor. After Bush, Obama concerned "model partnership" during his visit to Turkey. He has demanded Armenian and Kurdish openings from Turkish government.
AKP's second term sustained more agressively. Turkish PM Erdoğan challenged to Israeli president Peres to criticize Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. But Turkey was facilitator until December 2008 between Israel and Syria.
From June 2007, Ergenekon case caused several arrests of academicians, officers. Balyoz case, arrested top military officials in February 2010.
AKP is fighting with army and high judiciary.
2011 elections is the main cornerstone for new plans. AKP expects to change the constitution in the context of EU, but main agenda includes to convert to parliamentary system to presidency system. New system's content can be completed with a new Middle East Federation which would give up nation state, secularism and Turkishness and to build an infrastructure as Muslim brotherhood. Moderate or radical Islam?
The main problem is Iran. AKP tries to get a balance among US and Iran. And new cooperation in Northern Iraq, underlines Sunni Muslim brotherhood. It could be against Iran's Shia position.
If we summarize, Turkey was used as a labaratory by Western powers. Currently, I read some evaulations as "Turkey is shifting away from the West."
Anticommunism feeded fundamentalist and antisecular movements during the Cold War.
Solution is nor militar neither civil dictatorships.
Turkey's NATO membership, EU accession process and membership to European Council stays on the table. Relations with Russia, China or regional countries is natural in post cold war era. But not an alternative to the Western axis for Turkey. Graham Fuller's approach is not substantial and he praises Fethullah Gülen. His book which is called New Turkey Republic declares the real agenda which is related to build more conservative and antiwestern society.
In spite of the situation, AKP government has intensive relations with US.
An antiwestern infrastructure and pro western superstructure.
Is it realistic?

TRILATERAL SUMMIT IN SYRIA...

Last nigth, there was an interesting dinner in Damascus. Iran's president Ahmedinejad, Hizballah's leader Nasrallah were hosted by Syria's president Assad.
Iran and Syria abolished visa application with each others. And both of the leaders teased US Secretary of State's statements about Syria. Hillary Clinton urged Syria to move away from Iran. Their respond to Clinton to cancel visas.

The Jerusalem Post, "Trilateral meeting in Damascus", February 26, 2010. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=169748

As it is known, US opened her embassy in Syria after 2005 assassination to Rafik Hariri who was PM of Lebanon. Why Syria was blamed about the attack.
Syrian-US relations developed since September 2008. US Secretary of State (Rice) and Syrian Foreign Minister Muallim attended the meetings between two countries' delegations in New York. New US administration sent two delegations plus Obama's special envoy Mitchell to Assad. And as it was underlined, US decided to re-open her embassy in Damascus. Also US encouraged Turkey to develop ties with Syria.
All these efforts by US seems to be closer with Syria. It's meaning to isolate Iran in the Middle East. Syria's approach to US, is not clear. Syria prefers to keep her alliance with Iran. Syrian-Iranian alliance sustains since 1980's. Hizballah in Lebanon is the tangible outcome of the alliance. Beside Lebanon's situation, Syria-Iran associates in Gaza. Their collaborator in Gaza is Hamas. Hamas' leader Mashal lives in Syria.
In spite of being closer with US, Syria does not give up her alliance with Iran. Sometimes Syria uses the multilateral relations as a bargaining tool in the region. But this policy has a risk potential for Syria and the all region.
Syria and Iran declared a Middle East without Israel and US. It can be commented bilateral alliance would fight against Western axis in the near region. Syrian-Iranian axis also target Arab regimes. The critical point is Lebanon. Lebanon's pro western PM Saad Hariri, agreed Hizballah's militant power against Israel. It can be decoded Hariri does not only share coalition government with Hizballah but also agrees to share state of Lebanon's sovereignty. Why Nasrallah who is the leader of Hizballah's existence is significant in Ahmedinejad-Assad summit.
If Lebanon can be converted as a Hizballahistan, it would a model to Arab world despite sectarian differences. Shia crescent's extension and main front is Lebanon.
Secondly, Iran's challenge to produce nuclear weapon would also create a pressure on Arab states.
Thirdly, Iran uses neighborhood relations on Turkey which is US ally and member of NATO. At least Iran tries Turkey to be neutral any further conflicts between Iran and Western forces plus Israel.
Fourth item about Iran to develop ties with Russia and China. Iran is currently an observer member of Shangai Cooperation Organisation. Beside the affiliation Iran has relations in Southern America. Venezuela is an important example of it. Venezuelan leader showed his support to Ahmedinejad several times. Iran attempts to be a part of anti Western world and achieves. It's tangible scores can be perceived in UN.
Global leader US and so called regional leader Iran would clash one day?
But Iran develops her process in each day. Iran aims to blockade Israel with Syria, Hizballah and Hamas.
Syrian-Iranian axis challenged with "trilateral summit" against US,Israel, Arab states and Western countries.
It has a potential for further conflict risks. And Turkey's situation is so critical about US-Iran clash. US raises her pressure on Turkey why US and Turkey are allies.
Turkish administration's calculations must be rational.

"VALENTINE DAY" IN LEBANON

Today, in many where, St.Valentine Day is commemorated between lovers. It is also called as "lovers day". But our subject is not Valentine Day.
5 years ago, Lebanon PM Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. Syria was blamed about killing. Syrian administration rejected the allegations. However Syria has withdrawn her troops after the assassination from Lebanon. As it was remembered in UN reports Syria was blamed about the Hariri assassination and there was a heavy pressure on Syria.

BBC News, "New Hariri report 'blames Syria'", December 11, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4519346.stm

Syria-Iran alliance's main exercise area is Lebanon and as we have stated before, Hizballah's existence was resourced by the alliance.
New cabinet in Lebanon was founded by Rafik Hariri's son Saad Hariri.Saad Hariri won the elections in June 2009 with March 14 coalition. The other name of the coalition is Cedar Coalition. Saad Hariri is pro western just like his father. Saudi-US common aproach supports Hariri. Hariri's pro western Sunni axis meet with moderate forces in Lebanon.
Hariri became PM in Lebanon in November 2009. In spite of the political clashes Hariri invited Hizballah into his cabinet. Hizballah is sharing the government with two ministers but they are also main opposition. Hariri's seats' were enough about forming the govenment without Hizballah but he has included Hizballah in the context of keeping the territorial and national integrity.
In May 2008, Hizballah captured Beirut and also invaded Hariri's buildings. After 1990 Taif accord, armed groups has left their arms in Lebanon except Hizballah. Hizballah fougth against Israel especially in Southern Lebanon. Israel ended her invasion in 2000. So currently Hizballah is "state within a state" in Lebanon.
Saad Hariri had blamed Syria about his father's assassination. However he visited Syrian president Assad after he became PM. Hariri is trying to keep balances in his country. Different balances mean different foreign political interventions and collaborators.
Hariri preferred to underline Israeli threat on his political agenda why it can be concerned as a common ground with the different political fractions. And he stated that, "if Israeli-Hizballah conflict occur,we will support Hizballah in the name of our land's defense."

Hana Levi Julian, "Lebanese Gov't Officially Backs Hizbullah Terrorist Group", Arutz Sheva.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135946

It means to give up nation state structure and Hizballah's power related "state within a state". Lebanon government unofficially agreed Hizballah's armed body and political entity. Or Hariri's admininistration had to recognize Hizballah's tangible political-militarily sovereignty.
Today's demonstrations about Hariri assassination in Lebanon is very significant. Hariri's son is PM during the anniversary. He has emphasized "March 14 coalition still exist".

AFP, "Lebanon marks fifth anniversary of Hariri assassination", France 24. http://www.france24.com/en/20100214-lebanon-marks-fifth-anniversary-hariri-assassination-march-14-syria

Any clashes with Israel would empower Hizballah in the country. Hizballah's main ally Iran in under pressure about "nuclear issue".
So Hizballah's political support can realize with a new clash.
Hariri's situation seems very problematic.
He gives compromises to Hizballah and Syria-Iran alliance to maintain his cabinet's existence.
Syria has some developments to progress her relations with US and Western powers. Syria's consultations with US sustains from September 2008 meeting which US Secreatary of State Rice and Syrian foreign minister Muallim attended. Obama administration in US is sending new ambassador to Syria after 2005. Syrian-Israeli indirect negotiations sustained until December 2008 under Turkish facilitating.
Jumblatt who is the leader of Druze's Lebanon criticized Assad and Syria several times but he approaches Syria just before.
February 14, 2010 is an effort for March 14 to show their massive ground. On the other hand Hizballah's current structure is a main barrier to keep Lebanon's integrity.

IRAN: TO A MIDDLE EASTERN CHAOS?...

World public opinion concerns Iran issue intensively for the last years. Especially suspicions on Iran to make "nuclear weapon" is discussed. Generally two different approaches about Iran's nuclear program. One of the idea tries to underline Iran's nuclear enery right. The other approach to allegate Iran's nuclear program does not target to use nuclear energy. It is only an illusion. Islamic republic covers her real goal to have nuclear weapon.
In fact, nuclear program became a prestige subject for Iran. We can remember last Iranian elections which was held in June 2009. The opposition rejected the conclusions and demonstrations contiuned for the weeks.
On the other hand, "to have nuclear weapon" is an instrument for Iran's foreign policy.
Iran's challenge deploys from the Eastern Mediterranean to Persian Gulf. Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the parts of Iran's main policies. We can underline these militant organisations as "proxy forces" of Iran. Iran disturbs Israel with the fundamental Islamic elements, also gain popularity in the Middle East geography. And we must note that, Iran does not only invest Shia parties but also radical Sunni organs like Hamas.
Hamas and Hizballah founded their entities in Gaza and Lebanon. Southern Iraq became an Iran's sub influence area. Yemen's militants are so important, they clash with Yemen and Saudi Arabia. In this context Iran could reach Eden.
Iran's main infrastructure gain her moving point from Syria. Syria-Iran alliance keep cooperation to feed Hizballah-Hamas. Iran-Syria alliance stands versus pro western Sunni Arab countries.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon (PM) and Egypt draw pro western Sunni Axis.
Iran started her "uranium enrichment plan" Tuesday. (February 9) There are two different evaulations about Iran's challenge. One of them it is only a bargaining method for Iran, the other is to enter cul-de-sac.
Iran's administration is living a legitimacy problem. So Iran became more agressive. However, the most wondered question includes if there is a cost benefit analyse.
Turkey's situation is very problematic. Iran is Turkey's neighbor, US is her ally. And Turkey has main ties with West. Also member of NATO.
Turkey's balance sustained until current environment.
Suppose, if Iran-US conflict occurres, how EU, NATO, US allies would behave. Support US or Iran?
The question is ironic. So I repeat to ask the same question to Turkey.
That is the cross road for Turkish Foreign Policy in the post cold war era.
Pro Islamic government in Turkey uses anti Israeli or pro Iranian discourse, but Turkey's main route related with the Western axis economicaly, militarily and politicaly. Turkish-US relations is sustainable and AKP government awares it. AKP maintains relations with US strongly.
Turkey's efforts to develop ties with Syria is not against West why US supports the policy to isolate Iran.
Iran's last decision could be a starting point of the Middle Eastern chaos.
Turkey's behavior will be the key reason to prevent conflict or to live the armed conflict.
Turkey's neutral situation is coming to a decision making time.

NATO'S STRATEGIC CONCEPT II (CHANGES to NATO’s STRUCTURE, FORCES and CAPABILITIES)

(I contunie to evaulate NATO's new strategic concept in NATO's discussion blog. Today parallel to NATO's discussion forum headline, I consider, CHANGES to NATO’s STRUCTURE, FORCES and CAPABILITIES)
Best regards:
D.T.

21st century brought “new threats” to world’s security. First of all, beside regular armies and headquarters system, NATO’s structure must also include flexible and rapid troops. I mean more and smaller bases, forward stations from the Middle East to Center Asia.
Currently, fighting with terrorism is not an exception. Like Al Queda there are new types of terroristic organisations. NATO countries’ internal infrastructures have to develop intra network against terrorism. Military operations and criminal network must have a regular interaction.
Non state actors have to be described clearly in NATO’s concepts. And the infrastructure can be evaulated for new types of counter terror activities.
Not only non state actors but also some countries can threat world’s stability. Non proliferation of WMD is one of the essential mission of NATO. Afghanistan’s stability is so important why Taliban is also active in Pakistan and could capture nuclear weapons in Pakistan. North Korea’s situation and Iran’s position is so important.
North Korea can destabilize Pacific’s situation. On the other hand, Iran has a regional periphery from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Iran can activate Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Islamic Republic has connections with Shia militants in Yemen and has a tangible influence in Southern Iraq. If Iran would have nuclear weapon(s), regional balances will be broken against Western axis.
So NATO is in a critical examination. Non-proliferation is related with diplomatic activites but if the countries can not be persuaded with political attempts, NATO’s structure provides “persuasion” with deterrence. It means “hard power”.
I will summarize my approach with these outlines:
* NATO will keep her regular forces
* NATO will produce smaller and rapid forces in the “out of area”. It provides more bases and forward stations.
* NATO’s new threats: Terrorism, proliferation of WMD, dictatorships
* NATO’s operations currently deploys from Balkans to Center Asia.
* NATO’s enlargement will reach Japan and Australia. It means transatlanic relations will enrich Pacific depth.

My comment's link is below:
http://natostratcon.info/2010/01/11/natos-transformation/comment-page-2/#comments

ABOUT NATO'S NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT...

As it is known, NATO will determine her new "strategic concept" in this year.
I have written my comment on NATO's official web site, "NATO's New Strategic Concept Discussion Forum" page. The discussion headline included "NATO transformation."
There are many different approaches about "new strategic concept". Here is a short evaulation from me. I will consider the issue intensively in the further articles.
Sincerely,
Dr.Deniz Tansi

“Global terror threat” will be the main challenge against world’s security. NATO’s main concept seems to prevent terrorism attacks, meanwhile to struggle with terrorism.
Energy security, non- proliferation of WMD, fundamentalism and non state actors headlines are one within the other. Assymetric war concept is the main base to perceive the new century.
From Center Asia to Middle East field is so significant to found stabilization. In this context “out of area” about NATO missions would become more intensive. Beside security stabilization, economic prosperity and substantial democracies are part of NATO’s approach in the world.
Currently NATO zone include a geography from Pacific Ocean to Black Sea.
NATO’s challenges and new missions would emphasize to strength “deterrence” for democracies. It means to enlarge democratic structures on the earth.

Related web site:
http://natostratcon.info/2010/01/11/natos-transformation/#comments
January 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm

BAŞBUG-ASHKENAZI MEETING

Turkish Armed Forces (TAF)Chief of Staff General İlker Başbuğ and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt-General Gabi Ashkenazi met Wednesday.

Yaakov Katz, "Ashkenazi meets Turkish counterpart", The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2010.
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=166997



The meeting was very significant. Tension between two countries was very high for last 1 year. The problem started with Turkish PM's "one minute" challenge in Davos Summit. (January 2009) His anger intensified to David Ignatius who was the chair of the session. However his real target was Israeli president Shimon Peres. Peres defended Operation Cast Lead. The operation was fresh. Turkish PM accused him as "you know how to kill people.."
October 2009 was an another step to deepen the crisis. Turkish cancellation to Israel's attendance about Anatolian Eagle drill converted the crisis especially to "defense level". Serie of Farewell which was broadcasted in state run TV (TRT), showed Israeli soldiers as baby killers.
Despite the events, Israeli minister Ben Eliezer visited Turkish embassy about Turkish Republic Day reception in Tel Aviv. After he came Turkey in November 2009 and the next month (December 2009) Turkish-Israeli presidents met in Copenhag. As it is known, there was a climate summit in Copenhag. Peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president.
Ayalon's humiliation to Turkish ambassador in January 11, 2010 was related the serie of Valley of the Wolves Ambush. After he apologized from Turkish state and people.
His attitude was commented to prevent Israeli defense minister Barak's visit to Turkey. In spite of the tension, Barak came to Turkey in January 17, 2010. He has made consultations with Turkish FM Davutoğlu. The conversation continued for 3.5 hours. After he met Turkish defense minister Gönül. The meeting was about 1 hour. Turkish ambassador to Israel who was humilitated by Ayalon Oğuz Çelikkol attended the gatherings. Barak behaved closer to the ambassador. And he has described the relations as "strategic alliance". (We have evaulated before) It was the highest level for bilateral relations. But we are not sure, Turkish defence minister's announcement reflect the real situation or not?
Turkish-Israeli generals session in January 27, 2010 must be underlined. Two chief of staffs was in Brussels for participating "NATO military chiefs" summit. Israel is a not a member of NATO, but Israel was invitated to the gathering. Common agenda of Israel and NATO seems to struggle with "global terrorist threat".
In this case, Turkey-Israel has a rich infrastructure. Two countries signed Peripheral Pact in 1958. Their cooperation sustains especially military-defense and intelligence level. Turkey and Israel reinforced military cooperation with 1996 and 1997 treaties and also added economic cooperation.
Global terrorist threat headline is very important for NATO countries. Two generals approach is also a part of amendment effort like as Turkish-Israeli presidents' meeting in Copenhag and also Ben Eliezer's, Barak's Turkey visits.
Tangibly military cooperation is strategic for both of them. The other point bilateral cooperation is also Western axis' extension. Turkish-Israeli alignment is so important for US. And supported effectively. US blocks the crisis to reach further steps.
The critical question is NATO's potential approach to Hizballah and Hamas. In this context, Turkish cabinet's pro Islamic attitude to be problematic or to conform the general tendency?
We will see....

SHIFTING AWAY FROM THE WEST....

Recently, I have underlined Turkish defense minister Vecdi Gönül's speech during Israeli defense minister Barak's visit. As it was remembered, he has announced Turkey and Israel as "strategic allies". And aforementioned in the last article, there was a contradiction in Gönül's comment why current Turkish pro Islamic government seems to be most problematic cabinet with Israel, on the other hand this approach is the most intensive evaulation on Turkish-Israeli relations. The tangible point, bilateral relations stands on alignment base.
Beside these developments, Israel's military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin alleged that, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel".

Jonathan Lis, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel", Haaretz, January 19, 2010.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143701.html

According to Yadlin, Turkey's main crossroad includes "a fundamental process of moving further away from the secular Ataturk approach, closer to a radical approach."
He concerns EU's negative approach about full membership to Turkey creates a cold shoulder effect on the country. So Turkey's attitude especially with AKP government, seeks to be closer with the Middle Eastern regimes.
But we must ask that "which Middle Eastern regimes?". There is a political divide for the region. One side indicates pro American moderate Islamic regimes like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon (not totaly), Saudi Arabia. The other side is related Iranian-Syrian alliance.
Turkey progressed relations with Iran and Syria. Turkish-Syrian relations is not in spite of US because US tries to isolate Iran in the region. However, Turkish-Iranian closer relations is questionable. Iran's challenge to the Western countries has a potential to convert a conflict. It does not mean necessarily a hot conflict. Even though, include embargo there can be some sanctions to Iran related uranium enrichment plan. Turkey is currently temporary member of UN Security Council. As it is known, Turkish FM Davutoğlu consider "zero problem with neighbors". It is a sympathetic slogan. But if all permanent member of Security Council's members endorse sanctions on Iran, what would Turkey do? We mean without veto situation would Turkey find any explanation about her attitude. As we remember, Turkey voted impartial in IAEA meeting about sanctions on Iran.
The problems about Islamic republic is not about producing nuclear weapon but also having proxy forces in Lebanon with Hizballah and in Gaza with Hamas.
Turkey's approach to Hamas in the context of AKP's cabinet is distressful. Social chaos in Gaza does not legitimate Hamas. Hamas realized a coup in 2007 and captured Gaza Strip unilaterally. Hamas cut Gaza's ties from the rest of the world except Iran-Syria. Turkey officially recognizes Palestine Authority why it was founded with international treaties, Israel also signed them. It is related Oslo process. In addition to this, AKP's ideological behaviour, structurally closer with Hamas. They criticize Fatah and Fatah's moderate approach to Israel. But in fact, Turkish Foreign Policy's main axis can not carry pro Hamas perceiving.
The similar situation is also about Hizballah. AKP's relations with Lebanese PM Hariri is so significant. Turkish Telekom's main partner is from Hariri's firm. At the same time Hariri is coalition partner with Hizballah. But it is not a volunteer partnership.
Turkish approach to Iraq is encouraged by US to sustain and recognize Kurdistan Regional Government (according to Iraq constitution). There is a potential to clash with Iran in Iraq for Turkey. In that, Iran sees Southern Iraq in her dominance.
Turkey's shifting away from the West becomes a main fear for the West. EU's policies about accession process structured a frustration for Turkish people. Public criticism on EU feeded anti Western masses also US invasion to Iraq reinforced the situation. Turkish public opinion is shaked with July 4, 2003 "sack crisis".
Israeli general's statement to indicate Turkey's membership to NATO lost her strategic importance for Turkey and Turkey does not need to progress her relations with Israel to show it to US and the other European countries.
Turkish people become more conservative and it effects Turkish Foreign Policy's applications. In spite of the events, Turkey is still in Western associations.
Rapid political Islamisation's influence is being felt in public sphere and current government's "strategic depth" policy tries to found a regional periphery, with a greater country.
But with which great country?
We can respond: USA

"STRATEGIC ALLIANCE"

Turkish defense minister Vecdi Gönül stated a very interesting sentence during Israeli defense minister and leader of Labor Party Ehud Barak's visit . (January 17, 2010) He has evaulated bilateral relations as "strategic alliance". He has responded a journalist question, question was about, "Are Turkey and Israel strategic partners?" Turkish minister tried to indicate a less level but also have strategic importance. However "strategic alliance" is also significant. According to international relations experts, bilateral relations which sustain since 1949, reached military-defense-intelligence infrastructure with "peripheral pact" in 1958, developed with 1996 and 1997 treaties especially economically and militarily, expressed as an alignment not alliance.
The interesting point, current Turkish government seems to be most problematic government with Israel, but also consider being "alliance". It means to have confusion for Turkish Foreign Policy.
Before Gönül, Israeli minister met with Turkish foreign minister Davutoğlu. Meeting was about 3 and a half hour. Davutoğlu didn't make an explanation like Gönül. But it must be noted that, he called "zero problems with neighbors" for Turkey. Even though, Gönül announced Israel as a neighbor not physically but politically. And enhanced with alliance concept.
As it is known, according to cabinet, Turkey is US', Russia's, Syria's and Lebanon's "strategic partner". It means strategic partnership is used as useless.
In this context, "strategic partnership" explanation could be concerned "seriously" by foreign authorities? But Barak's visit has a positive potential for further term. Why Ayalon repeated his goofs. He emphasized if Turkish movies or series would go on, Israel to expel Turkish ambassador. In spite of Ayalon's statement, Turkish PM Erdoğan told to the media, "we don't care Ayalon's explanations, Barak's statement is essential for us, we will not deepen crisis".
These days not alliance but alignment has risks for Turkish-Israeli relations. But Turkey brought to Turkish-Israeli relations agenda "strategic alliance" concept first time in 60 years. It is attractive.
In the conclusion, US factor to bilateral relations must not be forgotten. When we think, each of them has an alliance relation with US, it can be understood better.

3rd LEBANON WAR?

Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah challenged to change "region's face".

AFP, "Nasrallah: War will change region's face", ynetnews.com, January 15, 2010.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3834933,00.html

He means a new Middle East order. As far as to be understood, Nasrallah indicates "pro-Iranian regional hegemony". Iran's regional targets can be evaulated with these outlines:
- Eleminate pro American Sunni Arab regimes
- Make efforts into Turkey to be neutralized
- Wipe off Israel from the map
- Build nuclear weapon
- Strenghen alliance with Syria
- Develop ties with Russia
- Defeat US troops and US influence in the Middle East
- Convert Palestine as a Hamasistan
- Convert Lebanon as a Hizballahistan
- Found a Shia state in Iraq
- Found a Shia region in Saudi Arabia
- Found an Iranian dominance in Yemen

At the same time 3rd Lebanon War is considered. According to Al- Jazeerah Turkish PM urged Israel not to violate Lebanon airspace.

Al- Jazeerah, "Erdogan slams Israel for violating Lebanese airspace", January 12, 2010.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/January/12%20n/Erdogan%20slams%20Israel%20for%20violating%20Lebanese%20airspace,%20bombing%20Gaza.htm

Nasrallah's approach does not include an Israeli attack but to realize a fundamental change in the region. Iran's challenges from Gulf to Eastern Mediterranean object to refine Western extensions in her own periphery.
But the main contradiction for Turkey, a potential Iranian attraction would also damage Turkish benefits. Not only to build a nuclear weapon but also post invasion process in Iraq, would emerge a Turkish-Iranian competition. We can emphasize that, Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq will have intensive economic-political relations with Turkey under US supervisory. However Southern Iraq's position is evaulated with Iran.
Also Turkey's membership to NATO, EU accession process and to be US ally encumber Turkish state some regional perspectives. It does not mean for Turkey to break relations with her neighbors. But main commitments are also determiners of Turkish Foreign Policy.
Meanwhile Turkish approach to Israel seems pesimistic in these days. Even though US aspect provides at least alignment for both of the countries plus moderate Arab regimes.
There is a crossroad for the Middle East. Hamas-Hizballah cooperation is perceived as an Iranian proxy forces' siege to Israel. The gamble for Iran is related her declared strategy: "Wipe off Israel from the map."
It also seems to be prepared a compherensive attack against Israel by Iran and her allies. The probabl situation would endanger pro American Arab regimes and in spite of current government's approach Turkey.
Regional catastrophe risk stays on the table.

"VALLEY OF THE WOLVES"- ISRAEL

Serie of the Valley of the Wolves become a "decoder" for Turkish viewers since 2003. Serie which is called by her fans as "valley" completed the 7th year and reached to the international format with Valley of the Wolves Iraq. Serie applicated Ergenekon case's PR from 2007 reluctantly. Valley of the Wolves Iraq emphasized regional peoples' fraternity against US invasion in the context of Islamic sensitivities and Ottoman past. In spite of Ottoman approach, Turkishness was considered as a founder element. Meanwhile serie's heroic character Polat Alemdar took the revenge from US commander who was put sacks on Turkish officers heads in Erbil.
Valley of the Wolves Gladio recently tried to show that NATO's Cold War network which was called Gladio in Italy and Turkish branch was named as "counterinsurgency" still continues. İskender Büyük character was evaluated as a composition about Turkish agents situation, why they call themselves as to serve Turkish state and nation but in fact to US and Israel.
Valley of the Wolves' advertorial was done in Valley of the Wolves Iraq. However, serie's producers announced that, the time is Valley of the Wolves Palestine's turn. It seems that, the new film guaranteed viewing records. Why in the last episode of the serie, Polat Alemdar impressed Israeli consulate, killed all Israel's security service agents and escaped his closest guy Memati Baş's son. According the serie's scenario, Israel didn't condemn Turkey because of child snatching. The serie's producers repeated their allegations from Valley of the Wolves Iraq related Israeli doctor's organ trade. According to valley's producers, Israeli media published these allegations.
When Polat Alemdar was killing the last Israeli agent in consulate, agents' blood bounced to Israeli flag. After the serie's last episode, Israel's deputy foreign minister Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador Oğuz Çelikkol to his room in Knesset. He has invited Israeli press to his room and told them in Hebrew, "look, he is sitting on the lower level from us, on the table only Israeli flag stands and we do not smile". The behaviour was out of diplomatic kindness and was just like a child's attitude. In fact Israeli foreign minister and leader of Israel Beytinu Party, Avigdor Lieberman damages Israel's foreign policy not only related Turkey but also in many events and countries. But this situation is Israel's own problem.

Losing Turkey means "strategic desolation" for Israel. On the other hand, Turkish-Israeli tension started with "one minutes" crisis by Turkish PM Erdoğan. In the first year of the bilateral stress, reached worse point. In October 2009 drill crisis, after serie of Farewell crisis which concern Israeli soldiers as baby killer in Gaza operation deepened the crisis. And the serie was broadcasted in state run TV. (TRT)

Despite crisis, some positive steps were observed since Republic Day of Turkey. (October 29)Israeli trade minister Ben Eliezer attended Turkish embassy's reception in Tel Aviv. He has given messages as frankly. Ben Eliezer visited Turkey in November 2009. In December Turkish president Gül and Israeli president Peres met in Kopenhag during Climate Summit and peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president. After the summit, Turkey offcially invited Israeli defence minister and Labor Party's
leader Ehud Barak. The invitation was scheduled for January 17, 2010. However Valley of the Wolves Ambush broke the process. Aforementioned Ayalon's kindness risked Barak's scheduled visiting. Ayalon considered something about the behaviour, it was not agreed by Turkey. At last, Israeli PM Netenyahu intervened into the process. And he declared that, Ayalon apologised from Turkey. Turkey will evaulate the situation. Withdraw the ambassador from Israel is among the options.
Turkish PM aware of creating popularity in the Middle East with anti Israeli discourse. He is awarded by King Faisal prize by Saudi Arabia. But it must be understood that, foreign policy can be done with benefits not emotions.

Ayalon's inconsiderateness is the fact. But the situation must not be used an opportunity to legitimize of Neo Ottoman policies. Israel is US' strategic partner but also Saudi Arabia is one of the partner of US. It must not be forgotten that, Turkey is member of NATO and ally of USA.

There was an interesting incidence that Lebanon PM Hariri was in Turkey during "lower sofa crisis" Hariri tries to cover Hizballah's political situation why the organization is one of the coalition partner in his cabinet. It means also to keep Iran's nuclear position why Hizballah is Iran sponsored militant organisation. But Hariri's bloc and Hizbalah's bloc were competitors in Lebanon elections. Hariri is a pro western Arab leader and closer with Saudi Arabia.

Series and films can create an illusion for Turkish foreign policy an even anti Israeli discourse could build a popularity for Turkish PM.
On the other hand Jordan, Lebanon (PM), Saudi Arabia and Egypt would not applicate anti Western approaches and not beliavable.

In the conclusion, like Israel and Saudi Arabia samples, each country has a different route to connect with US. Expectation from Turkish policy to get a balance with great powers (include Russia and China) and regional powers (include Israel,Iran, Saudi Arabia). It means to have connections with all parties. Why it is different from Cold War. And also Turkey's alliance to the West is essential with US and EU.
Through Arab countries facilitating to reach US patronage can be attractive with new Ottoman dreams for the current political spectrum in Turkey and can be gained new domestic political steps. Radical movements in Israeli cabinet can serve to the policy. But pro US Arab opening could conclude that, Turkey can be a further actor for Valley of the Wolves Iran.
New films' most important adventure can be realized in Kurdistan Regional Government's plato in Iraq.

ISRAEL'S "IRON DOME" MISSILE SHIELD

Recently there was a news on Al Jazeera related Israel's "missile shield" designing which was called as "iron dome".

Al Jazeera, "Israel to deploy missile shield", January 7, 2010. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201017123728755169.html

According to the article, missile shield includes short-range missiles, exercised succesfully and Israel's officials declared the system to be active in mid 2010.
There's the tangible point, Israel feels herself to be blockaded by "enemies". It can be underlined that, there are two "state within states" fight with Israel. After 2007 coup, Hamas captured Gaza Strip unilaterally and created an entity despite Oslo process and Palestine Authority. Between December 2008 and January 2009, Israel realized Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. However, Israel was blamed by the world public opinion to use disproportional force on civilian people. On the other hand, Hamas also gained more advantage. Gaza's people lost the war, but Hamas won. Why, Hamas is feeding from the violence and architect legitimacy on the base of grievance.
The other entity occurred in Lebanon. We mean Hizballah. After 1990 Taif Accord all of the armed groups agreed to break the arms except Hizballah. Iran sponsored militant organisation fougth with Israel in 2006 summer. The war was called as II. Lebanon war. But in fact, the war was not realized by Lebanon. Israel made the war with Hizballah. Like Operation Cast Lead, Israel was criticized to use disproportional use to civilian people. However Hizballah congragulated "the victory" in Beirut streets. Southern Lebanon's innocent villagers lost, but Hizballah won.
It can be observed that, there is a new axis against Israel from southwest and north. Southern Lebanon converted to Hizballahistan and Gaza Strip converted to Hamasistan. Both of the regions are not recognized by international law and international system. So these entities are just like black holes. Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis are not states and do not have to obey international rules. But Israel has to..
Suppose it. Can we compare Quassam and Katyusha missiles with Arrow II's. But there is one more contradiction. Israel has to defend herself. Israel's "missile shield" solution can be understandable; if it can be functional.
Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis is supported by Iran. Iran applicates "proxy war" against Israel with using the axis. Iran's nuclear targets are part of her "official policy" which to wipe of Israel from the map. Missile shield can be a short term solution to Iran's proxy forces. So, it can be also evaulated to create "deterrence" for Israel's security and integrity.
Even though, to maintain deterrence, Israel will have to plan "nuclear missile shield" in the long term to prevent nuclear attacks from Iran's mullahs' regime.

YEMEN AS A NEW FRONT...

Last year new elected Obama administration in US underlined two military option on their agenda. First one indicated to withdraw troops from Iraq, the other was to send more combat troops to Afghanistan. Withdrawing troops from Iraq schedule was based on the Statue of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was signed between US and central Iraq governments. According to SOFA, US troops withrew from Baghdad -Iraq capital- in June 2009. US troops will totaly withraw from Iraq until December 2011.
The other US military approach was about to send more combat troops to Afghanistan. NATO operation which was started after 9/11 by UN Security Council resolution still continues in 2010. And it seems to sustain in an open ended process. In this context, US demanded combat troops from her allies include Turkey. But allies -also Turkey- rejected the offer. Why Taliban captured the social infrastructure not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan . Even US called the region as Afpak, it means to accept -de facto- Taliban sovereignty in both countries' depth. Taliban is the projection of Al Queda which is the network terror organisation on the global scale.
We mean Wahabi-Selefi doctrine's network Al Queda; it totaly rejects modernity and modern life style and found new life spheres in the different geoghraphies.
The most significant one is middle Iraq in the post US invasion process. Al Queda manipulated Sunni resistance and converted the territory as a training camp. Al Queda's network has an intensive agenda from Afpak to middle Iraq; as well to Caucasus. Currently it has reached to Yemen with a tangible ground.
Yemen's Al Queda is blamed related to attempt plane attack in US . It was called as Christmas Day attack in US. However there is one more struggle in Yemen between Yemen government and Iran sponsored Shia militants. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are fighting with Shia militants under US supervisory. Iran prolonges Shia influence from Persian Gulf to Gulf of Eden. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is disturbed by Southern Iraq why on the both side of Saudi-Iraq border mostly Shia population lives.
The most interesting point indicates that, even Saudi Arabia and Iran hesitated from Al Queda.
Yemen government also fight with Al Queda and Iran sponsored Shia militants. In this context Yemen is becoming a front against these forces and the country is supported by US-Saudi axis.
In 2010 Yemen is added as a new front after Afghanistan and Iraq.
We will see the outcomes of the effect in this year.

MODERATE ISLAM: FROM COLD WAR TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

This paper was presented by me. The detailed information is below.
I wish, 2010 will be a peaceful year for the earth.
Asst. Prof.Dr.Deniz Tansi

Deniz Tansi,“Moderate Islam: From Cold War to New World Order”, Sociology of Islam and Muslim Societies Symposium, Islam and Secularism in Turkey session (No: 83- 10:45-12:15), SOUTHERN SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, April 11, 2008, Richmond/Virginia-USA


ABSTRACT
In Turkish modern history, using of religion for political objectives and opposition to progressive reforms are called ‘irtica’ since legislation form. (1839). After Republic, Islamist opposition became main opposition ground to modern Kemalist reforms. This behavior was also realized in Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Progressive Republican Party), Şeyh Sait rebellion and Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Liberal Republican Party).
In this study, using of religion for political objectives will be analyzed after Second World War in the context of NATO concepts on the base of interim politics. Moderate Islam is evaluated especially with social economic infrastructure relations. We mean industrialization process which was developed rapidly in 1960’s, rising modern Islamic movement through small and middle size entrepreneurship and currently moderate Islam’s integration with global capitalism and Western countries. Also Turkish-Islam Synthesis headline is considered as a tool of US’ containment policy (Green Belt) to Soviet Union. Therefore US approach reflected to Turkish politics on the base of Turkish-Islam Synthesis and it is reverted to Moderate Islam in post cold war era.
In this context Turkey is used as an exercise area for moderate Islam after 9/11 by US, and we criticize this trend, why to underline secular, democratic Turkey Republic’s existence (Kemalist model) for a peaceful Middle East.
This study tries to indicate Turkish application of Moderate Islam’s domestic and global situation in the New World Order, its relations with pro-American Sunni axis in the region and effects to the Middle East.





TURKISH-ISLAM SYNTHESIS
WHICH WAS FORMULATED DURING THE COLD WAR
Turkey has adopted a tangible approach towards the blocks in the aftermath of the Second World War during which she performed a neutral attitude towards the fighting parties. Turkey’s Western choice is explained in connection with the Soviet demands which included bases on Straits as well as the territory of Kars and Ardahan provinces. The indicated Soviet demands could not be pronounced clearly. However, this perception determined Turkish domestic and foreign policy’s axis during the Cold War. USA enlarged her national security strategy to include Turkey and Greece with Truman Doctrine in 1947, therefore inter-block competition expanded to the Middle East geography. The USA deployed both of the countries to her own defending concept at once, since the Greek Civil War accelerated the process. USA concerned Greek Civil War may end up with a communist victory which would effect Greece’s choices towards Eastern block, facilitating the Soviet expansion to the Middle East, Mediterranean and Northern Africa. In this context, Turkey and Greece were accepted as members of NATO in 1952. NATO was founded in 1949. Turkey’s existence in NATO was perceived through its two main specialties. First of all, Turkey had the longest land border with the Soviet Union. Second, Turkey was the only member of NATO with a mostly Muslim population. These two items were formed in the context of the anticommunism axis with nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Provocation of the Turkic and Muslim communities in the Soviet Union and the strengthening of Turkish defense as a member of NATO were related with this context. The axis was shaped as Turkish-Islam Synthesis in Turkish domestic policy.
Tariqat of the Nur was protected since Democratic Party (DP) governments during the multi-party era. Tariqat of Nur was founded by Said-i Nursi whose real name was Said-i Kürdi. The word Nur means “holy light” in Arabic religious literature. From 1946 Imam-Hatip high schools were founded which trained religious men who leads prayers in Muslim mosques. The other point was that, according to Islam women can not serve and lead the community in the mosques. Why, did these schools accept girls as students ?
At the same period of time Komünizmle Mücadele Dernekleri (Organizations of Struggle Against Communism) were established. In the Organizations of Struggle Against Communism, nationalism which was related to anticommunism was provoked. Rightist ruling parties employed unprogressive (irtica) staff in bureaucracy and religious propaganda. The May 27, 1960 military coup administration ceased these developments, however Justice Party (AP) governments restarted to pursue the process of supporting them. They even extended the process by including the Tariqat of Süleymancılık and the others since the middle of 1960’s. Imam Hatip schools were launched as the pioneers of ‘moral development’ and religious education was provoked instead of abiding by the Educational Union Code and national-secular education. Another attribution of Said-i Kürdi was his sympathy to Kurdish movement. Şeyh Sait rebellion (1925) was analyzed in Uğur Mumcu’s book in the name of Kurdish-Islam Rebellion. Indeed, the fundamentalist movement legitimates Kurdish action with religious references. Kurdish political spectrum is more about Sunni religious structure than leftist approach. Currently Barzani movement has strong structural relations with the tariqat of Nakşibendilik. 1960’s were the starting point of the reactions to the leftist politics. In Turkey, some of the nationalist and religious political groups were built in the context of NATO axis, in opposition to the leftist movements. For instance, we can recall and underline the ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1969. Religious groups attacked the leftist groups pretexting that they were criticizing NATO. The event took place in Taksim Square in İstanbul. The 1960s were hallmarked by industrialization perspective on the planned development strategy. According to Ahmet Yücekök, this new process fragmented the Great Right Coalition in the structure of AP. Liberal grand bourgeoisie preferred AP, Necmettin Erbakan leaded Milli Görüş (means National Opinion, but nation indicates Islamic nation) action on the axis of small and middle size entrepreneurs which resisted to the liberal capitalist integration to the West. Economic benefits were legitimized with religious discourse. Erbakan was the chairman of the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB). TOBB represents the small and medium size enterprises. Milli Görüş (the National Opinion) criticized Justice Party (AP) with he slogans of “Mason, Comprador Bourgeoisie”. Nationalist Action Party (MHP) was built in Central Anatolia especially among the artisans since they were dissatisfied by the industrial development. MHP used the anticommunist-nationalist discourse in line with a paramilitary structure. But the fragmentation of Grand Right Coalition would not prevent the formation of the Nationalist Front (MC) coalition governments against democratic leftist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and other leftist groups. MC was formed with the idea of anticommunism. MC was a nationalist front on the axis of NATO. Erbakan’s National Salvation Party (MSP) was deployed in different coalition governments during 1970’s with CHP and MC (which included AP, MSP, MHP and the other small parties). But MSP continued to deploy religious partisan staff into the establishment and founded new Imam Hatip schools by using the cabinet power. MSP has gained power on the contrary to its vote proportion. September 12, 1980 military coup banned all of the political parties’ and NGO’s actions. Tariqats were deployed instead of the democratic organizations, capturing all living areas. Military Administration used tariqats against the leftist political spectrum. During the military administration era, MSP had used this process despite their situation in the courts and prisons. The other political groups and parties were consolidated but MSP and tariqats kept their position. Military administration protected religious groups against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. USA built the Green Belt in line with its containment policy around Soviet Union and Turkey was evaluated in this axis. Green Belt symbolized the pro-American Moderate Islam regimes against the Soviets. Iran Islamic Revolution had changed balance in the Middle East. Shah had to go abroad and Houmeyni founded the Islamic Republic with mullahs. Iran withdrew from pro Western Middle East organization which was called CENTO. Therefore, USA lost a castle in the region. Military administration restored Turkey in the US axis and adapted the Green Belt project into domestic politics by introducing Turkish-Islam Synthesis which meant nationalist and religious axis against communism. Synthesis became the formal ideology in this era.
After Cold War, Turkey lived low intensive conflict against the PKK which was structured on the basis of ethnic terror. Process included the years between 1984 and 1999. Unfortunately, PKK terror started in 2004 again. In 1992, National Security Council changed National Security Politics Paper. Separatism was accepted as the major threat to Turkey instead of communism. In the date of February 28, 1997, Council added reactionism (unprogressive ideology) which was called irtica in Turkish politics indicating religious fundamentalism. Cold War ended with the 1992 and 1997 decisions for Turkey. However, after February 28, 1997, establishment understood that, religious fundamentalism which was provoked in the axis of NATO against communism, captured bureaucracy, education, politics and many other living areas. Religious politics became a determiner. Center right parties used religious groups for their benefits. But currently they are marginalized in the structure of religious parties, namely the Justice and Development Party (AKP) which is called “the White Party” by its members and fans.

THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT BOURGEOISIFIES: MODERATE ISLAM
In spite of the fact that the “National Opinion” politics had flourished in the context of petit and middle-sized bourgeoisie, the Islamic capital flaws began to grow larger as a result of the encouragement of MC governments and the sphere of maneuver they gained during the September, 12 era. While Turkey was shifting its economic model from import substitution to market economy, the aforementioned change was legitimized through the Turkish Islam synthesis which was supported by the September 12 administration and the subsequent ANAP governments, exploiting the nationalist and religious sentiments of the masses. The Islamic capitalists which are known as “Anatolian Tigers” globalized in line with the globalization of the Turkish economy. Within this framework, they learned foreign languages, got familiar to information technologies, and began to visit and get to know not only the Arab states but also the US and European states as a part of their jobs although their religious sensitivities continued in their private lives. They became familiar with concepts such as the stock market, global movements of capital, multi-national companies, IMF, and the EU just in line with the advances of Turkey. In the meantime, some tariqats organized themselves in education, insurance and media sectors and preferred to develop organic cooperation with the US. They received high consideration as much to come together with the Pope and other religious leaders. The dramatic enrichment of tariqat leaders and the transformation of tariqats into economic and political power holders have traumatized the sensible segments of the Turkish society in the post-Cold War context, since the disappearance of inter-block struggle uncovered the religious politics. As a result of the aforementioned bourgeoisification and globalization process, the second generation of Milli Görüş stood against the traditionalist elite of the party and started the internal struggle in Refah Partisi- (Welfare Party). After the closure of Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party) the new generation founded AKP while the traditionalist Saadet Partisi (Felicity Party) held onto the Milli Görüş line.
AKP has paid special attention to the relations with the USA and the EU as well as the formulation of its policies in harmony with IMF since it came to power in 2002. The demands of the globalizing Islamic Anatolian capital are behind these developments. At this point, the government is contentious with the fundamental institutions of the Republic.

CONCLUSION
The US is conceiving a Sunni axis under her tutelage. The moderate Islamic regimes which were a part of the Containment policy against the Soviets since 1950s became a doctrine with the Green Belt project in late 1970s and 1980s. In this context, an Islamic project is developed according to the demands of globalization. Turkey’s structure which is based on secular republic and its founding elite is battered. A global understanding of Islam based on ethnicity is imported and indoctrinated in order to replace the simple-hearted Anatolian Islam tradition.
The Moderate Islam scenario which was prepared in the NATO kitchen since 1950s has constituted the main ground for the decomposition (localization) and globalization of the “Greater Middle East” in the Post-Cold War period.
While the Moderate Islam was developed in a pro-American axis, the climate of distrust which is set forth by a number of fundamentalist organizations in the context of asymmetric war -since they acquired a wide ground of maneuver after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan- should be analyzed. On this portrayed surface, it is inevitable that moderate Islam converts into radical Islam just like the incident of Pakistan. The policies of Evren in Turkey and Ul Hak in Pakistan tried to make the society more religious and substitute the democratic mass organizations and political parties with tariqats. By this means, moderate Islam advanced to establish an “ultimate regime of truth” -to make a Gramscian analysis. While the superstructure was acquired in terms of education, politics and bureaucracy, a new social texture was also introduced. At this point, history, daily life and values are almost redefined.
As mentioned in Neuman’s theory of “spiral of silence”, the fundamental values begin to be perceived as common values.
While the Vahabi-Selefi interpretation declared war on modernity, the moderate Islam continued its takeover operation excluding modernity and giving priority to modernization by taking advantage of loopholes.
Moderate Islam project is against Kemalism in terms of modernity. As far as Turkey is concerned, the unity of liberal segments with moderate Islam in opposition of authoritativeness has ended since the paradigm of moderate Islam captures all the grounds of society and creates its own elite and bourgeois, turning a deaf ear to the criticisms of the rest of the society.
This process results in a new and authoritative understanding of politics and society. On a particular ground, ethnic and religious distinctions trigger decomposition with the impact of globalization, while moderate Islam negates the theory of democracy through democratic tools. Even by receiving the support of groups which claim to defend democracy…





















REFERENCE

BOOKS:

Gaddis, John Lewis., Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy ,New York: Oxford Univ. Press ,1982, p.352-353.

Mumcu. Uğur. Kürt-İslam Ayaklanması, Um:ag Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.

Neumann, Elisabeth Noelle. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin, 1993 University of Chicago Press.

Yücekök, Ahmet. Dinin Siyasallaşması Din-Devlet İlişkilerinde Türkiye Deneyimi
Afa Yayınları, Tüses Türkiye Sosyal Ekonomik Siyasal Araştırmalar Vakfı, İstanbul, 1997.

Yücekök, Ahmet. Türkiye’de Örgütlenmiş Dinin Sosyolojik Tabanı, A.Ü. SBF Yayınları, Ankara, 1971.


ARTICLES:

Bieler, Andreas and Morton Adam David. “A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations”, Capital & Class, Spring 2004, Issue 82, p.90-91.

Fuller, Graham. “Turkey’s Strategic Model: Myhts and Realities”, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2004, p.53.

Hürriyet, “Kanlı Pazar”, February 17, 1969, p.1.

Jablonsky, David . “The State of the National Security State”, Parameters , Winter, 2002-2003, p.6, USA.