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.
26 Şubat 2010 Cuma
14 Şubat 2010 Pazar
"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.
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.
10 Şubat 2010 Çarşamba
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.
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.
3 Şubat 2010 Çarşamba
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
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
29 Ocak 2010 Cuma
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
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
27 Ocak 2010 Çarşamba
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....
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....
19 Ocak 2010 Salı
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
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
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
