Tweet
CHANGING EQUATIONS AND ARAB CONSTANTS
Mostafa Zein
Dar Al Hayat
Feb 24 2009
Lebanon
Strategic equations are shifting in the Middle East. They take today a
different nature than in previous decades, especially after the bloody
US experience in Iraq. Turkey, which played the role of policeman in
the region - as NATO's military arm in the region and in the Caspian
Sea - wishes to stop playing this role for many reasons. The most
important of these reasons is that the USSR and its local communists
no longer threaten it, while other Central Asian countries wish to
join its orbit. Turkey is also attempting to overcome its historical
conflicts in this region. It is in this framework that President
Abdullah Gul and his Armenian counterpart Serge Sarkissian met in
Yerevan a few months ago.
On the Arab level, Ankara is also striving to get over its dark Ottoman
past and introduce neo-Ottomanism, represented by the ruling Justice
and Development Party, despite the opposition of some military leaders
who still resent Arabs and accuse them of betraying the sultanate.
Haaretz quoted a member of the Turkish National Security Council as
saying, "The Arabs' historical betrayal of the Empire is deep-rooted
in our conscience. Since we still have an Ottoman understanding of the
region, our relations with Israel are more natural and valid than our
relations with Arab countries. As for the ideological clash with Iran,
it is part of the unofficial learning we receive. Israel and the Jews
are our close allies."
Even though these extremely emotional words by the Turkish official are
not based on historic facts as he claims, they reflect the conflict
between the ruling party and the military establishment. And yet,
they do not annul his views that express a popular will and awareness
of Ankara's new role in the region. The most significant indicator
about the lack of Israeli and US understanding of this new role is
that writers in US and Israeli newspapers still threaten Turkey with
sanctions on the backdrop of the "crime" committed by PM Erdogan
against Shimon Peres in Davos when he described Israeli crimes in
Gaza by their legal term, "war crimes." David L. Philip wrote in
the International Herald Tribune that Erdogan's pro-Hamas rhetoric
was the "poison pill for Turkey's relations with the United States,
and it could not come at a worse time. The Armenian Genocide Act will
soon be introduced in the U.S. Congress," in response to the Israeli
stance. The writer goes on to say, "Turkish troops are deployed
alongside U.S. forces," while the Obama administration is aware of
Turkey's strategic importance and knows it is a NATO-respected ally. He
adds, "The onus for avoiding a diplomatic train wreck rests with
Erdogan" then threatened to withhold support for Ankara to join the EU.
Similarly to the Turkish National Security Council member, many Arabs
and Americans make a mistake when they overlook Ankara's role that
took shape over the past five years. After it cemented its standing
as a great regional power, with the help of the US and NATO, Turkey
opted to turn into a factor of stability in the Middle East and around
the Caspian Sea.
In the Middle East, despite its ideological conflicts with Tehran,
and despite its fears that Iran would become a nuclear state, it did
not sever its ties with the Islamic Republic, nor did it depict it as a
rival. It even stood against any US or Israeli attack. In addition, it
strived to play the role of mediator between its ally Syria and Israel.
Strategic equations shift with the shift of interests and the approach
to preserving national security. Iranian stances will equally shift
if the US acknowledges Tehran's regional role, instead of the Islamic
regime striving to acquire such a role through religious ideology
and support for the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance. The Turkish
model is ready.
The expected negotiations between Iran and the United States might
carry a surprise for Arabs at their expense, while they are still
caught in their conflicts and divisions.
Mostafa Zein
Dar Al Hayat
Feb 24 2009
Lebanon
Strategic equations are shifting in the Middle East. They take today a
different nature than in previous decades, especially after the bloody
US experience in Iraq. Turkey, which played the role of policeman in
the region - as NATO's military arm in the region and in the Caspian
Sea - wishes to stop playing this role for many reasons. The most
important of these reasons is that the USSR and its local communists
no longer threaten it, while other Central Asian countries wish to
join its orbit. Turkey is also attempting to overcome its historical
conflicts in this region. It is in this framework that President
Abdullah Gul and his Armenian counterpart Serge Sarkissian met in
Yerevan a few months ago.
On the Arab level, Ankara is also striving to get over its dark Ottoman
past and introduce neo-Ottomanism, represented by the ruling Justice
and Development Party, despite the opposition of some military leaders
who still resent Arabs and accuse them of betraying the sultanate.
Haaretz quoted a member of the Turkish National Security Council as
saying, "The Arabs' historical betrayal of the Empire is deep-rooted
in our conscience. Since we still have an Ottoman understanding of the
region, our relations with Israel are more natural and valid than our
relations with Arab countries. As for the ideological clash with Iran,
it is part of the unofficial learning we receive. Israel and the Jews
are our close allies."
Even though these extremely emotional words by the Turkish official are
not based on historic facts as he claims, they reflect the conflict
between the ruling party and the military establishment. And yet,
they do not annul his views that express a popular will and awareness
of Ankara's new role in the region. The most significant indicator
about the lack of Israeli and US understanding of this new role is
that writers in US and Israeli newspapers still threaten Turkey with
sanctions on the backdrop of the "crime" committed by PM Erdogan
against Shimon Peres in Davos when he described Israeli crimes in
Gaza by their legal term, "war crimes." David L. Philip wrote in
the International Herald Tribune that Erdogan's pro-Hamas rhetoric
was the "poison pill for Turkey's relations with the United States,
and it could not come at a worse time. The Armenian Genocide Act will
soon be introduced in the U.S. Congress," in response to the Israeli
stance. The writer goes on to say, "Turkish troops are deployed
alongside U.S. forces," while the Obama administration is aware of
Turkey's strategic importance and knows it is a NATO-respected ally. He
adds, "The onus for avoiding a diplomatic train wreck rests with
Erdogan" then threatened to withhold support for Ankara to join the EU.
Similarly to the Turkish National Security Council member, many Arabs
and Americans make a mistake when they overlook Ankara's role that
took shape over the past five years. After it cemented its standing
as a great regional power, with the help of the US and NATO, Turkey
opted to turn into a factor of stability in the Middle East and around
the Caspian Sea.
In the Middle East, despite its ideological conflicts with Tehran,
and despite its fears that Iran would become a nuclear state, it did
not sever its ties with the Islamic Republic, nor did it depict it as a
rival. It even stood against any US or Israeli attack. In addition, it
strived to play the role of mediator between its ally Syria and Israel.
Strategic equations shift with the shift of interests and the approach
to preserving national security. Iranian stances will equally shift
if the US acknowledges Tehran's regional role, instead of the Islamic
regime striving to acquire such a role through religious ideology
and support for the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance. The Turkish
model is ready.
The expected negotiations between Iran and the United States might
carry a surprise for Arabs at their expense, while they are still
caught in their conflicts and divisions.