FT story noting that Turkey’s moves as of late have nothing to do with Islamic ideology and everything to do with expanding the nation’s influence in the Middle East vis-à-vis competitor Iran.
Yeah, Turkey said no to the US on invasion plans WRT Iraq, but as soon as Saddam fell, Iraq was crawling with Turkish contractors. So the big refusal was a case of having one’s cake and devouring it too.
I made the same argument on the Esquire blog recently regarding Turkey’s reorientation WRT Israel, the tipping point being the Gaza flotilla show.
The whole package can’t be viewed as some fit of pique regarding the EU, nor a turn east, says the FT, and I agree wholeheartedly.
That is the behaviour of a regional power with a long-term view of its strategic interests, not of a country veering towards Islamist activism.
The author Gardner then makes the argument that Turkey, Iran and Israel and locked in a three-way fight to dominate the region. I agree with Turkey v Iran and certainly see Saudi Arabia v Iran, but tossing Israel into that dynamic is mistaken. Tellingly, after Gardner makes the statement, he spends the rest of the piece focusing on Iranian and Turkish moves to that effect, except to note that Israel might strike Iran over its nukes in coming months. Gardner believes this would leave Turkey’s strategic approach in tatters, but I think that overstates the notion by a ways.
If Israel strikes, then Turkey will demonize it further—for its purposes. Turkey will also be able to portray Iran as a nutcase that creates regional instability, whereas it represents growth and development and stability and solid relations both East and West.
Frankly, I don’t see how Turkey can lose in any kinetics between Iran and Israel. Both sides will be weakened and Turkey will simply be that much stronger as a result. Also, Saudi Arabia will look weak for having the “Jews” do its dirty work.