There are hints that 'internal political balances' in Turkey may be affected by different political preferences in the U.S. and by dynamics in the Middle East

- 10 / 05 / 2008 13:10

Will the United States attack Iran in 2008, probably around fall? The question is of interest to the entire world, and to the Middle East and Turkey in particular because this is to occur between Turkey's “ally” and “neighbor.”David Ignatius wrote in his column in the Washington Post that “peace and war” issues in the Middle East are of determinative importance in the U.S. presidential election campaigns.

And relevant developments between today and November will affect the presidential race.“Let's start with war,” said Ignatius and continued, “The United States is already fighting two of them, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But judging from recent statements by administration officials, there is also a small, but growing, chance of conflict with Iran.”

  Peace is war?:

  He reinforces these evaluations with quite interesting and solid “information:”“The risk of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation is growing in part because Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East are so eager for it. ‘Behind closed doors, we are praying that the Iranians will make a mistake so that you will have a reason to attack,' one Saudi told me this week. Another prominent Arab official said he hopes the United States will strike Iranian training camps just over the border from Iraq.

”The U.S. administration, which has turned into a “lame duck” with zero credibility and zero popularity in the country (and in the world), might engage in an attack through heavy bombings to destroy Iran's nuclear works in fall, without considering the popularity of such an attack due to its “missionary spirit.”

This is doable only if the administration escalates tension with Iran within a few weeks and creates appropriate public opinion. Not a strong possibility, but still it is a possibility.In the upcoming months, could it be possible to think the “political developments” in Turkey “totally” independent from an “escalation policy” that the U.S. might follow against Iran?

 In the meantime, the line of “teaching a lesson to Iran” symbolized by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and formed by the staunch “neo-cons” is allergic to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and not fond of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP); this is not a secret either.

Said circles play a role in the campaign against “Erdoğan and the AKP” devised in Washington, to which some Turks provide material.I wonder if Erdoğan's hope to see the end of the closure case against the AKP as soon as possible, in late summer or in fall, and hope to see this with the least possible harm to the economy is something to do with his sensing the course of developments on the U.S.-Iran axis. We wouldn't know.But I could see that Erdoğan acts on his Middle East route by considering another “axis” in the “U.S. administration game.”

This “axis” is being represented by a few names including State Secretary Condoleezza Rice and National Security Chief Adviser Stephen Hadley.

The said “axis” follows a policy based on the possibility of “peace,” as Ignatius brings to attention to say that it could be a wild card in the U.S. election campaign, or more precisely, the possibility of a positive result in the Middle East peace talks; for instance signing a “peace agreement” between Israel and Palestine by the end of the year.“Peace agreement” and “peace” are not synonymous.

A peace accord being signed before President George W. Bush leaves his seat to crown the Annapolis process launched in December 2007 will rule for the “two-state solution,” even if it is only on paper.

Such an agreement might be “shelved” for being implemented in 2009 after being endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. The important thing is to prove that such an assertive goal is accomplished in the Bush period. We should see that Turkey's activities on the Israel-Syria line continue on the ground of this “peace process,” aside from its giving support to the Annapolis process. 

  Back to the Ottomans?:

  Let's go back and read Ignatius again:“Finally, there are noises offstage from Israel and Syria about a possible peace treaty. This would be the ultimate pragmatic bargain – Israel likes the stability that Bashar al-Assad's military regime provides in Damascus, and it regards Syrian hegemony in Lebanon as an acceptable and perhaps desirable price.

An important feature of the dickering between Syria and Israel is that they have used Turkey as the key intermediary. If Turkey can bridge these two, with help from the United States, it would reattach Ankara firmly to the Arab world for the first time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.” The picture above gives several hints that “internal political balances” in Turkey may be affected by different political preferences in the U.S. and by dynamics in the Middle East.

I wonder if the fate of the AKP and of Erdoğan, and the “future vision” of Turkey, are in the hands of the 11 judges of the Constitutional Court or if they are rather related to dynamics in a much broader frame.This is just a question …