Category: Middle East & Africa

  • U.S. troops arrive in Turkey; rebels battle for airport in Syria – CNN.com

    U.S. troops arrive in Turkey; rebels battle for airport in Syria – CNN.com

    (CNN) — U.S. troops arrived in Turkey on Friday to man Patriot missile defense batteries near the Syrian border, Turkish state media said.

    121220114512-02-syria-1220-horizontal-gallery

    The move was made after Syria launched Scud missiles at cities near the Turkish border. In response, the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands have deployed Patriot air defense missiles to the border region to intercept any Syrian ballistic missiles.

    U.S. officials: Syria using more accurate, Iranian-made missiles

    The missiles and troops are under the control of NATO, but the missiles are to be operated by U.S. forces.

    U.S. troops arrive in Turkey

    A group of 27 U.S. troops landed in Gaziantep, Turkey, where they will survey the Patriot deployment, Turkish state news agency Anadolu said.

    U.S. officials did not release any information about the troops’ arrival, but had said last month that forces would be deployed to Turkey.

    “We’ve made very clear to them that we’re going to protect countries in this region,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last month. “We have to act to do what we have to do to make sure that we defend ourselves and make sure that Turkey can defend itself.”

    The fight for a helicopter airport

    Meanwhile, Free Syrian Army fighters tried Friday for the third consecutive day to wrest control of a helicopter base from government forces.

    If successful, the assault on Taftanaz Air Base in northern Syria would shut President Bashar al-Assad’s military helicopter pads and diminish his ability to launch airstrikes in the region.

    Opposition and government sources reported that the extremist Nusra Front, which the United States has designated as a terrorist group, was taking part in the assault on the airport.

    Al-Assad has exacted retribution on the nearby city of Binnish, where amateur video posted on the Internet shows dozens of smoke plumes marking where ordnance has struck.

    Read more: Getting to know Syria’s first family

    On Thursday, rebels posted videos of themselves firing on the air base with truck-mounted machine guns and a captured tank, destroying one government tank and appearing to shoot down a helicopter.

    CNN cannot confirm the authenticity of videos from the Syrian conflict posted online.

    Read more: Patriot missiles a warning to Syria’s al-Assad

    Gas station attack in Damascus

    In Damascus, an explosion at a gas station near a hospital killed 10 people Friday, Syrian TV reported.

    An opposition organization expected the toll to rise as many of the wounded were in critical condition after fire spread to nearby cars and buildings.

    The explosion came from a car bomb, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on its Facebook page.

    Read more: What’s next for Syria

    Appeal for missing U.S. journalist

    A picture taken on November 5 in Aleppo shows U.S. freelance reporter James Foley,

    A picture taken on November 5 in Aleppo shows U.S. freelance reporter James Foley,

    In New Hampshire, the parents of American journalist James Foley appealed Thursday to his kidnappers to release him and inform them of his whereabouts and condition of his health.

    Read more: American journalist abducted in Syria

    Foley’s father choked up while reading a statement directed at the abductors. “We’d like them to contact us,” he said. “I ask the captors for their compassion and James’ quick release.”

    Foley was abducted in November in Syria, where he has worked for a year. He had been detained before while working in Libya but was released by the government.

    Read more: Missing American journalist’s parents: Send our son home

    The rapidly mounting death toll

    At least 129 people were killed across Syria on Friday, according to the Local Coordination Committees, an opposition activist network. CNN cannot independently confirm those numbers.

    The overall death toll in Syria has surpassed 60,000 people, the United Nations said Wednesday.

    That’s roughly the population of Terre Haute, Indiana; or Cheyenne, Wyoming. It’s how many people would fit in Dodger Stadium, and it’s more than the 50,000-plus U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam.

    Read more: U.N.’s Syria death toll jumps to 60,000-plus

    On Thursday, al-Assad’s forces bombed the Damascus suburb of Douma with airstrikes. In videos posted on the Internet, residents could be seen combing through rubble and pulling out bodies.

    CNN’s Amir Ahmed and Joe Sterling contributed to this report.

    via U.S. troops arrive in Turkey; rebels battle for airport in Syria – CNN.com.

  • Turkey, Qatar, KSA behind increasing violence in Syria

    Turkey, Qatar, KSA behind increasing violence in Syria

    The Hezbollah Secretary General says Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are responsible for fueling violence in Syria and the increase in casualties.

    hakbari20130103152927270

    Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah made the remarks in a televised speech in the southern Lebanese town of Baalbek on the occasion of Arbaeen, which marks the 40th day after the martyrdom anniversary of Imam Hussein (PBUH).

    He said Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are arming and funding militants fighting the Damascus government.

    Nasrollah said the crisis in Syria has a political solution and cautioned that the continuation of the Syrian conflict would have dire consequences.

    “If Syria’s battle continues, it will be long, bloody and destructive,” the Hezbollah secretary general pointed out.

    Nasrallah said Lebanon in the most affected country in the Middle East by the Syrian crisis, calling on Lebanese political factions to refrain from any moves which would throw the country into turmoil.

    He went on to say that the influx of Syrian refugees in Lebanon indicates a major humanitarian crisis, which must not be politicized.

    The Hezbollah secretary general stressed that division is the most dangerous threat the Muslim nations face, saying Takfiri extremists are the product of the US seeking to sow discord among Muslims.

    He said Takfiris are behind countless massacres and bombings in Muslim countries and particularly Syria.

    Nasrallah called on the incumbent Lebanese government to devise a strategy to safeguard the country’s oil and gas resources and said the Hezbollah Resistance Movement is ready to undertake the task of protecting such resources.

    He concluded that despite US and Israeli efforts to “isolate, blacklist and demonize Hezbollah such efforts against the resistance movement will get nowhere.”

    via Turkey, Qatar, KSA behind increasing violence in Syria.

  • Iran-Turkey Partnership on Ice

    Iran-Turkey Partnership on Ice

     

    Co-authored by Fuad Shahbazov, an analyst in the Turkish think tank Strategic Outlook.

    As early as 2010, Iran and Turkey glittered like two inseparable lovers. It was the most astonishing sort of partnership one could imagine: an infatuation between a (Shia-dominated) theocratic republic opposed to the U.S., on one hand, and an (Sunni-majority) ultra-secularist state belonging to the NATO and aspiring to join the European Union (EU), on the other.

    It was as dreamy as it was baffling. What brought them together was a combination of two factors: (a) Growing assertiveness among rising powers such as Turkey to more independently pursue self-interest and diversify foreign relations (ostensibly away from the West and towards the East and South); and (b) Almost perfect bilateral convergence, albeit temporarily, in strategic foresight and ideology, as Ankara’s Islamist leadership found growing reasons to reach out to its influential and resource-rich eastern neighbor, Iran, which also experienced a period of ‘reformist resurgence’ in the same period.

    All was founded upon a simple but profoundly appealing bargain: Turkey needed Iran for energy security and influence, while Tehran needed its neighbor to reverse growing isolation within the Western order. Thus, after centuries of rivalry, the two Muslim powers finally awakened to their mutual interests amidst much fanfare.

    So what went wrong? Syria!

    It seems that growing disagreements over Syria — exacerbated by frustrations with the pace and tone of nuclear negotiations — has not only put Turko-Persian cooperation on key regional affairs on ice, but also placing the two powers on a collision course.

    It’s the Economy, Stupid!

    The Iran-Turkey partnership hasn’t been an empty flirtation, especially since the election of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey. It has been a blossoming, multifaceted relationship that has covered a whole host of issues, ranging from trade, finance and energy to cultural exchanges and politico-security cooperation, especially on the nuclear question as well as the Kurdish insurgency in common borders with Iraq.

    On the Kurdish issue, the two countries have been involved in a series of joint military and intelligence operations, where Turkish and Iranian security forces are said to have engaged Kurdish separatist groups such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK).

    More importantly, Turkey shares Iran’s interest in avoiding another possible military confrontation in the region over Tehran’s nuclear program. This explains why Turkey has played a prominent role as a potential ‘intermediary’ in Iran-West nuclear negotiations. Together with Brazil, Turkey did not only broker a ‘nuclear swap deal’ in 2010, but also, in the following year, voted against Western-backed sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council. Since January 2011, Turkey has hosted two major nuclear talks between Iran and the world powers, or the so-called P5+1.

    However, economic issues have played a central role in cementing bilateral ties. Iran is important to Turkey, precisely because the Turkish economy faces serious energy-security concerns. In 2008, Turkey had an import-dependence of 93 percent in oil and 95 percent in natural gas. On top of it, Turkey has an even more serious diversification-problem. In 2005, Turkey imported 66 percent of its gas from one country alone: Russia. Given Russia’s history of using gas as a tool of foreign policy, as a major NATO member Turkey would seriously consider exploring ‘alternative’ sources of energy-imports.

    Iran is both a major natural gas reserve holder and a possible corridor for trans-regional natural gas pipelines connecting resource-rich Caspian states and the Persian Gulf to Europe and Asia. In turn, Turkey is Iran’s gateway to Europe. This is the regional energy-economic map that both Iran and Turkey have sought to optimize.

    So far, Iran has been Turkey’s second largest supplier of natural gas, with daily gas exports reaching a high of 31.5 million cubic meters in late-2010. In 2011, bilateral trade stood at more than $16 billion, projected to expand up to $30 billion in 2015. Importantly, Turkish companies — prior to the latest series of Western sanctions — were relatively eager to invest in Iran’s vast energy sector.

    And the Skyfall….

    By mid-2011, bilateral relations begun to gradually take a qualitative shift. Coming under increasing Western pressure, Turkey precipitously distanced itself from an increasingly embattled Iran, as the nuclear conundrum proved evermore intractable. Turkey also agreed to station a NATO missile defense shield, ostensibly to neutralize Iran’s ballistic threat — practically nullifying Iran’s prime tactical deterrence against an Israeli-American attack.

    In response, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s (IRGC) aerospace chief, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, retorted, “Should we be threatened, we will target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey and then hit the next targets.”

    This was followed by another incident whereby Iranian security-intelligence personnel temporarily detained and interrogated three Turkish academics on charges of espionage.

    Moreover, under U.S. pressure, Ankara has reduced its Iranian oil import by as much as 20 percent and expressed less willingness to act as a financial intermediary — through the state-owned Halk bank — to process Iran’s multi-billion oil trade deals with countries such as India — in effect, contributing to the economic siege on Iran. Although, recent months have witnessed a dramatic peak in Turkey’s gold exports to Iran, apparently to settle earlier lira-based oil payments to Iran.

    Yet it was the Syrian straw — supposedly the strategic linchpin in Turko-Persian relations — that broke the camel of Iran-Turkey friendship’s back. Back in August, in response to Turkey’s growing support for the armed opposition in Syria and constant opposition to the inclusion of Iran in any multilateral framework to facilitate political transition in Syria, Iranian Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Seyed Hassan Firouzabadi ominously warned Turkey, “it will be its turn [if it continues to] to help advance the warmongering policies of the United States in Syria.”

    This was followed by Iran’s suspension of ‘visa free’ arrangements with Turkey, while Tehran hinted at downgrading security cooperation with Ankara (possibly affecting the Kurdish front).

    In return, Turkish officials have accused Iran of hosting PKK rebels and backing the oppression of people in Syria. Earlier this year, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arınç went as far as saying his country will do ‘whatever is required’ to counter the Iranian threat, despite incessant efforts by Iran’s foreign ministry to ‘damage control’ and downplay statements from the security branches.

    In August, Turkey also practically boycotted the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in Tehran by not sending its top representatives, despite a direct letter of invitation by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    While Iran is concerned with Turkey’s so-called ‘neo-ottomanism’ — an ambition to reclaim Turkish historical centrality in regional affairs — Ankara is concerned with Iran’s nuclear ambitions as well as its influence on Syria and other radical/resistance elements. It knows that without Iranian pressure, Assad wouldn’t make drastic reforms. Iran knows that without Turkey, the armed opposition wouldn’t have had as much chance to dismantle the regime.

    With Turkish-Syrian tensions culminating in recent cross-border artillery exchanges, threatening a full-scale war, Turko-Iranian ties came under growing pressure. Iran — along with Russia — has also criticized Turkey’s subsequent plans to host Patriot missile-defense systems, fearing Ankara could also use it against Tehran in the future.

    Overall, depending on how the Syrian conflict unfolds, as well as the dynamics of the Iranian nuclear program, we may enter a renewed phase of confrontation between the two powers after almost a decade of rapprochement.

    Suddenly, the two powers have found themselves on the opposite sides of the fence, occasionally exchanging fiery rhetoric and even threats of direct confrontation. We are also witnessing the unraveling of Turkey’s ‘zero problem with neighbors’ policy.

  • Does Turkey Benefit From Cold War With Israel?

    Does Turkey Benefit From Cold War With Israel?

    Last week we learned Turkey has partially lifted its vetoes against Israel within NATO. Turkey now partially agrees to the participation of Israel in NATO activities outside of military exercises.

    About This Article

    Summary :

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes that Turkey may benefit from a cold war with Israel, writes Kadri Gursel.

    Author: Kadri Gursel
    posted on: Thu, Jan 3, 2013

    Categories : Turkey   Originals Security
    Supporters of the Saadet (Felicity) Party burn an Israeli flag as they shout anti-Israel slogans during a protest in Istanbul, Dec. 2, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Osman Orsal)
    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/01/cold-war-turkey-israel.html#ixzz2H00muPOa

    During Israel’s assault on the Mavi Marmara, the ship that was heading to Gaza in May 2010 to penetrate Israel’s blockade, nine activists were killed. Since then, Turkey-Israel relations have been reminiscent of the Cold War. To normalize relations with Israel, Turkey has demanded a formal apology, compensation to the relatives of the victims and the lifting of Israel’s Gaza blockade. Israel has not fulfilled any of these conditions.

    NATO is another instrument Turkey has been using to exert pressure on Israel and punish it. Israel is a participant in the “Mediterranean Dialogue,” which is NATO’s program for security and stability in the Mediterranean. Until last week, Turkey had blocked Israel’s participation in this program.

    Now that Turkey has eased its position, Israel will be able to participate in seminars and programs, but not joint military exercises within the framework of the Mediterranean Dialogue.

    What does Turkey’s partial lifting of its vetoes against Israel in NATO signify?

    Is this is a sign of a general warming of Turkey to Israel? The answer is simple: No, at least for the time being. According to NATO sources, Turkey’s easing off is the result of a coalition against Turkey within the alliance.

    Egypt and Tunisia, the two countries Turkey has deepening ties with, are also included in the Mediterranean Dialogue. There have been reports, which have not been denied, that some NATO members had vetoed the participation of these two Maghreb countries in the Mediterranean Dialogue to persuade Turkey to lift its veto on Israel.

    Then there is the matter of deploying NATO Patriot missiles in Turkey against a possible Syrian ballistic-missile threat. It is no wonder that many quarters find a connection between Turkeys’s mellowing of its anti-Israel veto in NATO and the alliance’s agreement to respond positively to Turkey’s request for Patriots.

    In a nutshell, what led Turkey to soften its attitude against Israel is the balance of power created within the alliance by vetoing of Turkey’s interests.

    But when the issue is the bilateral Turkey-Israel relations, the key concept is not balance, but the lack of it. Asymmetry has defined the nature of Israel’s relations with Turkey since the establishment of the Jewish state.

    The unchangeable principle that has regulated the bilateral relations of the two countries and is not likely to change easily is that “Israel needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Israel.” Therefore, Turkey is more important for Israel than the other way around.

    Another feature of the bilateral relations in the 1999-2010 period was Turkey’s capacity to inflict more damage on Israel than vice versa.

    In the period that started Israel’s 2008-2009 Gaza operation, followed by the Davos confrontation between Erdogan and Israeli President Peres that ended with the flotilla affair, neo-Islamist Turkish elite made a national pastime of Israel bashing. Justice and Development Party (AKP) elite owed this privilege to this asymmetry. It was because of this asymmetry they were able to win massive sympathy in the Arab street for Erdogan and the AKP.

    But it is interesting to note that Turkey did not apply sanctions in bilateral trade relations where no such asymmetry exists. Despite the atmosphere of a cold war, trade relations continued to develop with their own dynamics.

    Going to back to asymmetry, it can be claimed that the AKP’s foreign-policy wizards exaggerated the advantages of this unbalance and stepped up their disproportionate actions. To this end, Prime Minister Erdogan took a risky step in July 2011. To Turkey’s two conditions for normalization — apology and compensation — Turkey’s prime minister added as a third official condition the lifting of the Israel blockade of Gaza. By doing so, he removed the normalization of relations from a bilateral context and made it part of a multilateral Hamas-Israel question.

    Unless Turkey rescinds this decision, the fate of Turkey-Israel relations will not be decided at bilateral level but in the complexity of a multidimensional equation that includes Hamas, Egypt, Fatah, Iran, some actors from outside the region and, naturally, Israel’s security imperatives.

    Israel is not likely to lift the blockade as long as the security issue with Hamas is not resolved. That also means that even if Israel agrees to apologize and pay compensation, relations with Turkey won’t be normalized.

    Of course, even if the blockade is lifted, Turkey will want to benefit from it.

    All this means that Turkey’s foreign-policy designers think that Israel is not an important Middle East country for them — to the contrary, Turkey could benefit more from a cold war with Israel.

    Then could the civil war in Syria favor Israel in the Turkey-Israel asymmetry? Not likely. If there were ever an expectation that the Syrian crisis could bring Israel and Turkey closer, this will not easily happen and hasn’t yet.

    Israel might think that there could be exceptional cooperation and coordination with Turkey over Syria and that this could change the whole picture.

    Israelis might even be thinking that should Turkey normalize its attitude to Israel, the Sunni rebels of Syria might be positively influenced and should they one day take over Damascus, they will be less hostile to Israel.

    For Israel’s own interests, the most positive Syria scenario would be an undivided Syria that still maintains its state structure and in which not Iran, but Turkey plays the leading role.

    But Israel cannot offer any inducement to Turkey to realize this scenario. Even rumors of a Turkish cooperation with Israel in the Syrian crisis will result in Turkey’s loss of legitimacy in the region.

    In Syria, Israel needs Turkey, but Turkey doesn’t need Israel — for the time being.

    As the asymmetry (and Prime Minister Erdogan, who makes use of it) are not going change anytime soon, the change has to come from Israel. For that, we have to wait for the results of the elections.

    Kadri Gürsel is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse, and has written a column for the Turkish daily Milliyet since 2007. He focuses primarily on Turkish foreign policy, international affairs and Turkey’s Kurdish question, as well as Turkey’s evolving political Islam. He is also chairman of the Turkish National Committee of the International Press Institute.

    Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/01/cold-war-turkey-israel.html#ixzz2H00LtNzf
  • Turkey, UAE sign $12 billion energy agreement

    Turkey, UAE sign $12 billion energy agreement

    Turkey, UAE sign $12 billion energy agreement

    Article | January 3, 2013 – 2:21pm | By Elena Ralli

    Energy_0Turkey and the United Arab Emirates today signed an agreement for the development of coal fields in southern Turkey to generate electricity. The agreement between Abu Dhabi-based TAQA and Turkey’s state-run power company EUAS for the $12 billion project is the biggest Arab investment in the Turkish energy sector.

    As Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz stated at the signing ceremony that took place in Ankara: “This is a very serious investment, a significant investment. This is the second-biggest investment made in Turkey after the two nuclear power plant projects.”

    In particular, according to the agreement, the coal reserves at Afsin-Elbistan basin in southern Turkey will be put to use for electricity production. The Afsin-Elbistan basin possesses 4.4 billion tonnes of coal reserves, which account for approximately 40 percent of Turkey’s lignite resources. The project will provide the region in Turkey’s south-east with 8,000 megawatts of power at full capacity. Initial operation is to start in 2018 and the full project be completed in 2021.

    Turkey will benefit a great deal from the development of lignite since it will have the opportunity to reduce natural gas imports that are worth $1.2 billion and account for a large part of the country’s current account deficit.

    In addition, with Iran being Turkey’s second-biggest natural gas supplier, the latter is also under pressure from the West to reduce gas imports due to Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme.

    via Turkey, UAE sign $12 billion energy agreement | New Europe.

  • Turkey in 2013: Will Erdogan shake up the region?

    Turkey in 2013: Will Erdogan shake up the region?

    By Güneş Murat Tezcür, Special to CNN

    Editor’s note: Güneş Murat Tezcür is an associate professor of Political Science at Loyola University Chicago. The views expressed are the writer’s own.

    t1larg.erdogan.afp.gi

    It has been a decade since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in Turkey, and its achievements are certainly noteworthy. Since experiencing its worst economic crisis in recent history in 2001, Turkey has achieved sustainable, high growth rates. The AKP’s foreign policy, meanwhile, has been characterized by increasing activism, contributing to Turkey’s image as a rising regional power. The AKP has also dismantled the power of the military and judiciary, forces that frequently intervened in electoral politics. With the advent of the Arab uprisings, Turkey has promoted itself as a role model that combines democratic rule with Muslim piety.

    Yet, the AKP democratizing agenda that was initially triggered by the EU accession process has gradually lost steam. As the AKP has consolidated its power, it has lost its appetite for addressing the demands of historically marginalized groups such as the Kurds and Alevis. Another casualty of the AKP’s overconfidence has been press freedom. In Reporters Without Borders’s Press Freedom Index, Turkey ranked 103th out of 173 countries in 2008. Now it is ranked 148th out of 179.

    Still, the AKP will emerge victorious in 2014 local and presidential elections as long as it avoids a sharp economic downturn in 2013. Opposition parties lack the vision and resources to challenge the AKP’s political ascendancy even as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan promotes some form of “presidentialism” to replace the current parliamentary system.

    This year, the AKP faced two major challenges. The transformation of the Syrian uprising into a civil war symbolized the end of Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s much touted “zero problems with the neighbors” policy. As the AKP put its weight behind the opposition, Turkey’s relations with Iran, Iraq and Russia came under increasing strain. Meanwhile, Kurdish insurgency-related violence has reached its highest levels since 1999. As the AKP adopted a more nationalist position, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), galvanized by the gains of the Syrian Kurds, intensified its attacks. These two issues – the violence in Syria and the Kurdish question – will continue to dominate Turkish politics in 2013.

    While the al-Assad regime in Syria has lost control of large areas of Syria, the likelihood of an orderly transition of power there is slim. But the AKP’s real concern is the strong appeal of the PYD, a PKK affiliate, among the Syrian Kurds. The Syrian Kurds are dispersed and impoverished, and lack unity, international support and control over oil resources. Similar to the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian Kurds are likely to seek Turkish patronage to counter Arab power. At the same time, the revitalization of Kurdish nationalism in Syria has galvanized Turkish Kurds, whose demands for greater rights and power continue to trouble the AKP government.

    That said, despite this year’s spike in violence, the PKK is no position to militarily challenge the Turkish army in 2013, except in a few remote areas. But the government’s harsh law and order tactics, involving the imprisonment of thousands of Kurdish political activists, and an increasingly nationalistic discourse from Erdoğan, seem to be popular among large segments of the Turkish population. Indeed, Erdoğan seems to be content with a decline in support among Kurdish citizens as his nationalist credentials have bolstered his popularity among ethnic Turks. The AKP in 2013 will be hoping (unrealistically) that economic prosperity, newly offered cultural rights and repression of activism will decrease the appeal of Kurdish nationalism.

    Looking ahead, a key aspect of the AKP’s Kurdish policy involves Turkey’s relations with the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and a plan to export Kurdish oil and gas via a new pipeline. Turkey has three objectives in mind with such a deal. First, the pipeline would help satisfy the fast growing energy needs of the Turkish economy. Second, it would make the KRG a de facto a protectorate of Turkey and further sever the links between the Kurdish nationalists in Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds. Finally, the AKP government hopes for greater prosperity from increased cooperation with the KRG to revitalize economic life in its Kurdish provinces.

    This growing cooperation between Turkey and the KRG complicates the U.S. strategy in the region in 2013 and beyond. As Turkey openly sides with the KRG in the latter’s dispute with the al-Maliki government in Iraq, Iran emerges as the only regional state that enjoys good relations with Baghdad. This development, in turn, undermines the U.S. goal of isolating Iran in the region. Yet given the widespread anti-Americanism in the region, the U.S. has no interest in alienating Erdoğan, whose pragmatism and populist appeal more than compensates for his authoritarian tendencies and over-ambitious foreign policy initiatives.

    How Erdogan’s government responds to changing regional realities next year could have far reaching consequences.

    via Turkey in 2013: Will Erdogan shake up the region? – Global Public Square – CNN.com Blogs.