President Barack Obama plans some intense Mideast diplomacy this month and next, welcoming leaders of Turkey, Jordan and two Gulf states for Oval Office talks on Syria and broader developments in the Mideast.
The White House said President Obama will welcome Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for talks on May 16.
The two men established a close personal and working relationship in Obama’s first term, which has carried over into Obama’s second term as they grapple with the situation in Syria, among other issues.
At the end of his Mideast trip last month, Obama brokered an easing of tensions between Israel and Turkey, bringing the Turkish leader and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into a phone conversation to discuss differences.
The White House said talks will include Syria and counterterrorism cooperation, and underscore the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Turkey as NATO allies.
King Abdullah of Jordan, who hosted President Obama in Amman last month, will come to the White House April 26.
In their talks in Jordan, the two leaders discussed the sharply increased refugee flows from Syria, with Obama announcing he would ask Congress for $200 million in additional aid for Jordan.
The White House said the leaders will continue consultations on Syria, and Jordan’s political and economic reforms, which Obama praised during his visit to Amman.
Obama will also meet this month with the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates.
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, along with Saudi Arabia, are thought to be providing light weapons and other assistance to Syrian rebels fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Asked if the visits are part of efforts to coordinate assistance to Syrian opposition forces, White House press secretary Jay Carney avoided an answer, keeping to the general description provided of the purpose of the visits.
“There are obviously a number of issues for these leaders and the president to discuss, including Syria, including his recent visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories, including the broader developments in the Arab Spring so he looks forward to these visits and they reflect his commitment and interest in the region and in our policies toward the region,” Carney said.
Syria issued a warning to Jordan this week after U.S. and Western officials were quoted saying Jordan is allowing its territory to be used for training Syrian rebels.
Syria will be a key issue in talks Secretary of State John Kerry is having this weekend in Ankara before he returns to Israel for further consultations there.
White House talks last year between President Obama and the United Arab Emirates leader also focused on concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
via Obama to Host Leaders from Turkey, Jordan, Gulf States.
Confused may be an appropriate term to describe Turkey’s current foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel in particular. The source of that confusion — aside from the appalling violence in Syria and earlier in Libya — is Turkey’s own range of mistakes.
The Turkish government’s inconsistency regarding Israel highlights earlier discrepancy in other political contexts. There was a time when Turkey’s top foreign policy priority included reaching out diplomatically to Arab and Muslim countries. Then, we spoke of a paradigm shift, whereby Istanbul was repositioning its political center, reflecting perhaps economic necessity, but also cultural shifts within its own society. It seemed that the East versus West debate was skillfully being resolved by politicians of the Justice and Development Party (AKP).
The ‘Zero Problems’ policy
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, along with Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, appeared to have obtained a magical non-confrontational approach to Turkey’s historic political alignment. “The Zero Problems” policy allowed Turkey to brand itself as a bridge between two worlds. The country’s economic growth and strategic import to various geopolitical spheres allowed it to escape whatever price was meted out by Washington and its European allies as a reprimand for its bold political moves — including Erdogan’s unprecedented challenge of Israel.
Indeed, there was a link between the growing influence of Turkey among Arab and Islamic countries and Turkey’s challenge to Israel’s violent behavior in Palestine and Lebanon, and its rants against Syria and Iran. Turkey’s return to its political roots was unmistakable, yet interestingly, it was not met by too strong an American response. Washington couldn’t simply isolate Istanbul and the latter shrewdly advanced its own power and influence with that knowledge in mind. Even the bizarre anti-Turkish statements by Israeli officials sounded more like incoherent rants than actual foreign policy.
Israel’s clout in the region
Political arrogance and U.S.-financed military strength are two pillars by which Israel maintains its clout in the region. The first was childishly applied when the then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, publicly snubbed Turkey’s Ambassador, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, in January 2010 by placing him on a lower sofa. He then asked Israeli journalists to take note of the insult. The second came in May 2010 when Israeli commandos descended on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, and killed nine Turkish citizens in cold blood.
“Idiocracy” is how Israeli columnist Uri Avnery described Israel’s behavior toward Turkey, which was once one of Israel’s most vital allies. But idiocy has little to do with it and Turkey knew that well. Israel wished to send strong messages to the Turks, that its strategic and political maneuvering was of no use here and that Israel would continue to reign supreme in the face of Erdogan’s ambitious policies. The real idiocy was Israel’s miscalculations, which failed to take into account that such behavior could only speed up Turkey’s political transformation. The fact that the U.S. was losing its once unchallenged grip over the fate of the Middle East had also contributed to Turkey’s sudden rise as a country with far-reaching ties and long-term political vision.
Turkey’s new political priorities
Erdogan quickly rose to prominence. His responses to Israel’s provocations, and to what was essentially a declaration of war, came in the form of strong words and measured actions. He conditioned any rapprochement with Israel on a clear apology over its transgressions, compensations to the victims and the families of the dead, and ending the siege on Gaza. The last condition further highlighted Turkey’s new political priorities.
As far as Turkey’s regional ascendency was concerned, it mattered little whether Israel apologized. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was losing favor, even with his own allies in Washington. And unlike Washington, under the thumb of the pro-Israeli lobby, Istanbul was a country with independent foreign policy.
The Turkish government’s inconsistency regarding Israel highlights earlier discrepancy in other political contexts. There was a time when Turkey’s top foreign policy priority included reaching out diplomatically to Arab and Muslim countries
Ramzy Baroud
When AKP triumphed in Turkey’s elections in June 2011, the so-called Arab Spring was still in its early stages. Then, much hope was placed on the rise of popular movements in countries that have been disfigured by Arab dictators and their Western benefactors. Not only did the ruling party disregard the fact that Turkey had taken part in the old political structure in the Middle East, it also escaped them that Turkey was an important member of NATO which unleashed a terrible war on Libya on March 19, deliberately misinterpreting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. Yes, Turkey had resisted the war option at first, but it was quick to forgive and forget and eventually recognized and supported its political outcome. Thanks to the war, Libya is now in a permanent state of bedlam.
Victory Speech
Erdogan’s victory speech in June 2011 attempted to paint a new picture of reality regarding future prospects and Turkey’s proposed role in all of this. “I greet with affection the peoples of Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Amman, Cairo, Tunis, Sarajevo, Skopje, Baku, Nicosia and all other friends and brother peoples who are following the news out of Turkey with great excitement,” Erdogan said. “Today, the Middle East, the Caucasus and the Balkans have won as much as Turkey.”
But that “win” was short-lived. The euphoria of change created many blind spots, one of which is that conflicts of sectarian and ethnic nature — as in Syria — don’t get resolved overnight; that foreign military intervention, direct or by proxy, can only espouse protracted conflict. Indeed, it was in Syria that Turkey’s vision truly fumbled. It was obvious that many were salivating over the outcome of a Syrian war between a brutal regime and a self-serving, divided opposition, each faction espousing one foreign agenda or another. Suddenly, Turkey’s regional and global ambitions of justice and morality grew ever more provisional because of fear of chaos spilling over into its border areas, the tragic rise of the number of Syrian refugees at Turkey’s borders and the fear of a strong Kurdish presence innorthern Syria.
Erdogan: ‘Israel a terrorist state’
Not even capable Turkish politicians could hide the confusion in which they found themselves. Responding to Israel’s bombing of Gaza last November, which killed and wounded hundreds of Palestinians, Erdogan described Israel as a “terrorist state.” “Those who turn a blind eye to discrimination toward Muslims in their own countries, are also closing their eyes to the savage massacre of innocent children in Gaza. … Therefore, I say Israel is a terrorist state.”
But even then, discussions were under way regarding the text of an Israeli apology to Turkey over the Mavi Marmara attack. That apology had finally arrived as an undeserved gift to U.S. President Barack Obama, who visited Israel in March with a message of total support for Israel.
“In light of Israel’s investigation into the incident which pointed to a number of operational mistakes, the prime minister expressed Israel’s apology to the Turkish people for any mistakes that might have led to the loss of life or injury and agreed to conclude an agreement on compensation/non-liability,” Netanyahu’s apology read. No commitment regarding Gaza was made. Erdogan’s office responded: “Erdogan told Benjamin Netanyahu that he valued the centuries-long strong friendship and cooperation between the Turkish and Jewish nations.” According to Netanyahu, the apology over the “operational mistakes” had everything to do with the need to share intelligence over Syria between both of the countries’ militaries. To balance out Turkey’s hurried retreat to its old political foreign policy, Erdogan is reportedly planning to visit Gaza in April.
“We will take on a more effective role. We will call, as we have, for rights in our region, for justice, for the rule of law, for freedom and democracy,” were the resounding words of Erdogan following his party’s elections victory last year.
It is likely that Istanbul will try to maintain a balanced position, but, as Erdogan himself knows, in issues of morality and justice, middle stances are simply untenable.
_____________
Palestinian-American journalist, author, editor, Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) taught Mass Communication at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle. Baroud’s work has been published in hundreds of newspapers and journals worldwide and his books “His books “Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion” and “The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” have received international recognition. Baroud’s third book, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” narrates the story of the life of his family, used as a representation of millions of Palestinians in Diaspora, starting in the early 1940’s until the present time.
Kuzey Kore gerilimi öncesinde Türkiye’deki nükleer silahlar ve F16’ların durumu
Lessons in Extended Deterrence: Why the Status of Turkish F-16s Doesn’t Matter
Posted on April 3, 2013 by aaronstein1
In response to North Korea’s bellicose threats, the United States has been parading a bevy of nuclear dual capable aircraft near the Korean peninsula. Both the B-52 and the B-2 have a nuclear role and would, in the event of a nuclear conflict, likely use air launched nuclear cruise missiles against targets in North Korea. The F-22, which is on “static display” in South Korea, would, according to the aviationist, “probably escort the big bombers during the opening stages of an eventual campaign (after the rain of cruise missiles that would wipe out most of North Korea’s air defenses…), their role could not be limited to providing air superiority (to be easily and quickly achieved considered the status of the geriatric North Korean Air Force and its obsolete Migs): as demonstrated in last year’s Exercise Chimichanga,the F-22 has the ability to play a dual role in the same mission: HVAAE (High Value Air Asset Escort) and air-to-surface.”
While the actual threat of conflict on the Korean peninsula is low, the American show of force sheds lights on the lengths Washington will go to demonstrate its commitment to use nuclear weapons in defense of an ally covered by its nuclear umbrella. Washington’s actions, as has been noted by many others, is a show force meant to demonstrate its commitment to extended deterrence. In other words, Washington is signaling its readiness to push the button. (It is also trying to deter an ROK nuclear weapons program, but I am not really going to talk about that – I will leave that for better informed Korean experts.)
Anyways, the signaling is important for the Turkish leadership in Ankara. Turkey, as regular readers of the blog are well aware, is home to ~65 American nuclear weapons. [From an EDAM issue brief I wrote about Turkey and Tactical Nuclear Weapons] According to Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, 50 bombs are slated for delivery by U.S. aircraft, but do to basing restrictions American dual capable aircraft (DCA) are not stationed permanently in Turkey. If the order were given for the release of NATO nuclear weapons, American aircraft would first have to be flown to Incirlik from another European base and armed before finally flying on to their targets. The other bombs are reserved for delivery by Turkish dual capable F-16s. However, there are conflicting reports about the status of Turkey’s nuclear fighter-bombers. According to General Ergin Celasin (ret.), the former Commander of the Turkish Air Force, “The Turkish air force’s role in NATO’s nuclear contingency plans came to an end with the withdrawal of nuclear weapons in the 1990s from the Air Force units that were deployed in several air bases in Turkey.”
However, Norris and Kristensen cite Pentagon sources who say that Turkey’s current fleet of nuclear capable F-16s are receiving a “stop gap” modification to carry the B-61-12. Reports indicate that Turkey’s nuclear capable combat aircraft no longer train for nuclear missions. In the past, the air force’s dual capable aircraft trained for nuclear missions and were certified to carry out nuclear strikes. Turkish aircraft reportedly now only train as non-nuclear escort aircraft for NATO’s nuclear fighter wings. However, NATO has made clear that it does not foresee any scenario that would require the rapid use of nuclear weapons, which raises a number of unanswered questions about Turkey’s current nuclear posture. In any future scenario that might call for the use of nuclear weapons, the return of American DCAs and the re-certification of Turkish DCAs would likely be an important signal to a potential adversary.* [snip]
In any case, the Alliance, should the need arise, has ample time to move American aircraft into Turkey. The move, perhaps combined with a very public crash course for Turkish pilots to drop the Bomb, would be a very powerful signal to a potential adversary. Or, in other words, extended deterrence.
Hence, I do not see a real difference in Turkey’s post-Cold War thinking about nuclear weapons, even though the threat of a nuclear attack has diminished tremendously since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In short, Turkey continues to value nuclear weapons because of the widespread belief that they are necessary to deter regional foes like Iran and Syria. (It is also worth nothing, that both of these countries are not covered by a US negative security assurance.)
Moreover, I suspect that there is a small group in the Turkish Armed Forces that are looking at the American show of force in Korea with satisfaction. Ankara, for a number of very good reasons, is perpetually wary of the American security commitment. Turkey, therefore, sees the forward deployment of nuclear weapons as an important symbol of Alliance solidarity and as a symbol of the US commitment to come to Turkish defense. This belief, however, is predicated on the notion that the bombs will actually be used (debatable actually), should the need arise.
The American show of force, therefore, should not solely be interpreted in Turkey as the US commitment to ROK security. In fact, the American moves are also aimed at the leadership in Ankara. And I can guarantee that they are paying attention.
via Lessons in Extended Deterrence: Why the Status of Turkish F-16s Doesn’t Matter | Turkey Wonk: Nuclear and Political Musings in Turkey and Beyond.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry will head to Turkey before the end of this week to discuss the continuing Syrian conflict, which has just entered its second year.
Photo by: J. Scott Applewhite Secretary of State John F. Kerry (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
A Turkish official confirmed the upcoming meeting with the Reuters news agency and said it will likely take place before Sunday.
The meeting comes as The Guardian reports another 100 people were killed in a Damascus neighborhood by warplane strikes. The death toll in the ongoing conflict has been estimated at 70,000, the United Nations reported.
Mr. Kerry’s stop in Turkey is part of a Western Europe and Asian visit. And his talks with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will be closely watched. The United States sees Turkey as a crucial player for helping rebel fighters oust Syrian President Bashar Assad and implement a new government.
“Mr. Kerry will visit Turkey,” said the unnamed Turkish spokesman in the Reuters report. “The date is not clear yet but possibly it will take place either on Friday or on Saturday.”
The State Department did not comment in the Reuters report.
via Turkey: John Kerry to talk about Syria with PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan – Washington Times.
Turkish Airways Flight 34 arrives at Bush Intercontinental Airport / Photo credit: Brent Clanton
Houston is adding depth to its reputation as an international city of trade with the establishment of direct-service air travel to Istanbul, Turkey via Turkish Airlines.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker welcomed an entire delegation of Turkish dignitaries to Bush Intercontinental last night to usher-in a new age of commerce between Houston, Texas and Turkey.
Houston Mayor Annise Parker welcomes the Turkish Trade Delegation to Bush Intercontinental Airport / Phot credit: Brent Clanton
“It’s a bridge in the world, and it’s bridging the cultures, bridging the economy, and making it possible for us as Americans, and them as Turkish people, to communicate and do business for the future,” enthused Farouk Shami, Chairman of Farouk Systems Group, on hand to greet the first 777 flight to arrive direct from Istanbul.
Shami has done his homework, and with today’s signing of trade agreements with Houston and Turkey, he’s ready to do more business abroad: ”We’ll be working with two electronics tools for environmental beauty there,” Shami says. ”The economy is great in Turkey, and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. I think we can share knowledge on how to improve our economy, as well.” Shami has already made three trips to Turkey to set up manufacturing and other alliances. ”There’s a big market that I can expand Farouk Business Systems into that,” he says.
When Turkey was shunned by the rest of Europe, the country turned eastward, and developed trade with partners in Asia and beyond. That’s turning into good fortune for Texas, with trade agreements opening the gates for more commerce…and easier access with Turkish Airways’ direct flights.
Houston’s Turkish Consul General, Cemalettin Aydin, says, ”It’s quite big because this flight will, I think, connect Houston to, I believe, one of the most-dynamic places in the middle of three continents, that is, Turkey, between Europe, Asia and Africa.”
Turkish Airways will operate four direct flights a week, increasing to six a week in July. Shami is looking forward to the trade reciprocity: ”Turkish Delights, for sure,” he laughs. “That is most-popular, you know, and they sell lots of hundred of millions of that, and we like sweets. That’s the first thing that comes to my mind.”
via Houston Welcomes Turkish Airways’ Direct Service to Istanbul | News 92 FM.
Patriot missile installation is pictured at a positions near the city of Kahramanmaras, Feb. 23, 2013. Germany’s defence minister inspected Patriot missile batteries close to the Syria-Turkey border. (photo by REUTERS/Axel Schmidt) Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/american-middle-east-policy-turkey-nuclear-bombs.html#ixzz2PDsVinVg
By: Kadri Gursel for Al-Monitor Turkey Pulse. Posted on March 31.
In recent years when the AKP government gave priority to developing strategic ties with the Baath regime, the neo-Islamic political class that rules Turkey did not think of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles in the Syrian army inventory as a strategic threat against Turkey.
About This Article
Summary :
Turkey once sought a nuclear-free region but now covets the protection from its neighbors that is afforded by US nuclear bombs, writes Kadri Gursel.
Original Title:
Middle East Policy Under Protection of American Bomb
Author: Kadri Gursel
Translated by: Timur Goksel
They thought at the time that Turkey, by using its soft power, was actually transforming Syria and even on the verge of integrating it. Visas were abolished between the two countries and contacts reached unheard of levels.
For example on Dec. 22-23, 2009, in “The First Session of the Turkey-Syria High Level Strategic Cooperation Council” held in Damascus, 50 accords, memorandums of understanding and cooperation protocols were signed by two countries on education, culture, commerce, security, health, irrigation, agriculture, mass housing and other fields.
We are talking of the not too distant past, when many were gushing with praise for Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s patented political strategy of “Zero Problems With Neighbors.”
The joint communique of the meeting had a paragraph that revealed an interesting paradox:
“The parties, agreeing on the necessity of purging the Middle East from nuclear weapons, have reviewed latest developments on the ongoing dialogue in the context of Iran’s nuclear program. With the conviction that all countries have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes we have emphasized the importance of finding a diplomatic solution to this question.”
The paradox that called for clarification was NATO-member Turkey, jointly with anti-West Syria, declaring its wish for “a Middle East purged of nuclear weapons.”
“Nuclear weapon-free Middle East” was one of the themes of the anti-Israel policy that peaked between the Davos confrontation of January 2009 and the Mavi Marmara events of May 2010. Basically, there was nothing strange with that expressed wish. Everyone, at least a vast majority, would want to see the Middle East cleansed of nuclear weapons. But when it is Turkey that asks for it, one has to pause and think. Turkey is one of two countries in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons on its soil. That Israel is a nuclear power is a secret known to all in the world. That Turkey has American B61 nuclear bombs on its territory is also known by all, but disregarded.
The difference between Turkey and Israel is that the nuclear bombs deployed at Incirlik base near the southern city of Adana are not Turkish but American property. These are air-launched gravity bombs and their quantity changes “according to need.” B61s are the forward deployed elements of the nuclear umbrella the US provides for its NATO allies.
B61s were deployed at Incirlik during the Cold War years to balance Soviet tactical nuclear weapons and they are still there. According to reliable sources, Turkish pilots are not trained on B61s and Turkish F-16s don’t have the capability of delivering B61s.
In addition to Turkey, these bombs are deployed in territories of four other US allies: Belgium, Holland, Germany and Italy. All, except Italy, now don’t want these weapons on their soil.
But there is no likelihood for Turkey to adopt such a position. To the contrary, actually.
The B61s that are still offsetting the Russian tactical nuclear weapons, as they were in the past, now have an increasingly important role for Turkey in the new Middle East geopolitics: To deter Syria and Iran. The Syrian situation is well known. Since the uprising and the civil war than ensued in Syria, Turkey, which until recently tried to transform that country with its soft power and strategic cooperation, is now resorting to all possible means, except to openly declaring war, to topple the regime in Damascus and replace it with a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated fraternal regime. Turkey, aware that its approach is seen as hostile, is now wary of Syria’s chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Against this threat, Ankara asked for NATO protection and the Western alliance deployed Patriot batteries around three cities close to Syria.
On the other hand, despite all objections, Iran is making headway in becoming a new nuclear-armed power of the Middle East. No doubt a nuclear-armed Iran will constitute a strategic imbalance for Turkey in the Middle East geopolitics. For a long time, as a political choice prompted by the “zero problems” policy, Turkey ignored this threat. The engine of Ankara’s “zero problems” approach to Iran was to advocate a solution to the international crisis brewing around the Iranian nuclear program that would ensure a change of the global nuclear order, to the benefit of developing powers like Turkey.
Three years ago on May 14, 2010, the declaration that Turkey, at that time challenging the global nuclear order, pronounced to the world from Tehran (along with Brazil and Iran) was a part of this strategy. Acting with the same philosophy, on June 9, 2010, Turkey voted against a UN Security Council resolution that called for aggravated sanctions against Iran’s suspicious nuclear program.
Three years after the Tehran Declaration and the negative vote at the Security Council, Turkey, far from challenging the global order, is feeling more secure under the protective wings of precisely that order against a threat from Iran.
It was Turkey’s Syria policy that led to this situation.
On March 19, in a workshop on “Emerging Powers and the Global Nuclear Order” organized jointly by Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [CEIP] and the University of Brasilia at Brazil’s capital, Brasilia, this subject too was discussed. Turkey-based nuclear weapons were debated in the context of AKP’s ambitious Middle East policy.
Sinan Ulgen, the Director of Istanbul-based Economy and Foreign Policy Research Center [EDAM], who submitted a paper to the workshop, said:
“Ankara, (…) believes that the continued presence of NATO nuclear weapons deters chemically armed Syria and, potentially, a nuclear-armed Iran in the future.”
Turkish officials continue their quiet support for nuclear weapons. While reluctant to discuss these weapons in public, Ankara’s actions suggest that Turkey is taking steps to ensure that it retains the capability to host and deliver US tactical nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. Despite taking on a more passive nuclear posture since the end of the Cold War, the current difficulties in the Middle East will likely affect Turkey’s thinking about nuclear weapons. As the Syrian civil war worsens, and Ankara continues to grapple with how to deter a Syrian chemical weapons attack, Turkey could opt to harden its support for the forward deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe.”
Ulgen noted that divergent views of Iran and Turkey for solutions in Bahrain and Syria had led to tension between Ankara and Tehran, and this prompted Turkey to withdraw the public support it gave to the Iranian nuclear program.
Turkey, along with treating Israel as whipping boy in 2009-2010 and pressing it with the call for a ‘’Nuclear-free Middle East,’’ is now sharing a new ‘’joint threat” with Israel at a different plane: Iran and its nuclear program.
Certainly a peculiar historic twist.
Let us repeat: This is all because of Turkey’s Syria policy.
As Ozdem Sanberk, a senior, retired Turkish diplomat often says, foreign policy is the art of managing contradictions.
Turkey is hard pressed to manage the phenomenal contradictions between its new and ambitious policy in the Middle East and the NATO membership it needs to alleviate its military capacity deficit.
Kadri Gürsel is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor’s Turkey Pulse and has written a column for the Turkish daily Milliyet since 2007.
