Category: USA

Turkey could be America’s most important regional ally, above Iraq, even above Israel, if both sides manage the relationship correctly.

  • Turkey’s Regional Policy Protected  By American Bomb

    Turkey’s Regional Policy Protected By American Bomb

    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: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2013/03/american-middle-east-policy-turkey-nuclear-bombs.html#ixzz2PDsVinVg
    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. 

    Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/american-middle-east-policy-turkey-nuclear-bombs.html#ixzz2PDrw744w

  • Turkey Cracks the Whip

    Turkey Cracks the Whip

    If Netanyahu wants rapprochement with Ankara, he must do more than apologize for the Mavi Marmara killings

    By PHILIP GIRALDI • March 29, 2013
    • Obama-and-Erdogan

    One of the surprise results of President Barack Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East was the last-minute phone call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that took place from a hastily set-up trailer near the Tel Aviv airport as Obama was about to leave.

    The two nations had once cooperated closely and were generally viewed as strategic partners, but the Turks had begun to distance themselves from Israeli policies in early 2009 when the Turkish prime minister confronted Israel’s President Shimon Peres at a January international meeting in Davos. Referring to the slaughter of Gazan civilians earlier that month during Operation Cast Lead, Erdogan told Peres, “you know well how to kill.” In the one-hour discussion of Gaza that was moderated by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, Peres was allowed 25 minutes to speak in defense of the Israeli attack. Erdogan was given 12 minutes. During the debate, Peres pointed accusingly at Erdogan and raised his voice. When Erdogan sought time to respond, Ignatius granted him a minute and then cut him off, claiming it was time to go to dinner. Erdogan complained about the treatment and left Davos, vowing never to return. Back in Turkey, he received a hero’s welcome.

    The bilateral relationship then hit zero when, in June 2010, the Israelis boarded the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara in international waters. The Mavi Marmara had only humanitarian supplies on board, but the Israeli naval commandos from the elite Shayetet 13 unit were met by a number of Turks wielding improvised weapons made from the ship’s rails and deck chairs. The Israelis killed nine Turks, one of whom was also an American citizen; most were shot execution-style. Israel could have defused the crisis by admitting it had erred, apologizing, and offering to pay reparations, but refused to do so. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had personally directed the operation, claimed that the Israelis were acting in self-defense.

    The Turkish connection was important because Turkey was the only predominantly Muslim country with which Israel had a truly friendly relationship. But Israel is much less important to Ankara. The prior warmth was based on common interests uniting the Israeli and Turkish militaries that never quite penetrated to the government level in Ankara, where Israel’s destabilizing role in a region that Turkey was increasingly seeing as its backyard was watched carefully. The military’s ability to influence events waned when the Turkish National Security Council, a powerful remnant of the last military coup consisting of high-ranking officers, was effectively delegitimized and broken by Erdogan. He also ordered the arrests of hundreds of senior officers who might or might not have been conspiring to overthrow him.

    What is important to Erdogan is that Ankara’s strained relationship with Israel has created problems in Washington. Since the split, there have been numerous articles, mostly written by neocons, criticizing Turkey’s democratic credentials and its self-confident Islamic identity while asking whether the country is really “part of the West.” In the September 16, 2011 Washington Post Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, opined that Erdogan

    now directly challenges our major alliance in the Middle East, and how far he will go is unclear … By threatening to militarily contest Israel’s blockade of Gaza … the Turkish government has laid down a serious challenge to American policy … Obama’s meeting with Erdogan on Tuesday is crucial. He can take a few important steps. He should immediately deploy 6th Fleet ships from Norfolk to the Eastern Mediterranean to signal that the United States will not tolerate even inadvertent naval clashes. He needs to make clear to Erdogan that the United States will not side with Turkey against Israel and that Turkey’s current strategy risks undermining regional stability.

    In the same month, seven United States senators sent a letter to President Obama stating that

    Turkey is shifting to a policy of confrontation, if not hostility, towards our allies in Israel and we urge you to mount a diplomatic offensive to reverse this course. We ask you to outline Turkey’s eroding support in Congress … and how its current ill-advised policy towards the State of Israel will also negatively reflect on U.S. Turkish relations and Turkey’s role in the future of NATO.

    But the White House has never taken its eye off the ball regarding Turkey. Turkey is without any doubt the key player and most essential ally for the United States in the entire Near East region. It is frequently cited as an example of how democracy can function in a predominantly Islamic country. It is the NATO member with the largest army after that of the U.S., fought in the Korean War, has fully supported every U.S. intervention in its backyard save only Iraq in 2003, and shares long borders both with Syria and Iran. Whatever happens in Syria will largely be shaped by what Ankara decides to do, and President Obama knows it. Israel is understandably concerned about what might come out of the Syrian farrago and knows it too, so Obama was able to convince Netanyahu that if he wants to sit at the table when critical decisions are made about Syria, accommodating Turkey and Erdogan would be a necessary first step. So it was most definitely in Israel’s own interest as well as that of Washington to mend fences with Erdogan.

    Netanyahu faced considerable internal opposition within his new coalition to making the call that Obama personally brokered. Netanyahu’s former Moldovan bouncer Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently provided comic relief as a foreign minister, immediatelydenounced the prime minister’s apology as a “serious mistake” before saying, “Such an apology harms IDF soldiers’ motivation and their willingness to go out on future missions, and strengthens the radical elements in the region. Worse still is the fact that the apology also affects Israel’s uncompromising struggle for righteousness, morality and for the morality of its soldiers.”

    There was also considerable opposition from Turkey. Erdogan responded to the call somewhat reluctantly, according to Turkish sources, and only because Obama was involved. He accepted the Netanyahu apology but demanded that it first be put in writing before giving his verbal consent, reportedly because he did not trust the Israeli Prime Minister to stick with whatever wording might be agreed upon over the phone. The official Israeli version subsequently appeared in several forms in English on the Israeli Foreign Ministry website before it was agreed to by Ankara. It now reads that “Israel regrets … [due to] a number of operational mistakes … the loss of life or injury.” It agreed to “conclude an agreement on compensation/nonliability. Prime Minister Netanyahu also noted that Israel has substantially lifted the restrictions on the entry of civilian goods into the Palestinians territories, including Gaza…”

    The Israeli and U.S. media initially reported that the two countries would restore full diplomatic relations, but that is incorrect. Erdogan has instructed his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, to establish a fair level of compensation for the families of the Mavi Marmara victims as well as for the shipowners, a sum likely to exceed $20 million, before improving ties in any way. And he has not committed to returning his ambassador to Tel Aviv. Turkey is also monitoring compliance with the pledge to ease entry to Gaza and the West Bank. Davutoglu reportedly sent a strongly worded message to Netanyahu regarding Israel’s new restrictions on Gazan fisherman, which went into effect two days after the three heads of government spoke on the phone.

    Israel has also taken note of an independent announcement by Turkey that Erdogan would visit Gaza and the West Bank in April, while there have been rumors in the Turkish media that the current Turkish consul general in Jerusalem, Sakir Ozkan Torunlar, will be re-designated ambassador to Palestine, meaning full recognition of the Palestinian State, with all that implies.

    Possibly most important of all is the fact that the Erdogan-Netanyahu agreement did not explicitly mention legal liability. In June 2012 Israel’s own state controller investigatedthe Mavi Marmara incident and, though absolving the military, noted “essential and significant flaws” in the operation as directed by Netanyahu. A simultaneous United Nations investigation called the use of force in the raid “excessive and unreasonable.” The Turkish Justice Ministry completed its own inquiry in the summer of 2012, resulting in criminal charges being filed against four senior Israeli military officers. That trial is scheduled to begin later this year with more than 500 witnesses prepared to provide eyewitness testimony for the in absentia proceedings. It all means that the rapprochement engineered by President Obama between Israel and Turkey is still very much a work in progress, and it is Ankara that is best placed to dictate the course of further developments.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

  • AMERICAS – I admire Atatürk and Turks: US defense chief

    AMERICAS – I admire Atatürk and Turks: US defense chief

    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterated yesterday that he admires Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, and Turks in his first press conference in the Pentagon, daily Hürriyet has reported.

    n_43879_4“Well, I’m glad to know my standing is significant in Turkey. But – and I admire the Turks and the government, and Atatürk and I have over the years noted Atatürk in different speeches I’ve given, not just in Turkey, but the United States. He did something that was very significant that has had a very important sustaining legacy in the world. And sometimes we — we in the West don’t fully appreciate what Atatürk did.” Hagel said in response to a question.

    Turkish-Israeli rapprochement critically important to the region

    “The recent rapprochement between NATO member Turkey and major non-NATO ally Israel was critically important to the region,” Hagel said.

    “It does affect Syria,” he said. “It does affect the neighbors in developing more confidence, I would suspect, among the neighbors in that area that Turkey and Israel will once again begin working together on some of these common interests.”

    Former Republican senator Chuck Hagel was sworn in on Feb. 27 as the new U.S. defense secretary.

    March/29/2013

  • Israel, America and Turkey: A useful first step

    Israel, America and Turkey: A useful first step

    Warmer American relations with Israel help to end its Turkish tiff

    Mar 30th 2013 | ANKARA AND JERUSALEM |From the print edition

    FOR the first time in years, the whiff of a wind of change is wafting through Israel’s diplomatic air, thanks to Barack Obama’s recent visit. The message the American president imparted was that he is determined in his final term to have another go at making peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. Though full of the usual bromides, his speech to a gathering of young Israelis percolated down to the undecided centre of Israeli politics, where distrust for Mr Obama—and for Palestinians—has been strong. The American president may have persuaded at least some such Israelis to ponder again the need for a Palestinian state.

    The trip’s more tangible result, however, was Mr Obama’s apparent success in persuading Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to apologise at last to Turkey for the death of nine Turks killed by Israeli commandos in 2010 stopping a flotilla of Turkish boats from reaching Gaza.

    “Israelis love Turkey,” declares the blurb of an Israeli package-tour operator, hoping to promote the resort of Antalya once again as Israel’s favourite tourist destination. On the strength of Mr Netanyahu’s apology, he may be onto a winner.

    Just before Mr Obama flew out of Israel, he handed Mr Netanyahu his telephone to speak to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister. After nearly four years of estrangement, America’s two most powerful and closest allies in the Middle East agreed to co-operate again. Once Israel’s compensation to the Turks has been settled, diplomatic relations will be restored.

    Both sides have much to gain. Israel hopes Mr Erdogan will rescue it from its isolation since the downfall of friendly regional autocrats, in particular in Egypt. The two countries may now be able to share copious amounts of natural gas recently found in the eastern Mediterranean. They should resume co-operation in military intelligence. And Israelis may soon again enjoy those tours. Even when relations were at their nadir, military sales continued, as did foreign trade worth $3 billion a year.

    All the same, the Israeli-Turkish strategic relationship is unlikely to be wholly restored, not least because of Mr Erdogan’s sharp tongue. A month ago he called Zionism “a crime against humanity”, so threatening to ruin America’s bridge-building. “The 1990s are over,” says Nimrod Goren, an Israeli academic who kept open a discreet channel when even Turkish and Israeli spies refused to exchange words.

    And a host of regional issues may yet prise them apart. Mr Netanyahu will turn a deaf ear to Mr Erdogan’s call for Israel to vacate East Jerusalem and the West Bank and to open up Gaza entirely. In his written apology, Mr Netanyahu said he would ease restrictions on supplies to that Palestinian coastal strip ruled by Hamas. But Israel seems bent on keeping up its blockade by air and sea, which first prompted Turkey’s flotilla to try to get there.

    Meanwhile Mr Erdogan’s party people hailed the apology as a big victory. “We stood firm and brought them to their knees,” tweeted a young party activist. Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, cut short a trip to Poland to bask in credit back home. Turkish newspapers announced that Mr Erdogan was planning a triumphal visit to Gaza, not least to see a new hospital being built by the Turks.

    Unless Mr Erdogan softens his rhetoric, a showdown with Israel could easily recur. Moreover, Turkey’s prime minister is likely to rebuff Mr Netanyahu’s request to help persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. Israel has had to discount hopes that the Turks would let its fighter aircraft fly over its territory. And it has so far failed to convince the Turks that Iran is close to getting a bomb. “Even if it could,” says Alon Liel, an Israeli ex-ambassador to Ankara, “Turkey doesn’t believe it is the target.”

    At least over Syria there may be scope for co-operation. After months of hesitation, Israel now agrees with Turkey that President Bashar Assad must go. Both Israel and Turkey agree that al-Qaeda should be prevented from reaping the fruits of Mr Assad’s fall. Israel, says Mr Liel, might even endorse Syria’s takeover by a Western-leaning Islamist government—at any rate, if it were modelled on Turkey’s.

    From the print edition: Middle East and Africa

    via Israel, America and Turkey: A useful first step | The Economist.

  • Now Obama needs to pressure Turkey

    Now Obama needs to pressure Turkey

    By Jonathan Schanzer and Emanuele Ottolenghi, Special to CNN

    t1larg.erdogan.afp.gi

    Editor’s note: Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S Department of the Treasury, is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Emanuele Ottolenghi, author of ‘The Pasdaran: Inside Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,’ is a senior fellow. The views expressed are their own.

    In a surprise development on Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuissued an apology to Turkish Prime Minister Yayyip Erdoğan over the ill-fatedMay 2010 flotilla conflict on the high seas between Israeli commandos and Turkish-backed activists seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

    The clashes left nine Turks dead. Erdoğan has been demanding an apology ever since, while ramping up his anti-Israel rhetoric – most recently, comparing Zionism with fascism. With relations at their nadir, the Israelis had nothing to lose by issuing this apology – Netanyahu’s apology was clearly a concession to U.S. President Barack Obama, who just garnered a great deal of goodwill during his much-heralded trip to Israel.

    But if Obama plays his cards right, he should make demands of Erdoğan, too. The relationship between the two men is already warm. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Obama has logged more phone calls to Erdogan than to any world leader except British Prime Minister David Cameron.” But the president has ignored the fact that Turkey has also become one of the more troubling epicenters of illicit financial activity.

    After delivering the Israeli apology to Turkey, Obama has an opportunity to demand that Erdoğan cease this activity.

    For one, Turkey is believed to have emerged in recent years as one of the primary patrons of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. In December 2011, Erdoğan reportedly “instructed the Ministry of Finance to allocate $300 million to be sent to Hamas’ government in Gaza.” Since then, Turkey has reportedly provided Hamas with funds for hospitals, mosques, and schools in the Gaza Strip, with other resources to help rebuild the territory, particularly after the Hamas war with Israel in November 2012.

    Turkey is not Hamas’ only sponsor, of course.  There is Qatar, which has been on a regional spending spree. And there is also Iran, which has had a difficult time meeting its sponsorship obligations, thanks to Western sanctions designed to derail its nuclear program.

    Sanctions won’t work, however, if Turkey has its way.

    Iran has apparently been benefiting handsomely from Turkey’s Halkbank. According to Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, “In essence, gold exports [to Iran] end up like payments for our natural gas purchases.”  In August 2012, according to Reuters, “nearly $2 billion worth of gold was sent to Dubai on behalf of Iranian buyers.” Halkbank acknowledged that it was responsible for processing the payments. Despite increased scrutiny, the Turkish newspaperZaman noted in January that the Iranian “gas-for-gold” was still going.

    Halkbank, meanwhile, has reportedly helped Iran on other scores. In February 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported that Halkbank was processing “payments from third parties for Iranian goods.” This included “payments for Indian refiners unable to pay Tehran for imported oil through their own banking system for fear of retribution from Washington.”

    In November 2012, a Turkish banking watchdog announced Halkbank had curbed its illicit dealings. But the bank’s website clearly boasts of arepresentative office in Tehran.

    To be fair, Halkbank is almost certainly not the only Turkish institution to have dabbled in sanctions busting schemes. In November 2012, the Turkish newspaper Zaman noted that there are currently over 2,000 Iranian companies registered in Turkey. How many of these companies have ties to the Iranian government? How many of them throw off cash to the regime? More importantly, how many of them help Tehran procure dual-use materials that brings the Iranian nuclear bomb one step closer to reality?

    As it turns out, at least one does. German police recently exposed a networkthat supplied Iran with nuclear industry components through Turkey. But the announcement came only after hundreds of components for Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor made their way to Iran undetected.

    Turkey can, in this case, claim that it had no knowledge of this network. But that won’t fly when it comes to the Turkish branches of Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank sanctioned by the U.S. and the EU. Turkey continues to allow the bank to operate on its soil because the United Nations has yet to designate it. According toZaman, as recently as April 2012, other Iranian banks have also applied to operate in Turkey’s financial market.

    Part of the problem is Turkey’s legal regime. For more than five years, the Financial Action Task Force (the U.N. of terrorism finance) warned that Ankara had neither adequately criminalized terrorism finance nor established sufficient infrastructure to identify and freeze terrorist assets. FATF first flagged the problem, via a mutual evaluation, in 2007. Ankara did nothing for five years, until FATF threatened to add Turkey to the black list, which currently only includes Iran and North Korea. Erdogan and the Turkish parliament eeked out legislation and averted the blacklisting just shy of the February 22 deadline.

    The result of this five year blackout and cavalier attitude to sanctioned Iranian financial institutions: Turkey was not bound to any laws, despite international pressure to fight terrorism or illicit nuclear proliferation. With over 2,000 Iranian companies involved in anything from energy to commodities, real estate to finance to the automotive sector, the potential for mischief is enormous. Had Turkey put its house in order, it might have been able to prevent significant embarrassment.

    Turkey watchers quietly concede that more embarrassment is likely on the horizon. From Hezbollah assets to money-changers and gold dealers who do Iran’s bidding to government backing of jihadists in Syria, Turkey will remain an illicit finance problem for the foreseeable future.

    Thanks to his ability to deliver Israel’s apology, Obama has increased leverage to reverse this trend.

  • Progress for Turkey, Israel and the U.S. – Room for Debate

    Progress for Turkey, Israel and the U.S. – Room for Debate

    Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist for Al-Monitor and The Hurriyet Daily News, is the author of “Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty.”

    MARCH 27, 2013

    It is unclear whether President Obama’s recent visit to Israel helped build the much-hoped peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Yet, in a quite unexpected move, it certainly helped build peace between Israel and Turkey.

    The two countries were not at war, of course. But the longtime relationship between Turkey and Israel had fallen to one of its lowest points, after the Gaza flotilla affair of May 2010, in which nine Turks, one of them an American-Turkish citizen, were killed by Israeli commandos. Turkey had immediately asked three things from Israel: apology, compensation and the easing of the blockade on Gaza. By February 2011, Israel had made clear it would not comply, and Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador to Ankara, reducing the diplomatic relations between two countries.

    Obama was wise enough to capture this moment to reconcile his two key allies in the Middle East.

    Since then, political commentators had been divided on the future of Turkish-Israeli relations. Some, especially those who are on the Israeli right, argued that the “New Turkey” of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his “Islamist” cadre had proven fanatically anti-Israel, and therefore no reconciliation would ever take place unless a new government came to power in Turkey. Others, including me, noted that while the Erdogan government is strongly pro-Palestinian, it is also pragmatic and is not categorically anti-Israel. We also pointed out that Turkey had lowered relations with Israel back in 1982, to protest the annexation of East Jerusalem, but then restored full relations in 1991, in the light of the Madrid peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

    The odds for an apology seemed even more distant after Erdogan’s recent condemnation of “Zionism,” which created yet another tension between Ankara and Jerusalem. But soon, Erdogan made clear that his government “recognized Israel’s existence within 1967 borders based on a two-state solution.” This probably gave Obama the grounds for persuading Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to offer an “apology to the Turkish nation,” in a phone call to Erdogan.

    Here in Turkey, the apology has been widely welcome, and is interpreted by the media as a diplomatic victory for the Turkish government. It is also noted that two countries now share common concerns about the bloody civil war in Syria and even the Iranian influence in the region. Obama was wise enough to capture this moment to reconcile his two key allies in the Middle East. Netanyahu and Erdogan were pragmatic enough to agree and move on.

    via Progress for Turkey, Israel and the U.S. – Room for Debate – NYTimes.com.