Turkish Forum

Tag: Barack Obama

  • Turkey’s unsustainable politics in Middle East

    Turkey’s unsustainable politics in Middle East

    Ramzy Baroud

    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.

  • 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.

  • How Obama Is Reuniting Turkey and Israel

    How Obama Is Reuniting Turkey and Israel

    U.S. President Obama acknowledges the audience after delivering a speech on mideast policy at the Jerusalem Convention Center

    U.S. President Barack Obama at the Jerusalem Convention Center on March 21, 2013

    From almost the moment President Obama touched down at Ben Gurion International Airport, he began to push Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make up with Turkey. The previously good relations broke down in 2010 after the Israelis raided a Turkish flotilla taking aid to the Gaza Strip. Nine activists were killed.

    Since then, the U.S. has pushed Israel and Turkey — both close allies — to work through their issues. Officials at meetings at nearly every level from the President down brought up rapprochement. Secretary of State John Kerry pressed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Israel on March 1 on a trip to Ankara.

    By day two of Obama’s visit, Netanyahu had agreed to set up a call with Erdogan. Given the two leaders’ busy schedules, it was not until just as Obama and Netanyahu were arriving back at the airport for the President’s departure to Jordan a day later that a call was possible. Obama and Netanyahu ducked into a trailer off of the red carpet set up for the departure ceremony.

    JASON REED / REUTERS

    President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu

    For nearly half an hour, Netanyahu and Erdogan spoke through translators. Obama briefly got on the phone to say hello to Erdogan and ask that they follow up with another call soon. Netanyahu offered Turkey an official apology for the flotilla incident and promised compensation to the victims’ families. He said a subsequent Israeli investigation into the incident revealed “several operational errors,” according a statement released by the Israeli embassy in Washington.

    Netanyahu also thanked Erdogan for his remarks condemning anti-Semitism to a Danish paper on March 20. Erdogan had been quoted last month calling Zionism “a crime against humanity,” and he told the Danish paper those remarks had been misinterpreted. During his Ankara visit, Kerry had condemned Erdogan’s statement on Zionism, urging the Turkish Prime Minister both publicly and privately to clarify them.

    The deal was a coup for Obama, on his first foreign visit of his second term. It re-established diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey at a time when the region around them is in turmoil. Both Turkey and Israel border Syria, which is entering its third year of civil war. “We have regretted for a couple of years now the absence of normal relations between those two countries,” a senior Administration official told reporters on Air Force One en route to Jordan. “And we have worked with them and urged them both to reach out and try to put their differences between them.”

    Netanyahu on Saturday said the deteriorating situation in Syria and both countries’ concerns about its regime’s chemical and biological weapons prompted the reconciliation. Still, Erdogan warned on Sunday that normalization of relations would not be immediate. Turkey will wait for Israel to pay the families compensation before embassies in either country reopen. Netanyahu told Erdogan that Obama had spent the past two days convincing him of “the importance of regional relations, the importance of Turkey-Israel cooperation, and that is what led him to take this initiative now,” the Administration official said. Up until the flotilla incident, Turkey and Israel had enjoyed close relations. Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, though tensions began to fray in 2003 after Erdogan, who has Islamist ties, was elected Prime Minister of Turkey.

    via How Obama Is Reuniting Turkey and Israel | TIME.com.

  • Dr. Josef Olmert: Obama, Turkey and Israel — More Than Meets the Eye

    Dr. Josef Olmert: Obama, Turkey and Israel — More Than Meets the Eye

    President Obama’s visit in Israel was a resounding PR success, judging by various indicators of Israeli public opinion, but as the dust settles, it becomes very clear that the visit was also an impressive diplomatic achievement. All the president’s men can feel satisfied by the decision of PM Netanyahu to terminate the crisis with Turkey, caused by the initial provocation of an Islamic organization and the disproportionate Israeli reaction, leading to the death of nine Islamic radicals.

    The apology was long overdue, but better late than never. This blog called on the PM on September 21, 2012 to do just that, bearing in mind the overall strategic interest of Israel, particularly with regard to the deteriorating Syrian situation and its potential damaging implications.

    Netanyahu, to his credit, chose his timing to do that — the Obama visit — thus responding to a long-held American expectation from Israel, providing the president with the ability to show actual positive results for the visit. Netanyahu acted in a way which is typical for Israeli governments, though not necessarily to his own, and that is to do what is in the best interest of Israel, but to present it as a gesture towards the U.S.

    There are those who argue that he could and should do more of the kind also in the past, and in this way prevent some of the tensions which have become an all too familiar and undesirable feature of the relations between him and President Obama. Yet, what he did was gutsy, considering the Israeli political environment, and the deep-seated resistance there to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the IDF, which rightly continues to be revered by the vast majority of the Israeli people.

    PM Erdoghan of Turkey has made his own political calculus, chief among them the fact that the enmity towards Israel being so much in display after the tragic Mavi Marmara incident, did not really pay dividends to Turkey — not in the U.S., not in the E.U., not even in the Arab world. Erdoghan learned that the Arabs are much more preoccupied with the implications of the Arab Spring, in particular the Syrian situation. The Turkish leader realized, while not admitting in public, that there still is a volume of Arab suspicions towards the Turks, a legacy of the centuries of Ottoman rule.

    Whatever is the reason, the Turkish PM demonstrated yet again that he possesses qualities of real leadership, among them the ability to sense an opportunity for a change of diplomatic course and take advantage of it.

    He is engaged now in a PR campaign in Turkey, designed to maximize the effects of what is presented as an Israeli defeat, whereas PM Netanyahu is engaged in his own campaign, designed to minimize the domestic ill effects of the apology, which for so long he regarded as a non-starter. But, it is in Washington where the White House can really claim a big victory. Two of the U.S.’ main regional allies were at each other’s throats, not a good situation for the U.S., particularly at a time of major regional instability, exactly the type of situation which requires closing of the ranks among the U.S. allies. The Administration was often criticized for what seemed to be a “come from behind” policy, leading to a considerable diminution of the U.S.’ stature in the region.

    Well, not so fast. The U.S. proved again that it is the only power capable of bringing hostile parties together, and doing that in a patient way and exactly at the right time. And timing, as Winston Churchill once said, is 50 % of good diplomacy. Here is where the public announcements of the Americans, Turks and Israelis may give just part of the picture. The Israelis were more open to the former two, acknowledging in public that it was the situation in Syria which led to an Israeli adjustment, and made the apology inevitable. Turkish commentators are suggesting likewise, that Erdoghan’s main priority now is Syria, and certain moves by the Obama administration indicate that also the U.S. view the situation in Syria as a regional time bomb that needs to be dealt with and now, rather than on an unspecified date in the future. So is also the position of King Abdallah of Jordan, another valued American ally. The Saudis have already shown for a long while, that they want to see Bashar Assad out, and the soonest the best.

    So, now, with the Israeli-Turkish rapprochement, the U.S. can finally cement a strategy about Syria, which can and will be supported by all its regional allies. Not good news for Bashar Assad, whose whereabouts are shredded with growing mystery. Yesterday there was buzz on Arabic Internet sites, according to which the besieged president was critically wounded in an attempt on his life.

    The Al Shami hospital in Damascus was under siege, but as yet, these are unconfirmed reports. But the end is near and the regional implications could be devastating, clearly a potential nightmare for the U.S. and its allies. This is why the U.S. needed the Israelis and Turks to reconcile. The bad guys, the Iranians, so aware of their impending likely debacle once Assad is out, were quick to denounce the Israeli-Turkish new deal as another American machination, aimed at Syria.

    Put aside their terminology, they may not be wrong. It is indeed the case, that the Syrian situation requires a coordinated American-led action. President Obama’s visit and diplomacy seem to have done exactly that.

    via Dr. Josef Olmert: Obama, Turkey and Israel — More Than Meets the Eye.