Tag: MIT

  • Israel worried by new Turkey intelligence chief’s defense of Iran

    Israel worried by new Turkey intelligence chief’s defense of Iran

    Israeli sources believe Hakan Fidan aided in orchestrating an intentional change in relations between Israel and Turkey.

    By Amir Oren

    Warsaw GhettoThe Israeli defense establishment – and especially the Mossad’s foreign relations department, which maintains ties with Turkey’s national intelligence organization (MIT ) – is concerned over the recent appointment of Hakan Fidan as head of that organization, and the implications of that appointment vis-a-vis Turkish relations with Israel and Iran.

    Ten days ago, Hakan Fidan, 42, a personal confidant of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, assumed the post of head of MIT, which combines the functions of the Mossad and Shin Bet security force.

    Israeli security sources believe last week’s the Mavi Marmara incident reflects an intentional change in relations between Israel and Turkey – orchestrated by Erdogan, along with Fidan and Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu.

    There is no concrete information, however, regarding Fidan’s involvement in the incident or his ties with IHH, the group that organized the flotilla.

    In meetings between Mossad officials and others in the local political-security establishment, it was noted that Fidan has close ties with Erdogan’s Islamist party, and that during the past year he was deputy director of the prime minister’s office and played a central role in tightening Turkish ties with Iran, especially on the nuclear issue.

    Fidan’s appointment at MIT will help strengthen Erdogan’s control over certain civilian elements in the Turkish intelligence community, both in terms of determining foreign and defense policy, and also vis-a-vis members of the senior military echelons, who are considered to be a central threat to the Islamist party’s power.

    To date intelligence ties between Israel and Turkey have been good, in parallel to the good relations between the Israel Defense Forces and the Turkish military, and their respective intelligence services.

    In April the last head of MIT, Emre Taner, retired after a five-year stint. Erdogan appointed Fidan as acting head then, but he only formally took over late last month. Fidan served in the Turkish military for 15 years, until 2001, but was not an officer.

    MIT has extensive authority, in both internal security and foreign intelligence gathering. Its chief answers directly to the prime minister, although the law obliges him also to report to the president, the chief of staff and the country’s National Security Council.

    Fidan completed a B.A. at the University of Maryland, and he completed his master’s and doctorate in Ankara. His dissertation was a comparative analysis of the structure of U.S., British and Turkish intelligence organizations.

    After his military service, Fidan served in the Turkish embassy in Australia, and last year he represented Ankara in the International Atomic Energy Agency, where he defended Iran’s right to carry on with its nuclear program for “peaceful purposes.”

    With Davutoglu, Fidan formulated last month’s uranium transfer deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran.

    Apparently, he supports the idea of splitting MIT’s authority into an internal and an external intelligence organization, like in Israel, Britain and the United States. It is reported that he intends to concentrate on “institutional” tasks and to work with an independent security service, one of whose main purposes is to deal with the Kurdish PKK organization – partly to deflect criticism of his appointment.

    In Israel there is concern Fidan’s appointment will have a two-pronged effect: on one hand, that exchange of intelligence between the two countries will be harmed, and on the other, that Israel will have to limit the transfer of information to Turkey, out of a concern that it may be passed on to enemy organizations or states.

    , 07.06.10

  • Turkey’s MIT shifts focus to foreign intel, re-defining priorities

    Turkey’s MIT shifts focus to foreign intel, re-defining priorities

    Turkey’s the National Intelligence Organization re-defined 10 priority areas of global crisis regions affecting the fate of the international community.

    Friday, 20 March 2009 15:19

    Turkey’s the National Intelligence Organization re-defined 10 priority areas of global crisis regions affecting the fate of the international community.

    Turkey’s the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) re-defined 10 priority areas of global crisis regions affecting the fate of the international community.

    Turkish National Intelligence Organization shifts its focus to foreign intelligence. 10 critical areas that affecting the fate of the international community will be closely watched on “the economic, political, cultural and demographic aspects.”

    MIT, according to the current changes in the global balance, re-defined its the priority areas. MIT, which continues to re-design its administrative structure, defined 10 critical areas affecting the fate of the international community. Caucasus, the Balkans, Asia-Pacific axis, the Middle East, Mediterranean, Aegean, Black Sea, Africa, the Red-Aden Gulf, the Caspian Basin will be closely watched on “the economic, political, cultural and demographic aspects.”

    For this purpose, other than English, Arabic, Serbian, Armenian, Georgian, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, Bulgarian, Russian, Albanian and Bosnian languages are emphasized. MIT Undersecretary Emre Taner, in a statement dated January 5, 2007, stated that “to ensure the national strength and protection the most effective way is to configure the functions of intelligence and national security policies that will support national interests.”

    Turkish newspaper Sabah reported the 10 strategic areas that MIT will focus on as following:

    – Caucasus: Russia’s new strategy in the region, Georgia’s NATO membership bid, Turkey – Armenia – Azerbaijan relations, Nagorno-Karabakh issue,

    – Balkans: The tensions between states in the former Yugoslav Federation, Kosovo’s independence, Serbia and Croatia’s EU membership process, integration projects and infrastructure investments in Macedonia and Albania to the EU membership, Greece’s investments in Balkan countries` finance and telecom companies.

    – Far East and Asia-Pacific axis:
    U.S. and EU countries to increase economic competitiveness the region. China and Japan’s activities to become a regional power and movements in Afghanistan.

    – Middle East: Developments in Iraq and Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, Iran’s insistence on nuclear development, Syria’s stance in the region, possible government changes in Arabian Peninsula emirates.

    – Mediterranean: Cyprus problem, the energy concentration in the Mediterranean. Egypt and the Greek Cypriot`s oil exploration in the Mediterranean continental shelf, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, Samsun-Ceyhan Pipeline,

    – Aegean: Turkey-Greece FIR line (civil aviation flight information center), and the problems caused by the continental shelf,

    – Black Sea: The search activities and rich oil resources in Eastern Black Sea as well as efforts to get domain in the Black Sea countries.

    – Africa: Crisis in Burundi, Angola, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Congo and the civil war that they might dragged on. Turkey’s strategic opening out to Africa and developing relations in North African countries, with the Turkish contracting and investments in textiles,

    – Red Sea-Gulf of Aden: Strategic control of the transition paths, the provision of oil and gas transfer. In this context, to send frigate to the Aden region,

    – Central Asia and Caspian Basin: Oil and natural gas sharing, creation of new structures for potential new pipelines. Russia’s opening in the energy region. Energy agreements between Russia-China. Extraction and marketing strategies for oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin.

    Source:  www.worldbulletin.net, 20 March 2009