This argument, surely, is not worth taking seriously, considering the historical, cultural, and political differences between the two countries. The probability of Turkey turning into another Iran is zero. I am convinced, to the contrary, that Iran will sooner or later set out on the road Turkey has taken and will evolve toward a regime that is both democratic and secular, in the sense of one that recognizes full freedom of religion.I find the AK Party government’s approach toward Iran most sensible, for various reasons. First of all, I believe that the “zero problems with neighbors” policy designed by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu is a sound one. It is entirely in line with Turkey’s security and development requirements. Good neighborly relations with Iran are especially important because it greatly serves Turkey’s needs for markets and energy sources.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly support the method advocated by Davutoğlu for solving international problems by way of dialogue and negotiation rather than military threats and aggression. I am opposed to Iran (or any other country) developing nuclear weapons or even nuclear energy plants. But if Iran is to be deterred from developing nuclear weapons, this should be done by persuasion and not coercion. And, as argued in principle by Ankara, not only the Middle East region but the entire world should get rid of nuclear weapons.
The third reason why I find Ankara’s Iran policy commendable is that if Iran is to democratize and secularize in line with the demands of a growing part of its people, closer relations between Turkey and Iran on a societal level may indeed be conducive to that. There is much to be emulated in Turkish society for Iranians, nearly a quarter of which speak a Turkic language. I do, of course, wish for Iran to move toward greater freedom and democracy. But no regime can be imposed from the outside on a country against the wishes of its people. I guess there are plenty of lessons to be drawn not only from recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Iranian history.
Iran, like Turkey, began to modernize in the 19th century and to democratize after the end of the World War II. The democratization of Iran was subverted by a military coup (“Operation Ajax”) in 1953 which established the dictatorship of the shah. The coup was encouraged by the US and Britain, mainly to preserve the latter’s oil interests in that country. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was mainly a settling of accounts with the shah’s dictatorship and the Western powers that supported it. One of the best accounts of how the West undermined democratization and paved the way to the Islamic Revolution in Iran is found in Stephen Kinzer’s book titled “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” (Wiley, 2003).
Kinzer, The New York Times’ İstanbul bureau chief between 1996 and 2000, is also the author of “Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds” (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001), undoubtedly one of the best books available on the politics of contemporary Turkey. In his forthcoming book, to be published in June (by Henry Holt & Co.), titled “Reset: Iran, Turkey and America’s Future,” which draws on his thorough knowledge of Turkey and Iran, Kinzer puts forward a most remarkable thesis that suggests nothing less than a paradigm shift in America’s approach to the Middle East. I have had the privilege to read the manuscript of the book and would like to quote below the passages that contain the gist of his argument, which I entirely agree with.
“The stories of modern Turkey and Iran suggest that democracy can take root anywhere, but only over the span of generations ... Only long years of experience can make it real. In the Muslim Middle East, just two countries have this experience: Turkey and Iran … Reaching an accord with Iran will not be easy (for the US), for cultural as well as political reasons. It might require the emergence of a new regime in Tehran. But because the two countries’ political cultures as well as their strategic interests overlap so fully, logic pushes them together. A partnership that unites Turkey, Iran and the United States makes sense for two reasons: they share strategic interests, and their people share values. This is the tantalizing ‘power triangle’ of the twenty-first century.”
“The old triangle, Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia ... has not produced a stable Middle East. On the contrary, the region is torn by violence, hatred, terror and war. Yet for economic as well as strategic reasons, the US must remain engaged there. Its dilemma can be simply stated: We want to stabilize the Middle East, but our policies are having the opposite effect. What new policies could we adopt to replace those that have failed? Build an ever-closer partnership with Turkey and, in the future, with democratic Iran. Reshape relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia in ways that will serve their long-term interests and ours -- even if they protest.”
