Prior to his visit, Erdoğan gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “friend.” When asked what he thought about French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on the other hand, he replied: “Among leaders in Europe there are those who have prejudices against Turkey, like France and Germany. … Previously under Mr. [Jacques] Chirac we had excellent relations [with France]… but during the time of Mr. Sarkozy, this is not the case.” In the interview he downplayed Western fears that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons as “gossip,” and added, “Although Iran doesn’t have a weapon, those who say Iran shouldn’t have them are those countries which do.” He reiterated his view that he wants to live in a world free of nuclear weapons. (Oct. 26)I am entirely in favor of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s “zero problems” and enhanced economic interdependence with neighbors policy. I strongly hope the agreements signed with Iran do not remain symbolic and that they are put into practice. I completely support Erdoğan’s call for a world entirely free of nuclear weapons. I go much further than that: I am strongly in favor of a world entirely free even of nuclear power plants. I do not, however, know on what grounds Erdoğan believes that fears of Iran developing nuclear weapons are based merely on “gossip.” I fully agree with him that a military strike against Iranian nuclear installations would be “crazy.” I strongly disapprove, on the other hand, if Prime Minister Erdoğan means since some states do have nuclear weapons, all others are also entitled to acquire them.
It is apparent that Ankara’s exclusion of Israeli warplanes from a planned NATO exercise in Turkey, its signing of a High Level Strategic Cooperation Council agreement with Syria, the warm welcome Erdoğan received in Tehran, and his statements in The Guardian interview have attracted a lot of attention. For those in Turkey and abroad convinced that the “Islamist” AKP has a hidden agenda to transform Turkey into another Iran, these events clearly show how Erdoğan is moving the country away from the West and Israel.
Such views, fortunately, are not taken seriously in either Turkey or abroad and remain marginal. There are, on the other hand, those in the West who make comments on Turkish foreign policy developments that need be taken seriously. One of those is the Dutch historian Alexander de Groot. According to him: “Of course every Turkish politician knows that they can gain more from the West than from the East. But the Turks are clearly disgusted with the EU, which is so awfully mismanaging its relationship with Turkey… But why not be better friends with your neighbors? We have a Dutch saying: ‘Better a good neighbor than a distant friend.’ Brussels at the moment is a very distant friend, by underestimating Turkey… The Turks now show Brussels that if the EU doesn’t take them seriously, Turkey will move its attention elsewhere.” (Radio Netherlands Worldwide, Oct. 26.)
The most noteworthy comment on Turkey’s Middle East politics, however, appeared in an article titled “Serious Turkish diplomacy” by American specialists on Iran Flynn Leverett and Hillary Man Leverett (Politico.com, Oct. 29.) This is what they were saying: “Turkey’s approach to the region is based on four principles: engage all actors, respect the results of all democratic elections, increase cultural and economic relations among countries in the region, and work with international organizations to maximize possibilities for engagement. This has been very strongly in favor of Turkey’s interests, boosted the growth of its economy and reinforced its status as an “emerging market” of international significance. Turkey may well move ahead and conclude significant upstream and pipeline contracts in Iran despite US opposition. The US opposition on this issue is detached from economic reality. The Nabucco pipeline will almost certainly not be commercially viable in the long run without Iranian gas volumes. In the end, Turkey’s approach to Iran does more for Western interests than does the US approach.
“Criticism of Turkey from pro-Israel circles misses an important reality: At this point, Israel arguably needs a relationship with Turkey more than Turkey needs a relationship with Israel. There is an important lesson here for the Obama administration. America no longer has the economic and political wherewithal to dictate strategic outcomes in the Middle East. Increasingly, if Washington wants to promote and protect US interests in this critical region, it will have to do so through serious diplomacy -- by respecting evolving balances of power and accommodating the legitimate interests of others so that the US interests will be respected. Turkey’s Middle East policy provides a valuable model of what that kind of diplomacy looks like.”
For further reading on this topic, I highly recommend Hillary Man Everett’s article titled “Pragmatists in Tehran” (Foreign Policy, Oct. 28).
