The answer could be either that Turkey could have “very limited” influence or offer “a lot,” depending on the vantage point you are looking from. For me, it is a mixture of both and varies to a degree depending on your perspective and how your counterpart perceives your stated goals.Let’s start with Iraq. Everybody agrees today that Turkey has really had a positive impact in Iraq by convincing Sunnis to engage in the political process, thereby paving the way for diminished violence on the sectarian level, despite unresolved differences that remain on issues such as power sharing and the election process. It earned the trust of the Kurds and northern Iraq is now flourishing economically with the help of Turkish entrepreneurs. Americans, by the way, are cheering for Turkey and are more than happy to see Turkey’s engagement on all sides.
It should be worth noting that this only happened after Turkey dropped its Turkmens-only policy, which operated at the expense of both Kurds and Arabs. The sincerity of the new policy was tested time and again by all sides, in the final analysis nurturing an image of Turkey as an honest broker.
On the Syrian track, Ankara helped Syria emerge from international isolation and boosted the legitimacy of the current government. Economic cooperation was enhanced so much so that Turkish goods flooded Syrian bazaars while Syrians flocked to Turkey to enjoy leisure services, taking advantage of the visa-free policy at the border.
Behind closed doors, Ankara also helped factions in Lebanon to reconcile as the Turkish ambassador was the only diplomat cruising the streets of Beirut back and forth between the different camps at the height of the armed clashes in May 2008. Ankara helped with a Qatari-brokered deal between Lebanese groups that ended an 18-month political stalemate and allowed for the election of the army chief, Gen. Michel Suleiman, as president of the country. That was the reason why Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was among the few people invited to witness the vote for Suleiman as president by the Lebanese parliament.
Though relations are not excellent with Egypt, they can still be described as very good under the circumstances. The latest crisis, caused by an aid convoy passing through Turkey en route to Gaza via Egypt, tested relations to the limit. Another one may rupture if Turkey and Egypt fail to anticipate the repercussions for the Middle East. Should the current government in Turkey appear to play to domestic politics by using the plight of Gaza, Cairo’s growing disenchantment with Ankara would become more vocal.
Turkey can help resolve internal disagreements and rivalry between Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas. Maybe it is time to talk in harsher tones to the Hamas leadership, either directly or in cooperation with Syria, to force them to accept a recent deal brokered by Egypt. Turkey can also cooperate with Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to push Fatah to make more of an effort to achieve reconciliation in Palestine. A fragmented Palestine under a fractured leadership simply does not serve the interests of anyone in the region.
Despite all the talk to the contrary, it is evident that Israel is not interested in brokering a peace deal with Palestine at this point in time. The international community is resigned to the fact that the current Israeli Cabinet will not withstand any compromise that is needed to start negotiations. Turkey’s worsening relations with Israel are cyclical and reflect its reaction to the hawkish policies adopted by the current Israeli government, as was the case in the past. It will bounce back when a new and more responsible government returns to power in Tel Aviv.
Iran is a tricky one for Turkey. On the one hand, it appears to be willing to strengthen economic relations with Turkey, yet bureaucratic impediments for Turkish investors are still in place in the ground. The verdict is still out on that one. We are going to wait and see how far they are willing to bend to facilitate trade and investment from the Turkish side. Although Ankara wants to pursue friendly relations with its neighbor, it does not want to be used simply as a tool to legitimize the increasingly isolated country in the international arena.
We have already seen the pitfalls and challenges Turkey was faced with when Iran gave confusing signals as to whether or not it was willing to store low-enriched uranium on Turkish soil. Undoubtedly, Turkey has direct access to the Iranian leadership and knows Tehran’s red lines regarding its nuclear program well. However, when push comes to shove, Turkey will have no choice but to comply with the expanded embargo likely to be imposed by the United Nations Security Council.
Iran should not be wasting the credit extended by Turkey; it should spend it very wisely by letting the dialogue proceed at sensible and reasonable parameters, ultimately yielding a result that is accepted by the international community. We know that Tehran has adopted a more reserved policy in Iraq with regard to Shiites and has held back from further involvement after Ankara voiced its concern in parallel with Arab states. They could do the same on other issues as well for the sake of stability in the region.
Overall, Turkey’s active engagement and new dynamism in foreign policy has moderated many positions and softened the approach of most actors in the Middle East with the possible exception of Israel, a country which is also distancing itself from other international partners, including the European Union, and is increasingly isolating itself.
