Turkish foreign policy’s double-edged sword: Iran

Showing his support for Iran, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in October 2009 exposed divisions in NATO by accusing the West of treating Iran unfairly over its nuclear program and questioning the Western stance toward Israel, which owns nuclear weapons. “The style with which Iran is approached is not fair because those who accuse Iran of pursuing acquisition of nuclear weapons have very strong nuclear infrastructures and do not deny the fact,” the prime minister said.

Furthermore, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw Erdoğan’s support at a critical time, particularly after the hotly contested July 2009 Iranian elections. Turkish President Abdullah Gül and Prime Minister Erdoğan were among the first foreign leaders to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory, ignoring mass demonstrations and concern of Western leaders over the legitimacy of the election results. Talking to The Guardian in October, Erdoğan called the move a “necessity of bilateral relations.”

Mediation in nuclear crisis

Although EU membership is Ankara’s priority, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has increased Turkey’s influence in the Middle East. Some European countries say Turkey’s improved ties with Iran could help EU policy in the Middle East and boost the world powers’ efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Others fear Ankara could be turning its back on Europe and its policy could hinder talks on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by reducing Tehran’s isolation. But what about Tehran? What does it think about Turkey’s mediation between it and the West?

Noting that Turkey’s reconciliation with Syria helped the latter mend fences with the West, Dr. Fariborz Saremi, an Iranian analyst from the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), said, “The difference between Iran and Syria regarding Turkish mediation is that Iran does not want and need mediation.” Describing the characteristics of the Iranian regime, the analyst emphasized that “it is an ideological and apocalyptic regime that is gathering momentum to become a great regional power with global ambitions and implications,” which motivates the administration in Tehran to try to straighten out its own affairs to prove its self-sustainability.

On the other hand, Saremi pointed to Iran’s obvious dependency on Turkey and other countries to break up the economic and diplomatic isolation surrounding it. Dwelling on growing trade relations between Turkey and Iran, he explained that the increasing bilateral trade will help Iran reduce the influence of economic isolation over its people.

Furthermore, Rahman Ghahremanpour, a nonproliferation expert at the Tehran-based Center for Strategic Studies, highlighted that there is a difference in Turkey’s relationship with Iran and with Syria. “Iran has different concerns that are not the same as those of Syria. Syria is a weak and vulnerable actor in the region and does not consider Turkey as a potential rival. But Iran simultaneously sees Turkey as friend and a rival. Iran believes that it does need not any mediator to talk to the West or even the US. The problem is not a lack of mediation; it is rooted in a historical, sociological and psychological lack of trust,” the veteran strategist said.

Obstacles in way of new Turkish foreign policy

Although Mr. Saremi praised the ruling AK Party’s approach of improving ties with other nations since it came to power in 2002, Ghahremanpour outlined the potential obstacles standing in Turkey’s way to being a regional power.

“The regions surrounding Iran and Turkey are volatile, complicated and chaotic and therefore Turkey has a long way to go to institutionalize its influence in these regions, especially the Middle East region. Shuttle diplomacy and negotiations are useful, but the situation is changing as time passes by and you need a constant contact and consultation mechanism that various groups participate in. Turkey was absent in the Middle East during the last decades due to its Kemalist foreign policy that was directed toward the West, and it is natural to conclude that it cannot not reinstate and revive its Ottoman-type influence in the short term,” he stated.