Comments (10)

BTW, my reference to Israeli Neo Cons here was based on the fairly substantiated observation that Israel was planning an assault on Iran from Georgian air bases which Tel Aviv had helped fund along with US military aid.

Russia's counterstrike on Georgia served to reestablish the natural order of things in the Caucasus which all but Tblisi, Washington, and Tel Aviv favor.

So in this effect, Iran most likely has been appreciative towards both Moscow and Ankara for their concerted stands, selfserving as they may have been.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that Turkey is somehow taking up the American (and EU) Neo Con mantle of sanctions and bellicosity towards Iran.

The growing trend in Turkey's foreign policy agenda has been for Turkey to move BEYOND Western, namely American, global sphere of interests and to establish itself based on its own geo-strategic and regional interests.

Hence, Turkey refused American naval warships to access the Bosphorus DURING the August Georgian Russian conflict. They based this on the Montreaux treaty of 1936 wherein Turkey took a position of neutrality towards the Bosphorus, Black Sea, and WWII. It was only AFTER the conflict that Turkey allowed American naval vessels access to the Black Sea under the banner of 'humanitarian', and thus 'neutral' cause.

As well, Turkey recently advanced a Caucas pact between the Armenian, Turk, Georgian, Russian, Azeri nations despite the recent US Congressional act to declare the Armenian disaster of WWI a genocide (an Act favored by Armenian American and Israeli interests and used by the EU to further obstruct Turkey's EU membership). This pact is perceived to reunite Turk and Armenian relations regardless of the special interest groups of the West who would prefer them split and weakened.

Turkey has also stepped up relations with Russia since the Georgia conflict, further isolating American (and Israeli) bellicosity in the region.

While Turkey will likely NOT repulse American ties, rather it would most likely prefer America refrain from its neo- con imperialist worldview (still triumphed by McCain and the Neo Cons in Wash and Tel Aviv) and return to more diplomatic, mutually beneficial, enlightened relations.

Alexander Albertine is a perfect victim of propaganda. If the world could live with stockpiles of nuclear warheads during the cold war and crazy Russia was ready to fire any moment, then this world could live with nuclear armed Iran. If Iran builds a nuclear bomb, as the reasoning goes, other countries in the region will pursue the same. Well, if this was a good reason, then this world should have prevented Israel and then Pakistan and India from possessing nuclear technology and the knowledge to build warheads. Genie is out of the bottle long time ago and to put it back in the current policy is wrong. Now, by promoting peace and stability and economic development, is the best and only way in making nuclear weapons or military build up in general irrelevant. No country in the world and super powers in general has ever been neutral or honest when dealing other nations and specially on matters of security. As citizens, we have to demand from our leaders to work towards peace by development and confidence building not by siding with one country over another with the changing of political winds. After the cold war when there is no two competing ideologies, it is hard to imagine the world still fighting one another. Or maybe military and oil industrial complexes need something to feast on.

This writer knows nothing about the history and the close thinking of Iran and Turkey (even the Kemalist Turks).

For centuries, Turks called themselves the ruler and the Caliph of Sunnis, occupied most Sunni lands all the way to Yemen. Iranians are obviously leading the Shi'ites.

For more than 5 centuries, Iran and Turkey have respected their Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin, a border post of Iran and Iraq and that border has been respected by Iran. In the war with Iraq, Iranians didn't advance into Iraq in any significant way, even though Baghdad is a mere 90 km away from Qasr-e Shirin.

whilst Iran and Turkey have tough discussions, but both are respectful to each other and have much more in common than any westerner might realise: the Kurdish problem is one. Iran supplies 30% of Turkey's oil and at least 10% of its gas whilst Turkey is a reliable supplier of a wide range of goods to Iran. Iranians are the 2nd largest group of tourists to Turkey, an important forex earner.
Deep cultural links is another where about 40% of all words in Turkish are Persian and Persian also has about 25% of its words borrowed from Turkish.

Finally, Turkey has an empty treasure and just got dealt a 30% currency devaluation because of the American market meltdown and Turkish exposure to it. Given the forthcoming economic problems, the EU membership of Turkey is put in the deep freezer for at least a generation.

So, you think Turks will listen to an Uncle Sam busy losing two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Turkish troops are fighting? or pour more fuel on the hollow "fire" of Iranian nukes? To achieve what?? Losing another market? or provide fodder for clueless "theory scholars"?

Until the white suprimacists address the nuclear weapons of the only apartheid democracy in the world nothing they say or do will be legitimate.

Walter Cronkite, among others, has made it his duty to denounce the hypocisy that seeks to play down super-powers' dodging of their obligations of disarmament under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as well as non-nuclear-club Western Countries' alignment on the US position in that reagrd. Cronkite always emphasises the fact that Iran is within the bounds of the NPT in its uranium enrichment.

Those who wish not to see will never see. Those who try to see the light where even Iran's decision-makers are unsure of which way they are going, understand that, if any fully rational person was in full charge of the decision whether or not Iran should continue enriching uranium, they would decide to continue. Up to the point where further progress will determine whether they want to keepopen the option of nuclear weapons development or not.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that it is unIslamic to develop such a massively destructive weapon as a nuclear bomb. I also believe in the same principle --- with the proviso that you CAN trust that NONE of your rivals [not enemies (if you are a true Muslim, you have no enemy)] will use a nuclear weapon against you.

So, in so far as Iran (and other Non-aligned Movement -NAM- countries sympathetic to that struggling country) perceives that it can positively influence the nuclear-club countries (including Israel) to honor their nuclear weapons destruction obligations, it should keep asserting its right to uranium unrichment without pronoucing itself on whether it is keeping the weapons programme open or not. (note that Iran is being overly accommodating, compared with what I would do if I were alone in charge of the decision about Iran's nuclear research programme). When the time comes, if it feels not threatened and it cannot positively influence disarmament by keeping the nuclear werapons programme open, THEN it will commit itself to scrapping forever the weapons options.

That's the path India has followed, although some argue that it is not clear, with its recent nuclear deal, whither its weapons development programme is heading, and whther it has forfeited the leverage it had (and, along with that, prestige it enjoyed within the NAM) to positively influence the disarmament programme to which the nuclear-club countreies are bound.

I have always wondered why the issue of Iran's right to nuclear technology is not discussed. The fact that Iran is within the bounds of the NPT in its uranium enrichment is relevant in any discussion.

In support of Tarquinis, I would reiterate that Turkey-Iran trade is more of a crucial issue to the Turks than Iran's nuclear ambitions. Turkey doesn't see Iran as a threat but rather an ally.

Also, public opinion in Turkey is heavily skewed favourbly towards the East than to the West.

Thanks for your useful perspective.

Addressing the issue of Kurdish separatists would have helped round out the picture, as Tarquinis suggests. However, the tone of his critique is truly unjustified; I can only conclude he's got a bad case of indigestion.

Alexander Albertine has not been reading the news lately. In addition to Turkish energy concerns relating to the continued natural gas exports from Iran which are crucial to their economy, Turkey and Iran have developed a close security relationship in specific regards the Kurdish problem.

The general staffs of the respective armies have been in close coordination, as both countries have the same problem, respectively from the PKK and on the Iranian side, PEJAK. The Turkish armed forces have repeatedly bombed and occasionally made ground force incursions into Iraqi Kurdistan to destroy or displace armed factions of PKK. While the Iranian armed forces have not intruded there, leving that to the Turks, they have repeatedly conducted operations within the Kurdish areas of northwestern Iran to the same effect.

So the two countries have vital energy and security concerns in common. The Turks also have recognized the legal rights of Iran pursuant to Article IV of the NPT which is totally clear in granting them the rights to develop domestic sources of electricity from nuclear power generation.

So this article by Alexander Albertine may be good for his career and he may successfully ingratiate himself with his hoped for sponsors, but as to being on base in his comments, he is out of bounds.

Turkey is not on the UNSC to live up to the expectations of the US or the West.

The US with its 300 million people is not on the UNSC as a permanent member to live up to the expectations even of China with its 1.3 billion people, even less up o the expectations of Turkey.

Turkey is Turkey; the US is the US.

And if by chance the vision of a just world order as conceived by the US coincides with Turkey's vision of a just world order , which is more likely to coincide with the vision of a just world order as conceived by the majority of humanity, then there will be global harmony.