Military Review

Turkish friend's long arms, or Persians start and win

"All countries located near Turkey are part of its interests."
Recep T. Erdogan

The pro-Western Turkish press has already managed to christen Erdogan "Sultan" (source:

The statements of the permanent Turkish leader about the claims of Turkey to the primacy of the entire Islamic (more precisely, Sunni) world is nothing new. Moreover, it can be said that at present the whole country is reaping the bitter fruits of that inconsistent foreign policy that was carried out by its political leadership following the events of the so-called "Arab Spring". After all, it was then that the foreign policy doctrine of Turkey “zero problems with neighbors” turned into an offensive for Turkish strategists “zero neighbors without problems”.

As noted by the well-known Turkologist, teacher of the military department of MGIMO Vladimir Avatkov, modern Turkey, having, without exaggeration, great-power ambitions, does not have the resources sufficient to conduct an independent (sovereign) foreign policy. The advantages of its position between East and West, Europe and Asia, at the same time make it vulnerable to threats from both sides. The current leadership of Turkey, represented by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), in essence, having already buried Atatürk’s legacy, pursues a targeted policy of Islamization of Turkish society. In this regard, against the background of the failure of attempts to export the Turkish model of political Islam, the ideas of the unity of all Turks (all Turkic nations) under the patronage of the Turkish Republic come to the fore. And although this issue (more precisely, a full-fledged ideology) has many aspects (including those directly related to ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation), I would like to note that this topic is most relevant at the moment in the context of a new conflict Middle East - armed clashes between the Kurds and the Iraqi army, supported by Shiite militias.

Earlier this week, it became known that the city of Kirkuk, with its 1.5 million inhabitants, inhabited by Arabs, Kurds and Turkomans, came under the control of the Iraqi government army. Being the center of the same name of the richest oil province, during the war against ISIS (an organization banned in the Russian Federation), it was liberated by the Peshmerga forces (Kurdish armed forces). However, as a result of the recently revealed disagreements between the leaders of the Barzani and Talabani clans, the city was surrendered without a fight.

It became known yesterday evening that Kirkuk’s Turkomans appealed to Erdogan with a complaint against Shiite militia representatives:
“Our request to Erdogan is that he change his policy. So he supported the Kurds. While the Kurds ruled the city, nobody fired at us. Let the Peshmerga return to Kirkuk <...> Shiite militants are our enemies. ”

Iraqi Turkomans, presumably from Kirkuk (source:

This moment is all the more interesting because two weeks ago, a meeting took place in Tehran between the rakhbar (the supreme ruler of Iran) Ali Khamenei and Recep Erdogan. During the talks, issues of resolving the Syrian conflict and, no less importantly, joint actions against Kurdish separatism that flourished in Iraq after the Barzani clan held a referendum on independence from Baghdad were discussed. The separatism of the Kurds is a headache for both Turkey and Iran because of the large number of representatives of this people on the territory of these states.

However, yesterday Erdogan announced that Ankara does not intend to conduct any negotiations with the militants of the Shiite militias occupying the disputed territories in the north of Iraq. This is about all the same Kirkuk. Already today it became known that the former Prime Minister Ahmed Davutoglu, echoing the president, calling for the completion of the operation in Iraqi Kurdistan and returning to the negotiations on the status of Kirkuk, echo the president. Thus, during the discussion, he earned the title of "lobbyist Barzani" from his opponent, the head of the radical Turkish nationalists, Devlet Bakhcheli. Davutoglu’s statement looks all the more remarkable that Erdogan himself, as it has become known today, refused Masud Barzani’s offer of a meeting - even though Turkey had very active economic ties with Iraqi Kurdistan before and now, more for sure, with the clan Barzani, whose "headquarters" is the city of Erbil, which is now "at gunpoint" in the Iraqi army, the Shiite militias and their military advisers from Iran. These economic relations not only existed, but also showed a steady upward trend, which is confirmed by Kurdish sources (referring mainly to the field of energy, and, more precisely, the trade in hydrocarbons).

Leaving out the discussion of representatives of different political factions of the Turkish government on approaches to resolving the current situation, it can be argued on the basis of the above arguments that in conditions of consensus between the leadership of Turkey and Iran on the issue of fighting Kurdish nationalism, the Iranians (whose special services coordinate Shiite militias in Iraq ) Kirkuk is obviously “over-dodging” to his side, since now he is under the control of the Shiites: while Erdogan is trying to resort to the protour factor Tsuki-minded turomanov considered as agents of the Turkish "soft power" in the region (especially in Kirkuk, but not only). Against the background of this "tacit" struggle between the Turkish and Iranian agents, both sides do not stop bilateral cooperation and coordination in suppressing Kurdish separatism as such: the Turks - through conducting a military operation in Idlib in the north of Syria (against the Turkish and Syrian Kurds, in particular against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a recognized terrorist organization in Turkey), Iranians through the coordination of the Iraqi army and Shiite militias in the north of Iraq (against Iraqi Kurds, not lagging behind drank from the independence they proclaimed - the Democratic Party of Kurdistan led by the Barzani clan in peak of the Talabani clan, which expressed its loyalty to the Baghdad government). So, in particular, the Iranian general, head of the special forces of the "El-Quds" of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kassem Suleymani, who is renowned in the Middle East, is currently not far from Kirkuk. The Kurds themselves claim that it was he who led the Iraqi military operation against Kirkuk.

Legendary head of Iranian commandos Kasem Suleymani (source:

Of course, it is possible that the struggle for the division of Kirkuk’s oil wealth is still to come (as well as the war of the Kurds, above all, the Barzani clan against the Iraqis in northern Iraq), but at the moment the Iranians have clearly more leverage over the situation than the Turks which, being deprived of their own sources of energy, will continue to try to gain, one way or another, access to the fields of Kirkuk. In any case, despite the loud rhetoric of Erdogan, modern Turkey is not fully capable of bearing the burden of the Ottoman Empire. Rather, the star of the new Persian Empire is now rising in the Middle East, inspiring fear in both Saudi Arabia and Israel. And we, as the ominous northern neighbors of the Iranians, should watch this closely.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Settlement Oparyshev
    Settlement Oparyshev 23 October 2017 18: 16 New
    Erdogan has neither the mind nor the strength to realize the dream of the Ottoman Empire.
    This problem can be solved only by one Person in the World.
    1. jjj
      jjj 23 October 2017 19: 14 New
      You probably mean Ramzan Akhmatovich?
      Erdogan, as it seems, plays a relegation
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 23 October 2017 18: 20 New
    I categorically object to pan-Turkism led by the Turks! In Russia there are more worthy candidates: Bashkiria, Tatarstan, for example, and the most worthy are the Altaians, because it was from there that the ancient Turks migrated to the West and the Volga!
    1. Settlement Oparyshev
      Settlement Oparyshev 23 October 2017 19: 34 New
      And according to the balance of power, hu, from whom? Yes, and how will Bashkiria begin to induce the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East?
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 23 October 2017 19: 47 New
        everywhere from everywhere
        empires are not created by slogans from the stands - only by the sword and passionarity.
        who will start the movement for the redistribution of BBV? except the United States, no one.
  3. mariusdeayeraleone
    mariusdeayeraleone 23 October 2017 20: 39 New
    A stick in the wheel of a future Persian empire is called Azerbaijan, which has brilliant military relations and similar ambitions with countries such as Turkey, Israel, Saudis, Pakistan. Just 5 sworn enemies of modern Iran. How do you think the Persians get out?
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 23 October 2017 20: 51 New
      Do you predict to declare war on Iran?
      1. mariusdeayeraleone
        mariusdeayeraleone 23 October 2017 21: 01 New
        You know, up to 80 million people died in the Iran-Iraq war of the 3s, only ours died on the Iranian side! This is a number. 1 million is considered official !! If any major war against Iran begins, many of our compatriots will fight and die there. Alas, we are the only ones to whom they dare not raise their hand.
        1. Bakht
          Bakht 23 October 2017 21: 06 New
          Let's build logically related sentences. What is the connection between the death toll and the fact that Iran "does not dare to raise a hand against Azerbaijan"?
          1. mariusdeayeraleone
            mariusdeayeraleone 23 October 2017 21: 22 New
            The backbone of the Iranian army since its inception, our compatriots
            1. Bakht
              Bakht 23 October 2017 21: 40 New
              Well yes. This is known. Azerbaijanis in Iran up to 30 million. Some call the figure of 40 million. In Azerbaijan itself, about 10 million.
              Azerbaijanis in Iran are firmly entwined in the political structure of the state. Up to the posts of president and prime minister Ali Khamenei (until 1989) and Mousavi (also until 1989). Periodically, there are frictions on national soil. That is, the Iranian Vasti forbids and arrests something. But in general, Iranian Azerbaijanis are loyal to their state and look down on sowing. Azerbaijan. And do not mind joining their former khanates.
              Azerbaijan’s war with Iran will mean the end of Azerbaijan. I hope this topic is closed forever.
              1. Scorpio05
                Scorpio05 24 October 2017 01: 48 New
                Bakht, I think. that our compatriot means that Azerbaijanis also occupy strong, if not leading, positions (except Kassem Suleymani, he is from Kerman) in the Iranian army and the IRGC, including the leadership of these structures. As you know, Ardabil, populated by Azerbaijanis, gave the largest number of deaths in the Iran-Iraq war, after the capital of Tehran. Also, the Iranian leader Khamenei and the great Ayatollah Shariatmadari are Azerbaijanis. Theoretically, a war with Azerbaijan or with Turkey could end very badly for Iran itself, meaning for its integrity. I poorly represent the ardent nationalists of the Tabriz (who regularly and massively hang flags of northern Azerbaijan at Trakhtur matches on their overcrowded 60-thousand-strong) or Ardebilians going to a full-scale war with Azerbaijan or Turkey. It would be a nightmare for Iran and no one, I think there does not represent such. Therefore, Iran will avoid the slightest military friction with Turkey.
                1. eng
                  eng 24 October 2017 05: 14 New
                  but on the border with Karabakh and Armenia, southern Azerbaijanis live and through their lands the Persians supply Yerevan and Karabakh and electricity and all kinds of support and Iranian Azerbaijanis do not hinder this, and after all the Persians do not live there, only Azerbaijanis
                  1. Scorpio05
                    Scorpio05 24 October 2017 11: 46 New
                    Yes there is such a paradoxical fact. Moreover, Armenian marauders sold the property of Azerbaijanis and building materials from the occupied and devastated by the Armenians of the Azerbaijani settlements of Karabakh and the areas around it, namely the Iranians. Iranian heavy trucks still snooping around the entire Nagorno-Karabakh. But to participate in direct hostilities against Azerbaijan and Turkey is already too ... I think it is impossible and unpredictable, or rather just predictable for Iran itself ...
                  2. Bakht
                    Bakht 24 October 2017 15: 09 New
                    This fits into the politics of Armenia and the entire Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijanis themselves are not an enemy of Armenia. The aim of the Karabakh conflict was a banal seizure of land and the construction of "Great Armenia". Therefore, Armenia is at enmity only with those to whom it has territorial claims. These are Turkey and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis from Iran freely travel to Armenia and in Yerevan, as I heard, they even kept a mosque for them.
                    For the same reason, the Armenians do not remember that the Kurds slaughtered them, and transferred all the blame to the Turks. For the same reason, they support the Kurds against Turkey. The Kurds promised them the area of ​​Mount Ararat. And this is such a carrot, which no Armenian will refuse. But the Kurds will throw them and begin to cut them again. I stocked up with popcorn and am waiting for the end of this epic with Kurdistan.
                2. Bakht
                  Bakht 24 October 2017 15: 02 New
                  That is all true. But the situation is unpredictable. Conflict with Iran is the last thing Azerbaijan needs. But the Azerbaijanis of Iran are not opposed to annexing the northern lands. We in Baku are talking about a united Azerbaijan. But in Tabriz they say the same thing. I did not accidentally mention the population. Who do you think will be the leading force in united Azerbaijan? South or North? Until 1990, the situation was clear. Now Azerbaijan cannot quarrel with its neighbors (except for one, of course).
                  You know about Nardaran and the fatwas of the Iranian ayatollahs. More recently, they have threatened quite definitely.
                  In 2011, the phrase sounded that "Aliyev, like Saddam, can turn into dust in the pages of history." And declare jihad against the regime in Baku
                  “We declare that if the destruction of mosques continues in Azerbaijan, we will give the order for the struggle, and the deceased in the course of this struggle will become a martyr.” If we give the order, the situation in Azerbaijan will become unstable. Azerbaijani authorities should know that Shiites are ready to execute any order ”

                  Therefore, any statements addressed to Iran must first be carefully weighed on the scales of his mind.
                  1. Scorpio05
                    Scorpio05 24 October 2017 17: 12 New
                    I agree of course that we don’t need a conflict with Iran, and all these utopian ideas of the early 90’s are rather harmful to us, relatively speaking, “northerners”, because, mentally, culturally, we are completely different, and there’s more of them whose worldview won’t guess have to. Nobody says to make any claims about this to Iran. But Iran, too, should not rely on its small supporters-marginals in Azerbaijan. In addition to 1-2 villages emigrated from the same Iran in ancient times, no one supports their ideas. This scarecrow does not work here. This is not Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen or Bahrain. The statistical model of a compact secular Europeanized, rather European state, unites all segments of the population, not to mention movements or political forces (they are amorphous enough, but they are also united in this) of Azerbaijan. Here, Iran’s example is more scary than attractive.
                    1. Scorpio05
                      Scorpio05 24 October 2017 17: 29 New
                      By the way, even economically this idea is unprofitable. The northern provinces of Iran are conditionally speaking deprived of oil and gas deposits, which are located mainly in the south of Iran, in the Pre-Zagros district, in the region of Abadan and in Ahvaz. Therefore, the division of Iran into northern and southern regions in the economic sense seems impossible.
                      1. Bakht
                        Bakht 24 October 2017 17: 53 New
                        I agree with you as a whole. But there are nuances. In the same 1-2 villages, police stations were installed only recently. Of course there are few of them, these stubborn Nardarans. But for the buildup of the situation a lot is not required. And I do not like the social situation in Azerbaijan. But this is not here and not for everyone :-)
                        But of course, my opinion is that modern Azerbaijan (let's call it Northern) has benefited a lot from secession from Persia (Iran). In this regard, the Turkmanchay and Gulistan treaties were good for us.
                  2. eng
                    eng 24 October 2017 20: 21 New
                    Nardoran is an Iranian abscess and that is why the authorities of Baku, having seen with a concrete example, what the northern secular Azerbaijan will be able to turn into, be afraid of and do not even remember the southern one, since this will be an absorption of the northern sowing
  4. Settlement Oparyshev
    Settlement Oparyshev 23 October 2017 20: 59 New
    The question arises, is Erdogan ready to reconcile the Sunnis with the Shiites? Or will we figure it out ourselves?
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 23 October 2017 21: 42 New
      Who is Erdogan to reconcile Sunnis and Shiites? It is beyond the power of the Almighty himself.
  5. Overko
    Overko 23 October 2017 21: 09 New
    And Iran should support the PKK without stopping pressure on Iraqi Kurds.
  6. The comment was deleted.
    LAWNER 24 October 2017 04: 40 New
    Quote: Bakht
    Who is Erdogan to reconcile Sunnis and Shiites? It is beyond the power of the Almighty himself.

    There was such an intelligent man ..... judged Sunni and Shiite.
    Both took an oath on the Quran ...
    Sunit said that the holy book does not explain the rules for a person in the developing world, and therefore learned People write interpretations of the text (suna) to understand it. Shiite said that he is the great-great-great Grandson of the Prophet and therefore understands best of all what the Almighty wants.
    The judge sent both to reconcile to the Almighty (executed).
    And who will say that Allah cannot reconcile the warring?
    1. Bakht
      Bakht 24 October 2017 15: 11 New
      In this case, it was not Allah who reconciled them, but the judge.
  8. Wolka
    Wolka 24 October 2017 05: 42 New
    everything is possible in this world, and Iran uses its chance, the rest only itch and envy ...