What lies behind the actions of Ankara?
The events taking place in recent years in the Middle East and North Africa have caused tectonic shifts in the geopolitics of this vast region. In a number of Arab countries - Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria - representatives of radical Islam are striving for power. And many political scientists have no doubt that sooner or later Islamic radicals will establish their own rules, at least in some states. The situation in Egypt is of particular concern.In recent years, the situation in Turkey has changed a lot. Ankara began to turn away from the secular path of development, which was determined back in the 20s of the XNUMXth century by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The legacy of this founding Turkish leader is gradually being forgotten. Rally in support of the Islamist Justice and Development Party, headed by the current Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, gathers hundreds of thousands and even millions of Turks. The composition is very wide: Muslim youth and elderly people come.
Supporters of the Justice and Development Party are adherents of the new Turkish doctrine, which is called "neo-Ottomanism". This idea is based on the belief that at present Turkey has a real chance to regain the status of a great power, an empire, to become one of the centers of power on the planet. Ankara sees that the old world order is collapsing and Turkey can and must restore its positions lost after the defeat in the First World War. First of all, the eyes of the "neo-Ottomans" are focused on those regions that used to be part of the Ottoman Empire - these are North Africa, the countries of the Middle East, the Balkan Peninsula, the South and North Caucasus, Crimea.
So, two years ago, the head of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, Ahmet Davutoglu, made the following statement: “There is a legacy left by the Ottoman Empire. We are called "neo-Ottomans". Yes, we are the "new Ottomans". We have to deal with neighboring countries. And we even go to Africa.”
The components of this doctrine are neo-Pan-Turkism - the Turks are considered the core of the future unification of all Turkic peoples and Turkish Eurasianism.
Moreover, the strengthening of Turkey, supported by successes in the field of economic development and military construction, is met with significant support in the Muslim world. When, in mid-September 2011, the Turkish prime minister paid a visit to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya “liberated” by the revolution, he was greeted everywhere by enthusiastic crowds of Arabs with slogans like “Savior of Islam, beloved by Allah Erdogan!” Egyptian supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood called the Turkish leader "the new Salah ad-Din" (this is a Muslim commander of the XII century, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who inflicted a number of significant blows on the positions of the crusaders). It has happened, what some Western analysts feared a few years ago, Ankara is increasingly moving towards radical Islam.
Signs of the Islamization of Turkey is the "cleansing" of the army leadership, and the army was the basis for maintaining the country's secular course and repression against the media. According to a recent report by the International Media Institute, based on data from a study by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Turkish state ranks first in the world in terms of the number of journalists jailed. A total of 57 people were planted. Most of these journalists were imprisoned during the years of the Erdogan government. Second place in this "honorary category" is shared by China and Iran. In each of these states, 34 members of the media are imprisoned. According to the same report, about a thousand more Turkish media workers have recently been charged by the authorities.
Foreign policy
Syria. According to experts, it was this "dizziness from success" that influenced Ankara's attitude towards Syria. Interestingly, quite recently Damascus was the closest military and economic partner of the Turks in the Middle East. But this did not stop Turkey from severing almost all relations with Syria, even to the detriment of its economy. So, on September 21, at a press conference in New York, Erdogan made a statement about the termination of the dialogue with Damascus. And on September 24, information appeared about the interception by Turkish ships of a Syrian ship that was carrying home weapon. The consignor of the cargo, apparently, was Iran.
Commenting on the change in Ankara's attitude towards Syria, the Syrian media are perplexed, they do not understand where such hostility towards their country came from? Syrian journalists call Turkey's recent policy "a severe case of diplomatic schizophrenia." As a result, from friendly, relations between the two countries have reached, almost to a military conflict. Moreover, Western countries, Saudi Arabia, are also pushing Turkey to a conflict with Syria. And in Turkey, they discussed the possibility of creating a "security zone" in the border regions of Syria.
Damascus is already fearing an invasion by the Turkish army. In this situation, Syria has only two possible allies - Tehran and Moscow. Russia has a logistics base in Tartus for the Naval fleet. There is evidence that it hastily put in order. Damascus proposes to expand the Russian military presence in Syria. For Russia, this is very important - this is the last opportunity to maintain its military presence in the Mediterranean region. For Iran, the Syrian state is also a kind of "gateway" to the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, Damascus and Tehran are military allies - there is a corresponding agreement between them.
Israel and Cyprus. After breaking off relations with Syria, Ankara directed its anger against Jerusalem. This is a very populist move - the Arab world has a negative attitude towards the Jewish state, so Erdogan strengthens Turkey's position among the Arab countries. The Turkish government has decisively changed the vector of Turkish-Israeli relations. Just like the Syrian state, Israel has gone from Ankara's ally to its possible enemy. The Turks even unveiled a new naval strategy that is directed against Israel and Cyprus, to strengthen the position of the Turkish Navy in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Turks called their plan very symbolically - "Barbarossa". A very loud name, as Adolf Hitler called the operation to invade the Soviet Union at one time. True, in Turkey they claim that they had in mind a completely different Barbarossa. In the 2th century, this name was borne by a family of famous pirates, Turkish admirals and rulers of Algeria. But, it is clear that in big politics such coincidences are not accidental. Apparently, the Turkish political leadership was well aware of this and counted on a shocking effect. Although it is clear that in this case in Turkey they really started playing "Ottoman Empire - XNUMX". Too negative connotation carries this word, and not only for Jews, but for other countries, including Russia. Nevertheless, such actions help R. Erdogan to increase Turkey's authority in the eyes of Muslims around the world and establish itself as a great regional power.
There is also an economic prerequisite for the Turkish-Israeli conflict. For the Turks, in order to become an "empire", it is vital to gain independence in providing the state with hydrocarbons. Here they act in two directions - they strengthen ties with Azerbaijan (which, as a country inhabited by Turks, is in their zone of influence), together with the European Union they are pushing through the Nabucco project. And at the same time they plan to use hydrocarbon deposits in the Mediterranean Sea. A large gas and oil field has been discovered in the sea between Israel and Cyprus (one of its names is "Leviathan" - a mythical sea serpent). To explore and develop this hydrocarbon deposit, the Israelis and the Greek Cypriots entered into an agreement and were going to drill the first wells, but the Turks strongly opposed this. Several threatening statements were made against Cyprus. The Turks promised to use their Navy.
Ankara wants to show that it is the real master of the Eastern Mediterranean and that this region should develop according to its rules.
According to some Israeli media, if earlier the Ottoman Empire was called the "sick man of Europe", then today's Turkey can be called "the mentally unbalanced man of the Middle East."
Iran. In the fall of 2011, Turkey's relations with Iran also cooled sharply. Ankara agreed to the proposal of the United States to host the locator of the American missile defense system on its territory. The facility will be located in the southeast of the state. According to Turkish press reports, the locator is going to be controlled from the North Atlantic Alliance operations center in Germany. If at the official level the use of the American missile defense facility against Russia is at least hidden, then its direction against the Iranian state is emphasized in every possible way. Therefore, Iran has already made several warnings to Ankara that the installation of an American radar station will lead to an increase in tension in the region.
On October 9, information emerged about a statement by Iranian presidential aide Yahya Rahim Safavi that by providing the United States with territory for the deployment of missile defense systems, Turkey was making a "strategic mistake." The Iranian stressed that by making this decision, the Turkish government has caused damage not only to Iran, but also to Russia. The presidential aide said that Ankara's actions sent a "clear signal" that is directed primarily to Iran. Tehran will find a way to "respond" to Turkey's decision, Safavi said.
The current situation greatly worries Ahmadinejad's regime. It turns out that the Turkish armed forces will certainly support the US and NATO countries in an attack on Iran. And the war in Libya, the situation around Syria, confirm the fears of the Iranian leadership.
In addition, Shiite Iran is an old enemy of the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Therefore, Riyadh is also pushing Turkey to war against the Persians, as well as against the Alawites of Syria. Iran is a rival of the Sunnis for leadership in the Islamic world.
But it is possible to start an operation against Iran only after the defeat of Syria. There is a situation when Tehran needs to protect the Syrian regime of Assad, as itself.
Iraq. Kurdish question. Turkey, using the current weakness of an almost dismembered Iraq, is conducting a military operation against the Iraqi Kurds. In August-September 2011, a total of up to 58 sorties of the Turkish Air Force were made, a number of command posts, weapons and ammunition depots of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) were destroyed. Artillery is located along the Turkish-Iraqi border, which also strikes at Iraqi territory. Kurds respond with terrorist acts, ambush against Turkish troops, so in August, Kurdish militants attacked an army convoy in southern Turkey, several Turkish soldiers were killed.
At the end of September, the head of the Turkish government, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, confirmed the determination of the state leadership to conduct a military operation in Iraq aimed at destroying the infrastructure of the PKK.
At the same time, the Turkish military is conducting an operation against the Kurdish rebel underground in the southeast of the country. The Kurds continue to resist, only on September 24, Kurdish militants attacked various military facilities three times. A real battle with the participation of helicopters took place near the city of Pervari, the Turks lost 5 people killed and more than a dozen wounded. According to Turkish official figures, up to 300 Kurdish militants have been killed in the last month.
It is doubtful that Ankara will be able to suppress the movement of the Kurds by force, for this it would be necessary to arrange a genocide, and at the present time the world community will not turn a blind eye to such actions. Kurds are a numerous people with an ancient history, and large communities not only in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, but in a number of Western states. Therefore, hostilities will continue, without a radical change in anyone's favor.
Will the Turks be the first to start a war?
This is a very unlikely scenario, especially in the near future. For such an event, the region would have to be even more destabilized. The armies of Israel, Syria, Iran are too strong opponents to be able to fight with them without serious support. In addition, Iran and Syria are allies, the war with Damascus will cause a response from Tehran, up to a military strike.
Ankara can participate in the war with Syria and Iran only if the composition of the participants is a coalition, as in the case of Libya.
There is no common border with Israel at all, therefore, in the current situation, only a conflict at sea is possible, with the participation of the Air Force. Ankara is quite capable of blockading the Israeli coast, given the superiority of the Turkish Navy. This will worsen the supply of the country, especially in terms of energy. But it makes sense to undertake such an operation only at the beginning of a new large-scale Arab-Israeli war, when the Egyptians will block the gas pipeline and the Israeli army will have to defeat the enemy in a month or two. Then the Turkish fleet can play a decisive role - without fuel, the IDF will not last long. Israel will have to make the decision to negotiate.
But such a scenario is still far away. Ankara's current actions are more of an information campaign to score points among Muslims. Although it is clear that such words are not spoken just like that in the East. Having pulled out its “dagger” halfway, sooner or later Ankara will have to pull it out completely.
Interests of the United States
Turkey's confrontation with Syria and Iran, de facto official enemies of the West, is beneficial to the United States and other Western countries. Such actions by Turkey fit into Washington's overall strategy to destabilize Eurasia.
With Israel, the situation is not so cloudless, but apparently, part of the American elite is ready to sacrifice the Jewish state as well. It cannot be assumed that Israel is a figure that cannot be conceded in the Great Game.
In addition, the imperial ambitions of the Turkish leadership will sooner or later collide with Russia's interests in the Caucasus and Crimea, which also corresponds to the fundamentals of Washington's policy.
Information