Table Of Contents:
The Massive – but Reversible – Defeats of Iran and Turkey: Caroline B. Glick, Israel Hayom, Feb. 21, 2020
In Syria’s Idlib, Turkey is Trying to Play Middle Man Between Russia and the US – With Little Success: The Conversation, Feb. 19, 2020
Pakistan and Turkey: Bonded by Nostalgia for Empire and Longing for Nuclear: Aditi Bhaduri CNBC, Feb. 15, 2020
The Unhappy Marriage: How Far Can Turkey Challenge NATO and the EU in 2020?: EU Bulletin, Feb. 18, 2020
______________________________________________________
The Massive – but Reversible – Defeats of Iran and Turkey
Caroline B. Glick
Israel Hayom, Feb. 21, 2020
With our attention focused on other things – Israel’s elections, the legal fraternity’s aggressive lawfare against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, to name just a few – profound strategic shifts have upended the strategic balance in the Middle East.
Israel’s two most formidable adversaries – Iran and Turkey – both came up short in their quests for regional domination, and Israel is reaping the rewards of their losses.
Two weeks ago, Netanyahu held a previously unannounced meeting in Uganda with Sudanese President Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan. Instant commentaries presented the meeting as a salutary side product of the Trump plan. But the truth is much more significant. The sight of the two leaders sitting next to one another smiling made heads explode from Tehran to Ramallah. The Netanyahu-Burhan meeting was no mere byproduct of a peace plan. It was a long-planned and hoped-for result of a set of policies, that aided by good fortune felled a cataclysmic blow against Iran and its terrorist proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Until last April, Sudan was ruled for 30 years by Omar al-Bashir. Bashir, an Islamist, was a major sponsor of global terrorism. From 1991-1995, Al-Qaida was headquartered in Khartoum.
Al-Bashir was also a close ally of Iran. He permitted the Iranian regime to use Sudanese ports to move weapons to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to the Assad regime in Syria. Al-Bashir also allowed the Iranians to use Sudanese territory to surround Saudi Arabia, to transfer weapons to the Houthis in Yemen and to threaten the Saudi port in Jeddah, outside of Mecca, and to threaten Saudi oil platforms at Yanbu.
In December 2018, disgusted by rampant corruption and human rights abuses, the Sudanese people rose up against their leaders. For five months, massive anti-government protests were held throughout the country. Responding to public pressure, last April the Sudanese military overthrew al-Bashir.
The units that overthrew al-Bashir were supported by the Gulf states, Egypt, the US and according to some reports, Israel. The new regime, which is pledged to transition to some form of democracy within two years, is supported by these governments.
Al-Bashir, for his part, was supported by Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. His removal was a huge blow to all three. For the Iranian regime, his removal from power by forces allied with Iran’s bitter enemies was arguably a greater loss than the loss of terror master Qassem Soleimani and his lieutenants last month at the hands of a US drone strike in Baghdad. The loss of Sudan calls into question Iran’s continued ability to maintain its regional campaigns.
Consider its positions in two of its satrapies – Iraq and Lebanon.
Among the people killed along with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the commander of Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq. This week, The Guardian reported that in the wake of their deaths, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi sent his top adviser to Beirut to meet with Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah. Mahdi is an Iranian proxy. His representative beseeched Nasrallah to take command of the Shiite militias in Iraq that Soleimani and Muhandis directed. Nasrallah acceded to the request. But, apparently fearing that he would end like Soleimani if he began flying around to rally the troops, Nasrallah said that he would run the militias by remote control from Beirut. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________
In Syria’s Idlib, Turkey is Trying to Play Middle Man Between Russia and the US – with Little Success
The Conversation, Feb. 19, 2020
The recent turn of events in Idlib, an opposition stronghold in north-western Syria undergoing bombardment by the Syrian military, has put Turkey in a difficult position. Since the end of January, Syrian regime forces have killed 13 Turkish soldiers who were monitoring a tense ceasefire in Idlib. It now looks like the Syrian army is gradually winning the battle for Idlib.
For the past few years, Turkey has played its alliances with Russia and the US interchangeably to affect the turn of events in northern Syria. Its goal is to protect its sphere of influence from both Kurdish rebels and the forces of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. But Turkey lacks a long-term strategy to settle the humanitarian crisis in the Idlib province and the military crisis that its allies – the Syrian rebels – face.
Turkey is returning to the go-between role it played during the Cold War, when it sought to play the West off against Russia and vice versa. It is now looking to make short-term gains, mainly against the Kurds in Syria. But this is having drastic consequences for the people in the region.
Escalation of military conflict in Idlib
In 2017, Turkey, Russia and Iran established a trilateral mechanism to maintain stability in northern Syria. At a 2018 summit in the Russian resort of Sochi, the Turkish government promised to control the jihadist groups in Idlib and subsequently sent troops to observe the de-escalation of conflict between the Syrian regime and the jihadists.
In the latest developments, the Syrian army started military operation against the jihadist groups in Idlib, a province in north-western Syrian near the Turkish border, in December 2019. Some of the city’s residents fled to reach the safer zones on the Turkish-Syrian border. The advance of the Syrian army, supported by Russian war planes, worried the Turkish political elites who had sought to control Idlib province as buffer zone against the Assad regime’s forces.
Following the deaths of the Turkish soldiers in Idlib, the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, warned the Assad regime of heavy consequences if the Syrian army continued to shell Turkish troops there.
Despite the cosiness between the two authoritarian presidents, this time, Russia has not endorsed the Turkish position. In that sense, the Erdoğan administration is exploiting Russian apathy about Turkish incursions into Syria in the past few years.
While there has been a rapprochement between Turkey and Russia in recent years, Turkish politicians have made sure that Turkey has not disengaged with US over its Syrian policy either. In return, the US gave tacit approval to the Turkish invasion of northern Syria by pulling its soldiers away from the region in late 2019.
Russia argues that Turkey could not control the jihadist groups in Idlib, and so it in December 2019 it extended its support to the Syrian regime in its attack on Idlib. While Ankara remains adamant it does not want to clash directly with Russia due to ongoing energy and military cooperation projects, it is turning towards the US and its Western allies for support. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________
Pakistan and Turkey: Bonded by Nostalgia for Empire and Longing for Nuclear
Aditi Bhaduri
CNBC, Feb. 15, 2020
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is on an official visit to Pakistan. It is the first head of a state visit by a foreign leader to Pakistan in 2020. A landmark deal for dual citizenship between Pakistan and Turkey has been signed. Both countries have spoken in glowing terms about the significance of this visit and about bilateral ties. Erdogan who arrived in Islamabad with a big business delegation was warmly received by the Pakistanis on their arrival in Islamabad.
The tone of the visit was set in an article titled ‘You Have us, Pakistan’ in the Turkish pro-government daily Daily Sabah by renowned Turkish journalist Hakki Ocal. He writes ‘On top of the long-established brotherhood between the two nations (Turkey and Pakistan), Pakistan has been let down by its traditional allies during the recent crisis in Kashmir…’
No doubt this pertains to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s frustration with the OIC, and most specifically with its Arab allies like Saudi Arabia which has refused to allow any meetings on Kashmir. The issue of Kashmir was of course raised during Erdogan’s address to the joint session of the Pakistan Parliament – something Erdogan did for the fourth time – twice as Prime Minster earlier and now a second time as President of Turkey, becoming the only foreign dignitary to do so. Erdogan has now expended sufficient effort in taking up the Kashmir cause, speaking about it in the UN General Assembly, hosting a conference on it in October last year, and repeatedly offering to mediate between India and Pakistan. The Turkish media has kept up a steady tirade against India after the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir.
But why has Turkey been so vociferous on Kashmir when things had just begun looking up for bilateral ties with India?
Both Pakistan and Turkey are bonded by a common nostalgia for empire – Pakistan for the Muslim rule on the Indian subcontinent and Turkey for the Ottoman Empire. Both see themselves as legatees of these legacies. The Pakistani state sees itself as the successor to the millennia-old Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent, especially the Mughal Empire, something that has shaped the country’s approach to security and its military.
Anyone who follows Turkish policies will know that under Erdogan Turkey has been steadily Islamising and it has been trying to position itself as leader of the Muslims; throwing in his support for the Muslim Brotherhood Turkey has been injecting itself in the affairs of the Arab world, the Turkic world, and in South Asia.
Thus just as Pakistan harps on Kashmir and wages proxy war there, Turkey under Erdogan became the conduit for the foreign fighter from across the world to the now destroyed ISIS caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________
The Unhappy Marriage: How Far Can Turkey Challenge NATO and the EU in 2020?
EU Bulletin, Feb. 18, 2020
In their dealings with Turkey in 2020, NATO and the European Union will sit across a more assertive interlocutor than ever before, but one they can hardly ignore. NATO leaders will have to cope with the actual deployment of Russian S-400 missiles, the possible acquisition of Russian fighter aircraft, the continuing Turkish military operations in northern Syria, and an incipient military deployment in Libya. EU leaders will deal with ongoing issues, such as Syrian refugees in Turkey, the expulsion of jihadists of EU origin, and drilling operations around Cyprus, as well as new topics like the agreement with Libya on maritime boundaries, the implications for EU businesses resulting from eventual US sanctions, and the consequences of Brexit for Turkey’s relations with the UK and the EU.
Turkey’s international posture has radically changed over the last few years. It is a function of a) Erdo?an’s international ambitions and political decline, b) a rising nationalist sentiment among a large segment of the population, c) Donald Trump’s unexpected support, and d) Vladimir Putin’s strategic maneuvering. This “New Turkey” challenges the Eastern Mediterranean maritime boundaries and drilling rights and is prone to project military force abroad while substantially reinforcing its army’s equipment. While every country is free to choose its own destiny, seen from Brussels, Turkey’s posture of challenging both NATO and the EU runs counter to its membership of the transatlantic alliance.
The number and seriousness of these issues, as well as the potential for more adverse developments in Turkey’s policies, justify a firm, resolute, and yet cooperative policy from NATO and the European Union. In its dealings with Turkey, the EU should focus on five priorities: First, EU governments’ priorities will likely to go to counterterrorism, a field already covered by active cooperation schemes between a number of European governments and Turkey. The day-to-day running of counterterrorism cooperation requires considerable confidence between the services concerned and there are already remarkably successful operations.
The second EU priority is Syrian refugees, whose future has been the subject of a permanent dialogue between the EU, EU governments, and Turkey for more than four years. Notwithstanding politically motivated narratives emanating from Ankara, there is a need to continue supporting Syrian refugees in ways acceptable to both Turkey and the EU in the respect of international humanitarian law. The position sometimes expressed by some European political parties that Turkey should shoulder the burden alone does not make good sense. Therefore, measures similar to those included in the existing EU facility should be extended and their budget implications should be considered urgently. Particular attention should be given to cross-border assistance to Syrians internally displaced persons on the border of the Idlib province with the Turkish province of Hatay. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________
For Further Reference:
Israelis Respond to the Turkish Parliament’s Condemnation of U.S. Peace Plan: Uzay Bulut, Ahval News, Feb. 22, 2020 — On January 28, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a peace plan entitled “Peace to Prosperity – A vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People”.
Brussels Conference Warns of Danger of Turkey Expansionism in Mediterranean: Middle East Online, Feb. 19, 2020 — The European Parliament hosted in Brussels Tuesday a European conference entitled “Turkish intervention in the Mediterranean: Causes, targets, and dangers?” under the framework of the European Assembly against Extremism and Terrorism.
NATO Has No Plans to Support Turkey in Syria: MEMO, Feb. 17, 2020 — NATO has no plans to provide Turkey with military support if the government launches a military operation in northern Syria, a diplomatic source from a member state told Tass on Monday.
Opinion Turkey’s Mideast Military Adventures Are Disasters. This Is Why Erdogan Doesn’t Mind: Simon A. Waldman, Haaretz, Feb. 20, 2020 — One might be forgiven for thinking that Turkey’s recent attempts to go it alone in international military adventures, from Syria to Libya, have been an unmitigated disaster.
Far-right Turkish Revenge Brigade Terrorist Group Given New Life by Erdoğan Government: Abdullah Bozkurt, Nordic Monitor, Dec. 26, 2019 — A violent ultranationalist group, designated as terrorist by Turkey’s highest criminal court over attacks in Turkey and Cyprus, has been given new life by the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his neo-nationalist allies.
