The Middle East axis
24/3/21 14:54![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsUS ambassador: Turkey should not have S-400 to solve the problem
The US ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield has told Turkey's minister of foreign relations Cavusoglu that if Turkey buys a second set of Russian S-40 missiles, that would cause "a more active approach from the US". Essentially, this means Turkey could find itself in the list of countries subject to sanctions.
Washington has been threatening Turkey in a similar way for quite some time. Turkey's attempts to resolve this issue with the US and their other NATO partners though setting up joint technical compatibility committees have all hit a road-block. Today, Turkey is raising the stakes and saying they'd only quit their S-400 plans if the Americans stop their support for the Kurds. Again, to no avail. Eventually, the diplomacy of bargaining has given way to the diplomacy of symbolic gestures - and not friendly ones, at that. In fact, Turkey now views the S-400 systems not as a bargaining chip any more - they see them as a genuine opportunity for pursuing an independent foreign policy. One that's not necessarily aligned with their NATO allies.
Donald Trump used to have a way of dealing with his partners by way of unofficial, undocumented one-on-one agreements like the one with Erdogan. In a way, that did work to some extent, as Trump must have sensed the psychological element in allowing Turkey to maneuver between the various regional power centers (mostly Russia and Iran). But now Biden is demonstrating that he's prepared to revert to the so called Joint Plan of Action from 2015, designed to halt Tehran's nuclear program - and he was giving the impression that the US intends to cause some shifts in the dynamics of the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle, focusing on Turkey more than Iran.
But now, because of America's actions, this scenario may have to be postponed indefinitely. As the US has shifted towards a sharpening of the tone with Russia, there was initially an impression in Turkey that the Americans would step off their pressure pedal on Turkey, and seek for compromise on the major issues. But that wasn't meant to be.
Ambassador Satterfield's "either with us or against us" stance on the S-400 issue is being perceived as a confirmation of this. After all, the triangle are working together on Syria, and they're of course all subject to US sanctions to one extent or another. This is naturally pushing the three of them towards closer cooperation, and this may signal the emergence of a new alliance.
All in all, the habit of forming coalitions has been the norm in the Middle East for quite a while. The US have been instrumental in setting this norm, mostly along military lines: be it as an alliance against ISIS, or as the failed alliance against Iran. In this sense, the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle used to look unlikely, yet some prospects of its creation and further development are being observed as of now.
In principle, the process seems to consist of two main stages. Firstly, these powers have gained some experience on the Syrian testing ground, both in terms of political and military cooperation. Secondly, America's weakened influence in the region is prompting Turkey, still a NATO member, and Iran to guarantee the support of some powerful and influential external player, not just to help solve the local problems and create a security infrastructure, but also to activate their economic and trade cooperation.
In the meantime, these should be working to create a powerful mechanism for reaching mutually acceptable solutions while preserving their balance of interests. Indeed, lots of issues could be solved if Russia and Iran somehow manage to help Turkey and Syria align their positions. This not only depends on each side's readiness for a flexible approach and finding a common ground, but also their readiness to embrace a new geopolitical geometry of the region. After all, Russia, Turkey and Iran have all had a glorious imperial background, right?
Potentially, the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle, built upon a multilateral basis, would pose a serious challenge to the West, if the latter two do join the Eurasian economic union. One thing is for sure: the three are currently demonstrating their ability to make a turnover in their foreign policy, and readiness to craft coalitions between themselves for a common goal. What's left is to see to what extent their separate actions are dictated by the current circumstances (which of course is not to be completely ruled out). Indeed, the direction of geopolitical change in the Middle East is yet to be set, as these processes are still at an early formation stage. What exactly the end result would be, we'll have to wait and see.
The US ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield has told Turkey's minister of foreign relations Cavusoglu that if Turkey buys a second set of Russian S-40 missiles, that would cause "a more active approach from the US". Essentially, this means Turkey could find itself in the list of countries subject to sanctions.
Washington has been threatening Turkey in a similar way for quite some time. Turkey's attempts to resolve this issue with the US and their other NATO partners though setting up joint technical compatibility committees have all hit a road-block. Today, Turkey is raising the stakes and saying they'd only quit their S-400 plans if the Americans stop their support for the Kurds. Again, to no avail. Eventually, the diplomacy of bargaining has given way to the diplomacy of symbolic gestures - and not friendly ones, at that. In fact, Turkey now views the S-400 systems not as a bargaining chip any more - they see them as a genuine opportunity for pursuing an independent foreign policy. One that's not necessarily aligned with their NATO allies.
Donald Trump used to have a way of dealing with his partners by way of unofficial, undocumented one-on-one agreements like the one with Erdogan. In a way, that did work to some extent, as Trump must have sensed the psychological element in allowing Turkey to maneuver between the various regional power centers (mostly Russia and Iran). But now Biden is demonstrating that he's prepared to revert to the so called Joint Plan of Action from 2015, designed to halt Tehran's nuclear program - and he was giving the impression that the US intends to cause some shifts in the dynamics of the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle, focusing on Turkey more than Iran.
But now, because of America's actions, this scenario may have to be postponed indefinitely. As the US has shifted towards a sharpening of the tone with Russia, there was initially an impression in Turkey that the Americans would step off their pressure pedal on Turkey, and seek for compromise on the major issues. But that wasn't meant to be.
Ambassador Satterfield's "either with us or against us" stance on the S-400 issue is being perceived as a confirmation of this. After all, the triangle are working together on Syria, and they're of course all subject to US sanctions to one extent or another. This is naturally pushing the three of them towards closer cooperation, and this may signal the emergence of a new alliance.
All in all, the habit of forming coalitions has been the norm in the Middle East for quite a while. The US have been instrumental in setting this norm, mostly along military lines: be it as an alliance against ISIS, or as the failed alliance against Iran. In this sense, the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle used to look unlikely, yet some prospects of its creation and further development are being observed as of now.
In principle, the process seems to consist of two main stages. Firstly, these powers have gained some experience on the Syrian testing ground, both in terms of political and military cooperation. Secondly, America's weakened influence in the region is prompting Turkey, still a NATO member, and Iran to guarantee the support of some powerful and influential external player, not just to help solve the local problems and create a security infrastructure, but also to activate their economic and trade cooperation.
In the meantime, these should be working to create a powerful mechanism for reaching mutually acceptable solutions while preserving their balance of interests. Indeed, lots of issues could be solved if Russia and Iran somehow manage to help Turkey and Syria align their positions. This not only depends on each side's readiness for a flexible approach and finding a common ground, but also their readiness to embrace a new geopolitical geometry of the region. After all, Russia, Turkey and Iran have all had a glorious imperial background, right?
Potentially, the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle, built upon a multilateral basis, would pose a serious challenge to the West, if the latter two do join the Eurasian economic union. One thing is for sure: the three are currently demonstrating their ability to make a turnover in their foreign policy, and readiness to craft coalitions between themselves for a common goal. What's left is to see to what extent their separate actions are dictated by the current circumstances (which of course is not to be completely ruled out). Indeed, the direction of geopolitical change in the Middle East is yet to be set, as these processes are still at an early formation stage. What exactly the end result would be, we'll have to wait and see.
(no subject)
Date: 24/3/21 18:30 (UTC)Three countries that consider "illiberal democracy" to be their Holy Grail....