NATO, Greece and Turkey (NOT another Greco-Turkish Thread)

[Rastagir]

It's not about hate,it's about realpolitik.Again,I say that for such a scenario to happen the major world powers must be busy with other things and present treaties and alliances turn to dust.My idea is not that NATO will be broken be a Greece-Turkey conflict.NATO must lose it's meaning first and a true multipolar world must arise before any major war starts in the Balkans.
Regarding the Ottomans,it's not what happened that matters,it's about the popular belief of what happened.I guess there are plenty of different stories and I'd love to read some views from ''the other side''.

But NATO hasn't already lost it's meaning? (or, at least, as the Europeans see it). Right now, the major players in Europe don't seem to have really big issues against each other...the smaller nations might have issues, but the EU seems to successfuly apply the "soft power" it possesses..And Russia, for the time being, doesn't regard EU as a threat but as a business partner.

My point is that a possible Greco-Turkish conflict might show to the world that NATO is a loose alliance at best. And there won't be any "safe "choice". I don't believe that both NATO and EU will simply sit back and see what happens, because that will show inability to act and not a casual "let's see where this goes" approach. Such a conflict might also trigger more than one fronts: In the case of Greece with Albania or FYROM (yea,yea, I know most of you call it Macedonia, but I am a Greek and cannot), Turkey with Syria, Armenia, or the Kurds within. I understand that this might seem far fetched (and it is) but craziest things have happened. And the US might be the most powerful combatant right now but already finds it's resourses stretched. Just imagine how many front "waiting to happen" are right now on the planet and imagine a NATO unable to react due to inner conflict.

[Mihais]

1.When was Article 5,invoked by a NATO member,ignored by the rest?That's the real test,not some attempts to create parallel military structures(which lack significant power projection capability anyway)
2.I'm still curious about the major achievements of the so called ''soft power''.
3.Either NATO and EU are already irrelevant(and as such it doesn't matter what they will say) or they have some substance and means to intervene(which is the thing that keeps the peace).I dare to introduce the EU in the equation because they have as much to lose as NATO in such a conflict.Until some other thing proves these 2 organizations to be paper tigers,nobody will dare risk a conflict.A Greco-Turkish conflict won't be the beginning of the end for NATO,it will be the beginning of several other regional alliances and the potential combinations are plenty.

[Rastagir]

1.When was Article 5,invoked by a NATO member,ignored by the rest?That's the real test,not some attempts to create parallel military structures(which lack significant power projection capability anyway)

Invoked by two countries at once? And I can tell you right now, don't ask who the aggressor is, there won't be any, each will blame the other. And parallel military structure isn't in itself a failure, showing that the existing one isn't helping?

2.I'm still curious about the major achievements of the so called ''soft power''.

Well, I don't see the major ones of the strong power either.

3.Either NATO and EU are already irrelevant(and as such it doesn't matter what they will say) or they have some substance and means to intervene(which is the thing that keeps the peace).I dare to introduce the EU in the equation because they have as much to lose as NATO in such a conflict.Until some other thing proves these 2 organizations to be paper tigers,nobody will dare risk a conflict.A Greco-Turkish conflict won't be the beginning of the end for NATO,it will be the beginning of several other regional alliances and the potential combinations are plenty.

I am interested to hear what you think will be the future of NATO and what, in your opinion, are the potential combinations (if not all, at least the very first that come to your mind)

[Mihais]

Invoked by two countries at once? And I can tell you right now, don't ask who the aggressor is, there won't be any, each will blame the other. And parallel military structure isn't in itself a failure, showing that the existing one isn't helping?

I understand your premise.Somebody else must get the middle finger before your scenario can even be conceived.Only then NATO is worthless.
And the new European formations serve under 2 flags:NATO and potentially EU.

Well, I don't see the major ones of the strong power either.

They killed those who dreamed about a renewed Caliphate.Other dreamers may exist,but they stay home(at the present moment at least).

I am interested to hear what you think will be the future of NATO and what, in your opinion, are the potential combinations (if not all, at least the very first that come to your mind)

Hard to say.For a start NATO cannot act on global scale(Afghanistan cannot be considered a major conflict if we think that NATO was born to fight WW3).It's areas of interest are Europe and to a lesser extent the ME.On the other hand US interests are global and likely to focus more and more on Asia.
The rest depends on whether the EU is a viable concept or not.Most of NATO members are also EU members.If the EU blows up I can think of at least 4 blocs:one Scandinavian,another would be the Franco-German plus German influenced countries in Central Europe,a third would be the Southern Europe and the fourth could be the poorer nations in E Europe and the Balkans.But I emphasize that this is only a product of my fairly rich imagination because nobody can foresee the future.Where Russia,Ukraine,Turkey and the rest can fit I'll think off another time.

[Big K]

...I'm enjoying this thread quite a bit.

cyppok, Big K, chakos, Rastagir good stuff, y'all!

good to hear, thanks

...You have the religious aspect. Christian/Muslim or even more importantly Orthodoxy/Islam.

i do remember a saying who prefers Muslim turban rather than Catholic cone(some sort of hat i think?) what if we add sectarian differences in the Christianism?

...too many Europeans have nightmares still of a belligerant powerful muslim country to the south. Its been the European boogyman for 1500 years.

sad to still hear this.

It is. As a matter of fact, I think that one of Greece's war plans includes the closing of the straits in order to prevent any Turkish Navy intervention. And I know that Russia isn't going to like this one bit...

i am not a military expert but i assume that before closing of the straits there would be a huge naval battle, dont you think?

I think that Ukraine is eligible for NATO membership. Which, in my book, is kind of stupid. It's like NATO rubs it in Russia's face and saying "here we are at your threshold and we are waving our big guns around".....

It is. Turkey has a dual identity, both as a secular state and as a muslim country. I am not really sure how the muslim world perceives Turkey: as another muslim state, and a powerful one, who will defend muslims everywhere, or as a traitor who is part of NATO and an ally of whatever is wrong with the West.

if, for one or both reasons (or others maybe), NATO or EU would turn their back to Turkey, can Russia choose to support Turkey as a retaliation to the Ukranian NATO membership?

...the first domino that falls...

let everyone pray that would never happen.

....Regarding the Ottomans,it's not what happened that matters,it's about the popular belief of what happened.

I guess there are plenty of different stories and I'd love to read some views from ''the other side''.

i would be pleased if i can help you.

But NATO hasn't already lost it's meaning? (or, at least, as the Europeans see it)....

during the cold war the enemy was likely obvious, now it is stealthy and who knows that there are how many barrels pointed at himself?

I don't believe that both NATO and EU will simply sit back and see what happens, because that will show inability to act and not a casual "let's see where this goes" approach. Such a conflict might also trigger more than one fronts....

And the US might be the most powerful combatant right now but already finds it's resourses stretched. Just imagine how many front "waiting to happen" are right now on the planet and imagine a NATO unable to react due to inner conflict.

this is a good point and i agree.

...I am interested to hear what you think will be the future of NATO and what, in your opinion, are the potential combinations (if not all, at least the very first that come to your mind)

may i add?

a Russian/Greek/Turkish/Central Asian/Caucassian combination would be one big player....in my dreams

[Rastagir]

i do remember a saying who prefers Muslim turban rather than Catholic cone(some sort of hat i think?) what if we add sectarian differences in the Christianism?

You are right, but still.... I think the prevailing view right now is that muslim=aggressor. I am not saying that this is right because it is not. But people tend to fear what they don't understand, or don't want to understand.

i am not a military expert but i assume that before closing of the straits there would be a huge naval battle, dont you think?

I do, but nothing ends with a big naval battle. A warzone is not something that ends overnight. Look at Afganistan or Iraq: The war is supposedly over, but conflicts remain. Really bad for business!

if, for one or both reasons (or others maybe), NATO or EU would turn their back to Turkey, can Russia choose to support Turkey as a retaliation to the Ukranian NATO membership?

Now that's one view I never thought of. I don't know whether the US will allow something like that though. Turkey is a vital ally, both in NATO and the US interests in the area. Also, the fact that it is a muslim state that, apart from it's problems, actually is reforming and moving forward, won't let the Americans to let go. How it is going to prevent it is another matter entirely. And that's the reason of this thread: we are talking about hard choices and the consequenses as we see them.

let everyone pray that would never happen.

with you on this one!

during the cold war the enemy was likely obvious, now it is stealthy and who knows that there are how many barrels pointed at himself?

So, the "enemy" has a new form. The West might have to adapt swiftly or even change it's existing structure to better combat this new threat. Despite the swift victory on Afganistan and Iraq, I really don't see these wars as victories. A war doesn't end on the battlefield. It's the "after the battlefield" that's the important bit.

may i add?

a Russian/Greek/Turkish/Central Asian/Caucassian combination would be one big player....in my dreams

We wish..... If you ask me a "live and let live" policy would be the best!

[pate]

You are right, but still.... I think the prevailing view right now is that muslim=aggressor.....
....We wish..... If you ask me a "live and let live" policy would be the best!

May I remind you; you started this thread?

There are islands that you (as a Grecian patriot) have claim to, but the specific stated purpose was not to get into 'who was right who was wrong,' please don't lose that spirit....

Either country would be foolish to instigate a conflict beyond what it already is, your initial question if I recall wasn't what the reprecussions would be for Greece or Turkey (without regard for whose 'fault' it was) but how it would affect the rest of the world. ""NATO, Greece and Turkey (NOT another Greco-Turkish Thread""

Anyhow, here are my comments before that:

You have the religious aspect. Christian/Muslim or even more importantly Orthodoxy/Islam.

Turkey as a secular state, I don't really see that... You say Orthodoxy/Islam... That's like saying Catholicism/Wahaabism (I'm an idiot on religious affairs) I just don't see it Protestant/Sunnism (Again an idiot is me)

I'm not trying to be US-centric just seems to me that NATO is US-centric, and if anything else NATO was created by the US to provide a counterweight for Russia (USSR)... Old treaty, new times? What happens? Greek & Turkish relations won't be a decider for that, but if either one of them does something 'crazy' then all bets are off, eh?

I don't think that an escaleted Greco-Turk conflict is good for NATO or the world, I really doubt that either country would be so foolish as to make it an issue... If it is made an issue I don't think that Christianity/Islam would be the primary factor, the conflict predates religion... It is more historical, but that is just me from the outside looking in

It is. As a matter of fact, I think that one of Greece's war plans includes the closing of the straits in order to prevent any Turkish Navy intervention.

That seems to be a wise move for either country. That is to close the Black Sea route, or at least attempt to exercise some control, whether it be the denial of access or the complete shut down, it wouldn't directly affect either country...

I think that Ukraine is eligible for NATO membership. Which, in my book, is kind of stupid. It's like NATO rubs it in Russia's face and saying "here we are at your threshold and we are waving our big guns around". Russia is bound to respond (and I think this is the reason behind the Russia-Georgia conflict a year ago) because she feels threatened (not with good reason, but when the US is raising an eyebrow for two russian submarines outside their national waters, imagine what the russians think with bases outside their's...). Wars have begun for less.

I sort of agree. In anycase Ukrainian membership in NATO is on hold for now, as it stands without any wierd moves on either the Greeks or the Turks...

Throw in a Greco-Turkic conflict with one or the other as an aggressor and I think the situation isn't as clear cut. I agree as it stands now Ukraine as a NATO country is questionable...

It is. Turkey has a dual identity, both as a secular state and as a muslim country.

The thing is (at least as I understand it) the civilian population of Turkey can be as vehement as it wishes as far as religion goes, but it falls on the military to be secular, and that is in the Turkish constitution. In other words it doesn't matter if you as a Turkish soldier are Muslim, Christian or Jewish, what mattters more to you as a soldier in the Turkish military is that your government remains secular as your top priority, if that ceases to be true the Turkish government as it is written has problems and it is up to the military to fix that. In other words, if Turkey as a nation is to exist it needs to pay attention to its constitution....

Anyway, my main point is that if Turkey indeed has a dual identity there may be a problem... More an internall Turkish problem, but not really a NATO problem...

3.Either NATO and EU are already irrelevant(and as such it doesn't matter what they will say) or they have some substance and means to intervene(which is the thing that keeps the peace).I dare to introduce the EU in the equation because they have as much to lose as NATO in such a conflict.Until some other thing proves these 2 organizations to be paper tigers,nobody will dare risk a conflict.A Greco-Turkish conflict won't be the beginning of the end for NATO,it will be the beginning of several other regional alliances and the potential combinations are plenty.

I question your introduction of the EU here, as far as I know the EU has no military to put into it, if this imaginary conflict happens, perhaps, but not really neccessary, EU is NATO pretty much. Besides, if I am not mistaken EU doesn't include Turkey so EU's interests (as much as the EU's interests matter in a conflict, naturally preclude Turkey...)

The EU may be irrelevant, but NATO certainly should not be included in your argument about irrelevancy. The US isn't quite yet socialist... What is NATO without the US?

Apologies about being so US-centic in regards to NATO, but seriously? Would NATO be anything to talk about without US?





Disclaimer: I am totally retarded, everything I've written makes my eyes rain... (You have to watch the movie "Tropic Thunder")

[Rastagir]

May I remind you; you started this thread?

There are islands that you (as a Grecian patriot) have claim to, but the specific stated purpose was not to get into 'who was right who was wrong,' please don't lose that spirit....

Either country would be foolish to instigate a conflict beyond what it already is, your initial question if I recall wasn't what the reprecussions would be for Greece or Turkey (without regard for whose 'fault' it was) but how it would affect the rest of the world. ""NATO, Greece and Turkey (NOT another Greco-Turkish Thread""

Um.... I really don't see where I am out of line here... My intentions are truly beyond the Greco-Turkish conflict. And I really wish to keep both countries out of the discussion as much as I can. I carefully avoided to say who is right and who is wrong exactly because I don't want to be biased. I welcome every other opinion, and especially Big K's because it gives me insight of the view from the other side of the Aegean and in no way am I trying to pass messages under the table.

Also, I tried to answer questions about the straits and also to show that I am definitely NOT in favour of such a conflict by saying that I support the "live and let live" policy. Both countries have suffered enough already.

Anyway, forgive me if my poor english or the way this discussion is going leaves any doubt of my intentions.

Turkey as a secular state, I don't really see that... You say Orthodoxy/Islam... That's like saying Catholicism/Wahaabism (I'm an idiot on religious affairs) I just don't see it Protestant/Sunnism (Again an idiot is me)

I don't think that an escaleted Greco-Turk conflict is good for NATO or the world, I really doubt that either country would be so foolish as to make it an issue... If it is made an issue I don't think that Christianity/Islam would be the primary factor, the conflict predates religion... It is more historical, but that is just me from the outside looking in

You are right, to some extent. The conflict certainly predates religion. But in today's context, a religious aspect will colour such a conflict, even when it isn't there. 30 years ago it was communism, today is fundamentalism. A conflict between christians and muslims, despite the fact that the REASON for the conflict won't be on religious grounds, will be noted. And it will make decisions more complex and touchy.

Anyway, my main point is that if Turkey indeed has a dual identity there may be a problem... More an internall Turkish problem, but not really a NATO problem...

But a problem of one NATO member is a problem for NATO itself, is it not? We, of course, can argue the extend of the problem...

The EU may be irrelevant, but NATO certainly should not be included in your argument about irrelevancy. The US isn't quite yet socialist... What is NATO without the US?

Again, I ask: If the US doesn't really need NATO, then why is it expanding? My opinion is that despite the might of the US army, it still needs legitimacy through a coalition of forces and also needs resourses outside the US. No one objects to the fact that the US army is the strongest one but that does not make it's resourses endless. It still needs support.

Apologies about being so US-centic in regards to NATO, but seriously? Would NATO be anything to talk about without US?

To me, every view matters. I don't care whether or not your view is US centered; on the contrary it gives me insight to see things I can't see for myself. But to answer your question, yes, NATO would be a much weaker force without the US. But also, the US reach would be shorter without NATO. There is a reason why the US still works within NATO and why the Americans put up with a lot of crap from other members in order to maintain it's current structure. It is a symbiotic relationship and, yes, the other NATO members do win more than the US does.

[cyppok]

I doubt this would be ww3...

My guess is both Eu and Russia would not intervene directly but would bash both sides with economic sanctions. Russia would be upset but wouldn't do anything direct.

The most likely outcome would be some local agreement on these rocks are mine and those rocks are yours. The longer it would go on the worse the economic stranglehold would be. I would like to see both countries survive the winter without gas and remain stable... (sarcasm implied btw)

Self sufficiency only goes so far... force majeur[extrenuous circumstance that would allow legal abrogation of the contract] would come into play instantly in the south stream contract.

Of course everyone who has something to gain would try to play their hands to their advantage by shifting their support back and forth thats what you do when your a spectator and try to gain from wars.
-----------------------------------------------

The only way any of this happens is if politicians get so desperate that they would need some scapegoat to shift the populous in their view of internal problems to external ones of their own making...

[pate]

Um.... I really don't see where I am out of line here...

You aren't... perhaps I am....

[Smoking Mirror]

Greetings to all in the WAB forum (this being my first post)!

The last reply was posted in August, however it's not been that long since I joined this forum and discovered this thread. I hope that there's no unwritten policy against "resurrecting" threads!

First of all, I would like to point out that an hypothetical war between Greece and Turkey would not be the first instance of NATO member falling out. There is at least another event that I know of, the not-so-well-known and somewhat humorously entitled "Cod Wars" between Iceland and the UK. For more information, you can check the wikipedia entry here: Cod Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Of course, the Cod Wars (all three of them!!) would be no comparison for a possible Greco-Turkish War: no land conflicts, no venting of eons of hate and - most importantly - no victims. It's interesting to note that the smaller party, Iceland, managed to achieve its strategic objectives by threatening to withdraw from NATO. However, times have changed considerably and surely Greece's withdraw from NATO today, would not have the strategic impact that Iceland's leave would have.

An even more "interesting" situation occurred during the Sismik Crisis of 1987, when Greece invoked a Greek-Bulgarian defense treaty, that, should a war have occured, might have pitted one NATO country and a member of the Warsaw Pact against another NATO country. Of course, this is only conjecture (and reference is English are rather scarce), but this goes to show the complexity of both Balkan and International politics.

If we leave history and hypotheses aside and move on to a more recent event, the Crisis of 1966, it would be interesting to note that the avoidance of conflict between Greece and Turkey, was achieved mostly through the direct involvement of USA and not through NATO channels. Even then, the intervention did not take any form of military action (that we know of at least) and took great pains to remain neutral, even despite Greek claims that neutrality was in favor of Turkey (I'm not sure what the Turkish opinion on neutrality is).

So, after all these points, what is my opinion regarding the stance of NATO in case of a war between the aforementioned countries? Greece has stronger cultural ties with Western Europe (and these can be a factor that influences political behavior, although in which way should be the subject of another thread) and an EU membership - Turkey has more strategic importance. Neutrality would be the best course, as many other contributors have suggested.

It's interesting to point out that neutrality would be the preferable choice regardless of the one responsible for the first strike (let's term him the aggressor). For example, in a conflict like the Imia one, if Greece was the aggressor, then supporting it, would mean acceptance of the Greek legal arguments for the status of the island. Denouncing Greece, would also mean that discrediting their legal right to defend their homeland. The same goes for Turkey. Things would be different if either side attacked first a part of the other country that would be considered (by the rest of the world I mean, not by each other) irrefutable. But I don't think that it would come to that under the current geopolitical situation.

As to the future of NATO in such a case? It's difficult to judge and it would surely depend on the size and the extend of the conflict. If hostilities seize due to a non-military NATO intervention, NATO might emerge stronger, although there would be need for a new legal framework for such occurrences. Otherwise, this need would emerge even stronger and could lead to the abolishment of NATO - although a new structure would most surely take its place.

[Knaur Amarsh]

Welcome aboard, Smoking Mirror, why don't you introduce yourself in the appropriate forum

[Imho]

sorry for late responding, i was at Izmir-Cesme spent a week on the beach(unfortunately with the family :(:()

for the Balkans:

i wouldnt give a credit to the Balkan countries joining a hypotetical war alongside with Greece.

i believe that the hate you mentioned against Turks would not be sufficient to join a war.

what happened in Balkans during the Ottoman Empire is another issue which must be taken in an objective way.

i do not believe also that the Romanians would join a war against Turkey alongside with Greece.

Its going to be he!! for NATO and US in particular.Because US needs to use strategic Turkey location.But also can not abandon small(compare to Turkey)christian country in favor to big mislim one.I think EU will back GR for obvious reasons(religion,culture).You are a bit wrong about the Balkans,because Bulgarians,Serbians and Montenegrians see no difference between the Ottoman Empire and today's Turkey.So to simply put it this way:in a war between Greece and Turkey you can bet Bulgarian and Serbian Involvement.The first Balkan war was fought for the liberation of Aegean and Vardar Macedonia from the Ottomans.If a possible war between GR and TR erupt for Aegean Macedonia,we will be there(Im not being offensive).Another thing to consider we are in Nato as well,this will be a bigger head ache for US,GB,D,etc.Serbia might declare war on Albania over Kosovo and there you have WW3

[diplomaticview]

Greetings to all in the WAB forum (this being my first post)!

The last reply was posted in August, however it's not been that long since I joined this forum and discovered this thread. I hope that there's no unwritten policy against "resurrecting" threads!

First of all, I would like to point out that an hypothetical war between Greece and Turkey would not be the first instance of NATO member falling out. There is at least another event that I know of, the not-so-well-known and somewhat humorously entitled "Cod Wars" between Iceland and the UK. For more information, you can check the wikipedia entry here: Cod Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Of course, the Cod Wars (all three of them!!) would be no comparison for a possible Greco-Turkish War: no land conflicts, no venting of eons of hate and - most importantly - no victims. It's interesting to note that the smaller party, Iceland, managed to achieve its strategic objectives by threatening to withdraw from NATO. However, times have changed considerably and surely Greece's withdraw from NATO today, would not have the strategic impact that Iceland's leave would have.

An even more "interesting" situation occurred during the Sismik Crisis of 1987, when Greece invoked a Greek-Bulgarian defense treaty, that, should a war have occured, might have pitted one NATO country and a member of the Warsaw Pact against another NATO country. Of course, this is only conjecture (and reference is English are rather scarce), but this goes to show the complexity of both Balkan and International politics.

If we leave history and hypotheses aside and move on to a more recent event, the Crisis of 1966, it would be interesting to note that the avoidance of conflict between Greece and Turkey, was achieved mostly through the direct involvement of USA and not through NATO channels. Even then, the intervention did not take any form of military action (that we know of at least) and took great pains to remain neutral, even despite Greek claims that neutrality was in favor of Turkey (I'm not sure what the Turkish opinion on neutrality is).

So, after all these points, what is my opinion regarding the stance of NATO in case of a war between the aforementioned countries? Greece has stronger cultural ties with Western Europe (and these can be a factor that influences political behavior, although in which way should be the subject of another thread) and an EU membership - Turkey has more strategic importance. Neutrality would be the best course, as many other contributors have suggested.

It's interesting to point out that neutrality would be the preferable choice regardless of the one responsible for the first strike (let's term him the aggressor). For example, in a conflict like the Imia one, if Greece was the aggressor, then supporting it, would mean acceptance of the Greek legal arguments for the status of the island. Denouncing Greece, would also mean that discrediting their legal right to defend their homeland. The same goes for Turkey. Things would be different if either side attacked first a part of the other country that would be considered (by the rest of the world I mean, not by each other) irrefutable. But I don't think that it would come to that under the current geopolitical situation.

As to the future of NATO in such a case? It's difficult to judge and it would surely depend on the size and the extend of the conflict. If hostilities seize due to a non-military NATO intervention, NATO might emerge stronger, although there would be need for a new legal framework for such occurrences. Otherwise, this need would emerge even stronger and could lead to the abolishment of NATO - although a new structure would most surely take its place.

yes, way to think real problems. NATO vs Possible NATO 2

[Imho]

..Turkey, meanwhile, has drifted out of the NATO orbit. Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Iran on October 27 and denounced as "hearsay" claims that Iran intended to develop nuclear weapons and pronounced its nuclear program "peaceful". The chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Turkish parliament, asked whether he shared that assessment, told the GMF event, "I am neutral on the subject."

Obama chose Turkey last April to announce that "America is not at war with the Muslim world", and his administration portrays Turkey as a model of a modern Muslim polity. Turkey's gesture of Islamist solidarity with the Iranian regime humiliates Washington.

What makes Obama's reliance on moderate Turkish Islam all the less credible is the attempts of the Erdogan government to eradicate the country's secular politicians through extra-legal means. The Turkish government is staging one of the most outrageous show trials of political opponents since the Joseph Stalin frame-ups of the 1930s, charging several hundred members of the secular elite with a vast and improbable plot to overthrow the government. Barry Rubin of the conservative American Enterprise Institute think-tank, Gareth Jenkins of Johns Hopkins University and this writer among many others have been warning about an Islamist coup for months (Turkey in the throes of Islamist revolution? Asia Times Online, July 22, 2008.)

The case broke into the mainstream American media on November 21, when the New York Times wrote, "Since 2007, 300 people have been detained during the investigation of an underground group known as Ergenekon, including a writer of erotic novels, four-star generals and other military officers, professors, editors and underworld figures - some of whom appear to have committed no offense greater than speaking in favor of Turkey as a secular state." The belated Times account quotes Professor Jenkins of Johns Hopkins as saying that Ergenekon "represents a major step, not, as its proponents maintain, towards the consolidation of pluralistic democracy in Turkey, but towards an authoritarian one-party state". Not once during the numerous panel discussions on human rights and the rule of law did the Ergenekon putsch come up.

Turkey, in short, is becoming a pro-Iranian Islamist dictatorship - just as this writer among others warned many months ago - yet the foreign policy establishment is required to continue pretending that Turkey remains the eastern pillar of NATO. Like the case of Palestine, absurdity seems more palatable than the admission of defeat.

With Turkey's bid for membership in the European Union stalled, a Turkish academic offered, the balance of business has shifted to the Persian Gulf, and with it the balance of political power has tilted towards the Islamists. Turkey's Islamists, in particular the influential Fetallah Guelen organization, are proselytizing among Turks throughout Central Asia and even in Russia - although Russia banned the Muslim organization in 2006. "The Russians shut down the Guelen organization in St Petersburg but not in Moscow," a Turkish attendee explained. "Almost anything in Russia can be bought."

Money from the Gulf is not the only factor in Turkey's swing away from the West, to be sure. The old secular leadership strata, which styled itself after its European counterparts, is just as exhausted and infertile as the secular Europeans. A great migration of peasants to Turkish cities out of the backward Anatolian hinterland, meanwhile, has swelled the constituency of the Islamist parties. Money helps a great deal, though, and the Erdogan government has used its edge to place government monopolies in Islamist hands. Iran uses oil and trade to infiltrate Turkey, and Turkey uses the coffers of Islamist organizations to buy into Russia.

With the cat in semi-retirement, the mice are not only playing, but growing to cat-like stature. Obama's fecklessness has allowed the unimaginable to occur: Russia's influence in the Middle East rivals that of the United States.

David Samuels wrote on November 13 in Slate magazine [1] about "the elegant and brutal way that the Russians have leveraged their position as the arms supplier of last resort to Iran and Syria". Russia feints towards Iran by offering to sell Tehran a top-of-the-line air-defense system, the S-300. It then extorts concessions from the West (or Israel) in return for delaying shipment of the system. One result of Russia's rocket diplomacy, Samuels observes, is a three-way alliance between Russia, India and Israel to develop high-tech weapons, including a so-called fifth-generation fighter that may be able to challenge America's F-35.

If Israel does attempt an air strike against Iran's nuclear program, it will do so in response to the visible failure of American diplomacy, and with the tacit permission of Russia - which has the capacity to veto such a strike by giving Iran anti-aircraft missiles of sufficient capability (or by not giving Israel the key to the counter-measures, for Russia never sells a weapons system to another country that it cannot neutralize).

Obama's foreign policy in every manifestation - Iran, Turkey, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia - has come to grief, and the White House so far has shown no reaction except lockjaw. The great decisions of the world are being taken outside Washington. Too many things have gone wrong to secure the outcome. The game now is in the hands of the spoilers, the players who draw strength from chaos, and first among them is Russia. That creates positive feedback, for the powers who thrive on uncertainty will do their best to generate more of it.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KK24Ak02.html