ISRAEL NOT WORRIED BY TURKS OR SAUDIS

ISRAEL NOT WORRIED BY TURKS OR SAUDIS

  
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (Left) attends a CIA-Al-Qaeda meeting in Libya. “In the last 17 days, more than 2,000 residents of the city of Sirte were killed in NATO air strikes.” (Libyan fighters prepare for assault on Sirte)‎

The following are all part of the USA’s fascist New World Order:

Israel

Turkey

Saudi Arabia.

All three reportedly helped the CIA carry out the 9 11 attacks.(TURKEY …)

All three have supported the recent CIA coups which have wrecked Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

And yet, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, unlike Israel and the USA, are said to want a Palestinian state.

 

Prince Turki al Faisal meeting his Jewish friends in Washington.

On 11 September 2011, there was an article in the New York Times by Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al Faisal.

He wrote that, if the U.S. vetoed the Palestinian state, “Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has.

“(It would) pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States (and) …might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well.”

This is probably not to be taken seriously.

Prince Turki al Faisdal knows that the CIA toppled Mubarak and that it could easily topple certain Saudi royalty.

The CIA-Mossad have long term plans to balkanise Saudi Arabia.(Saudi Arabia – You are next?)

Turkey may also be balkanised. (TURKEY TO BE SPLIT UP?)

 

Turkey is to be split up?

On 12 September 2011, M J Rosenberg, Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at the Media Matters Action Network, wrote an article entitled:

The U.S. Abandons Israel

Aangirfan doubts that the USA has abandoned Israel!

According to Rosenberg:

1. The Turkish government has essentially broken relations with Israel.

What Rosenberg does not mention is that Turkey is very much part of the New World Order.

We suspect that either (A) Turkey’s leaders are only pretending to ‘oppose’ Israel, or, (b) Turkey’s leaders are about to be toppled.

The USA and Israel ‘are joined at the hip’.

Recently Turkey and the USA signed an agreement on the deployment of a US radar as part of a NATO-backed missile defense system.

US officials described this as “the most significant military cooperation between Washington and Ankara since 2003.” (Reinforced Turkey-US Military Cooperation) 

If Turkey’s leaders really do want to make an enemy of Israel, and its friend America, then the CIA-Mossad-NATO can easily change the leadership in Turkey.

The CIA-Mossad-NATO found it so easy to topple Tusisia’s Ben Ali, even though Tunisia was, like Turkey, a prosperous and moderate Moslem state.

The CIA-Mossad-NATO can so easily stir up the Kurds, and various others, in order to produce a Turkish Spring.

Since July 2011, over 40 Turkish soldiers have been killed by Kurdish insurgents. (Asia Times Online :: Israel turns tables on Turkey)

The Turkish military, having discovered that the CIA cannot be trusted, and having decided to become more nationalistic, has been drastically weakened by the present Islamist government.

The present Turkish government is reportedly under the influence of the CIA’s Islamist Gulen movement. (TOP TURK FRIEND OF ISRAEL, OBAMA AND HEROIN?)

 

CIA-MOSSAD-NATO coups.

2. According to Rosenberg:

“Ordinary Egyptians (not the government) attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo, forcing all its personnel to return home to Israel.”

What we should note here is that the CIA coup in Egypt has weakened Egypt.

A weakened Egypt is exactly what Israel wants.

3. According to Rosenberg:

“The Palestinians… are taking their case to the United Nations where an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly will endorse Palestinian statehood, even though Israel will still control the territory of the new state.”

Exactly.

Israel will still be in control.

Moslem friends of Israel have toppled Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi. Moslems fight Moslems in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan etc.

4. According to Rosenberg:

In the USA, “politicians always want to give Israel whatever it wants in an election year.

“After all, both the Israeli government and its lobby here make it clear to them that refusal to ‘stand with Israel’ will cost them mightily in terms of campaign contributions…”

When Obama “tried to push the Israelis to start negotiations …Israel’s monied supporters in America went crazy…

“When Netanyahu told them to get Obama to back down ‘to save Israel,’ they did.

“AIPAC made sure that every member of Congress knew that they were being ‘scored’ on the level of their support for Netanyahu. A low score meant closed checkbooks.

“Obama, no less immune to financial threats than a Congressman from Queens, surrendered. Over and over again…”

Exactly.

~~

On 16 September 2011, “NATO attacked the city of Sirte … with more than 30 rockets directed at the city’s main hotel and the Tamin building, which consists of more than 90 residential flats.

“In the last 17 days, more than 2,000 residents of the city of Sirte were killed in NATO air strikes.”

Libyan fighters prepare for assault on Sirte

NATO air strikes kill 354 in Sirte-Gaddafi’s spokesman

CIA Ignores Key Terror Threats

CIA Ignores Key Terror Threats

REVENGE MOTIVATES AMERICA’S ENEMIES NOT ISLAM

by Matthew Nasuti

For ten years since September 11, 2001, unscrupulous elements within the U.S. Government have labeled Islam and alleged Islamic extremists as America’s greatest enemy, while knowing that such was not true. It is undisputed that the 9/11 hijackers were not particularly religious. They were in fact motivated by other factors, primarily revenge and a desire for what they viewed as justice. Similarly last year a classified U.S. military report was prepared at the “Pit,” America’s secret prison at Bagram Air Base. According to sources, the conclusion of U.S. interrogators was that most of the alleged “Taliban extremists” captured by the United States in Afghanistan were not religious fanatics at all but ordinary Afghans. They were motivated by revenge against the United States for real or imagined offenses committed against themselves, their families, clans and villages. This report has apparently remained classified in order to conceal its stunning findings, which are that U.S. military, diplomatic and intelligence blunders are fueling the current war on terror. The flip side of this finding is that the current war on terror may only end when those blunders finally end (which has yet to occur). This crucial military report continues to be withheld from the American people. One reason appears to be that once a country acknowledges that its enemies are seeking revenge, it raises unsettling questions as to whether there is any validity to the enemies’ claims. It is far better politically to characterize the enemy as crazed killers.

The conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is that the United States has spent trillions of dollars over the past ten years fighting the wrong enemy. The obsession with al-Qaeda fits into an attractive political message which is to sell this war as a simplistic battle between good Christians and evil Islamo-Fascists. While such scare tactics have generated massive black budgets for the intelligence agencies, it has blinded the U.S. Government to potentially deadlier threats posed by those (including Muslims) who are seeking revenge against America.

The CIA’s not so secret war of private militias, targeted assassinations and cross-border Predator attacks, when coupled with the Pentagon’s robust rules of engagement, have directly or indirectly resulted in a large number of civilian deaths, and injuries in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere; the full extent of which the United States refuses to disclose.

What officials at Langley and in the Pentagon fail to understand is that every man, woman and child killed has immediate family and relatives and friends, etc. Potentially hundreds of people may be traumatically affected by a single death, fueling revenge obligations by family, clan and tribal members.

Those within this revenge threat matrix may not be linked to a militant mosque or mullah or any recognized terrorist organization. As such these loners or small groups can fall beneath the intelligence radar. They can infiltrate friendly military and intelligence organizations; they can hold positions in power plants and at airports; they can even become trusted staff members of senior provincial officials. We may also find them working inside key nuclear facilities.

If the House and Senate Intelligence Committees would ever agree to publicly investigate the CIA’s accelerated campaign of violence, they would likely discover deep and substantial flaws in U.S. tactical intelligence. According to years of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, they would find that an unacceptable number of targets are selected for killing based on mistakes or due to intentional informant misinformation (i.e., to settle grudges or due to tribal/clan/family or ethnic disputes). They would also find that some of the casualties were the result of targeting errors, blunders, “smart” bomb malfunctions and in some cases excessive use of force. Finally, even when the correct person was killed, in many cases they would find that the individual was of minor importance or a fringe participant and did not merit killing.

While the CIA’s war has reportedly had some significant successes, especially in 2009 and early 2010, there are no metrics available to evaluate these actions. For example if the CIA kills an aging and inept terrorist leader, only to have him replaced by a more daring and charismatic younger leader, than the effort was a failure. As political pressure mounts for more results, the CIA has responded with more killings under the assumption that more is better. There is no basis for such an assumption. The pressure to find more and more people to kill has resulted in more and more mistakes, thus resulting in an expansive cycle of return violence. As this author has written many times before, counterinsurgency is a slow and patient process and cannot be rushed to meet arbitrary domestic political time frames.

A chilling tale emerged in Tel Afar, Iraq, in or about 2006. A mini-van was approaching a hastily set up U.S. military checkpoint. For whatever reason, the vehicle did not slow down and was fired upon. The mother and father were both killed. Their young son was shot in the spine and permanently crippled. His sister survived but she was covered in her parents’ blood. Interviewed at the hospital by the British media she reportedly told them:

“I will drink the Americans’ blood for this.”

This young girl and countless others like her are apparently not being tracked by the CIA. Over the past ten years how many people have lost family members to American bombs or bullets, or had relatives arrested in the night who were never seen again, or had loved ones that were imprisoned in Abu Ghraib or the “pit” at Bagram Air Base? These people are potentially a more significant long-term terrorist threat than al-Qaeda. The CIA for its part seems oblivious to the long-term consequences of its actions. Its goal seems limited to the short-term disruption of all things “militant,” a term whose definition seems to broaden every year.

A report published last year by CIVIC (the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict) reveals that, based on the incidents investigated, on average, 3.33 civilian casualties occur with each CIA drone attack in Pakistan. The CIVIC report contains one case summary of a home destroyed in North Waziristan. The owner of the house said that Taliban troops came to his house and requested lunch. He felt he could not refuse them so he served them lunch. The next day his house was struck by a CIA missile, which killed his only son. Sometimes what the CIA calls “terrorist supporters” are simply ordinary citizens who feel that they have no choice but to feed armed soldiers. Predator drones, which cannot distinguish between these two, opt to just kill everyone.

President Obama should be reining in the CIA, which seems intent on creating new enemies for the United States.

At this point it is doubtful that the United States can even begin to assess how many enemies its actions have created. It may be that reckless U.S. killings and poor follow-up and mitigation efforts have created a whole new generation of hardened, determined enemies for the United States, many of whom may not mature into threats for another decade. These stealth threats have the potential to dwarf the capabilities of al-Qaeda.

It is not too late to change course and begin to comprehensively address this problem. It begins by having President Obama acknowledge that even one civilian casualty is one too many. For counterinsurgency to be successful, not killing is many times more important than killing. Terrorists thrive on botched U.S. night raids and errant bombing missions. It validates their propaganda and aids them in recruitment. President Obama must not simply be committed to reducing civilian casualties, but he should adopt a goal of “Zero casualties” with no tolerance for any deviations. No tolerance means swift and public accountability, firings, disciplinary actions and even prosecutions when warranted. When such deviations occur, a comprehensive and long-term effort has to be made to interact with the families impacted in an attempt to mitigate the effects of each casualty. If those efforts fail, then the fallback is for the CIA to begin tracking these potential threats.

Ambassador Crocker Hides From Taliban, Ignores Dead Children

Ambassador Crocker Hides From Taliban, Ignores Dead Children

KABUL ATTACK WAS A SHAMEFUL DEBUT FOR NEW U.S. AMBASSADOR

by Matthew Nasuti

The dramatic September 13, 2011, Taliban attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul could have been turned into a diplomatic coup by U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, but instead the world saw a scared group of American diplomats huddled in bomb shelters for 20 hours. That forced NATO’s top military official in Afghanistan, General John R. Allen, to publicly announce that the Taliban had scored a “propaganda victory.” If Crocker had instead seized upon this opportunity and had his Embassy conduct business as usual, it would have sent a powerful message to the Afghan people that the Taliban are nothing more than pests to be ignored. Thumbing his nose at the Taliban (while admittedly a risky move) would have been plucky and courageous and could have captured the world’s attention, but alas it never happened. This caused Brendan O’Neill, writing for Spiked-online.com, to sum up this embarrassing spectacle by titling his article: “How a few burka-clad militants terrified the West.”

Ambassador Crocker, who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, then committed his second blunder. As soon as the attack on the U.S. Embassy was over, he should have publicly visited the estimated twenty hospitalized Afghan wounded, along with the families of the eleven killed, especially the families of the five children and the Afghan police officers slain by the Taliban. It is incomprehensible that Crocker did not meet with the victims and offer financial and other assistance.

The Taliban attack, reminiscent of the 1968 Tet attack by the Viet Cong against the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, was described by the Associated Press as “bold,” by Laura King of the Los Angeles Times as “audacious,” and by Julius Cavendish of The Independent as “sophisticated.” The Washington Post concluded that the attack “paralyzed Kabul for almost an entire day.”

In an attempt to show a brave public face regarding this humiliation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement calling the Taliban attack “cowardly” (a bizarre comment which she did not explain). She went on to state:

“We will take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of our people.”

Secretary Clinton seemed oblivious to her diplomatic fumble and apparent Freudian slip. The public position of the Obama Administration should have been that the U.S. will take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of theAfghan people.

Then the Administration produced to the U.S. news media insider and apologist Michael O’Hanlon. O’Hanlon is fast becoming known as the Judith Miller of the Afghan war. On September 14, 2011, O’Hanlon wrote an opinion piece for Politico.com. in which he tried to spin the Embassy attack as minor and insignificant, arguing that Kabul in 2011 was nothing like Saigon in 1968. Fortunately pictures speak louder than Brookings Institution consultants. The pictures from Kabul were of U.S. troops having to engage the Taliban for 20 hours from the roof of the U.S. Embassy.

Whenever the United States finds itself engaging its enemy from the rooftop of its Embassy, it should be a wake-up call to take off the rose colored glasses.

In a telephone interview given to CBS News after the attack, Ambassador Crocker stated that he spent most of the 20 hours in his underground Tactical Operations Center. It was also announced post-attack, that the U.S. Embassy had canceled all travel by U.S. diplomats both into and out of Afghanistan and within the country thus confirming the Taliban’s ability to incapacitate the befuddled State Department.

The next day, shamed that the Taliban had forced him into hiding, Ambassador Crocker began to bluster. From the safety of his bunker he belittled the Taliban for taking “pot-shots” at the Embassy and he scorned their attack as little more than “harassment,” (yet at the time it was scary enough to send him scurrying into an underground shelter for 20 hours).

This deep-seated fear of the Taliban has prevented the U.S. Embassy from opening a consulate in Afghanistan’s second largest city, Kandahar and in the strategic city of Khost. Both are considered too dangerous for precious diplomats. Embassy officials opted instead to open two consulates in safe areas in the far north and west of Afghanistan. As American troops head into combat, U.S. diplomats head for the resort areas.

In ancient Sparta women would tell their sons and husbands as they marched off to war (“he tan he epi tan”), which in old Greek means: “with this shield or on it.” [i.e., Victory or Death]. In contrast the State Department’s war maxim is “Can I get a mocha latte in this bunker?”

The generic problem is the U.S. Government rewards success but does not punish failure or mediocrity so Ambassador Crocker will almost certainly remain. While America’s foreign policy cannot withstand many more Crocker bumbles, it is just a war and America has lost conflicts in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Somalia, and may be on the verge of losing in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, all with no accountability. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who actually wanted to win his war, personally fired a host of lackluster and poorly performing officials and generals until he found a bold and daring group that took risks which lead to a Union victory. Firing the mediocre – what a novel idea!

Spending America To Death In Order To Kill A Couple of Bad Guys

America’s costly war machine

Fighting the war on terror compromises the economy now and threatens it in the future.

Wounded soldiers attend the opening of the Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio, Texas on January 29, 2007. To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.(Ben Sklar / Getty Images)Wounded soldiers attend the opening of the Center for the Intrepid in San Antonio, Texas on January 29, 2007. To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.(Ben Sklar / Getty Images)
By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Ten years into the war on terror, the U.S. has largely succeeded in its attempts to destabilize Al Qaeda and eliminate its leaders. But the cost has been enormous, and our decisions about how to finance it have profoundly damaged the U.S. economy.Many of these costs were unnecessary. We chose to fight inIraq and Afghanistan with a small, all-volunteer force, and we supplemented the military presence with a heavy reliance on civilian contractors. These decisions not only placed enormous strain on the troops but dramatically pushed up costs. Recent congressional investigations have shown that roughly 1 of every 4 dollars spent on wartime contracting was wasted or misspent.

To date, the United States has spent more than $2.5 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon spending spree that accompanied it and a battery of new homeland security measures instituted after Sept. 11.

How have we paid for this? Entirely through borrowing. Spending on the wars and on added security at home has accounted for more than one-quarter of the total increase in U.S. government debt since 2001. And not only did we fail to pay as we went for the wars, the George W. Bushadministration also successfully pushed to cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003, which added further to the debt. This toxic combination of lower revenues and higher spending has brought the country to its current political stalemate.

There is only one other time in U.S. history that a war was financed entirely through borrowing, without raising taxes: when the Colonies borrowed from France during the Revolutionary War.

Even if we were to leave Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow, our war debt would continue to rise for decades. Future bills will include such things as caring for military veterans, replacing military equipment, rebuilding the armed forces and paying interest on all the money we have borrowed. And these costs won’t be insignificant.

History has shown that the cost of caring for military veterans peaks decades after a conflict. Already, half of the returning troops have been treated in Veterans Administration medical centers, and more than 600,000 have qualified to receive disability compensation. At this point, the bill for future medical and disability benefits is estimated at $600 billion to $900 billion, but the number will almost surely grow as hundreds of thousands of troops still deployed abroad return home.

And it isn’t just in some theoretical future that the wars will affect the nation’s economy: They already have. The conditions that precipitated the financial crisis in 2008 were shaped in part by the war on terror. The invasion of Iraq and the resulting instability in the Persian Gulf were among the factors that pushed oil prices up from about $30 a barrel in 2003 to historic highs five years later, peaking at $140 a barrel in current dollars in 2008. Higher oil prices threatened to depress U.S. economic activity, prompting the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and loosen regulations. These policies were major contributors to the housing bubble and the financial collapse that followed.

Now, the war’s huge deficits are shaping the economic debate, and they could keep Congress from enacting another round of needed stimulus spending to help the country climb out of its economic malaise. Many of these war debts are likely to continue to compromise America’s investments in its future for decades.

For years, the public failed to adequately question how it was possible that we could spend and borrow so freely, with so few consequences. But now the painful legacy of these decisions has become clear. Throughout the past decade, Congress routinely approved huge “emergency” appropriations to pay for the wars. This process preempted the usual scrutiny and debate that accompanies large spending bills. In part, this is because the U.S. lacks the basic accounting tools necessary for informed debate. Our future debts from the war are not listed anywhere in the federal government’s budget. We don’t even know for certain where the money has been spent. The Pentagon hasn’t produced a clean financial audit in the 20 years since government auditing began, nor has it developed an accounting framework that would allow an assessment of the future costs of current decisions. This has almost certainly increased the overall cost of the war.

Our response to Sept. 11 has weakened both the current economy and our future economic prospects. And that legacy of economic weakness — combined with the erosion of the credibility of our military power and of our “soft power” — has undermined, rather than strengthened, our national security.

Nearly 10 years into the Afghanistan war, the violence in that country shows little sign of abating. August was the deadliest month of the war yet for U.S. troops, and there were also multiple attacks on Afghan security forces, government officials and civilians. The surge in violence comes as NATO is drawing down and handing over security control to national forces. But tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel are scheduled to remain in Afghanistan through the end of 2014.

The costs of fighting the war on terror have already been far higher than they needed to be. The U.S. should not take on even greater war debt without understanding the true costs of continuing down that path.

Linda J. Bilmes is a faculty member at Harvard University. Joseph E. Stiglitz is a professor atColumbia University and the recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics. They are coauthors of “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.”

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

US Applies Its Strong-Arm Diplomacy To Alter Opinions Ahead of Palestinian Security Council Vote

US in midst of diplomatic blitz ahead of PA bid

America will try to avoid vetoing proposal at the Security Council, is trying to persuade six other nations to oppose bid; two African nations and Bosnia are toughest hurdles.

Attila Somfalvi and Yitzhak Benhorin

At the start of a crucial diplomatic week, Israel is trying to block the planned Palestinian statehood request to the UN Security Council that was presented by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday in his address to the Palestinian people.

Members of the Quartet will meet in New York on Sunday in a last-minute effort to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table. The US will try to avoid vetoing the proposal at the Security Council and is trying to persuade six other nations to oppose the bid.

Diplomats at UN headquarters in New York are having a hard time determining which nations will oppose and which will support the Palestinian cause, so long as the PA has yet to submit an official request to the UN body. Security Council members that will support the Palestinians are Lebanon, Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa and India. The Americans are in the midst of a diplomatic blitz on the eight others: France, Britain, Germany, Bosnia, Portugal, Gabon, Columbia and Nigeria.

UN General Assembly (Photo: AFP)

For a proposal to be defeated in the Security Council, a bloc of seven votes is required.

According to US officials, the two African nations and Bosnia are the toughest hurdles. In addition, the text submitted by the Palestinians will affect the democratic nations’ decisions. Most of the European countries understand that establishing the Palestinian state’s borders will harm the prospects of the resumption of negotiations.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is holding meetings with EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton as part of the Quartet’s effort to come up with a formula that would bring Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table and clam the simmering diplomatic arena.

Israel is not expecting much would come out of these efforts but officials in Jerusalem will nonetheless meet with representatives of the international forum to discuss the matter. Defense Minister Ehud Barak will leave late Sunday for a series of meetings in New York and Washington where he will meet diplomatic and defense officials.

As far as the sequence of events at the UN General Assembly, the addresses by the heads of state are set to commence on Wednesday and will include the speech by US President Barack Obama. Also on Wednesday, the American President will meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Thursday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will take to the podium.

Netanyahu will argue: PA refused to renew talks

The addresses by Netanyahu and Abbas – scheduled for Friday – is expected to be the center of attention. The Palestinian leader will be the 14th speaker at the assembly while Netanyahu will address the forum three speakers later.


Netanyahu will talk tough at the UN (Photo: Noam Moshkovitz)

The prime minister is planning a resolute address in which he is expected to blame the Palestinians for refusing to reach negotiations. He plans on outlining the steps Israel has taken for the peace process and will argue that despite these steps, the Palestinians remain adamant in their refusal.

Netanyahu will say that Israel is willing to hold negotiations but demands the other side recognize the Jewish state and declare an end to the conflict, including the non-return of Palestinian refugees. “We will not toady to the international community,” sources in Jerusalem stressed. “Netanyahu will outline the Israeli truth and the reality as it is.”

If Abbas outlines his UN bid on Friday, a rapid voting procedure is possible within 24 hours, to be led by the current President of the Security Council – Lebanon, or the President of the General Assembly – Qatar. However, the Palestinians can also stall the vote for several weeks, during which discussions of the 66th General Assembly are held.

If Abbas declares on Friday that the Palestinians have decided to take the observer status route, without an ability to vote at UN bodies, they are granted a success. Even this watered-down version however can cause problems for Israel since Palestine would be recognized as a state and become a member in UN bodies such as the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

Turkey wants to revive Ottoman Empire

Turkey wants to revive Ottoman Empire

16.09.2011

Turkey wants to revive Ottoman Empire. 45396.jpegA hundred years after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is re-emerging on the international arena. Furthermore, it intends to regain the ground lost in the 19th-20th centuries, which is a direct threat to the interests of all the neighboring countries, including Russia.
 Consider the actions of the Turkish leadership during the past weeks that have caused serious concerns in Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran and the EU.

Particularly noteworthy are the frictions of Ankara and Tel Aviv, which raise questions about preservation of the Alliance between the two. The Turkish leadership provides a strong support to the Palestinians, and threatened to appeal to the international authorities with a demand to monitor the Israeli nuclear program and promised to prevent the development of Israeli-rich gas fields in the Mediterranean.

Finally, a serious concern in Israel was caused by the fact that on September 7, Turkey announced its intention to sign an important military agreement with Egypt during a corresponding visit of the Turkish government. Of course, this is a historic day in the history of the entire Middle East. Given the sharp rise in anti-Israel sentiment in Turkey and in Egypt, as well as the ongoing processes of evolution of power in several North African countries, the concerns of Israelis about the activity of Ankara on the Egyptian direction are quite understandable.

Worst case scenarios should be considered as one of the options for the future development in the Middle East. One possibility is the return to the days of the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel was virtually in the siege of hostile neighbors.
However, at this time the situation in Tel Aviv will be much worse, because Ankara can turn from an ally into an enemy more dangerous than all the Arab countries put together.

Some experts call manifestations of military activity in Turkey an additional concern. Turkey threatens Israel to send a new “freedom flotilla” to Gaza under the protection of the Turkish Navy warships, as well as equip the squadron that will be on duty in the Red Sea. If we take into account the fact that Erdogan sent another squadron to the Israeli Mediterranean coast, it seems that the Turks are threatening Israel with a full naval blockade.

It should be remembered that the Israeli-Turkish complications did not occur in 2010. Gradual cooling has been observed since 2008 in parallel with strengthening of foreign policy activity of Turkish Islamists in power. In the last six months the efforts of Erdogan in this area have been more obvious.
However, anti-Israel rhetoric of the Turkish leadership cannot hide his true intentions, which extend far beyond the desire to defy Israel.

First, the emergence of the Turkish Navy in the Red Sea is largely a reaction to the appearance of the Iranian fleet in the area. In addition, Turkey intends to demonstrate a desire to show its power in the region strategically important for the West, where the oil routes from the Persian Gulf run.
Second, attention should be paid to Turkey’s policy in respect of all Arab countries. Turkey openly threatened Syria to send troops to northern Iraq, and participated in the NATO operation against Libya.

As for Egypt, under Murambak Cairo considered Ankara a dangerous competitor in terms of influence on the Middle East and Arab countries.

Of course, they remain competitors today. But then Egypt used to rely on the full support of the West. Now the situation has changed: the revolutionary changes in the country are just beginning, and Islamist sentiment out there is much worse. Turkey would not mind to use the opportunity to try to expand its influence in this country through the development of the economic ties and military-technical cooperation.

Last but not least factor has to do with the events of “Arab spring” that led to the collapse of the former authoritarian regimes. In this regard, Turkey would not mind using the opportunity to, first, divert public attention from the purely Turkish reality and increase its influence in the region.

It is significant how Islamists Erdogan and Gul support Syrian and Egyptian “Muslim Brothers”. This is mostly not an ideological affinity, but the intention to place a bet in the global game. The West supports the Liberals who have no influence on the masses of protesters who sympathize with the radicals like those “brothers.”  
As for Israel itself, its attitude towards Turkey’s behavior is rather unemotional. The Israeli leadership is well aware that strong statements by the Turkish leadership are in fact more focused on winning sympathy among Arabs.

In the discussion about the Israeli-Turkish verbal dispute, it should be emphasized that the actions of Ankara are aimed not so much against the interests of Tel Aviv, but at restoring its influence in the eastern Mediterranean and southern Europe.
The Turkish leadership is doing all it can to show that its activity is directed against Israel, to whose shores a few frigates and corvettes as well as dozens of missile boats and support vessels will soon rush.

However, it is sufficient to consider “a new naval strategy” with a great name “Operation Barbarossa – Aegean shield” adopted a few days earlier, which implies that Israeli ships would be placed between Cyprus and Israel. This will allow the latter to make an equal influence not only on the Tel-Aviv, but also Nicosia and Athens. Anti-Israel rhetoric in this case is more like a camouflage to conceal the true intentions of the South-European direction.

In the past six months, Ankara has been aggressively pursuing its policy towards Cyprus and has been trying to prevent the of oil and gas deposits at its shores going to Greek companies. Moreover, the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs Egemen Bagysh openly declared the possibility of using military force to prevent such a scenario.

But there is more to it. Turkey has also announced its plans to increase its Navy presence in the Adriatic Sea. It is known that in the near future a new “assignment” will be given to at least some of the 14 Turkish submarines. This way Ankara intends to strengthen its influence among the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), openly declaring this to the European Union that had its own plans for the future of BiH.

In the middle of the 18th century the Ottoman Empire has steadily weakened and lost its influence in the world on all fronts, starting with the Maghreb and ending with the Balkan and Caucasus. It was evidenced by lost wars with its neighbors, including Russia.
Finally, in the middle of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had the contemptuous name of a “sick man of Europe”. Such a characterization was fully justified considering losses in a war with Russia (1877-1878), clashes with the Balkan states, and loss of its Italian possessions in Libya1912-1913.
The defeat in World War I meant not only the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, which had lost virtually all the Arab lands. The existence of Turkey in general as an independent state was at stake.

While in 1922 Kemal managed to beat Greece supported by the Entente, it seemed that the Turks have never recovered from the defeat of 1918. Yet, after 100 years of “gathering strength” Turkey seems to be going back to claim the lost. Inevitably, the Turkish activity will be more manifested in the Caucasian and Crimean directions, which cannot but worry Russia.

Sergei Balmasov

Pravda.Ru