Iran
still coy on Turkey's overtures By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
CAMBRIDGE,
Massachusetts - Despite a strong personal pitch by
the visiting Turkish premier last week to hold the
next round of Iran nuclear talks in Istanbul,
Tehran is still ambivalent and may opt for an
alternative venue.
Although the talks are
tentatively scheduled for mid-April, as the time
of writing there has been no official announcement
regarding the venue, even though Iran's Foreign
Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, in his meeting with
Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed his personal view
that Istanbul was "the best place" to hold the
multilateral talks between Iran and the "Iran Six"
nations (UN Security Council's permanent five -
the United States, France, the United Kingdom,
Russia and China - plus Germany).
The fact
that Erdogan's trip was followed by Turkey's
announcement that it was complying with Western energy
sanctions on Iran over
its nuclear program and was thus reducing its oil
imports from Iran by 20%, coinciding with opposite
expressions by countries such as China and
Pakistan, has certainly added to Iran's
ambivalence.
This is not to mention Iran's
misgivings about Turkey's anti-Damascus stance,
the threat of military action in Syria together
with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
forces, as well as Turkey's embrace of an
anti-Iran radar system, all of which have
inevitably introduced uncomfortable thorns in
Iran-Turkey relations. As a result, no matter
Erdogan's latest heroics regarding Israel's
nuclear arsenal and his expression of support for
Iran's civilian nuclear program, the political
apprehensions and concerns about Turkey's regional
intentions are becoming cemented in Iran. Even if
Tehran agrees to hold the talks in Istanbul, this
would be an uncomfortable decision taken with a
good deal of reluctance.
By holding the
Iran talks, Turkey seeks to replicate its efforts
in the Syrian crisis, where it plays host to the
"Friends of Syria" international group opposed to
the year-long suppression of protest by President
Bashar al-Assad. In it most recent meeting,
representatives of the 70-plus nations comprising
the group recognized the Syrian National Council,
the largest opposition body, as a legitimate
representative of the Syrian people and the
opposition as a whole.
The group also
called for a halt to all support for the Syrian
government, with an emphasis on weapons and
ammunitions - an implicit criticism of Iran, among
other countries, for backing Assad.
From
Turkey's vantage point, its leaders' public stance
against an Israeli strike on Iran serves to remind
Iran of Turkey's invaluable neighborly input in
the ongoing nuclear crisis. At a time when US
officials, including Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, are trying to maximize pre-talks pressure
by warning that the "window of diplomacy will not
remain open indefinitely" - a veiled military
threat - the Turkish antidote of warning of dire
regional consequences of a war with Iran certainly
has timely value.
But, by the same token,
the same pronouncements have the unintended
consequence of heightening concerns about an
imminent attack on Iran over fears it is building
nuclear weapons, which is highly unlikely given
the deleterious implications in terms of threats
to oil flowing from the Persian Gulf and, indeed,
the health of the global economy.
Instead
of putting the accent on an unlikely war, if
Erdogan is really Iran's friend, he should have
prioritized the economic warfare being waged
against Iran and taken proactive steps to distance
his country from it. By going along with the oil
embargo, albeit in an incremental fashion, Turkey
has proved that it values its loyalty to the
Western bloc over good neighborly relations with
Iran.
Therefore, it would be a mistake for
Tehran to reward Turkey's oil announcement by
holding the nuclear talks in Istanbul. Ankara
should take its cue on Iran from Beijing,
Islamabad and Moscow, that is, countries that have
resisted Western bullying, instead of bowing to
Washington and Tel Aviv.
Under laws aimed
at pressing Iran over its nuclear program - which
Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes - the US
will penalize foreign financial institutions over
transactions with Iran's central bank, which
handles sales of oil.
Turkey needs a
reminder from Iran that it does not appreciate
Janus-faced diplomacy than sends a contradictory
signal towards a reliable energy and trade
partner.
Lest we forget, In Seoul two
weeks ago, prior to visiting Tehran, Erdogan in
his meeting with US President Barack Obama
reiterated his government's "joining the US" on
Iran, a pledge he fulfilled by the above-mentioned
announcement regarding the Turkish curb on oil
imports from Iran.
Even while in Tehran,
Erdogan displayed his bifurcated approach by
expressing support for Iran's nuclear program and,
simultaneously, raising concerns about a nuclear
arms race in the region - this from a leader of a
country that has hosted a number of US nuclear
bombs on its territory for decades.
Indeed, it appears that much like during
the Cold War, when Turkey reaped the benefits of
being a "frontline state", today in the new
context of the Iran nuclear crisis and regional
alignments along pro- and anti-West fault lines,
Ankara is seeking to carve out a profitable niche
for itself that procures sustainable dependency
from both sides.
The trouble with this
Turkish perspective is that it is built on a house
of illusions, the fanciful thought that somehow
other countries will forgive Turkey's sailing
along in the US-led ship of hegemonic and coercive
policies in the region, simply because Turkey has
mastered the art of diplomatic double-speak.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
