[قيد الارض]

Turkish Diplomacy with Iran and Allaying Iranian Fears

Turkey's leaders have made efforts to
communicate with both the United States and Iran over the nuclear issues, even though it declared that “Turkey is not considering playing a role as a mediator between the two.” For example in May 2006, during the Developing Eight summit in Bali, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan suggested to Ahmedinejad that he make an effort to defuse tensions on an international level. He reportedly said to the Iranian president, “You should convince the world, not me.”[13] President Sezer, speaking at the Turkish War Academies Command in Istanbul, stated that all countries had the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as long as it cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency and abides by the NPT. He said, “We call on Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We conveyed our views to Iranian authorities. Turkey does not want a new crisis in its region.”[14] `Namik Tan spokesman for the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stressed the need for a diplomatic solution to the crisis: “Turkey defends the view that the problem stemming from the nuclear program of Iran should be sorted out through diplomatic ways. In that regard Turkey extended support to efforts of the EU Three.”[15]
Turkish leaders have also stated that they would not allow their territory be used for a possible strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. An interview by Sukru Kucuksahin and Ugur Ergan with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul featured the headline, “We Would not Permit an Attack Against our Neighbor From our Soil” in the mass circulation newspaper Hurriyet. Gul was quoted as saying, “Our common border with Iran was drawn in 1639, long before the establishment of the United States and many European countries. We would not permit an armed attack against any of our neighbors from Turkey’s territory.”[16] The invocation of a shared history was also employed by the Turkish ambassador to Tehran, Husun Gurcan Turkoglu. When he addressed the Iranian public in February 2007, stressing the historical relations between the two countries stating, “Iran and Turkey’s relations close to 1000 years old, and their borders have remained constant for about 400 years.” When asked about the influence of Turkish-Israeli relations, of obvious concern to Iran, Turkoglu stated that these relations had no effect on ties with Tehran. He also defended talks in Turkey about the nation developing nuclear energy as the country lacks natural resources, and that such plans do not mean that Turkey is encouraging a nuclear race in the region.[17]

The Turkish government has also argued that Iran has a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy. In an interview in March 2006 with the Austrian daily, Die Presse, Gul was asked, “How would Iran’s rise to become a nuclear power change the balance of power in the Middle East?” Gul replied:

Just a moment! The peaceful use of nuclear energy and weapons of mass destruction are two different subjects. Iran has the right to develop a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Not a single country in the region should have weapons of mass destruction, however.

When asked, “Including Israel?” Gul stated, “Not a single country. The entire Middle East should be free of nuclear weapons. As a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT, Iran is obligated to complete transparency. Iran lacks this transparency.”[18] Gul had called for turning the region into a WMD free-zone in the past, stating that these weapons cause damage to environment, as well as overspending on defense opposed to economic development.[19]

Turkish Security Concerns
Turkey has articulated its fears that it would feel threatened by an Iran with nuclear weapons. It would seem that some Turkish officials have tried to downplay the Iranian threat. For example, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was asked in an interview with an Austrian newspaper, “Mr. Prime Minister, is Turkey also afraid of an Iranian nuclear bomb?” Erdogan replied, “It would be wrong to see that as a threat. But we are against weapons of mass destruction, wherever they may be located.”[20] However there have been expressed fears in the Turkish governing and security establishment of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Such sentiments can be attributed to media reports, where one unnamed senior Turkish diplomat said, “We definitely do not want an Iran that has atomic bombs. We do not want nuclear weapons in our region,” or to Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul who said weapons of mass destruction in the hands of neighbors would be a “threat for Turkey.”[21] Turkey’s Deputy Chief of General Staff, General Ergin Saygun also announced the threat Turkey perceived from “the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region,” during talks with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv.[22]
Turkey has declared that it is protected under NATO’s common security umbrella, hence its national security and defense doctrine does not include deterrence based on weapons of mass destruction.[23] However, there is still some unease in Turkey over Iran’s armament program. TUSAM, the Turkish acronym for National Security Strategies Research Center, in its “Geopolitical and Strategic Analyses” series, also published in the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet, represents the typical Turkish nationalist perspective on the significance of Turkey’s geopolitical position as a determining factor of the new world order, especially in the Middle East.[24] TUSAM claims that Turkey is surrounded by hostile neighbors that eventually aim to divide Turkey, in order to exploit its natural resources like “vultures.” Thus, Turkey should inescapably develop national defense strategies centered on the neighboring threats. TUSAM also points to the inadequacy of confronting unconventional threats, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, by conventional means, hence referring to the need of nuclear power and ballistic missiles acquisition in order to even the nuclear asymmetries.
Gul had stated his displeasure over Iran’s missile capability: “The presence of long-range missiles raises the question as to whether they contain nuclear warheads.” [25] One report in the Turkish daily Yeni Safak, with the headline, “Nuclear Shahab Causes Concerns,” states how Iranian missiles such as the Shahab 3 and Shahab 4 could reach Turkey, where the Shahab 3 has an estimated range of 1,300 to 1,500 kilometers, while the Shahab 4 has a range up to 6,000 kilometers. The writer also noted the concern over Iran’s claim that it has launched a missile into space and plans to put a satellite into orbit.[26] In response to such fears, Gul suggested to Iran, “It would, therefore, be in Iran’s best interest to demonstrate that it is not trying to acquire such weapons and that its program is transparent.” [27]
Turkish Media Debates on WMDs
Writers in the Turkish Islamist press frame U.S. policy to Iran as part of establishing a “new Middle East order.” They have defended Iran, and its right to pursue a nuclear program, with some arguing that Iran should have the right to develop nuclear weapons. Others criticize American “double standards” with regards to allowing Israel to possess nuclear weapons. These media have called upon the government not to support an attack on Iran, and work to prevent U.S. “aggression.” The papers that will be examined in this section include the three dailies, Yeni Safak, Milli Gazete, and Zaman.Yeni Safak’s audience includes Islamist reformists and the paper tends to be supportive of the AKP government. Milli Gazete, is a paper associated with the Saadet Partisi (Felicity Party), affiliated with ousted Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, while Zaman is a moderate pro-Islamist paper that was founded by Fethullah Gulen.
The editorials in the paper Yeni Safak have defended not only Iran’s right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, but to develop its own nuclear bomb. In an opinion piece published on December 25, 2006 Hayrettin Karaman argued that it was an “inalienable right and means of self-defense” for Iran and other Muslim countries to develop nuclear weapons. He declared that it was “an insult to the people of Islam” that only Muslim countries were forbidden from possessing nuclear weapons. A commentary published on January 18, 2007 stated if Ankara endorsed a military strike against Iran, Turkey would “pay a price incomparably greater than that extracted by the occupation of Iraq.” On January 20, Fehmi Koru charged that the United States sought to foment regime change in Iran and Syria to establish a “new Middle East order.” He also wrote that America’s claim that “Iran’s nuclear activities are not peaceful is based entirely on interpretation.” On March 10, he wrote that the United States pursued “obvious double standards” in its nuclear diplomacy, cooperating with India’s nuclear program while condemning Iran’s.[28]

The Yeni Safak columnist Ibrahim Karagul has written several articles in the same vein. In his July 21, 2006 article “’US-British-Israeli Axis’ Waging War on Syria, Iran in Lebanon” he writes: “Despite the fact that everyone knows about how Israel turned the Middle East into a nuclear weapon warehouse, they are making preparations for attacking Iran on grounds of its nuclear efforts!” He states that America’s policy in the region has deceived the international community: “They are taking the entire world for a fool. They are taking all of us for fools...” Another of his articles published on January 26, 2007 argued that Turkish-Iranian relations would determine the future of Middle East. He wrote:

Jordan says it will acquire nuclear weapons. Egypt says it will acquire nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia says it will acquire nuclear weapons. Gulf countries want nuclear technology. The Unites States has not raised any objections to these countries. Why? Why would the aspirations of a country like Jordan for nuclear weapons not attract any attention at a time when Iran’s ambitions for nuclear arms is creating a global crisis, when there is talk of a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, and when it is known that such a war would plunge the region into chaos for decades?

Karagul argues that preparations are underway for an American attack against Iran. He refers to the cooperation agreement signed between Turkey and the United States on June 14, 2005 on the preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and which “was hastily put on the agenda of the National Assembly and was ratified on January 24,” referring to the 2007 Agreement between Turkey and the United States on Enhancing Cooperation for the Facilitation of Assistance for Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. He then asks in this con****, “Is Iran the aim of that action as well as the aid the United States will give to Turkey on this issue and the measures taken in the border area?” His recommendation is that Turkey and Iran cooperate to prevent the United States, “the intervenors in the region,” from allowing the Middle East to slide further into chaos.[29]

The paper Milli Gazete also echoes the themes of Yeni Safak, emphasizing American double standards in the region, criticizing a possible Turkish role in a military strike against Iran, and calls for Islamic unity in the face of threats from further regional intervention. For example, an editorial from the paper on January 15, 2006 urged the Turkish government to “set up a joint force that will stop U.S. aggression and ensure that Islamic countries act in unity and solidarity.” Another editorial on January 21 warned that a Turkish role in a military strike against Iran would “alienate it from the Muslim world.”[30] The paper on the following day also criticized the United States for pursuing double standards in “turning a blind eye to the fact that Israel owns nuclear weapons.”

Iran has conducted its own diplomacy campaign to win over Turkey to its side, or at least to get the Turkish public to understand its view. Such efforts are enhanced by an atmosphere of growing anti-Americanism in Turkey after the 2003 Iraq war. For example, Ali Cura and Ferhat Koc of Milli Gazete conducted an interview with the Iranian Ambassador to Turkey, Fayruz Dawlatabadi. The headline of the interview summarizes the Iranian ambassador’s position on Iran-Turkish relations: “They Are Trying to Spoil Our Relations: The Zionists Are Trying to Spoil our Friendship with Turkey.” There is a pro-Iranian bias during the interview as Cura asks, “Under such circumstances it is possible to say that efforts are being made to cause tension in the relations between Turkey and Iran—relations that have a rooted history.” (emphasis added by author). Dawlatabadi replied:

I agree with you. We are talking about efforts that are being made from the outside. We can clearly see that the Zionists and the Americans are behind these efforts. Despite this however, we fully trust the Turkish people and Turkish statesmen because we have been conducting relations with each other on the basis of love and compassion for centuries. We believe that this will have an impact. We should take this historical fact into consideration. The colonialists and the Zionists have been trying to obstruct the development of the relations between the two countries for many centuries.

The interviewer also gives the opportunity for Iran to address the Turkish public, when Cura asks, “Would you like to convey a message to the Turkish people via our newspaper?” The ambassador responded:

In my message to all the Turkish people and the Turkish officials, I would like to thank them. I want them to be sure that the Iran Islamic Republic will always be by their side. We see Turkey's security as our security. We are certain that the Turkish people and Turkish statesmen share this view. They view Iran's security as their security. They should not have any doubts that statements that aim to spoil the relations of the two countries are actually the lies of the United States and the Zionists. Let them be certain that we are not trying to produce weapons of mass destruction. I would like to emphasize however, that we will not stop developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. This is our right. I want Turkey and the Turkish people to extend us support in this regard.

In the interview, we can discern the Iranian themes towards the Turkish public. Dawlatabadi called upon Turkey to prevent the United States from disrupting the historic ties the two countries shared. He emphasized this notion by stating, “We see Turkey’s security as our security. We are certain that the Turkish people and Turkish statesmen share this view.”[31] The lengthy quotations in the previous interview are used to demonstrate the differences in the Turkish media. Milli Gazete has Islamist sympathies and allows a representative of Islamist Iran to use their paper to defend Iran’s position at length. The questions are indirectly supportive of the Iranian position.

Zaman also tends to be critical of American foreign policy in the region, and its policy to Iran. An April 2006 column by Ali Aslan entitled, “Is Washington Bluffing?” doubts that the United States has the capability to strike Iran while it is embroiled in Iraq:

After the Iraq experience, many people in Washington realized that the United States’ military powers have a limit and that not everything could be achieved through the use of force. Could the United States, which has failed to break even Iraq’s local resistance, break what would probably be global resistance from Iran in the event of a campaign against this country? Seeing that it cannot even swim in the Euphrates, could it pass the Straits of Hormuz without drowning? I think that these are critical questions on which even the most hard-line hawks are brooding unhappily.

The themes in the Turkish secular media are that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to national security, while at the same time criticizes America’s “double standard” regarding nuclear proliferation in the region. For the most part, these papers have called for a diplomatic solution. The dailies examined in this section include Bugun, Cumhuriyet, a pro-left daily, defensive of the ideals of Kemalism, and targets social-democratic audience Turkish, Milliyet, a mass-appeal paper owned by the Dogan Media Group conglomeration, The Turkish Daily News, an English paper also owned by Dogan, and The New Anatolian, a daily owned by the Cevik family, the former editors of The Turkish Daily News.

In The New Anatolian for example, the themes of American “double standards” particularly towards Israel emerge. Ilnur Cevik, owner and chief editor of the paper on January 16, 2006 empathizes with Iran by writing, “the Iranians want to know why other countries, especially their archenemy Israel, have the right to become nuclear powers,” while that right is “being denied to them.” He also argues that Turks sympathize with the Iranian people, and thus “the Turkish Government is facing a dilemma,” similar to that it faced with the Iraq war of 2003. In other words, the Government does not want another confrontation with the United States, yet at the same time it does not want to upset Turkish public opinion. In the same paper, a January 24, 2006 editorial argues that “it is in Turkey’s interest to join Western pressure against Iran’s nuclear program.” It also states that Iran’s potential development of nuclear weapons would be a “serious security concern for Turkey.”
An editorial in the March 8, 2006 issue of Milliyet states: “Turkey shares the world’s concern” over Iran’s nuclear program. It raises the fears of clerics in Iran, referred to pejoratively in this article as “mullahs” would possess a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, the article calls for a diplomatic solution action, as an attack on Iran would foment an international crisis, only strengthening the Iranian government and its regional ambitions.
On January 18, 2006 The Turkish Daily News featured an opinion piece that also stated that Turkey fears a nuclear threat in the region, but at the same time invokes the double standard frame by writing one “cannot remain deaf” as to whether Iran’s denial of uranium enrichment is only a right reserved “for some first-league countries.”[32] Yusuf Kanli, a columnist for this paper views this crisis as the “Iran Headache” as evidenced from the headline of his article. He writes of Iran, “Although it thus far has been unable to be verified, ‘there is no doubt’ that Iran has been trying to acquire nuclear arms technology. Furthermore, it considers acquiring that technology to be a God-given duty for spreading the message of God.” In this instance, this author uses religious connotations to frame Iran, just as the “mullah” term depicts Iran as an unstable, if not messianic country with dangerous potential if in possession of a nuclear weapon. Kanli also fears that Iran’s nuclear program is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which he describes as “the backbone of the Islamic revolution.” While he doubts that Iran’s government would deliver WMDs to terrorists, he does not rule out the possibility of Revolutionary Guard “getting involved in such a heinous adventure.” While the Turkish media had demonstrated fear mongering in the past over Iran’s ballistic missile program, suggesting that they could be fitted with nuclear warheads, Kanli informs his audience that Iran has not mastered this capability yet.
Kanli also brings up the issue of anti-missile defense systems, rarely discussed in the Turkish media and WMD threat perceptions. He states that Turkey will be a missile defense shield based on PAC3s (new-generation Patriot system) or the Russian-made S300s, but does not mention the Arrow defense system made in Israel. However, he questions the effectiveness of such a shield and the exorbitant cost of $1 billion for its implementation.[33]
Cengiz Candar, a writer for the daily Bugun wrote in September 2006 that an Iranian nuclear arms program would lead to the similar programs in countries like Saudi Arabia. He doubts that Turkey can rely on a collective security system, especially after the Cold War. If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it would expand its power via Syria and Hizballah, weakening Turkey’s strategic position in the region. Nevertheless, while seeing Iran as a threat, he still insists that Turkey seek a diplomatic solution for the Iran crisis.[34]
Cumhuriyet’s interview with the Iranian ambassador, Dawlatabadi entitled, “The United States Cannot Attack Iran,” differs significantly from Yeni Safak’s article. The interviewers from this paper, Selim Dilek and Mahmut Gurer, offered more critical questions over Iran’s WMD program, and less time and subsequent newspaper space for the ambassador’s answers. Dawlatabadi stressed that while the US was an ally of Turkey, “there are no guarantees that it will not stand against it tomorrow,” suggesting that if Turkey were develop a nuclear program, there would be a possibility of America turning against Ankara.
Dawlatabadi also emphasized that Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme religious authority in Iran, had announced that nuclear weapons were forbidden in Islam, and that in itself should serve as a guarantee for the world. Afterwards the ambassador was asked by the paper, “There are rumors to the effect that Iran may use the Shahab missiles with nuclear warheads. The fact that Turkey intends to purchase air defense missiles is reportedly linked to this.” Dawlatabadi replied, “The Shahab missiles were developed for defense purposes. They are being used as a deterrent factor. Turkish military experts know this better than anyone else. Iran has never adopted an aggressive approach against Turkey during the past 400 years. Israel and the United States may attack us. As you can also see from their statements, we are constantly facing this threat.”[35]
In an article on March 26, 2007 Mumtaz Soysal, a columnist for Cumhuriyet, criticized U.S. policy to Iran and insisted that Turkey’s best policy was to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is a peaceful one without resorting to punitive sanctions. He draws an analogy with Iraq: “One cannot help discerning an intention to use accusations against Iran on the grounds that it is posing a nuclear threat as a pre**** just like allegations about weapons of mass destruction which were used as a pre**** for attacking Saddam’s Iraq.”[36]