Ankara suspicious that Israel's security behind U.S. push for regional missile shield

[Pasban]

TURKEY: Ankara suspicious that Israel's security behind U.S. push for regional missile shield

October 25, 2010 | 10:31 am

Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System_(BMDS)_ Is the United States using NATO to protect its special friend in the Middle East: Israel?

That's what Turkey suspects may be behind a U.S.-led push for an anti-missile defense system in Turkey, intended to ward off an Iranian attack.

According to a report published Monday in the Turkish newspaper Today's Zaman, Ankara has sought and reportedly received explicit assurances from the U.S. that intelligence gathered using the missile shield's sensors will not be shared with Israel.

American officials have not been shy about fingering Israel's enemy, Iran, as the major reason for deploying the system, citing Iranian threats to Europe. But the article in Today's Zaman was rife with skepticism, pointing out that as a non-member, Israel is not eligible for protection from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"In fact, given the unpredictability of the security situation across the globe, it is possible that the missile defense system could even be used against Israel some day in the future," the article said. "NATO is an organization that operates on the principle of collective defense and an attack on an ally is considered an attack on the entire alliance."

It wouldn't be the first time that the U.Ss. was torn between its allegiance to NATO and its historic friendship with Israel. When Israeli forces stormed a Turkish aid ship off Gaza in June, resulting in the death of nine Turkish activists, Turkey threatened to invoke the NATO Treaty, which could have obligated the U.S. to become involved militarily.

A recent United Nations report found that several of the Turks aboard the aid ship had been killed "execution-style" at close range, further souring Turkey on Israel just before the scheduled Nov. 19 NATO summit in Lisbon, during which Turkey is expected to make a decision on whether to allow elements of the the missile system to be deployed on its territory.

Steven Pifer, a senior fellow specializing in security at the Brooking Institution in Washington, said that any benefit to Israel from such a system was likely incidental.

"Certainly a radar site that looks from Turkey toward Iran would benefit Israel, but the Israelis are advanced in terms of their own missile defense system," Pifer told Babylon and Beyond. "I think that because of their position in the region, [the Turks] are nervous about singling out the Iranians as a threat."

In the recent past, Turkey has pursued an independent policy in the Middle East, maintaining good relations with Israel, its Arab neighbors and Iran. That position has come under strain as Turkish-Israeli relations deteriorate and Ankara strengthens its ties with Syria and Iran. Turkey has come under fire recently for continuing its booming trade with Iran despite sanctions that should be binding for all U.N. member states.

The proposed ballistic missile defense system would be rolled out in two phases. The first would entail the deployment of U.S. Navy ships equipped with Standard Missile-3 interceptors in the eastern Mediterranean sometime in the next two years. The second would see the erection of a land-based radar site in Turkey by 2015.

Turkey initially objected to the new missile shield on grounds that the wording of the agreement singled out Iran as a threat. Not only does Turkey wish to maintain its friendship with Iran, but Iranian hostilities toward the West are increasingly seen as having roots in American and European support for Israel.

An editorial in the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet Daily News slammed both the Turkish and American sides for being disingenuous in their political games, accusing Turkey of trying to gloss over the "inconvenient truth" about Iran while the U.S. plays the Armenian-genocide card in an effort to pressure Ankara.

"Multi-billion dollar missile defense systems may be much loved by military planners, engineers and defense contractors ... but as a defense in the age of terrorism, these technologically dubious designs are worthless," the article concluded. "We need a believable defense against 21st-century threats."

TURKEY: Ankara suspicious that Israel's security behind U.S. push for regional missile shield | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times

 

[flameboard]

Can't Turkey stop this or does America have some power over Turkey because of the F-35. It like putting a gun on your head to shoot your enemies and all you're doing is screaming, not actually doing anything to take it off.

 

[muse]

Israel is the apple of America's eye, so really while Turkiye sacrifices the blood of her precious youth for the NATO, the NATO shield will appear over israel before it does over Turkiye - remember that while israel may have a population of 5 million, there are more than 60 Million neo-judaist in the US - so we have to be realistic.

 

[Jigs]

Israel has a complex multilayer defense already in place. Why would there be a need to implement one in Turkey ? Still the Idea that this may slightly even help the Zionists doesn't sit well with me. What a situation AKP have put Turkey in. That being said we have no defense against ballistic missiles. It would have a great benefit for us and would keep our standing with U.S. and NATO at respectable levels.

 

[muse]

Who is threatening Turkye with ballistic missiles? Iran is a brother nation and has ballistic missiles, Israel also has ballistic missiles.

 

[Jigs]

Who is threatening Turkye with ballistic missiles? Iran is a brother nation and has ballistic missiles, Israel also has ballistic missiles.

It is always better to be safe then sorry. Just because diplomatic relations seem good doesn't mean they will last. What were to happen if say a country launched ballistic missiles into Istanbul. We would have no way of stopping them and thousands would be killed.

 

[muse]

I take your point, but really who is threatening Turkye? I ask this because turkiye has become a leader, a "go to country" because of her policy of no problems with her immediate neighbors - it has been a very successful policy and can should serve as a model for other countries, in particular Pakistan.

In her own neighborhood turkye has resolved problems with all - Israel, well, that's a question to raise with the US and with Europe and I don't think either of those will provide answers that provide any joy in Turkiye.

 

[Jigs]

I take your point, but really who is threatening Turkye? I ask this because turkiye has become a leader, a "go to country" because of her policy of no problems with her immediate neighbors - it has been a very successful policy and can should serve as a model for other countries, in particular Pakistan.

In her own neighborhood turkye has resolved problems with all - Israel, well, that's a question to raise with the US and with Europe and I don't think either of those will provide answers that provide any joy in Turkiye.

I just don't want us to let down our guard. Plus refusing this would make no sense. The system proposed would integrate THAAD batteries and AN/TPY-2 Forward-Based X-Band radars. The chance of BMs hitting targets in Turkey would be reduced considerably. This would also keep everyone happy.

 

[muse]

Well, thankfully turkiye has no enemies that would target it - but I see such systems as provocative, Turkiye once again becomes fodder for those who would not otherwise have any truck with it - but it is a sacrifice we respect and thank God Turkiye is not split up as far as politcal opinion about this is concerned.

 

[Saithan]

Well, I agree that Turkey doesn't seem to have any enemies who'd attack her with Ballistic Missiles. So why implement it at the cost of good relations with our neighbors.

Besides Turkey is already working on a national missile shield, so that is good enough for me.

However if the missile shield project would result in tech-transfer then I guess it would be okay. place it in eastern turkey close to border where PKK activity is highest and have american troops monitor their movements. intel-sharing for that region would/could be pretty sweet.

 

[muse]

have american troops monitor their movements. intel-sharing for that region would/could be pretty sweet

that's interesting - how do think the PKK get their arms? a question perhaps American friends will not be eager to answer.

 

[muse]

We understand brother Turkiye's sacrifices, we don't like it and Turkiye does not like it either, but still it is the best judge of her situation - Turkiye is not alone and not everyone in the West has lost their mind but still Turkiye has yet another burden to bear, to rush out of embraces in which Turkiye is required to make blood sacrifices on behalf of those that do despise her. The treaty was harsh and unfair, but it was what it was and slowly Turkiye is awakening, it must rise more speedily:




October 25, 2010
Turkey Steps Out
By ROGER COHEN


ANKARA — Davutogluism is a mouthful. It’s not going to make Fox News any time soon. But if I could escort Sarah Palin, Tea Partiers and a few bigoted anti-Muslim Europeans to a single country illustrating how the world has changed, it would be the home of the D-word, Turkey.

Ahmet Davutoglu, who birthed a foreign policy doctrine and has been Turkey’s foreign minister since May 2009, has irked a lot of Americans. He’s seen as the man behind Turkey’s “turning East,” as Iran’s friend, as Israel’s foe, as a fickle NATO ally wary of a proposed new missile shield, and as the wily architect of Turkey’s new darling status with Arab states. The Obama administration has said it is “disappointed” in Turkey’s no vote on Iran sanctions last June; Congress is not pleased, holding up an ambassadorial appointment and huffing over arms sales.

Nostalgia is running high in Washington for the pliant Turkey of Cold-War days. Davutoglu is having none of it. “We don’t want to be a frontier country like in the Cold War,” he told me. “We don’t want problems with any neighbor” — and that, of course, would include Iran.

Zero problems with neighbors lay at the core of Davutoglu’s influential book “Strategic Depth,” published in 2001. Annual trade with Russia has since soared to $40 billion. Syrian-Turkish relations have never been better. Turkey’s commercial sway over northern Iraq is overwhelming. It has signed a free trade agreement with Jordan. And now Turkey says it aims — United Nations sanctions notwithstanding — to triple trade with Iran over the next five years.

All this makes the anemic West edgy: The policy has produced 7 percent growth this year. There’s also something deeper at work: The idea of economic interdependence as a basis for regional peace and stability sounds awfully familiar. Wasn’t that the genius of the European Union idea?

Which prompts another question: Can it only work for Westerners? I don’t think so. And, having shortsightedly kept Turkey out of the European Union, the West is scarcely qualified to complain. As British Prime Minister David Cameron, Turkey’s strongest European supporter, said recently, “It is just wrong to say that Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit in the tent.”

Wrong indeed, and stupid, but that’s where Turkey is, with at least a foot outside the Western tent, and increasingly proud of what it has achieved in a transformed world. Nations have increasing options. They don’t depend as much on the United States. Congress can rail about that and it won’t change a thing. Turkish foreign policy, Davutoglu said, “is based on a realistic, rational analysis of the strategic picture.” Yep.

So it gets prickly over U.S. guidance. When I asked Davutoglu about the visit last week of Stuart Levey, a senior Treasury department official, to Ankara to talk about Iran sanctions, he bristled: “We don’t need any advice,” he told me. “We are a responsible country of the U.N. system and a member of the U.N. Security Council. We voted no. That is our decision. We have no need to be told by anyone, we will implement the U.N. Security Council resolution. But as for unilateral resolutions — American or European — we will look at our own national interest. Is it wrong to have strong economic relations with neighbors?”

I think Turkey’s immediate recognition of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad following his violent electoral putsch of June 2009 was the low point of Davutogluism. But I also think Turkey has Iran policy about right. Isolation comforts the hard-liners. Sanctions won’t turn Iran. A Turkish-Brazilian swap deal for Iran’s low-enriched uranium, reached last May, was a means “to open the way for diplomatic negotiations.”

Davutoglu was adamant: “Of course we were coordinating with the Americans at every stage. Nobody from Washington can say Turkey acted on its own. Our purpose was to ease the tension and to contain the Iranian nuclear program.”

Turkey can be the West’s conduit to the Muslim world if Washington can bury its pique. The new Turkey won’t abandon NATO or its American alliance: If NATO wants to talk to the Taliban, or the West to Iran, it can help.

But when Turkish-Israeli relations implode, rumblings on Capitol Hill get furious. That Turkey’s Iran diplomacy coincided with Israel’s killing of eight Turkish and one U.S. citizen on a Turkish-led Gaza-bound flotilla was a fluke. Still, it has left bitter feelings.

“Turkey expects solidarity from the United States because its citizens were killed in international waters,” Davutoglu said. “This is an issue of national pride.” He added, referring to Israel, “Yes, we expect an apology because we think friends can apologize to one another.”

Far from U.S. solidarity, Turkey got U.S. hostility. One congressman wrote to President Obama demanding that he “condemn Turkey’s reaction to the incident.” That last sentence cries out for an exclamation mark. It reflects the Turkey-equals-Iran-lover-and-Israel-hater surge in Congress.

That’s the kind of cheap jingoistic nonsense that boxes in Obama’s Mideast policy and condemns it to tired failure. It’s time for Davutogluism to roll off more American tongues.

 

[Jigs]

Well, thankfully turkiye has no enemies that would target it - but I see such systems as provocative, Turkiye once again becomes fodder for those who would not otherwise have any truck with it - but it is a sacrifice we respect and thank God Turkiye is not split up as far as politcal opinion about this is concerned.

Fodder for who? Iran? There are other nations that already excepted to implement the system it isn't just Turkey . If we speak in military terms. Putting this system means shutting down someones BMs capability. The only option they would have left would be conventional assault. Which obviously is where Iran would be at a great disadvantage since against Turkey for obvious both in actually military stand point and from a diplomatic stand point.


You shouldn't trust Iran muse. Lets not be that naive here. You think a administration that goes around with conspiracy theories and a military influenced by crazy mullahs is actually credible when they are enriching large amounts of uranium and saying it is for peaceful purposes ?

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Israel has a complex multilayer defense already in place. Why would there be a need to implement one in Turkey ? Still the Idea that this may slightly even help the Zionists doesn't sit well with me. What a situation AKP have put Turkey in. That being said we have no defense against ballistic missiles. It would have a great benefit for us and would keep our standing with U.S. and NATO at respectable levels.

If anyone ever attacks Turkey (which I don't see happening) it definitely won't be Iran but rather Israel and/or some of our precious NATO "allies".

 

[Hasbara Buster]

You shouldn't trust Iran muse. Lets not be that naive here. You think a administration that goes around with conspiracy theories and a military influenced by crazy mullahs is actually credible when they are enriching large amounts of uranium and saying it is for peaceful purposes ?

Oh dear, there we go again. Tell me, which countries have these "crazy Mullahs" attacked in the last 300 years or so? And how many countries were attacked by the U.S. and the UK in the same period?