A Podcast about Turkish foreign policy and events in Iraq

June 27, 2014

Here is a link to my recent conversation with the podcast, Global Dispatches, hosted by Mark Leon Goldberg, of UN Dispatch (United Nations News and Commentary global news forum), where I expand on some ideas that I first wrote about two weeks ago, in a blogpost entitled: Some thoughts on the US,Turkey, and the Fall of Mosul. I thank the host of the show for asking such point-on questions! 

 

Turkey and LGBT Rights: A Historical and Global Perspective

Here is an excerpt of my latest in Turkish Policy Quarterly, in its Winter 2013 edition:

During the last decade, LGBT rights has transformed into an international issue, making it more urgent for Ankara to address issues of its own LGBT community. When placed in the domestic context, the LGBT struggle has followed the path of other communities demanding freedoms. However, on the international front, the issue becomes much more complex. Further, if checked in a historical context, the promotion of LGBT rights by international organizations and the U.S. State Department can be seen as an extension of European intervention in Ottoman affairs in the mid-19th-century, and the early years of the Turkish Republic. This fact could lead some to perceive their agenda as a type of Western exclusivism or cultural imperialism.   Due to these reasons, it seems that if change is to come in Turkey, it will be a result of domestic activism and Turkey’s choice to continue with EU reforms.

To read more, here is the link

And, here is the link to Turkish Policy Quarterly's Winter 2013 edition, Gender rights and freedoms in Turkey and the Arab world: Spring or Winter. 

Edging towards War: Netanyahu takes on Obama

Last spring in my Palestinian-Israeli conflict class, we periodically dealt with current events. Our class discussions reflected much of what the students followed in the mainstream media, and during those months it seemed as though Israel was preparing to attack Iran at any moment.  In fact, I commented that it almost seemed as if there was a concerted effort to notify Iran of the eventual attack.  However, by the end of the semester, the tension eased and a full-out Israeli-Iranian war was put on the back burner, while the US continued to work through diplomatic means to force the Iranians to rethink their race towards becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Well as the summer is now coming to a close, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, have succeeded in putting Iran back on the agenda. However, now the level of speech concerning an Israeli strike has surpassed that of last spring and has left all the actors in the region on edge. Literally for the past two weeks, the Israeli media has been discussing the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis, presenting multiple scenarios and timelines.  What has emerged is worrying, since it is tangled up with an outright duel between Netanyahu and Barak on one side and President Barack Obama on the other.

The scenario is simple: Israel will unilaterally strike Iran before the US elections, which will in essence force Obama to support the Israeli move and Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even though the Obama administration is convinced that a military strike is premature.  Of course, with Mitt Romney courting Israel at all costs, Obama will need to appear defiant in his support for Israel. Clearly, this tactic does not need to lead to an actual Israeli strike, since even the threat of one before the elections is enough for Netanyahu to reap fruits, such as Obama committing to an American airstrike after the elections (which some pundits have been discussing). Let us remember that Netanyahu is no stranger to meddling in US politics.  Back in 1998, President Clinton pressured Netanyahu (during his first term) to negotiate with the Palestinians. Upon arriving to meet with Clinton and Yasser Arafat, Netanyahu chose to meet first with a Clinton adversary, US Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, along with a thousand supporters, to send a strong message to Clinton that he also could play the pressure game.    

The Obama administration thus far has not caved to this pressure,  and has even warned Israel that the time is not right. US Defense Minister Panetta has stated that the use of force should be a last resort, and General Martin Dempsey, US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, maintains that an Israeli strike will only “delay but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.” On Israel’s Channel Two, Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the US and a staunch supporter of Netanyahu, rebuffed the American “advice” and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense. He argued that even a unilateral strike that would only “delay” the Iranian nuclear program might be sufficient for the time being.  

For now, the Netanyahu-Barak coalition is shunning the chorus of opposition in Israel to a unilateral Israeli strike, which has been voiced among members of the military establishment and most recently by Israeli President Shimon Peres.  This voice of reason was not welcomed among the Netanyahu administration, which reminded Peres that the Israeli presidency is merely ceremonial and is supposed to remain above (and out of) politics. 

While I have not focused on the regional implications of a unilateral Israeli strike, it is clear that, with Syria in disarray and the Middle East fresh from the downfall of dictatorships, many scenarios can play out.  However, unlike past Israeli wars, this one could actually place the majority of the Israeli population under a major assault. It is therefore safe to say that Netanyahu is playing with fire.

For now, we will need to wait to see how Netanyahu plays his cards. With Israel appointing Avi Dichter last week as Home Front Defense Minister, it appears that they will need some time to prepare their citizens for war, leaving the possibility for a strike within the next the few weeks highly unlikely. Also, it would make sense that the next event to wait for is an Obama-Netanyahu meeting in mid-September at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. The question remains whether such a meeting will defuse the tension between the two leaders. When Netanyahu arrives in the US, it will be interesting to see if he will first meet with Romney in order to embarrass Obama, as in the above mentioned 1998 case.  What is certain is that Netanyahu’s tactics prove once again how detrimental he can be to Israel’s world standing. Clearly, more than any other leader in Israeli history, Netanyahu has completely isolated Israel, and it seems that he will continue to choose this option.   

Now it is Syria’s Turn: The uprising on its Way?

While many analysts thought Syria’s Bashar Assad’s regime would remain safe and sound amidst the wave of Arabs turning their countries on their head, it seems that they were wrong. During the last two weeks, protesters in the cities of Daraa and Latakia have taken to the streets, and Syria has once again showed to what extent it will go to silence opposition, opening fire and killing at least 100 protesters. The brutal regime of Hafaz Assad, inherited by his son Bashar (who never really seemed that it was his dream to inherit such a role) at last is coming to an end. Yes, it is not important anymore whether or not the recent clashes in Daraa and Latakia will translate to mass demonstrations in the capital of Damascus, clearly Assad will now have no other choice than to lead Syria on a path of democracy. If he does not do this, you can rest assured that the Syrians will do this for him. Yes, for Assad these demonstrations mark the beginning of the end.

The Syrians have lived under draconian emergency laws since 1963, and under Hafiz and Bashar Assad’s iron fist since 1971. Even if Bashar when coming to power in 2000 introduced reforms, they still cannot cover up the farce of a son inheriting the position of his father; and, they cannot cover up the fact that the whole regime is rotten at its very core. The father Assad unarguably was one of the most brutal of the Arab regimes, who will be most remembered for the 1982 massacre he orchestrated in Hama. With the Muslim Brotherhood gaining strength, the city of Hama was bombarded leaving over ten thousand people dead, with some placing the number up to thirty thousand. The massacre always stood as one of the greatest double-standards of the Middle East. While the world voiced a loud protest (rightly so) to Israel and their Lebanese counterparts for the massacre of thousands in Sabra and Shatilla refugees camps, most chose to ignore Assad’s crime. In fact, it was almost as if much of the Arab world suffered from a strong case of amnesia when it came to criticizing crimes against humanities perpetrated by leaders like Hafiz al-Assad (last blog I mentioned the massacre at Halabja committed by Saddam Hussein).


Of all the Middle East countries, perhaps Syria was one country that following the French occupation and Mandate was well on its way to democracy until the Baath party halted this. With a multi-religious makeup, including Sunni, Greek Orthodox, Druze and Alawi, among others, ideological political parties of the 1950’s offered the Syrian people a political system that potentially could cross religious and ethnic lines (there is also a large Kurdish population in Syria). This long break with the past, and years of living under fear, might actually serve as a golden opportunity, a key to unity, which will unite all Syrians. However, this will not be easy with disproportionate amount of peoples living off the huge bureaucracy, and the secret service (muhabarat) embedded in almost every nook and cranny. In Latakia, Assad’s hometown, tensions have been reported between the minority Alawi community and Sunnis; an important note: the Assad family is Alawi and not Sunni. Yes, even if this is not the main motive of all Sunnis, many seem set on taking the “power back” from the Alawi minority.

A Syria free of Assad, a free Syria, free from an outdated ideology, could offer the Middle East a genuine democracy. Just the thought of thousands of Syrians demonstrating a few weeks back seemed unimaginable. For now, we will need to wait and see how this plays out; will this produce an opposition that challenges the regime and forces them to relinquish power in the next few weeks? For now, this does not seem to be the case. However, Syria’s neighbors will need to watch closely since the status-quo has certainly taken a great blow. For Turkey, who has voiced their cautious support of the Assad regime, a new order could dampen their attempts to create a “new Middle East lead by Turkey.” For Israel, new challenges will await now that a genuine call to take back the Golan Heights through peace agreements might emerge. For Lebanon, an Assad free Syria would change all the powers, pulling the carpet of support out from under the Hezbollah, which could set off numerous crises. For Iran, this most definitely would hurt their regional prestige. This fact was read out clearly by the protesters at Daraa that chanted “No to Iran, No to Hezbollah.” I can vouch that someone who has worked on the Middle East for years, the change is refreshing.