Tehran-Ankara-Gaza triangle
Our interview with Makan Eidipour, political analyst, on the Tehran-Ankara-Gaza triangle
The Gaza conflict has reached to an end after three weeks, while international organizations did not succeed in stopping the war and women and children were killed on a daily basis. Diplomatic apparatus of different countries, especially Middle East countries showed different reactions to this crisis.
Our interview with Makan Eidipour, political analyst, on the Tehran-Ankara-Gaza triangle:
While Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries that have relations with Israel, it has taken the leading role in solving the crisis. What is the reason?
There are two reasons. One is historical. Turkey wants to play a more important role in the region. This includes mediating and cooperating in Iraq. The other relates to domestic issues.
The incumbent government of Turkey counts on people’s vote, in fact on its ideological and cultural proximity with them. The most important buttress for Erdugan’s government is people’s support and proximity. The Turkish government knows about this. They also know that all former governments who tried to apply Western models of modernization faced a problem which was alienation of the nation. Since the process of development was not fully carried out, this gap remained and widened day by day.
That gap we see today in Egypt in some sort and also in Jordan and other Arab countries whose governments had adopted a Western model for development. But people in these countries have still a tradition lifestyle and religion is still a constituent of social structure for them.
The present government in Turkey has tried to bridge this gap. One of its greatest successes was its approach towards the matter of Islamic wear (hijab). Gaza was another acid test for this government that they passed by their coherent stance. The Turkish government wants to show by warning and criticizing Israel, it stands beside people who demonstrate and react to what is happening in Gaza Meanwhile, Israel has acted such that showing support for it is pretty difficult.
Nevertheless, Turkey could keep silent about the crisis, just like some Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. But support wouldn’t be free from aftermath for Turkish politicians. So we can say Turks had in fact no other way. The AKP government is in fact fulfilling a dual purpose. Firstly, they gain further their popularity inside the country.
Secondly, they restore the position that they’ve lost since a long time ago in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Turkey knows that the more turbulent the region and the worse the conflict between Arabs and Israel, the more detriments this country and the whole region have to endure.
That’s why Turks always try to maintain peace in Middle East. Besides, Turks are enjoying a good rate of economic growth. One big difference between Turkey and its neighbors is that they either possess natural resources such as oil and gas or earn their income through political games (like Jordan and Syria). Turkey is the only country with a Western-model of free market economy. Therefore, the country benefits peace and security the most.
It seems that compared with Turkey, Iran has been so inert. Foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki was not as active as expected. That is obvious if compared with the Turkish diplomatic body. Even demonstrations were different. In Istanbul, one million gathered for demonstration while in Iran the number didn’t even reach ten thousand. What is the reason?
On public opinion and people’s reaction, the reality is that our country has engaged itself with Palestine and its problems for thirty years now. Our foreign policy, at least in the first fifteen years after the revolution, was Palestine-centered.
Therefore, people have become desensitized. But why is there a million-rally in Turkey? Because it’s the first time people are allowed to do so. In the former governments such a thing would be denounced and suppressed. Anti-Israel demonstration was virtually impossible with the former governments. Even if demonstrations were held, they were highly controlled and without full media coverage.
This is probably the first time Turks have a government which is in unison with them. This makes them enthusiastic and different.
They may not achieve anything special but they show Israel and the European Union that even in a country like Turkey that is nominated for EU membership, a wrong policy may lead to such a reaction. Iranians don’t have that feeling and their reactions don’t attract attention globally. Whenever something happens in Palestine, automatically everybody anticipates a demonstration in Iran.
There is a demonstration against an international problem every two or three weeks in Iran. As for the reaction of our diplomatic apparatus, the truth is that they haven’t been inactive.
Our diplomacy is facing its own problems, for example the nuclear issue. That has brought isolation with itself that provides us with less diplomatic leverage. Mr. Mottaki and the whole diplomatic body do not possess tools that Turkey uses in negotiations and talks.
European presidents do not accept to negotiate with Iran. Even if they did, it would be only for solving the nuclear dispute. They want us to wind up the problems on our nuclear program at first. We intend to settle the conflict in Gaza but we’re not at a position to do so.
At most we can spur Palestinian groups or sit them at the table of negotiations. Or we can push Syria and use its weight in the Arab world. Such things have been done. But our tools, and in fact our friends in the Arab world and the Muslim world, are less than before because of United States and Israel’s anti-Iran campaign.
How do you see Mr. Larijani’s travel to Turkey to attend the Islamic Parliamentary Union meeting?
Mr. Larijani is a skilful diplomat. He is more eloquent and more straightforward in comparison to other Iranian diplomats. So his attendance may be helpful. Of course everyone knows about Iran’s stance on Gaza, so his visit will be merely a formality. The meeting won’t have any significant political outcome, but it could be useful negotiations take place besides the meeting.
Our interview with Makan Eidipour, political analyst, on the Tehran-Ankara-Gaza triangle:
While Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries that have relations with Israel, it has taken the leading role in solving the crisis. What is the reason?
There are two reasons. One is historical. Turkey wants to play a more important role in the region. This includes mediating and cooperating in Iraq. The other relates to domestic issues.
The incumbent government of Turkey counts on people’s vote, in fact on its ideological and cultural proximity with them. The most important buttress for Erdugan’s government is people’s support and proximity. The Turkish government knows about this. They also know that all former governments who tried to apply Western models of modernization faced a problem which was alienation of the nation. Since the process of development was not fully carried out, this gap remained and widened day by day.
That gap we see today in Egypt in some sort and also in Jordan and other Arab countries whose governments had adopted a Western model for development. But people in these countries have still a tradition lifestyle and religion is still a constituent of social structure for them.
The present government in Turkey has tried to bridge this gap. One of its greatest successes was its approach towards the matter of Islamic wear (hijab). Gaza was another acid test for this government that they passed by their coherent stance. The Turkish government wants to show by warning and criticizing Israel, it stands beside people who demonstrate and react to what is happening in Gaza Meanwhile, Israel has acted such that showing support for it is pretty difficult.
Nevertheless, Turkey could keep silent about the crisis, just like some Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. But support wouldn’t be free from aftermath for Turkish politicians. So we can say Turks had in fact no other way. The AKP government is in fact fulfilling a dual purpose. Firstly, they gain further their popularity inside the country.
Secondly, they restore the position that they’ve lost since a long time ago in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Turkey knows that the more turbulent the region and the worse the conflict between Arabs and Israel, the more detriments this country and the whole region have to endure.
That’s why Turks always try to maintain peace in Middle East. Besides, Turks are enjoying a good rate of economic growth. One big difference between Turkey and its neighbors is that they either possess natural resources such as oil and gas or earn their income through political games (like Jordan and Syria). Turkey is the only country with a Western-model of free market economy. Therefore, the country benefits peace and security the most.
It seems that compared with Turkey, Iran has been so inert. Foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki was not as active as expected. That is obvious if compared with the Turkish diplomatic body. Even demonstrations were different. In Istanbul, one million gathered for demonstration while in Iran the number didn’t even reach ten thousand. What is the reason?
On public opinion and people’s reaction, the reality is that our country has engaged itself with Palestine and its problems for thirty years now. Our foreign policy, at least in the first fifteen years after the revolution, was Palestine-centered.
Therefore, people have become desensitized. But why is there a million-rally in Turkey? Because it’s the first time people are allowed to do so. In the former governments such a thing would be denounced and suppressed. Anti-Israel demonstration was virtually impossible with the former governments. Even if demonstrations were held, they were highly controlled and without full media coverage.
This is probably the first time Turks have a government which is in unison with them. This makes them enthusiastic and different.
They may not achieve anything special but they show Israel and the European Union that even in a country like Turkey that is nominated for EU membership, a wrong policy may lead to such a reaction. Iranians don’t have that feeling and their reactions don’t attract attention globally. Whenever something happens in Palestine, automatically everybody anticipates a demonstration in Iran.
There is a demonstration against an international problem every two or three weeks in Iran. As for the reaction of our diplomatic apparatus, the truth is that they haven’t been inactive.
Our diplomacy is facing its own problems, for example the nuclear issue. That has brought isolation with itself that provides us with less diplomatic leverage. Mr. Mottaki and the whole diplomatic body do not possess tools that Turkey uses in negotiations and talks.
European presidents do not accept to negotiate with Iran. Even if they did, it would be only for solving the nuclear dispute. They want us to wind up the problems on our nuclear program at first. We intend to settle the conflict in Gaza but we’re not at a position to do so.
At most we can spur Palestinian groups or sit them at the table of negotiations. Or we can push Syria and use its weight in the Arab world. Such things have been done. But our tools, and in fact our friends in the Arab world and the Muslim world, are less than before because of United States and Israel’s anti-Iran campaign.
How do you see Mr. Larijani’s travel to Turkey to attend the Islamic Parliamentary Union meeting?
Mr. Larijani is a skilful diplomat. He is more eloquent and more straightforward in comparison to other Iranian diplomats. So his attendance may be helpful. Of course everyone knows about Iran’s stance on Gaza, so his visit will be merely a formality. The meeting won’t have any significant political outcome, but it could be useful negotiations take place besides the meeting.