TURKEY RESUMES NATO TIES WITH ISRAEL
On 29 Jan 2012, Geopolitical
Analysis and Monitoring wrote amidst rising political tensions between ISRAEL
and TURKEY, that:
ISRAELI Exports to TURKEY rise
42% to equal exports to GERMANY
See:
As claimed in numerous articles on this Blog, TURKEY and ISRAEL can’t
really afford to be at each other’s throat over (unofficially) energy issues in
the EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN SEA. Gas findings in the region were one of the main
reasons, aside of geopolitical strategies in the wake of the Arab Spring, for
the rift between the two countries, and not the Gaza flotilla incident, as
portrayed in mainstream media.
See: THE
TRUE REASON BEHIND TURKEYS WARMONGERING AGAINST ISRAEL
See
also http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2011/09/mission-impossible-quest-for-natural.html
and
 | |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute |
Now that the Arab Spring has almost evaporated into thin air, TURKEY
reevaluated its stance in order to gain maximum geostrategic leverage, thus it
comes as no surprise that…….
Via debkafile
……..TURKEY dropped its ban on
cooperating with ISRAEL as a third-nation NATO partner at the 28-member
alliance meeting in Brussels on Dec. 4, in response to a reprimand from
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen that the ban had "created a lack
of confidence among the partners." The same meeting approved the
deployment of Patriots on the TURKISH border with Syria.
TURKEY REVIVES STRATEGIC COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL
TURKEY’S consent to effectively
revive its strategic cooperation with ISRAEL represents a major breakthrough
for Binyamin Netanyahu. As he runs for reelection on Jan. 22, he is constantly
accused by opposition leaders of bringing ISRAEL into deep international
isolation. TURKEY and NATO have undercut that chargePresident Barack Obama has strived hard to restore TURKISH ties with ISRAEL – and not only on ISRAEL’S behalf, but as a prop for his burgeoning Sunni Muslim Middle East bloc, headed by EGYPT, and a step on the path toward resuscitating the ISRAEL-Palestinian peace process.
The two scenarios are part of a four-point understanding which President Obama and Netanyahu quietly concluded last fall when the US president was campaigning for reelection and which were made known to AMERICA’S EUROPEAN allies, as well as Moscow, Tehran and Ramallah.
debkafile outlines those four
points:
1. The ISRAELI Prime Minister
promised last fall not to rock the boat of Obama’s reelection campaign by a
unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program until his inauguration for a
second term on Jan. 21, 2013 – the day before the ISRAELI general
election. Netanyahu also agreed to let the direct US-Iranian negotiating track
launched in SWITZERLAND on Dec. 1, take its course for three months up to March
1.
2. President Obama counter-pledged that if at the end of those three months, IRAN’S ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not delivered on the seven stipulations for curtailing on IRAN’S nuclear program, which administration officials put before IRANIAN representatives in those secret talks, the military option would move to the top of AMERICA’S agenda for IRAN.
This was not to say that AMERICA would go to war forthwith. However, if IRAN approached break-out capacity in 2013, as predicted, the US would find it hard to avoid a preemptive operation.
debkafile’s sources report that the direct US-IRAN negotiations launched on Dec. 1 quickly deadlocked.
OBAMA REWARDS NETANYAHU
3. During Netanyahu’s critical
three-month election campaign, Obama promised him a reprieve from outside
pressures - on the understanding that ISRAEL and the Palestinians would get
together in March to resume peace negotiations under joint US-Muslim
sponsorship.
4. The Moslem side of this sponsorship was projected to consist of EGYPT, TURKEY, QATAR and JORDAN. i.e. the Sunni Muslim-led axis which the Obama administration has been working on with ISRAEL ever since its anti-terrorist operation in the Gaza Strip in November.
Sunday, Dec. 23, it was revealed that TURKEY had assumed its role in the new pro-US axis by dropping its two-year boycott of military cooperation with ISRAEL within the framework of NATO. Ankara initially cut off ties of cooperation over the IDF raid of the TURKISH Mavi Marmara ship which was on a mission to break ISRAEL’S naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
In recent months, Mossad chief Tamir
Pardo and the Turkish MIT intelligence director Fidan Hakan maintained
back-channel interchanges and laid the groundwork for the two governments to
start working together. December saw the start of a process for healing
relations between Ankara and Jerusalem, urged on both sides by the Obama administration.
ISRAEL’S input was deemed necessary for US efforts to extinguish the
flames in SYRIA together with its Middle East allies, chiefly EGYPT, and
other ventures.
Sunday, Dec. 23, Netanyahu said that
“far-reaching changes in the SYRIAN regime are close at hand with implications
for the sensitive weaponry [chemical weapons] present there.”
He had obviously been authoritatively briefed on the state of play in the SYRIAN crisis.
THE CHANGING WASHINGTON LANDSCAPE
Obama’s new regional grouping was
given its first spurt in mid-November as a product of Israel’s Pillar of
Defense operation in the Gaza Strip. It has evolved into the mainspring of the
US president’s Middle East policy for his second term.
Netanyahu has taken the four
understandings he reached with Obama as the guidelines for his current and
post-election policy. However, this week, certain changing circumstances
evolving in Washington suggested that the new administration may again be
veering away from US military action to curb IRAN’S drive for a nuclear weapon.
One such circumstance was Senator John Kerry’s nomination as Hillary Clinton’s successor in the State Department; another, informed speculation that Chuck Hagel is the frontrunner for defense in place of Leon Panetta.
Hagel’s views on war against IRAN - and ISRAEL per se - approximate those of Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates. Both these appointments would indicate that the US president may be stepping back from - rather than forward to - a military operation against IRAN.
One such circumstance was Senator John Kerry’s nomination as Hillary Clinton’s successor in the State Department; another, informed speculation that Chuck Hagel is the frontrunner for defense in place of Leon Panetta.
Hagel’s views on war against IRAN - and ISRAEL per se - approximate those of Panetta’s predecessor, Robert Gates. Both these appointments would indicate that the US president may be stepping back from - rather than forward to - a military operation against IRAN.
Thursday, Dec. 12, two letters
addressed to the White House were released in Washington by a group organized
by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the State Department’s No. 3, of former
high-ranking US diplomats and generals. One of those letters strongly
recommended Hagel’s appointment to defense, while the other just as
strongly opposed an AMERICAN attack on IRAN - or even the stiffening of
sanctions:
“US military action [against IRAN] would have grave consequences for the US and the region and, short of a full-scale occupation, would not stop IRAN’S nuclear program,” said that missive.
“US military action [against IRAN] would have grave consequences for the US and the region and, short of a full-scale occupation, would not stop IRAN’S nuclear program,” said that missive.
IS THE OBAMA-NETANYAHU ACCORD IN
JEOPARDY?
Although there are still more than
three months to go before the understandings he reached with Obama on IRAN are
due to go into effect, Netanyahu is nonetheless getting the feeling that
the factions in Washington most adamantly opposed to Jerusalem’s policies and
an Israeli role in Obama’s plans are working hard to pull them apart.
ALLEGEDLY
PALESTINIANS ARE PLANNING TO DESTABILIZE WEST BANK SECURITY, ENCOURAGING RUMORS
THAT A “THIRD INTIFADA” IS IMPENDING
Another party keen to sabotage those
understandings is Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). He
set out, with the encouragement of some EUROPEAN governments, Western media and
RUSSIA, on a campaign for turning up the heat around the Palestinian question.
After the UN General Assembly approved his unilateral application for nonstate
observer status, he threw out threats to prosecute ISRAEL’S leaders and IDF
officers as “war criminals,” gave free rein to Palestinian hotheads acting to
destabilize West Bank security, and encouraged rumors that a “third intifada”
was impending.
Abu Mazen took those steps to ramp up Palestinian leverage ahead of peace negotiations and give vent to his wounded pride at the decision by Washington, Jerusalem, Cairo and Ankara to exclude him from partnership in the rising Sunni-led bloc.
Netanyahu responded by expanding Jerusalem and settlement expansion. He was visibly unconcerned by the international outcry and by the Palestinian leader’s steps.
Three major issues remain to be
settled before the new axis can take off:
1. The EGYPTIAN President Mohamed Morsi is by no means sure to weather the turmoil against his rule and be in a position to meet President Obama’s high expectations – even on the quiet. The US president had hoped Morsi would identify with his Middle East goals and take the lead in such pursuits as the ISRAELI-Palestinian peace process.
2. The SYRIAN conflict
has an endless capacity for growing more savage. The approach of chemical and
biological warfare on both sides – the government and the insurgents – may
confront the US and ISRAEL with the imperative need for strong intervention.
3. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are building up their assets in SYRIA, JORDAN and Sinai with the solid support of local Muslim Brotherhood branches. Those assets are linking up into a ring of terror, which is coiled to strike at JORDAN and ISRAEL and resort to the usual al Qaeda atrocities for thwarting Obama’s designs.
Comment: Geopolitical Analysis and Monitoring does not concur with claims
that the US and ISRAEL are going to attack IRAN. These warmongering tactics
have been used, by both ISRAEL and the US for geopolitical bargaining reasons.
Both countries have no real intentions to endeavor such adventure, for the
outcome is unpredictable. The same applies for US and NATO intervention in SYRIA.
As indicated numerous times on this Blog, ISRAEL, unofficially at least, does
not want the Assad regime to go, even if it means that IRAN is at its
doorsteps, but at least Assad is predictable. Toppling Assad would only make sense for ISRAEL if it was assured that
the new Suni Muslim Brotherhood rulers of SYRIA would create a status-quo
between SYRIA and ISRAEL, similar to that of the current regime in Syria and
ISRAEL, something that in the light of developments in EGYPT and the evolving
situation in SYRIA is utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment