A Turkish soldier was killed northeast of Mosul shortly after NATO and US officials announced they will withdraw from Afghanistan this year.
Erbil International Airport in Iraq’s northern Kurdistan region was hit by at least one explosion Wednesday night, Iraqi and US officials said.
Fiddling with the delicate balance of power in the Black Sea might leave Turkey in a worse squeeze between Russia and the United States.
Is Turkey on course to abandon its traditional balancing act between Russia and NATO in the Black Sea region? Ankara’s posture in the Ukraine-Russia standoff, coupled with its newfound ambivalence on a decadesold regime governing maritime traffic to the Black Sea, throws into question the balanced policy that Turkey has long pursued in the region.
In a rare alignment with Washington amid ongoing frost in bilateral ties, Ankara last week lent unequivocal support to Kiev in the face of mounting tensions on the Ukrainian-Russian border. The show of support for Ukraine coincides with an unprecedented controversy over Ankara’s commitment to the 1936 Montreux Convention, which regulates traffic through Turkey’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits — the maritime link between the Black and Mediterranean seas. The convention gives Turkey full control of the straits, while imposing strict limitations for the military ships of non-littoral states, effectively restricting the access of US and NATO naval forces to the Black Sea.
The decades-long geopolitical equilibrium set by the convention in the Black Sea has come under increasing strain since Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the ensuing conflict between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine. A fresh flareup in the past several weeks has seen a big Russian military buildup on the border with Ukraine, sparking a flurry of diplomacy to defuse the tensions. The United States and NATO have thrown their weight behind Ukraine and are gearing up for massive military drills in the region as part of the Europe Defender-2021 exercises.
After talks with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in Istanbul April 10, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for the continuation of the cease-fire and a peaceful solution of the conflict, while asserting Turkey’s support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity. In a 20-point joint statement, the two sides pledged “to coordinate steps aimed at restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, in particular the de-occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea … as well as the territories in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.” Turkey also reaffirmed its support for Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.
Ankara’s posture in the Ukraine-Russia tensions will put to a serious test the main geopolitical parameters that it has thus far observed in the Black Sea, namely:
Supporting Georgia and Ukraine to boost their defense capabilities in the face of Russia’s military buildup in Crimea, including its deployment of S-400 air defense systems.
While doing so, refraining from moves that could provoke Russia.
Abiding strictly by the Montreux Convention, which has a direct impact on Black Sea security.Turkish-Ukrainian cooperation in the military sector has dramatically increased in the past several years, making Ukraine Turkey’s chief partner in a series of crucial military technologies, including turboprop engines and drones.
Despite its deepening ties with Kiev, Ankara has maintained a close partnership with Moscow. Yet the controversy over the Montreux Convention, fueled by Ankara’s plan to build an artificial waterway — Canal Istanbul — as an alternative to the Bosporus, raise questions as to whether Ankara is still committed to its balancing act in the Black Sea.
Russian President Vladimir Putin must have had similar misgivings, for he called Erdogan on the eve of Zelensky’s visit to emphasize the importance of preserving the Montreux Convention.
So, what is driving Ankara into a position that opens the convention to debate and seems to challenge the geopolitical balance in the Black Sea at the expense of annoying Putin at a critical time?
Three main factors appear to motivate Ankara.
The first has to do with domestic politics. Wary of its sagging support in the polls amid a bruising economic crisis, the government sees the Montreux and Canal Istanbul controversies as a fresh ground to play its hallmark policy of polarization and consolidate its conservative-nationalist base. This became evident earlier this month when it raised a ruckus over an open letter by 104 retired admirals calling for strict adherence to the Montreux Convention. Ankara lambasted the open letter as a tacit coup threat and launched legal proceedings against the retired admirals.
The second reason has to do with the Canal Istanbul project, which is not limited to digging a waterway with the stated aim of easing traffic through the congested Bosporus. The project involves also sprawling development on the banks of the canal, including residential areas for at least half a million people, business plazas, touristic venues, marinas and ports. With groundbreaking expected in the summer, preliminary estimates suggest the project could generate up to $60 billion in revenues for developers. To market the development plan to foreign investors, Ankara needs to call the existing Straits regime into question so as to provide a political cover to what many experts see as an economically unviable venture.
Atilla Yesilada, a well-known Turkish economist, argues that even if the entire Bosporus traffic is rerouted to Canal Istanbul, annual gross revenues from transit fees would total an estimated $1 billion, “meaning that inclusive of interest expenses and a fair return to undertakers of the project, the pay-back period is no less than 30 years.” Such a period, he said, is “extremely long” and makes the project “very risky” for foreign investors. Moreover, Yesilada believes the canal might never be completed as its “only sponsor” Erdogan could lose office before he oversees the completion of the construction, expected to take at least seven years.
Finally, Ankara seems to believe that the US quest for lasting military presence in the Black Sea region gives it leverage to use the Montreux Convention as a bargaining chip in the transactional relationship it seeks with the Joe Biden administration. The restrictive rules of the convention barred the US Navy from the Black Sea during the Russian-Georgian war in 2008. Russia’s annexation of Crimea further spurred US efforts for access to the Black Sea, including possibly through a naval base as part of NATO missions in Romania or Turkey. Similarly, the United States has backed Ukrainian plans to build new naval bases in the Black Sea region, while enhancing military cooperation with both Ukraine and Georgia as well as Romania and Bulgaria, the two NATO members other than Turkey that border the Black Sea.
Yet Ankara has come under harsh criticism at home for allowing any questioning of Turkey’s commitment to the Montreux Convention. In a succinct outline of the objections, Cem Gurdeniz, one of the retired admirals who signed the open letter, makes the following points, “Thanks to Montreux, the six littoral states of the Black Sea … have attained the opportunity to live in peace and tranquility. This balanced situation has continued from 1936 to date. Turkey has nothing to gain from a continuous operational NATO presence in the Black Sea or from pushing the limits of the Montreux Convention, including occasional attempts to breach some of its rules, or bringing about an imbalance … in the Black Sea. The Turkish Straits are the gateway of six nations, including Turkey itself. The greater the instability in the Black Sea, the greater the troubles for the Turkish straits and Turkey’s geopolitics. Therefore, littoral states should not fall for the prodding of NATO, the European Union and the United States in the Black Sea.”
How the Biden administration responds to Erdogan’s calculus remains to be seen. Will it go for a bargain and give Erdogan some concessions in return? Putin must be the most eager to know.
These Palestinian officials, in other words, would rather see their people continue living in devastating poverty as refugees rather than improve their living conditions and search for new opportunities in Western countries. They want millions of Palestinians to remain stuck in refugee camps so that the Palestinian leadership can continue milking the world for money.
The assault on the woman triggered a wave of condemnations by Palestinian activists, who took to social media to express outrage over the Palestinian leadership’s decision to use force against Palestinian refugees.
Iran on Tuesday announced it would begin to immediately enrich uranium to 60% purity, in what Iranian President Hasan Rouhani said on Wednesday during a televised Cabinet meeting is a response to recent sabotage efforts against Tehran’s central nuclear facility in Natanz, blamed on Israel. The move comes just prior to the second round of talks in Vienna between Iran and world powers, aimed at resuscitating the gutted 2015 nuclear deal. The United States, with which Iran held “constructive” indirect negotiations in the Austrian capital last week, condemned Tuesday’s announcement, calling it a “provocative” step. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reached between Tehran and the P5+1 world powers, put a cap of 3.67% on the Islamic Republic’s uranium enrichment. Yet after former President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the pact in 2018 and reimposed harsh sanctions, Iran eventually began breaching parts of the agreement. Last year, Tehran began enriching its uranium up to 4.5%, and in January moved up to 20% enrichment. A fissile purity of 90% is required to assemble a nuclear bomb.
On July 24, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan joined thousands of worshippers in the streets around the historic Hagia Sophia in Istanbul for a doubly symbolic moment. Surrounded by a swarm of politicians, soldiers, security forces and imams, the Turkish leader made his way into the giant, former Byzantine cathedral through doors once hammered open by conquering Ottoman soldiers in 1453. Inside, he read out the namaz, or Muslim prayer, formally turning the 1,500-year-old building back into a mosque.
In doing so, Erdogan was turning the page on nine decades of recent history, during which this extraordinary structure and UNESCO World Heritage Site had been a globally recognized symbol of secular Turkey. Indeed, since 1934, Hagia Sophia had been neither a cathedral nor a mosque, but a secular museum, established as such by the very founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Yet Erdogan was not only challenging Ataturk’s vision of a secular state that day. By choosing July 24 to hold the reopening ceremony, Erdogan was also challenging the entire foundation of modern Turkey’s international status.
Halevy should know something about difficult situations. Since arriving as a teenager to Israel in the year of its birth, 1948, he’s been involved in some of the country’s most earthshaking events.
Like the rest of Israel, Efraim Halevy has spent most of the last year with his wife Hadassah in their Tel Aviv home while sitting out the coronavirus pandemic.
There are indications that the disruptions in Natanz were the result of a cyberattack, and, as always, all eyes are on Israel when these things happen.
There’s a negotiating strategy used in the Knesset during budget debates called “the goat,” which the Iranian regime seems to be very familiar with – though they probably have another name for it.
The immediate background is multiple attacks on Iranian targets which the Islamic Republic or various reports are attributing to Israel.
Are the IDF and the Mossad fighting over control of Iran policy as well as who should take credit for certain covert and less-covert operations?
Security cabinet set to meet next week amid growing tensions between Israel and Iran.
The Mossad was reportedly behind the attack at Natanz on Sunday that caused extensive damage to Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility.
The foreign minister’s comments on Monday morning appear to be building to a crescendo that could indicate Iran intends to retaliate.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Monday blamed Israel for Sunday’s incident at the Natanz nuclear facility.
An increasing number of Iranian officials have described the incident as sabotage or terrorism.