Turkish President Warns Iran About Trying to Dominate Middle East

[Insight]

Turkish President Warns Iran About Trying to Dominate Middle East




















Dorian Jones
March 30, 2015 1:16 PM

ISTANBUL— Turkey's president warned it will not tolerate Iran dominating the Middle East, amid growing concerns inside the country that it will be sucked into a sectarian conflict with its neighbor. Observers warn that Turkey's newly-assertive policy has risks, given that relations with most of its neighbors are strained.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Monday on those interfering in Yemen to leave, saying he was watching developments there closely. Last Thursday, Erdogan accused Tehran of having its forces in Yemen adding that Turkey would not tolerate Iran’s attempts to dominate the Middle East.
Political scientist Cengiz Aktar of Istanbul’s Suleyman Sah University said Erdogan’s comments herald a major policy change.
"It's a very, very new policy now, Turkey pointing at Iran and directly taking Iran as an adversary," Aktar said. "It means that they are getting closer and closer to the Saudis and the Emirates and becoming a full-fledged member of the regional Sunni alliance. The policy of not intervening, or not pointing at Iran, is over and this is a policy which is older than the ruling party."
Ankara has announced it will provide intelligence and logistic support to the Saudi-led military operation against Houthis forces in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has accused Iran of supporting the Houthis -- a charge Tehran denies. Since the death of the Saudi King Fahd, Turkey's president has made two visits to the kingdom, in what some see as an attempt to repair strained relations.
Assertive stance

Observers say the more assertive stance of the new Saudi ruler King Abdullah in supporting Syrian rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad's government and countering Tehran has helped the rapprochement between Riyadh and Ankara.
Erdogan's ruling AK Party is Sunni Islamist in orientation, and Murat Bilhan, a retired Turkish ambassador who is vice chairman of the Turkish-Asian Center for Strategic Studies, say Ankara increasingly views the region through the prism of the Sunni-Shi'ite divide.
"The Turkish decision-makers are considering Iran as a threat, because around Turkey is a Shi'ite axis and that of course gives concern to the governing people," Bilhan said. "And they feel that they are surrounded and they want to stop the Iranian ambitions in the southern part of Turkey."
Observers say Tehran’s backing of the Syrian government and Iran's growing influence with its other neighbor, Iraq, have raised Turkish-Iranian tensions. Until now, the two countries have managed such differences with a commitment to improving trade, and President Erdogan is due to visit Iran in April.
But political scientist Nuray Mert of Istanbul University says that while bilateral relations have traditionally been characterized by both rivalry and cooperation, there is now deep concern in Tehran over Ankara's actions.
"Iran sees Turkey as a major problem now, and there is also talk of - informally again - that Turkey going back to [the 16th Century Battle of] Chaldiran, this greatest war between the Safavids and Ottomans," Mert said. "It marks the memory of the rivalry and confrontation, and sectarianism, more than anything else. And [the] Iranians, they think that Turkey [has gone] sectarian."
Nuclear talks

Such is the rivalry between Tehran and Ankara, says analyst Bilhan, that Turkey's leaders now even view with suspicion the current talks between Iran and six global powers over the Iranian nuclear program.
"These talks in Lausanne, Turkey has been silent [about] from the beginning," Bilhan noted. "Turkey feels if there is a rapprochement between [the] West and Iran, that will be at the price of Turkey. Because for decades, Turkey was the ally and partner of the West. Turkey feels so long as Iran rises, Turkey gets lower. Turkey feels isolated."
Ankara currently has either strained or severed diplomatic relations with all its southern neighbors, while its relations with its Western allies are characterized by distrust. Meanwhile, Erdogan insists Turkey is maintaining the moral high ground, with a senior adviser describing Turkey as being in a state of “precious isolation.”

http://www.voanews.com/content/turkish-president-warns-iran-about-trying-to-dominate-middle-east/2700033.html

[Toramana]

Lol-

Bengal-Tiger, this article from VOA smacks of propaganda.

[Insight]

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have come in line on nearly all regional issues, specifically Syria/Iraq.

In the last meeting between Salman and Erdogan, Erdogan specifically spoke about imposing a no-fly zone over Syria against the Assad regime.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Lol-

Bengal-Tiger, this article from VOA smacks of propaganda.

1. Erdogan has both good points and bad points. Here are his good.


a: He has tripled Turkish GDP, this is not just some "good accomplishment" this is something almost astounding.

Even if no one had ever heard of Erdogan or in the future forgets about him, even that alone should impress people.


b: He has democratized and liberalized Turkey though he is now restricting opposition to his rule.

He has given greater freedom and rights to Kurds, Christians and others not easy in a country which had a powerful Kemalist deep state who hated anyone who was not what one writer calls "Homos Kemalicus" (Kemalist man) i.e. secular Turk of Sunni origins and pro-Ataturk, hostile to religion and anti-Kurdish.


c. He has made Turkey more respected globally until recently.



2. His bad points are that he is very autocratic now and is almost bigger than the state openly defying laws with impunity.

He uses state machinery to enforce his will.

He also has a big mouth and is always abusing foreign governments and this has included Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Syria and now Iran.

Yes, he did have a swipe at Iran.

His actual words have been coloured in blue.

"Iran is trying to chase Daesh from the region only to take its place," Erdogan said, referring to the Islamic State (IS) by its Arabic initials. He maintained the same angry tone later in the day at a press conference in Ankara with Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara. “Iran is trying to dominate the region. This has started to bother us, the Gulf States and many countries in the region. It is really not possible to tolerate this,” he said.

“Look at Iraq. They are struggling with Daesh and with the Revolutionary Guards Iran sent there at the same time. Iran has to withdraw its forces from Yemen, Syria and Iraq,”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3WSF42aO3


- The guy is pretty stupid because even if you don't like Iran you can't say Iraq is struggling with Iranian revolutionary guards when Iraq itself requested that they come!

Future

- The main battle ground between Iran and Turkey is Syria.

Iran has saved the Assad regime from collapsing. I lived in Syria for one year and can tell you that though ISIS, Wahabis are extremists the Syrian people in general if they had their way would not want Assad in power.

I don't support either side but ISIS control of Syria is the worst possible outcome.

The Assad regime and Arab fighters seem to pretty useless and poor it is only the Iranian advisors, soldiers and Iranian-trained Hizbullah that are keeping them there.

The Assad regime has had some major losses in the past few weeks including the loss of Idlib. Turkey played a major part in organizing this.



Idlib in Syria which has fallen recently to Turkish backed rebels.


A few days later there was a complete blackout in Turkey and on the same day a hostage crisis. The black out is suspected by Turkish officials themselves of being a cyber-attack and some fingers are pointing at Iran.

I personally think it was the Iranians sending a message to the Turks over Syria.

Turkey wants a Sunni-dominated Turkish client state in Syria with a Syrian version of an AKP government i.e. "Islamist"-lite or "Brotherhood"-lite.

Iran wants Assad.

Whoever takes Syria has won a huge victory.

Iran will always have more influence on a majority Shia democratic Iraq simply because it's Shia.

The future of Erdogan

Erdogan was put in to power by the US which controls the different factions in Turkey including the army, the Nurculer (Gulenists), MHP (greywolves) and others.

The US wants a globally very powerful Turkey with a very powerful army which spearheads "Islamists" and pan-Turkic nationalists and causes problems for Russia and China.

The problem is Erdogan is behaving more and more erratically each day and though I believe he will win the elections in the next month or two, the 4 year term after that will be his last.

There will be a post-Erdogan Turkey and America will abandon the "Neo-Ottomanist" (e.g. destabilize Russia and China with Muslim/Turkic minorities) project.


Nevertheless as I said Erdogan has to be admired for some of his accomplishments including making a stronger Turkey. He has his strengths as well as his faults, whereas the "Islamist" fanboys on this forum see him as a hero beyond any criticism who deserves blind support typical of their dogmatic emotional approach to everything.

[Toramana]

1. Erdogan has both good points and bad points. Here are his good.


a: He has tripled Turkish GDP, this is not just some "good accomplishment" this is something almost astounding.

Even if no one had ever heard of Erdogan or in the future forgets about him, even that alone should impress people.


b: He has democratized and liberalized Turkey though he is now restricting opposition to his rule.

He has given greater freedom and rights to Kurds, Christians and others not easy in a country which had a powerful Kemalist deep state who hated anyone who was not what one writer calls "Homos Kemalicus" (Kemalist man) i.e. secular Turk of Sunni origins and pro-Ataturk, hostile to religion and anti-Kurdish.


c. He has made Turkey more respected globally until recently.



2. His bad points are that he is very autocratic now and is almost bigger than the state openly defying laws with impunity.

He uses state machinery to enforce his will.

He also has a big mouth and is always abusing foreign governments and this has included Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Syria and now Iran.

Yes, he did have a swipe at Iran.

His actual words have been coloured in blue.





Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz3WSF42aO3


- The guy is pretty stupid because even if you don't like Iran you can't say Iraq is struggling with Iranian revolutionary guards when Iraq itself requested that they come!

Future

- The main battle ground between Iran and Turkey is Syria.

Iran has saved the Assad regime from collapsing. I lived in Syria for one year and can tell you that though ISIS, Wahabis are extremists the Syrian people in general if they had their way would not want Assad in power.

I don't support either side but ISIS control of Syria is the worst possible outcome.

The Assad regime and Arab fighters seem to pretty useless and poor it is only the Iranian advisors, soldiers and Iranian-trained Hizbullah that are keeping them there.

The Assad regime has had some major losses in the past few weeks including the loss of Idlib. Turkey played a major part in organizing this.



Idlib in Syria which has fallen recently to Turkish backed rebels.


A few days later there was a complete blackout in Turkey and on the same day a hostage crisis. The black out is suspected by Turkish officials themselves of being a cyber-attack and some fingers are pointing at Iran.

I personally think it was the Iranians sending a message to the Turks over Syria.

Turkey wants a Sunni-dominated Turkish client state in Syria with a Syrian version of an AKP government i.e. "Islamist"-lite or "Brotherhood"-lite.

Iran wants Assad.

Whoever takes Syria has won a huge victory.

Iran will always have more influence on a majority Shia democratic Iraq simply because it's Shia.

The future of Erdogan

Erdogan was put in to power by the US which controls the different factions in Turkey including the army, the Nurculer (Gulenists), MHP (greywolves) and others.

The US wants a globally very powerful Turkey with a very powerful army which spearheads "Islamists" and pan-Turkic nationalists and causes problems for Russia and China.

The problem is Erdogan is behaving more and more erratically each day and though I believe he will win the elections in the next month or two, the 4 year term after that will be his last.

There will be a post-Erdogan Turkey and America will abandon the "Neo-Ottomanist" (e.g. destabilize Russia and China with Muslim/Turkic minorities) project.


Nevertheless as I said Erdogan has to be admired for some of his accomplishments including making a stronger Turkey. He has his strengths as well as his faults, whereas the "Islamist" fanboys on this forum see him as a hero beyond any criticism who deserves blind support typical of their dogmatic emotional approach to everything.

Very insightful Bengal-Tiger, thanks for that.

I agree with you on the bad and good points of Erdogan. My purpose of that comment was to point to the self-serving depiction of others and the demonization of whole people if they are perceived to be defying the global political agenda by the "mighty powers".

There is something deeply narcissistic about the expectation from others to follow the dominant civilizations and be subservient to their political agenda .

As for Erdogan, I like him because he is a nationalist and thinks of Turkish sovereignty first. By the way I don't agree with his support for fanatics in Syria.

[Bengal_Tiger]

There are 3 big powers vying for domination of the middle east.

- Iran
- Turkey
- Saudi

Iran

Trying to spread Shia influence in the region including Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere.

Syria was never under Shia influence but pro-Iranian influence. I know because I lived there.

The state was always Sunni with a Sunni mufti, Assad praying Eid in a Sunni mosque and the Alawites a poor rural community looked down upon and ridiculed for their accent who were merely overrepresented in the security services but that would be like having Pashtuns doing the dirty work of a Punjabi controlled state as soldiers whilst Pakhtunkha remains very poor and "Pathans" are looked down upon.

Syria was not and is not an Alawi dominated state.

Was Assad a dictator? - Yes.

Was he brutal? - Yes.

Has he committed war crimes? - Yes

Was the state Alawi? No, no and absolutely no, this is a major simplification and lie promoted by both the western media and the Sunni dominated Arab media.



If any sincere person wants elaboration on that I can explain having lived there.

Ana 'aisht bi-Shaam wa ana hakayt ma'a Sooriyeen wa ana b'arif al Ahwal hunnak ahsan min hum 'yallee ma raah hunnak abadan (mixed fusha-Syrian meaning: I lived in Shaam [Damascus/Levant] and spoke to Syrians and know the situation there better than people who have never been there.)

Anyway Iran never tried to spread Shiasm in Syria in a major way nor make the Alawis in to proper 12er Shias, it merely wanted Syria as part of an alliance and the Syrians themselves exploited the Iranians for their own agenda.

Iran can never dominate the mainly-Sunni middle east and I'm sure it knows that, it can and does seem to be trying to make the existing Shia bloc there strong and powerful.

Saudi

Saudi wants to block Iranian ascendancy in the region and Shia power. Its other main enemy is the Muslim Brotherhood as they see them as a credible threat to their constitutional monarchy as they represent a way of running a "democratic" (elections) republic.

In Yemen the Saudis have been double-dealing by switching support to and from the Shia Zaydis and the Brotherhood party there, Al-Islah.

The difference between Turkey and Saudi is that Saudi has no positive meaningful vision of what sort of state/society it wants the rest of the middle east to have.

It's policies are merely tactical and based on survival of the Saudi regime and not on spreading "Salafism" (Wahabism). Maybe "Salafi dawah" (preaching) but not exporting a model of a Salafi political state. The Saudi model of a tribal-supported monarchy in a historical pact with Wahabi scholars is unique only to Saudi and the Saudis are not interested in creating satellite Salafi-runs states, just in thwarting any threat to them.

Turkey

Turkey ruled the middle-east for 400 years.

Erdogan's party do have a vision of what they want to see in the middle east.

They want to see a group of Brotherhood run regimes which run "Islamist"-lite states in the region with Turkey as the leader.

Unlike Saudi which has no vision of what they want the middle east to look like Turkey does.


Whether you like that vision is another matter but it does have one.

Nor do they have the handicap of being Shia like the Iranians.

Logically they're in a stronger position than both the Iranians and Saudis in the long run and they've already done it once e.g. ruled the middle east (Ottomans) so theoratically can do it again but this time in terms of being a dominant power not an occupier.


* * *

Who will win?

I have absolutely no idea.

To be honest I don't think any of them will.

So the question is what will happen to the middle east?

I don't know.

What I suspect however is the re-emergence of the Muslim bloc with a purified form of Islam free of the many doctrinal and legal accretions that were falsely added to Islam from its early years (e.g. execution of apostates, misogynistic laws on women, stoning of the adulterer etc).

The US itself knows this and as a white Anglo-Saxon power jealous of its pre-eminent position in the world and that of the white west in general seeks to thwart that.

Thus it is instigating bloodshed and division in the middle east and the so-called "greater middle east" which includes Pakhtunkhwa.

As Ghulam Ahmad Bilour himself said a few years ago, the west remembers its defeats at the hands of Pashtuns and is angry over this and wants to avenge this whilst it can.

This seems to be being done by the Pakistani state and its asset, the TTP, destroying Pakhtunkhwa e.g. 3 million Pashtun refugees.



Ultimately however America will fall and it is falling.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Very insightful Bengal-Tiger, thanks for that.

I agree with you on the bad and good points of Erdogan. My purpose of that comment was to point to the self-serving depiction of others and the demonization of whole people if they are perceived to be defying the global political agenda by the "mighty powers".

There is something deeply narcissistic about the expectation from others to follow the dominant civilizations and be subservient to their political agenda .

As for Erdogan, I like him because he is a nationalist and thinks of Turkish sovereignty first. By the way I don't agree with his support for fanatics in Syria.

Everyone is free to like or dislike Erdogan or anyone else.

Erdogan is definitely better than the criminals before him i.e. the Kemalists, who were genocidal war criminals who did atrocious crimes against the Kurds.

Also it's actually good to like him if one thinks he is standing up to bullies and making his own people stronger.

My issue with him is his support for radicals and militants in other Muslim countries, not just Syria.

But by no means is he an absolute demon.

The best thing is for everyone to have a holistic picture of someone, the good and bad and then forming their own personal opinion and respecting those who differ, something which the emotional "Islamists", including some of the Taliban-supporters, of this forum are unable to do.


* * *

Edit: Addition:

Just to clarify on the 3 powers in the middle east:

- Saudi: Survival-driven, no real ideology.

- Turkey: Ideology-driven, wants Brotherhood dominated states.

- Iran: Self-preservation/strengthening of the Shia community in the region and block Arab threat to it e.g. Arabs bankrolled Saddam's war of destruction against Iran.

- America: To destabilize the region and keep it weak and in bloodshed.

[Toramana]

Bengal-Tiger, that is a sad aspect of his policies, i. e., support for radicals and Islamists.

Don't you think in the long-run, the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic bond is stronger than sectarian affiliation to drive Iraqi Shias to the Arab identity?

[Toramana]

Bengal-Tiger, in my opinion what is happening in the ME and South-Central Asia is a part of long process that started with the disintegration of USSR, which left a vacuum of power that the victor tried to fill.

Just look at the pattern. You almost see the same pattern at many places where the former USSR had the influence.

Starting with Balkans, Yugoslavia was torn apart after the similar violent upheavals involving ethnic wars and religious tensions. At almost the same when USSR had been defeated and was in the process of disintegration, the first Gulf War happened and no fly zones etc. were established.

Then look at Sounth-Central Asia. Afghanistan was virtually left with no viable state structure after 1990 and the war returned to it in 2000s.

After Balkans, Baltics have been dealt with the intervention returned to the Middle East and now has spread to the north Africa as well.

In future it is likely that Central South Asia again becomes the spectre of intervention.

All of this seems to have one objective. Control of the most vital parts of earth for global hegemony and to pre-empt the rise of any rival power or constellation of powers.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Bengal-Tiger, that is a sad aspect of his policies, i. e., support for radicals and Islamists.

Don't you think in the long-run, the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic bond is stronger than sectarian affiliation to drive Iraqi Shias to the Arab identity?

Toramana Lala,

A lot of people watch news programmes with short 4 minute (240 second) reports where they condense information in to a certain format and simplify many very complex issues involving millions of people with many variables i.e. they watch the mainstream media and almost assign it divine authority and its word is uncontestable and to do so and to deviate from what this "fair and free" western media (BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera) says makes you a "conspiracy theorist".

Others read articles on the internet about places that they have never been to or ethnic groups they have no interaction with and think they are experts.

I know how dangerous this is and the gap between simplified media narratives (or even fabricated propaganda, which yes "shock, horror" to some people here even the "fair and free" western media are capable of .....*Gasp, astonishment) and actual reality is.

Not because I'm an expert of any sort. In fact I am saying precisely the opposite, I know I'm not an expert because there are many places I haven't been to or dealt personally with people from there so I cannot claim that I know what is going on or insult people who disagree with me.

Sorry for being long-winded but I'm releasing some of my frustration at the drivel I read online (not just here but other sites).

In other words I value personal experience and narrations of first hand witnesses or people that have lived somewhere and if I know they are sincere and honest assigning them much more value than some "authoritative internationally respected news organization" e.g. the BBC (Nonsense it's a British run propaganda channel just like Press TV is an Iranian run propaganda channel) e.g. even though I have my issues with him you will notice that in another thread I clearly told Smarty (Luffy) that he is an expert on Pakhtunkhwa affairs whereas I am not. The same applies to yourself e.g. you have lived during the Zia period and seen many things that I have only read about.



Where is all my rambling leading to?

The media "news" (condensed simplifications of very complex multi-fold realities) de-humanizes many people including those in the middle east e.g. "he is a Shia, thus he is X, Y and Z and wants X, Y and Z".

This is nonsense.

People need to experience things first hand and talk to people. The people being covered in the media.

So people need to speak to actual Pashtuns, Iraqi Shias to really know what is going on and not believe in the western media.






Anyway the Iraqi Shia Arabs are Arabs first before they are Shia.

I know this personally because I know Iraqi Shia (I'm even on occassional email touch with a Shia in Baghdad now).

They are Arabs who speak Arabic and who are far more comfortable with fellow Sunni Arabs than Iranians/Persians who are alien to them and to be honest who are somewhat cold, distant people in general.

If you take an Iraqi Shia straight out of Kufa or Baghdad and put him in London for a week, he will naturally gravitate towards Sunni Arabs rather than alien Iranian Shias.

On a political level the Iraqi Shias are Iraqi and Arab (two different things as there is an Iraqi nationalism which is independent of Arabness, a pan-Iraqi nationalism which is inclusive of Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Yazidis and is quite pluralistic) and would not want Iranian supremacy.

Remember during Saddam's time they fought alongside their Sunni compatriots against the Persians.

However they are in a hostile Sunni ocean with hostile Sunni states especially Saudi Arabia having a very hostile attitude towards Shia as semi-human, "Jew-like", duplicitous traitors and hypocrites, the same sort of hateful racism (yes it is racism because it includes non-practising nominal Shias who belong to a predominantly Shia ethnic group) that results in people like the Taliban and Lashkar i Jhangvi murdering Shia women and children.

Thus they the Iraqi Shia turn towards Iran for support.

If the Sunnis were to stop their hostility towards the Shia, the Iraqis would feel comfortable and work towards living peacefully in the region as Arabs who are Arab as everyone else.

In other words there would be less of a need for an alliance with Persian-chauvinist Iran (which persecutes Shia Arabs in Ahwaz).

This doesn't negate the fact that there are extremist Shias in Iraq who have committed crimes against the Sunnis, but in general the average Iraqi Shia is just an Arab who happens to belong to a particular Islamic school of thought (as flawed as the others out there) but other than that is just a normal Arab, and not a Persian or have any particular loyalty to Iranians.

They are just like Shia Pashtuns (e.g. Turis, Bangash or others) who are just regular Pashtuns and have no loyalty to Iranians but to fellow Pashtuns (excluding a few ideological extremists of course).

In fact I have never seen Iraqis or Iranians particularly close.

Sunni Arabs and Sunni Persian speakers (e.g. Afghanistan/Tajikistan) are much closer for example if they were to meet (not that there is much interaction between the two).

Iranians in general are somewhat of an exclusive nation.

Sorry for the ramble and despite my rant there is so much more I could say but the last thing I will say is this is one interesting writer on twitter, a young Arab Shia female in the west who laments at the vilification of Shias by Sunnis.



https://twitter.com/roqchams

[Bengal_Tiger]

Some of the few remaining Taliban-supporters on this forum would benefit from reading the above tweets.

Anyway just in case anyone is curious.

I do not believe in traditional Sunni jurispudence but my family and wider family are Sunni Hanafis with a Deobandi orientation (my cousin is a Deobandi Maulana) and I am not a Shia.

However in my view due to research and study the "traditional Sunni Islam" (Shiasm too) is a post-Quranic, post-prophetic construction created by people who had an intentional agenda of distorting Islam.

In classical Islamic literature they are called "Zanadiqa", however I would argue that the Zanadiqa not just created the Shia and other sects but even what is now called "mainstream Sunni Islam".

Anyway in the modern world "traditional Islam" (which is not Islam) is not implementable.

Anyway I don't really discuss theology on this forum, so I will leave that for now.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Bengal-Tiger, in my opinion what is happening in the ME and South-Central Asia is a part of long process that started with the disintegration of USSR, which left a vacuum of power that the victor tried to fill.

Just look at the pattern. You almost see the same pattern at many places where the former USSR had the influence.

Starting with Balkans, Yugoslavia was torn apart after the similar violent upheavals involving ethnic wars and religious tensions. At almost the same when USSR had been defeated and was in the process of disintegration, the first Gulf War happened and no fly zones etc. were established.

Then look at Sounth-Central Asia. Afghanistan was virtually left with no viable state structure after 1990 and the war returned to it in 2000s.

After Balkans, Baltics have been dealt with the intervention returned to the Middle East and now has spread to the north Africa as well.

In future it is likely that Central South Asia again becomes the spectre of intervention.

All of this seems to have one objective. Control of the most vital parts of earth for global hegemony and to pre-empt the rise of any rival power or constellation of powers.

You are correct.

All I would say is that you have lived this reality and know it in reality better than me e.g. when you mentioned during your university days in Pakhtunkhwa you personally saw the US patronage of "Islamist" radicals.

However though I will leave why the US is engaged in an inevitably doomed struggle to continue its hegemony, I will say that it won't work.


1. Russia, China have nukes.

2. Russia, China have taken a pact that they work together against the USA as this is a battle for their very survival, it's as critical as that.

3. Russia and China are working systematically to destroy the US-centric global structure and the petro-dollar.

They are winning.


Also Russia is a country with over 1,000 years of civilization and culture and has defeated the Mongols, the Napoleonic French, the Nazis, conquered 1/6th of the world, sent satellites further than any other country in history i.e. Venus.

China is a civilization older than Christianity itself and has historically alongside India dominated the world economy before the recent 500 year era of western/European dominance.

The USA is a 200+ year old bandit state with Hispanics/blacks and non-white Europeans to be the majority in a few decades.

[Insight]

Bengal_Tiger,

So Im awaiting your responses for the below post? Please provide evidence for your claims.

[Insight]

[QUOTE]

1. Erdogan has both good points and bad points. Here are his good.


a: He has tripled Turkish GDP, this is not just some "good accomplishment" this is something almost astounding.

Even if no one had ever heard of Erdogan or in the future forgets about him, even that alone should impress people.


b: He has democratized and liberalized Turkey though he is now restricting opposition to his rule.

Not true, Turkey has been a democracy long before Erdogan came to power. Erdogan and AKP have simply been winning the majority vote in the elections. AKP is a centrist religious conservative party.

Erdogan is most famously known for bringing Islam back to the national forefront of Turkey, certainly not liberalizing Turkey. Remember how he lifted the ban on veils in public institutions?

c. He has made Turkey more respected globally until recently.

Turkey has been host to the majority of Syrians who have been made refugees by Iran and Assad's sectarian war in Syria.

By globally- do you mean Europe and the US? Turkey enjoys strong ties with China, and has selected the Chinese air defense system. Erdogan has employed the look East policy to strengthen the Turkish economy. Turkish wealth is mostly invested in the Middle East, and Asia.

- The guy is pretty stupid because even if you don't like Iran you can't say Iraq is struggling with Iranian revolutionary guards when Iraq itself requested that they come!

All objective military analysts term both Syria and Iraq, as military stalemates. The Iraqi Shiite sectarian regime was put into power by the Bush war of 2003. Iraqi regime continuously begged for US airstrikes back in June even when Obama kept showing reluctance. The most recent case of begging was in regards to Tikrit where IRGC, and Shiite militias were unable to take Tikrit without US airpower. Iraq started begging for US airstrikes which eventually succeeded in giving control of Tikrit to a Shiite militia. Keep in mind that Tikrit is a Sunni city, so there you have the Iraqi regime sending in Iranian-Shiite militias to a Sunni city. How is that going to tone down sectarianism? Is that legal according to you?

Iraq invitation to Iranian troops is obviously different then Iranian troops going to Syria since Iraq is Shiite majority and Syria is Sunni majority. I do agree that a government in Iraq will always be pro-Iranian, and unfortunately, sectarian in nature. It is this sectarianism which has caused groups like extremists ISIS to flourish. However, to pretend that the Shiite regimes in Iraq and Iran are not extremists, is to pretend that the Ayatollah's are hippy drug taking liberals. It is ridiculous propaganda, and I don't even understand it because the Shiite militias themselves label their sectarian war as a jihad.

Future

- The main battle ground between Iran and Turkey is Syria.

Iran has saved the Assad regime from collapsing. I lived in Syria for one year and can tell you that though ISIS, Wahabis are extremists the Syrian people in general if they had their way would not want Assad in power.

Saving Assad from collapsing? Other then organizing death squads and helping Assad kill Syrian civilians, the hard facts dont support this claim.

Assad regime has steadily lost control of Syria since 2012. The situation today is not the same as when the Assad regime was in total control. How can one pretend Assad regime is not collapsing or losing control? Even with Iranian IRGC and Lebanese Hezbollah involvement, he continued to lose major parts of Syria, Idlib being the most recent. Months before that, two major Assad regime offensives launched in Southern Syria (Quneitra and Darra) and Aleppo both did not succeed. The state media blamed it on the snowy weather, and still have not followed up with an explanation beyond that.

This is all happening while US airstrikes against ISIS occur, and Assad is able to focus on FSA and Southern movement. Yet, again, despite this, the regime lost Idlib, a province an opens a path to Damascus. It does not look like luck is on the side of Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah, and that is my opinion.

I don't support either side but ISIS control of Syria is the worst possible outcome.

ISIS and Iranian Shiite militias are two sides of the same coin. One is Sunni, and the other is Shiite, and both are extremists. The Assad regime has killed far more Syrians than ISIS has. He has used chemical weapons, rape camps, his airforce, and has primarily targeted the Sunni population. It is immoral to pretend that the Assad regime presence in Syria is not the worst possible outcome.

The Assad regime and Arab fighters seem to pretty useless and poor it is only the Iranian advisors, soldiers and Iranian-trained Hizbullah that are keeping them there.

Here again, at least admit your bias in favor of Iran rather then to give off notion to speak factually here. Again I emphasize, despite US airstrikes, IRGC presence, and Hezbollah presence, Assad regime still lost Idlib. What does that indicate about Iran and Hezbollah capabilities? Are they only good at killing civilians and stirring up sectarianism? Now that is not an opinion.

The future of Erdogan

Erdogan was put in to power by the US which controls the different factions in Turkey including the army, the Nurculer (Gulenists), MHP (greywolves) and others.

This is a very wild claim, and has no factual basis. AKP and Erdogan have won elections on a regular basis. They enjoy majority support.

US has actually supported the opposition and the Gulen movement, whose leader resides in the US. Gulen's are opposed to AKP rule.

The US wants a globally very powerful Turkey with a very powerful army which spearheads "Islamists" and pan-Turkic nationalists and causes problems for Russia and China.

Are you being serious with this line? In all due respect, the US and West are currently opposed to Turkey for backing Syrian insurgency without their consent (as if it is needed).

China and Turkey enjoy a strong relationship, evident by Turkey's recent contract of the Chinese air defense system. This was also strongly opposed by US/NATO and West in particular. Russia and Iran kept quite because in reality they will never dare try to oppose Chinese foreign policy. Doubt that Russia and Iran are happy with the Turkish-Chinese military engagement.

The problem is Erdogan is behaving more and more erratically each day and though I believe he will win the elections in the next month or two, the 4 year term after that will be his last.

This is exactly how the West feels about Turkey and Erdogan, primarily because he is backing the Syrian insurgency against the Assad regime, and Iranian Shiite jihadists. Those Shiite militias are not some liberal hippies from Germany. You are aware that Iran is a theocracy that has its own Shiite version of Sharia, right?