Why are the Neo-cons so interested in Turkey?

It's no secret that at least some neo-conservatives (neo-cons) in Washington have been obsessed with attacking Iran for a long time. Even though the U.S. failure in the Iraq war has significantly delayed the spread of the conflict into Syria and Iran, the neo-cons are determined more than ever to accomplish this mission before President Bush gets out of office in 2008. Three arguments are being used to persuade the Bush administration, the most important one being Israel's security. First, according to neo-cons, Iran constitutes the biggest threat to Israel and should be eliminated before it can develop nuclear technology. Second, pacifying Iran would curb their support of insurgents in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Third, a conflict with Iran right before the elections is likely to have a positive impact on the Republican votes. Additionally, the Bush administration doesn't have much to lose if attacking Iran brings limited or no success. A recent poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, from April 18- 20, showed that President Bush's disapproval rating set a new record of 69 percent, the highest disapproval rating of any president in Gallup's 70-year history.

The Iran problem:

The neo-cons have been pushing for the increased economic and political isolation of Iran in order to weaken its current regime. In that regard, Turkey's support as a regional emerging power and bordering country has been an important consideration, particularly the AKP (Justice and Development Party) government's Iran policy, which is not in line with that of the neo-cons. Since the AKP came to power in 2002, Turkey has been operating with a new foreign policy that has promoted its evolution from a passive bridge country into an influential central country with multiple regional identities. In this new role, Turkey displays the strategic depth to be an active player in the global arena. The new policy's fundamental principal of “zero problems with the neighbors” led to improved relations with all neighbors, but especially with the ones ignored by the previous governments, namely Iran and Syria.As a result of Turkey's renewed interest in relations with its neighbors, the share of the country's trade volume with the neighboring nations increased from 6 percent of the total foreign trade volume in 2000 to 35 percent in 2007. Specifically with Iran, the trade volume increased from $1 billion in 2000 to over $8 billion in 2007. The Turkish-Iranian economic rapprochement also manifests as expanded energy ties between the two countries. In July 2007, the Turkish government signed an agreement with Iran to transport Iranian natural gas to Turkey and Europe, and to develop the Iranian natural gas industry by investing $ 3.5 billion in its South Pars gas field. Clearly, times have changed and Turkey's maturing democracy, new foreign policy and steady rise as a regional power no longer afford the possibility of foreign manipulation. When Turkey's lack of interest in any attacks on Iran became clear, neo-con hardliners, led by Richard Perle, started a smear campaign against the ruling AKP, provoking non-democratic powers within the country to take over its democratically elected government, no matter how much their actions indeed undercut the fundamental American values of freedom, fairness and democracy.

Several articles were opined in various publications by Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes and Michael Rubin stigmatizing Erdoğan's government, and equating him with the far-right ultra-nationalist politicians French Jean-Marie Le Pen and Austrian Joerg Haider as well as the terrorist Osama Bin Laden. Erdoğan was not only accused of having a hidden agenda to turn Turkey into an Islamic state, but also of paving the road for an Iranian-style Islamic revolution by Fethullah Gülen, a prominent religious leader who currently resides in the U.S. Moreover, Rubin defended both the case to shut down the AKP and the e-coup launched by the Turkish military last year as democratic. These were even harsher accusations and assertions than those made by extreme Turkish secularists against the AKP government.

Rubin's surreal arguments:

One would wonder why Rubin would put so much effort into beefing up the said surreal arguments that are unequivocally in conflict with the values and better interests of the U.S., when it is clear that these concerns would not be taken seriously in Washington. However, as expected, his arguments were applauded in Turkey by the hawkish wing of the military general staff and the extreme secularists, provoking much sympathy toward his cause. In fact, by riling up members of these circles, Rubin has made himself an important pundit among them in Turkey. In addition to attacking the Erdoğan government, Rubin voiced concerns so as to amplify some Turkish views that were circulating in the Turkish media regarding the PKK, including the claims against Massoud Barzani, the president of the Autonomous Kurdish Government in Iraq, accused of selling U.S. arms to the PKK and calling on the U.S. to take part in stopping the PKK activity in northern Iraq. Rubin even went as far as to boldly suggest that Turks should capture and imprison Barzani next to PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan in the Turkish island prison of İmrali as an action to stop the PKK terror. Once again, nobody in Washington paid attention to Rubin, but his speculations were more than enough to rally his friends in Turkey.

Not the Atatürk way:

Finally, again in contrast with U.S. foreign policy, hawkish neo-cons supported a possible Turkish incursion into northern Iraq to hunt down PKK terrorists. Obviously getting Turkey mired in Iraq would not only distance Turkey from the West, but would also increase the level of influence the military has on Turkish politics, which would erode democracy and create more opportunities for neo-con manipulation.

The question begs: Why do some circles in Turkey, who claim to represent Ataturk's legacy, have so much sympathy for the neo-con hardliners, who have nothing more than an imperialistic agenda to expand the U.S. invasion into Iran and Syria for eventual control of the entire Middle East? Doesn't this situation strike anyone as a sad irony when considering Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's long struggle along with countless numbers of those who sacrificed their lives to stave off imperialist powers and establish what is now Turkey?