By Abdul Rahman
Al-Rashid
It goes without saying that Turkish Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan aimed to break the Israeli
blockade of Gaza, however – and perhaps without
meaning to – he managed to break Iran's blockade of
the Arabs.
Before jumping to conclusions, let us try and read
the situation today. Following the traditional
proclamation "The King is dead. Long live the King!"
posters of Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad were covered over and replaced with
posters of Erdogan. Since every party has a star, the
Turkish leader has become the Arab's favorite star for
this political season. Posters are the most revealing
means of gauging the public mood in the region, and so
in the past posters of Bin Laden could be found
everywhere when Al Qaeda was mounting deadly attacks
on the West in the name of Palestine and Islam.
However following crushing defeats suffered by Al
Qaeda, posters of Bin Laden were replaced by posters
of Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah enjoyed immense
popularity in the wake of Hezbollah's war on Israel,
and posters of him could be found everywhere, from on
the walls of coffeehouses to plastering the windows of
buses.
However Erdogan has taken over from Bin Laden and
Nasrallah today, while the Turks have replaced the
Iranians, and this is by creating an uproar over the
Freedom Flotilla [which was raided by Israel] and by
making fiery speeches. This has allowed the Arabs to
vent their suppressed feelings of bitterness and
resentment, especially as the region had been
experiencing a period of dull calm after Hezbollah's
guns fell silent, and after Hamas gave up on its
principles when it announced last week that it
consents to finding a solution through peaceful
negotiations, and that it would be willing to accept a
Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
For his part, Erdogan has been escalating the
conflict with Israel since the infamous incident at
the World Economics Forum in Davos when he clashed
with Shimon Peres and walked out of the Forum. The
latest example of this conflict can be seen in the
Israeli assault on the Gaza-bound [Turkish] aid ship.
However the hot-blooded Turkish rhetoric is
different to the Iranian shouting. Turkey did not
sever its ties with Israel, and it did not halt its
security, military, and political cooperation with Tel
Aviv. Israel is also continuing to use Turkish
territory and air space for its war games in
preparation for a possible war with Iran. The Arabs,
however, are not concerned by this, for they are
well-accustomed to duplicity.
Erdogan, who wanted to break Israel's blockade of
Gaza, broke the Iranian blockade on the Arabs instead,
and this is an important event if it truly comes as
part of a political project, for this has caused
Ahmadinejad's image to fade, and Nasrallah's presence
to wane. More than this, the Arab regimes have
welcomed the Turkish competition [with Iran]. Are
there those who are encouraging Ankara's emergence
with the aim of diminishing Iran's presence?
The Arab's problem with Iran playing a leading role
is their fear of Tehran, for they believe that Iran is
hiding a political agenda that is hostile to their
interests. By supporting the Palestinian cause, Tehran
is strengthening its staunch ally Hezbollah, and this
is with the aim of imposing Iranian hegemony on the
entire Arab region. As for Turkey, the most that
Ankara could benefit from by raising the Palestinian
flag would be by advancing its political status,
particularly in the face of deliberate European
reluctance [to deal with Turkey]. This does not
contract or marginalize Arab interests, unlike the
Iranian goal which directly undermines the Arab
position.
Some argue that Turkey's appearance on the Arab
political scene, despite the fact that this
embarrasses Arab regimes, also serves them by keeping
Iran's political and propaganda onslaught at bay. It
might have occurred to some Arabs, who are being
politically besieged by Iran, to attempt to bring in
Turkey to counterbalance Tehran. This is in line with
the specifications of the new conflict in the region,
the most prominent of which is sectarian.
However an opposite point of view sees Turkey as an
alarming and additional power in the region that is
not a substitute for Iran. They believe that Syria,
Tehran's strategic ally, invited Turkey to have a role
in the Middle East when it suggested Ankara as
mediator for its negotiations with Israel. Without
Damascus, Turkey would never have gained a foothold in
the Arab world today. So the question is, is Turkey a
part of the Iranian axis, or is it part of a plan to
exclude the Iranians?