I had part of this earlier in the week with this article about the Visegrad Group, but the link in the title provided the missing bit for my latest installment on the irrelevance of NATO in today's world:
According to Turkish press, as quoted by Ynet, the Turkish air force will be fitting its F-16 fighter jets with new IFF systems, which will not treat the signal from an Israeli IFF transponder as friendly, and will thus facilitate more efficient attack. The F-16’s original IFF system is made to US/NATO specifications, and identifies an Israeli IFF response as friendly.
This would appear to be a basic requirement in a modern alliance: compatibility of all IFF equipment. For my part, it's obvious to me that Turkey's interests and those of the rest of NATO (diverse as they are) have fatally diverged. Turkey is trying to be a big fish in its' part of the world (again) and this is incompatible with playing nice with Israel while Turkey panders to other Muslims. Of course, the "Muslim world" is not a bloc, and playing footsie with one part will alienate others.
Since this is the road that Erdrogan wants to go down, let me speculate a bit about consequences. Turkey has a problem common with Iran, and Iraq for that matter: Kurds. This pulls Ankara into line with Tehran (already happening) and with Iraq's government in Iran's back pocket we have a confluence of interests if not an alliance. Add Syria into the mix as a client of Tehran and you have a real bloc. This last point is unlikely at present, but Assad's regime is still hanging on in the face of massive public disapproval.
Turkey is of course threatening Syria with military action, but I suspect this has more to do with securing their common border than any permanent problem. In the bigger picture, any government which takes over in Syria is unlikely to like Israel, so another confluence of interests. Even more troublesome, if Hezbollah's (and consequently Tehran's) hold on Lebanon is not broken, there's another brick in the bloc.
Turkey will never recover the extent of influence, let alone control of the peak of Ottoman power, but it looks to be moving to become a regional Power, and jumping on the Palestinian bandwagon will give them a lot of the Arab street. Turkey has less skin in the game than the Arabs, but its' recent threat to provide naval escort to break the blockade of Gaza would add it to the group of countries who have lost a fight to Israel and possibly to war. The Israelis have let a lot slide (relatively) of late and this has pissed of the populace, so the odds of the Turkish navy being allowed to do this unmolested in this climate are not good.
If I know this, they know this, so it's likely just a lot of posturing. The IFF thing may or may not physically happen, as announcing it was obviously political, and actually doing it is probably a big no-no in NATO with some sort of consequences. Now if Turkey no longer cares...
Turkey and Greece have hated each other for 4000 years and there is no reason for that to change, always an anomaly within NATO. Israel aligning with Greece and Cyprus is extremely rational, and a partial counterbalance to Erdrogan's neo-Ottomanism. It is also another crack in the peeling facade of NATO, as you now have a NATO country having a "military understanding" with a non-NATO country plainly aimed at another member.
It gets better. I have mentioned the backroom deals Israel has made with the Saudis in relation to Iran, and as things develop it's not out of the question for more co-operation with the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation council. Hell, what if Israel can make common cause with the Sunni Arabs, especially as Israel begin to exploit its' hydrocarbon reserves?
Keeping Shia Iran's influence in check is a matter of survival to a lot of ruling families (House of Saud not the least) and viewed objectively Israel is no threat to the Gulf states; there's significant common ground. Way out in left field is the idea of Saudi acting as a "sugar daddy" for Israel to beat up on Hezbollah (modern munitions are expensive...) as a stick in the Mullahs' spokes. Unlikely? Yes, but less so all the time, especially if the Saudis grasp the strategic threat of a new axis of Turkey-Lebanon-Syria-Iraq-Iran.
"A country has no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent Interests". Those interests are not always appreciated by the governments of the day, but something will stand in for them if the real ones aren't sufficiently compelling. Since Western Europe is no longer worried about Russian tanks crossing the Rhine, NATO has lost it's raison d'etre with some of the results evident here, others in Libya, and yet others in Central Europe. For anyone curious about the title of this post, it's inspired by Recessional by Rudyard Kipling:
Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget
It's rare that empires fall in a vacuum; usually they get tired and replaced by more energetic neighbours (Byzantine) or simply fragment (Habsburg). NATO isn't an empire, but as the defacto American empire which underpinned it from its' foundation shrinks back into the Western Hemisphere the whole thing spins apart. No loss, but it creates local vacuums or at least opportunities for those hungry (or desperate) enough to fill somehow.
No comments:
Post a Comment