I am really bothered by Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations. Check out his page 1 soundbite in the Times yesterday (piece on US-Turkey relations by Tavernise/Slackman). There he confused and conflated Israel's critique of Turkey with the US.
Turkey is seen increasingly in Washington as “running around the region doing things that are at cross-purposes to what the big powers in the region want,” said Steven A. Cook, a scholar with the Council on Foreign Relations. The question being asked, he said, is “How do we keep the Turks in their lane?”
He called Turkey a frenemey but has no thoughts on why he implicitly considers the pathological actions of Israel to make it a friend. He is a neocon lite, focused on Israel's interests and conflating them and confusing them with the US.
The article argues that Turkey is a thorn in the side of US policy--unlike Israel. And look here at Foreign Policy; he deliberately misrepresents the Turkish position:
For the first time in its history, Ankara has chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding that Israel take steps to ease the blockade of Gaza or risk unspecified "consequences." Well before the recent crisis, the Turks had positioned themselves as thinly veiled advocates for Hamas, which has long been on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In public statements, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared Turkey's Islamists and Hamas. Implicit in these declarations is the parallel to his own Justice and Development Party, whose predecessors were repeatedly banned from politics.
The first sentence needs to be parsed and then Cook concludes that the Turks asking for the siege to be eased are supporting a terrorist organization. This is the rhetoric of Netanyahu, which Cook accepts. Does that imply Obama's recent explicit critique of the siege/blockade makes him a terrorist sympathizer? Cook and his friends at the Council on Foreign Relations conflate Israel with the US and then work to ensure that the Israeli position is adopted and that US foreign policy then is no different than arguably the Israeli frenemey.
Weiss adds: To understand how pro-Israel and stale Cook's ideas are, consider Stephen Kinzer's ideas. A former New York Times journalist, who was on NPR yesterday, Kinzer is thinking way outside the box on Turkey, Iran, Israel. A blurb on Kinzer's new book: "An original, unsettling critique of America's many blunders in the Middle East. In Iran, a statue honors Howard Baskerville, and streets and schools bear his name. A young American teacher, he died in 1909 leading volunteers in defense of this nation's fledgling democracy. After delivering this surprising bit of history, journalist Kinzer states bluntly that Iran, along with Turkey, the only Islamic nations in the area with vibrant democratic traditions, should be America's closest allies, replacing Israel and Saudi Arabia.... An imaginative solution to the Middle-East stalemate." -Kirkus Reviews
Does CFR’s Steven Cook get his paycheck from the US or from Israel?
“Everyone knows” the CFR is a neocon coven!
Steven Cook is a manuron (manure + moron).
It is hard to admit, …
Is this supposed to make us think that Cook is a tough guy facing down the hard realities?
… but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors — especially in the Middle East.
And the supporting evidence for this assertion …
So, the Turkish government and people are upset that Israel murders with gunfire Turkish citizens defending their Turkish-flagged ship in international waters with fists, metal pipes, and kitchen knives, and this is a strategic affront to the United States? The Turkish government wants “a harsh rebuke of Israel” and this is a strategic affront to the United States? Ooh, harsh language, the terror of Zionists everywhere.
Turkish strategic cooperation with the United States is as good as or better than most of our other allies in NATO. “Cook and his friends at the Council on Foreign Relations” aren’t too stupid not to know this and “conflate Israel with the US” because they are Israel-firsters who are selling our country out on behalf of a foreign power.
Also note Cook’s weasily language.
… Israel’s attempts to halt the vessels resulted in the deaths of at least nine activists…
If one had no other knowledge of the hijacking one might think that the nine dead must have fallen overboard, had heart attacks, or slipped on banana peels going down stairs instead of being shot to death, more often than not in the back or the head.
Turkey’s been getting out of line, Colin, ever since it refused to blindly support the US invasion of Iraq. And then, there’s the whole Armenian genocide thing voted by congress.
link to www1.voanews.com
My point is that they were no more ‘out of line’ than the rest of NATO who refused to send troops to invade Iraq, excepting George Bush’s poodle Tony Bliar.
Yes, you’re right. At the same time, Turkey is seeing more and more that NATO is of no use to it when it needs it. It is meant to be useful to the US.
I agree that that is how many US government officials see it, but that is not the way the Turks or European members see it.
from former British Ambassador Craig Murray, Israeli Murders, NATO and Afghanistan
… officials see it, AND that is not the way…
used ‘but’ instead of ‘and’, gave wrong impression – I completely agree with you.
The logic or fact in what he says is totally irrelevant to the exercise. From this and a number of similar statements it looks as if there was an all-out effort to get yet another military dictatorship in Turkey. It also looks now as the main reason for a military attack on the ship.
Israel can try as hard as it likes to influence the US’ view of Turkey. Fact remains Washington is very worried about the new power alignment that appear to be unfolding. Turkey is getting pretty close to both Syria and Iran and US foreign policy’s faulty Mideast agenda can’t afford that.
Turkey is getting pretty close to both Syria and Iran…
This is a priori not a strategic challenge to the United States. It only appears that way if one makes the fallacious assumption that US interests are identical with Israel’s. Turkey is definitely striving to improving relations with their neighbor Syria and their is nothing wrong with that, and too much is made of Turkish ‘ties’ to Iran. Mere interest in avoiding another war that would damage their economy even more than the current one and undermine the stability of their neighbors makes them neither buds with Ahmadinejad or Al Qaeda, howling accusations from neocons and the Israel Foreign Ministry notwithstanding.
arg … THERE is nothing wrong with that…
Colin, your conflation of Iran and al Qaeda is as inaccurate as it is offensive.
Hop off the ‘demonize Ahmadinejad’ bus a moment, won’t you; do some research, read Ahmadinejad’s speeches; read Davutoglu’s formulation of Turkey’s foreign policy; understand the competing interests and pressures, trace the depth and breadth of the Iran-Turkey relationship before you cavalierly pass judgment on it.
If the good guys — that be you — become snared in the demonize Iran net, that’s a win for the bad guys.
You misunderstand me, PG.
“.. interest in avoiding another war … makes them neither buds with Ahmadinejad or Al Qaeda, howling accusations from neocons and the Israel Foreign Ministry notwithstanding.”
I could have phrased it better; I was in a hurray as usual. I view efforts to associate Iran and Al Qaeda with contempt not the least because those I see doing it are neocon Zionists trying to lie us into a third war on behalf of Israel. Nor do I blame the Turks for having relations of any kind with Iran.
I think it is ridiculous to think Iran is a threat to world peace and Israel isn’t. Moreover, as clownish and rude as Ahmadinejad may be, he is far less heinous (and elected) than many dictators and juntas with whom we have dealt amicably, e.g. Saddam Hussein. Why shouldn’t the Turks have good relations with Iran? Why shouldn’t we? An effort to bring them back into the fold of nations is the only way to curtail any (as yet unproven) desire for nuclear weapons, barring nuking all their major cities.
Our current impasse with Iran in my opinion stems from institutional inertia of post-1979 negativity and resentment in the CIA and Departments of State and Defense. This sort of social institutional process often fades when good leadership recognizes that national interests have changed. (think Nixon) There has been no such leadership because the Israel subverts American interests by ensuring that any such suggestion would be a career-limiting-move.
argg..
There has been no such leadership because the Israel LOBBY subverts American interests by ensuring that any such suggestion would be a career-limiting-move.
thanks for adding that perspective, Colin; quite right, too, re “career-limiting move.”
I wonder aloud, again, if there is any institutional memory in State Dept or similar bureaucracies, in mature analysts who have the statesmanship of Archibald Cox, for example,who are willing to put their careers on the line in support of a principle. Have ALL the positions been purged in favor of the ziocaine-addicted?
I don’t believe the US’ real interests are aligned with Israel’s. Quite the opposite actually. However, my personal opinion doesn’t change the facts on the ground. The fact is that Israel and the US act almost in tandem when it comes to the Mideast. I would love to be given good and solid examples of where they differ vis a vis Iran and Syria. Not just words but action. In regard to Turkey’s growing relationship with Iran and Syria, again I was just stating a fact, not criticising. Quite the contrary. I believe Israel is weakened by the new developments and Hamas is less isolated, which I think is a positive step. Hopefully sooner or later the US will realise what a burden Israel is.
thanks, Miss Dee Mena, I think you’re on to something.
The interrelationship amongst Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Hamas is perhaps the biggest game changer to confront Israel, and the US, in a generation.
The relationship is principled, deliberative, and espouses nonviolence.
I agree, Miss Dee Mena, the interests of the usa and israel, or I should say, the interests of the various corporate fascists who associate their base with those two countries, are pretty much the same in the Mideast, as their interests are elsewhere round the world, except perhaps in Palestine itself, where its israel’s interests alone. The two power blocks can be essentially considered one block in most respects of what they seek, which is continued expansion of their world dominance and containment/roll back of rival power blocks.
I think the main differences are in how they seek it and this may reflect the differences between neo-lib and neo-con strategies. The neo-libs being in favour of soft power projection, such as economic manipulations and “color revolutions” while the neo-cons being the hot warmongers and “full spectrum dominance” proponents, to simplify their differences. The zionist and non-zionists get along so well because their interests pretty much are the same, and both types are neo-libs and neo-cons, so there is a large overlap of styles, as well, between the two.
Besides all the other reasons many has discussed before, I believe the zionists have the upper hand simply because the existence of israel and its craven behaviour has hurt these israeloamerican corporate geopolitical interests immensely and is currently setting them back in relation to their rivals. There’s no question that american support for israel has drained a huge amount of potential support for the usa (it’s fascist corporate controllers, I mean) in the other countries of the Mideast. This maintenance of such self-destructive policies (for american fascist geopolitical goals) can only be explained by zionists having a disproportionate amount of control in the power block. Otherwise, they would have been slapped down long ago, and the more obviouslylogical geopolitical strategies followed.
I should have added that it’s Turkey’s distaste for the zionist fanaticism about israel and israel’s what can best be described as nazi-like behaviour, which is probably the major factor pushing Turkey towards the more independent status which is bothering the israeloamerican fascists so much now. Take out the zionist factor and probably, Turkey would have remained the way it was before.
appears
I really want to see Turkey put the US on the spot with NATO over the attack on its ship.
Off Topic, sorry,
Howard Baskerville, never heard of him before and now looking on wiki he’s like a Rachel Corrie or Emily Henochowicz of a century ago.
In the two conference calls that Israel’s ambassador, the American-turncoat, “historian” Michael Oren, made in the two days after the attack on the Mavi Marmara, one to members of the United Jewish Appeal-NY Jewish Federation and the other to those tuned in to The Israel Project, he told his listeners that if “Turkey wanted to be a player in the Middle East, it would have to have good relations with Israel.”
I interpret what Oren was saying was that, given Israel’s control over Washington, through the power exerted by the American Jewish establishment (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, JINSA, UJA, the 157 affiliates of the Jewish Federation of No. America, plus 400 other Jewish communities, plus community relations councils (JCRCs) in every major city), Israel, will determine the future of the Middle East.
I think he and the other Zionists may be in for a surprise when it comes to Turkey as may Obama who is being squeezed by both sides at the moment since Turkey has been a critical ally and is a NATO member whereas Israel has been a constant headache and now, is clearly a liability.
What we can only hope is that Stephen Cook and his necon buddies will continue to make such comments, telling the Turks that “they should know their place,” because we can be assured that all of their statements will be widely circulated in the Turkish press.
Agreed. And should there be a new outbreak of hostilities in the region which I personally believe is only a matter of when not if, then Turkey’s new role and its new buddies will indeed make a major difference.
take a look at this graphic — Turkey, Iran, and the Middle East Balance of Power
doesn’t it make your heart ache with desire for a rational US foreign policy? We could be part of those markets, we could share the dynamism of those Iranian and Turkish young people with their advanced educational achievement, we could reform our financial system if we understood that Shari’a finance has more in common with Main Street America than do the TBTF banks that have destroyed the US economy.
Why? Why are America’s leaders so ideologically blinded to these possibilities?
“How do we make sure the Turks keep in their lane?” Oh boy, those uppity nigras are at it again… (I wonder if he has any idea how colonialist he sounds?)
WTF!?!? link to haaretz.com
What this is, is solipsism. The US and Israeli politicians don’t really believe that the rest of the world exists. Since when does “attempting to enlist support” mean that you’re entitled to it?
It’s Turkey that should be feeling slapped in the face (and Brazil, but Brazil hasn’t just confronted Israel directly so Turkey gets more of the blame) for the way the US blew off their proposal.
Phil writes about the Jewish establishment coming into its own in the US.
A Jewish woman wrote an essay on HuffPo recently discussing Jewish ‘choseness’ but concluding that what Jews really do best is PR.
People like Steve Cook ride that PR wave and suck all the energy out of the atmosphere, such that the Steven Kinzers are not given the attention they deserve.
It’s time to slap the label “antiAmerican” on people like Cook just as liberally as Americans have been labelled antisemitic.
Kinzer is courageous as well as clear-thinking; moreover, he is not alone, not by a long stretch.
Henri Barkey, professor of international studies at Lehigh University, is a specialist on Turkey. He was part of a panel discussing Palestine-Turkey-Iran relations at Carnegie Endowment, on C Span 2 last Monday.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, with Ben Katcher, run the Race for Iran blog and write powerful essays. Their core principle is the best interests of Americans in the Middle East. Refreshing, that.
we don’t have to put up with the Steven Cooks of the world; there are alternatives, polished, professional, and patriotic Americans who do not feed at AIPAC’s or Haim Saban’s trough.
time to ‘trow da bums out; their batting average is in the cellar and their ability to throw screwballs is worn out. Give the new guys a chance at bat.
He means, of course, Helena, off Israel’s “Jewish only roads.”
It’s going to look very strange to america’s European nato allies once the israeloamericans put their covert terrorist operations against Turkey in full swing like what they’re doing with Iran. The “Kurdish” ppk will be the most likely vehicle for this. They’ve been periodically used by israeloamerica for terrorist ops in Turkey already. The last one the same day israel’s brave commandos shot up the aide workers aboard the Mavi Marmara.
Internally, in Turkey, there are probably still military and political puppets the israeloamerican will try to use to manipulate the Turkish back to israel’s side (note, I wrote israel’s, not america’s, that’s intentional). The coup plotters arrested last year and early this year show the large extend of this corruption. It’s possible the Turkish guv managed to thwart this israeloamerican option, though, when they investigated and arrested those coup plotters in the last year. Hopefully, they busted up that ring thoroughly. The israeloamericans probably do still have enough assets in the country to begin “civil war” or “color revolution” shenanigans, though, since Turkey’s long association with nato and u.s.-israeli interests is bound to have generated a large base of operations there to pull from.
What Turkey can expect now is an increase in terrorist acts, an active “opposition movement” within Turkey and maybe sabotage/agitation from agents within the guv itself.
I doubt if many people in the Turkish officer corps appreciated that attack by the PKK Kurdish rebels on the Turkish naval base in Iskenderun (near the Syrian border) two hours before the Israeli attack on the flotilla. That just happens to be the base from which any Turkish naval response (like an attempted rescue) to the attack on the flotilla would have come.
The pkk has been attacking Turkish military people for years and it’s no secret that they are being controlled by the usa and israel. This may be a factor in the round up of the coup plotters, since probably a lot in the Turkish military now view such dual loyaties in their ranks as offensive and were happy to help round up these israeloamerican agents. I think after the naval base attack, this is the first time I’ve seen the Turkish guv specifically blame israel for the attack.
Reese Ehrlich has slides from a trip to Kurdish Iran, 2007, part of his presentation at Columbia Univ. shortly after Ahmadinejad’s controversial talk there.
I’m sure the Syrians, Iranian and the Turks too can arrange some counter shenanigans to make life uncomfortable for Israel and the US. Especially the latter considering the enormous presence of US troops in the region particularly Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranians have already proved that and the Syrians are no slouches when it comes to arranging “incidents” either. Just look at Lebanon and how the Syrians have interfered and arranged “accidents” there.
The interest of the United States is clearly in stopping the Iranian development of nuclear weapons. (Proviso: the interest of the United States is that which the joint chiefs of staff and a theoretical Congress uninfluenced by Israel considerations would consider the interest of the United States.) As such the Brazil-Turkey- Iranian agreement was very much against the United States interest. Thus Turkey has turned itself into an enemy of the US interest.
You sound like you have a logical problem.
1. You say “The interest of the United States is clearly in stopping the Iranian development of nuclear weapons”
2. “The Brazil-Turkey-Iranian agreement” did stop or at least go a long way in stopping the Iranian development of nuclear weapons, if there ever was such a thing, guaranteeing that at least half of the material remains non-weaponized.
So the Brazil-Turkey- Iranian agreement cannot be “against the United States interest” because it goes halfways or more in the sense you define as US interest in premiss 1.
Please tell by what contortion of the brain you can conclude from 1 and anyreading of the agreement that “the Brazil-Turkey- Iranian agreement was very much against the United States interest”.
azythos- An agreement regarding half of the material is useless regarding the other half of the material. An agreement that is useless regarding half the material is useless. Please explain why this is not self evident?
“You sound like you have a logical problem.”
It’s a zionist bot. Logical problems are inherent to the programme.