Turkey: the Neocon nightmare?

If you follow (even a little) the general neoconservative thinking on Middle East transformation, you know that Turkey has long been the linchpin ally in the region. No surprise there -- Turkey is a democracy, is secular, yet has a majority Muslim population and prefers a moderate approach to, well, most everything.

Except the PKK, Kurdistan's terrorist militia. But including Iran. And that's what drives Neocons crazy, as Avni Dogru writes in Foreign Policy in Focus. Dogru raises several important issues driving the Turkish desire to create lasting peace and prosperity among her neighbors:

A fundamental principle of the new approach is a “zero problems with the neighbors” rule, which has improved diplomatic relations with all of Turkey’s neighbors -- most notably Syria, Georgia, and Bulgaria – and boosted trade volumes as well. The share of Turkey’s trade volume with neighboring nations increased from 6% of the total foreign trade volume in 2000 to 35% in 2007.

In other words, Turkey is doing exactly what the United States claims to believe in and encourage -- using trade to bolster security throughout the region. For a neocon, though, this is not good. Remember, it was Paul Wolfowitz (seconded by Richard Perle) who argued that a thoroughly destabilized Middle East was a good thing, apparently (blissfully) ignorant of the very real prospect that the devil we already know (current Middle East regimes) is much better than the devil we don't (Shi'ite fundamentalists and other extremist groups among them). As old, embittered leftists, neocons have a hard time recognizing the principles of blowback and unintended consequences.

Turkey has every intention of -- and is in fact engaged in -- continuing talks with Iran. The two nations are natural allies, all the more so given Iran's large youth population of secularly minded people who put up with the mullahs because, well, they have to. But that cultural connection is just the beginning. As Dogru writes:

In addition, a significant Turkish-Iranian rapprochement has taken place, not only because of Iran’s policy against the Kurdish separatists (PKK), but also because of Turkey’s growing energy needs. Trade volume with Iran alone increased from $1 billion in 2000 to over $8 billion in 2007. And 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. This figure reaches approximately $10 billion when other contracts, such as for electricity generation, are factored in.

Ah, energy -- the great equalizer. A thoroughly modern state like Turkey's is energy-hungry, and stability hinges upon a reliable energy infrastructure. Not lost on the Turks, of course. So, a stable partner like Turkey entering into the Iran-Iraq-stability question is a good thing, right?

Not if you're a neocon. As Dogru continues:

Although Turkey’s enhanced ties with Iran and Syria have caused concern in certain quarters of Washington, this change – stemming from a transparent diversification of the Turkish policy – has not distanced Turkey from the West and Israel. However, Turkey’s clear lack of interest in isolating Iran has prompted neoconservative hardliners, led by former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, to undertake a smear campaign against the ruling AKP.

Joining the redoubtable Perle are Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Rubin in pillorying Turkey's current government and ...

The neoconservative campaign has had two main goals. The first has been to team up with non-democratic powers within Turkey, primarily some circles within the military as well as the state and the political system, to oust the democratically elected government. A less democratic Turkey with a more dominant and politically active military would be more susceptible to neocon pressure to support a U.S. attack on Iran. The second goal has been to strengthen the Israeli-Turkish alliance by boosting the influence of the more Israel-friendly military circles within the Turkish politics. Not surprisingly, in order to strengthen the position of the military in Turkish society, the neoconservatives have not hesitated to support something the Bush administration has been desperate to avoid: opening another front in the Iraq War by supporting a possible Turkish incursion into northern Iraq to hunt down PKK terrorists..

So, all that neocon noise about democracy promotion? It's just noise. This is, has always been, and will always be about promoting a certain vision of Israel that, it should be noted, is not one shared by many Israelis. A militarized, aggressive Turkey is not a good thing for anyone, especially the Turks. And a broader war in Iraq, with the American-allied Kurds and American-allied Turks going toe to toe just to the north of the seemingly endless insurgency of central and southern Iraq? Oh, right -- the "good instability" of the neocon vision, in which everyone who isn't Israeli is busy killing each other. It's insanity writ large in one of the world's most volatile regions. As Dogru rightly concludes:

It is in the U.S. interest for Turkey to play an expanded peacemaking role in the region. But for Turkey to do so, it must continue on its current path of democratic reform. By supporting the military’s return in Turkey and a more hardline approach to Iran, U.S. neoconservatives want to turn the clock back on Turkish reform and plunge the entire region into even greater chaos.

As even President Bush knows, we have a good relationship with a key player in the future of the Middle East in Turkey. The neocons, certifiably insane as they are, couldn't care less.