BY BULENT KENES
TODAY'S ZAMAN - Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was in Toronto for the G-20 summit, met with US President Barack Obama on the evening the previous day.
The meeting, held at a critical time with respect to Turkish-US-Israeli relations and developments in the Middle East, lasted for one hour and 15 minutes, exceeding the originally planned 45 minutes. All the recent issues on the agenda between the two allied countries were said to have been discussed in an open and clear manner. The news agencies reported, as expected, that Iran's nuclear program, cooperation against Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorism and the Israeli attack against the Gaza flotilla and ensuing developments were discussed during the meeting. The US delegation noted their uneasiness about the recent problems between allies Turkey and Israel, while the Turkish side voiced their demands for an apology from Israel and compensation for the attacks and lifting the blockade on Gaza.
It seems, despite all efforts to damage Turkish-US relations, the leaders of the two countries conducted extremely calm and constructive talks in Toronto. But I think we cannot think of this meeting independently of the statement Philip Gordon, the Obama administration's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, had made just before the meeting. Interestingly, the Obama administration chose to share with the public the words of "warning" conveyed to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the meeting.
On behalf of the US administration, Gordon warned Turkey that it is alienating US supporters and needs to demonstrate its commitment to a partnership with the West. "We think Turkey remains committed to NATO, Europe and the United States, but that needs to be demonstrated," Gordon told The Associated Press in an interview. "There are people asking questions about it in a way that is new, and that in itself is a bad thing that makes it harder for the US to support some of the things that Turkey would like to see us support."
Gordon cited Turkey's vote against a US-backed UN Security Council resolution on new sanctions against Iran and noted Turkish rhetoric after Israel's deadly assault on a Gaza-bound flotilla last month.
Turkey's ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, expressed surprise at Gordon's comments. He said Turkey's commitment to NATO remains strong and should not be questioned. Tan also said that Turkish officials have explained repeatedly to their US counterparts that voting against the proposed sanctions was the only credible decision after the Turkish-brokered deal with Iran. However, Gordon replied that Turkey's explanations of the UN episode have not been widely understood in Washington.
I do not know what the details of the Erdogan-Obama meeting were or what mood dominated it, but after seeing Gordon's statements to the AP news agency, I do not think we have to focus on this meeting any longer in order to understand what the US administration thinks about Turkey. Gordon's statements -- which I believe can be considered strange in terms of established diplomatic practice and diplomatic courtesy as they came just before the meeting of the leaders of the two countries -- were, it seems, intended to appease certain groups outside Turkish and US public opinion about the potential course of the meeting. Their message was: "Relax. Obama will talk to Erdogan within this framework." Who were the groups Gordon was trying to appease?
I am sure it was no one but Israel and the powerful and decisive Israeli lobby in the US that Gordon was trying to calm by issuing guarantees to them. Remembering the arguments in the book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" (2008), co-authored by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, which I luckily re-skimmed recently, I realized that Obama has enough reasons for worrying about the Israeli lobby in the US and for calming it down.
The book provides a slew of cases where the pro-Israeli Jewish lobbies, particularly including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), could block the US administration, making them take the decisions they want. They are so influential that they were able to force a US president, George W. Bush, to reverse his original position with respect to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and to launch a war against Iraq without a legitimate reason, but solely for the sake of Israeli interests, and force Colin Powell, the then-US secretary of state who was completely against this war, to defend its stupid pretexts.
It appears that the Israeli lobby in Israel and the US wants to trigger another war in the Middle East in order to make Tel Aviv the only hegemon in the region. They are making all of their preparations to this end. The most important pillar of these preparations is, as it was with the Iraqi war in 2003, to put pressures on the US administration and get the White House completely under their control. Here, the main question is to what extent the Obama administration can resist the ever-increasing pressure and directions from the Israeli lobby, which is extremely well organized and influential at the Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, the White House, think tanks, the media and grass roots. The US administration's distorted and repressive attitude toward Brazil and Turkey, which acted differently from the US in the Iran sanctions voting at the UN Security Council, particularly after the Israeli attack on the aid convoy, implies that the Obama administration is under the influence of this lobby, though we still hope, not completely besieged by it.
Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in their above-mentioned book: "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread `democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides. Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the `Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country -- in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical."
Mearsheimer and Walt's question "Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" is still to be answered by the relevant US officials.