| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Europe | ||
| Iran deemed leading Turkish threat | ||
| 2003-11-13 | ||
| I keep saying the Turks aren't foolish... Turkey has deemed Iran as a leading military threat and a key element in Ankara's defense procurement policy. Turkish officials said the classification was determined in a review by the Turkish General Staff and Defense Ministry in planning defense procurement for 2004. The officials said the policy would seek to increase Turkish capabilities in air and missile defense as well as airborne surveillance.
| ||
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #12 That is not because of relation to persian, but because Iran fears Azerbaijan. The population of Iran is 20% Azeri, a strong Azerbaijan could lead to secession of Southern Azerbaijan that belongs to Iran nowadays. So siding with Armenia is more a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iran fears Azerbaijan? Long term maybe, but I doubt Aliev's fiefdom gives the akhunds sleepless nights at the moment. AFAIK Azerbaijan's attempts to whip up secessionist sentiment in the Azeri parts of Iran flopped completely, the Azeri army were thrashed by the Armenians in the Nagorny-Karabakh war (well if the Armenians can beat them...) & while Azerbaijan is ruled by the pretty unpopular playboy son of a former KGB officer/Brezhevite |
| Posted by: Dave 2003-11-13 6:26:39 PM |
| #11 Check out this map - http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg - of ethnic groups in the middle east. There is a very large area either side of the IRAN/Turkey border where Persians/Turks are a small minority in the respective countries. As long as ethnic groups have national aspirations, this will be an area of instability. |
| Posted by: Phil_B 2003-11-13 3:01:14 PM |
| #10 yup, i may be confusing uzbek with Tadjik. though i do seem to recall the notion that Uzbekistan had inherited the cities that historically were centers of Persian culture. Re Iranian support for Armenia. Well maybe theres a realpolitik component. OTOH it is striking that Russia and Iran and Armenia vs Turkey and Azerbaijan looks like a breakdown on linguistic lines. Certainly much more than a breakdown on religious lines a la Huntington. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-13 1:04:27 PM |
| #9 LH - I think that's Tadjikistan you're thinking of. Uzbek is Turkic. Iran also has an historical relationship with Armenia as its sometimes suzerain, dating back to Cyrus, if I recall correctly. Habits that old will die hard... |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-11-13 12:49:19 PM |
| #8 IIUC the dominant language in Uzbekistan is related to Persian, not Turkish. Have you ever spoken with an Uzbek Libby? I have and it is definitely Turkish though strongly influenced by the Russian language. but Iran has sided with the Christian Armenians over the Shia muslim Azeris - why? Armenians speak an Indo-european language distantly related to Persian, while Azeris are Turkic speakers. That is not because of relation to persian, but because Iran fears Azerbaijan. The population of Iran is 20% Azeri, a strong Azerbaijan could lead to secession of Southern Azerbaijan that belongs to Iran nowadays. So siding with Armenia is more a matter of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-13 11:39:39 AM |
| #7 Fred, Affinity like in the Scandinavian countries and “Greater Turkestan" is a quite different thing Fred. The greatest likelihood would be a Turkey and Azerbaijan merge because they where both part of the Ottoman empire once but even that looks nowadays almost utopia. An economic-political close cooperation even a kind of defence pact is more feasible. The case of Turkmenbashi (the nutcase) and Karimov as you’ve pointed out is a story on itself. I don’t believe there is a danger of (radical) Islamism, not in the Turkic world at least, in Tajikistan (Persian) maybe. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-13 11:32:50 AM |
| #6 "Culturally, they've grown to their limits and the people on the other sides of the borders are foreigners, not cousins. " Not necessarily. Depends on how they play the mix of religion and language, culture, etc. One of the 2 major languages of Afghanistan, Dari, spoken by almost all non-Pashtun Afghans, is, IIUC virtually a dialect of Parsi. Of course most Dari speakers are Sunnis, not Shia. also while most central asians speak turkic languages, theres a strong tradition of Persian cultural influence, with Persian as the language of high culture. IIUC the dominant language in Uzbekistan is related to Persian, not Turkish. There is a persian influence on Urdu, the language of traditional high culture in Pakistan, and a tradition of cultural influence from Persian on Indo-pak muslims going back to the Mogul era. The Kurds speak a language related to Persian, though theyre Sunnis. And of course the majority of Iraqis, many gulfies, and a large minority of Saudis are Shia - though they are Arab speakers. Even look at the Armenian-Azerbaijani situation. Turkey sides with Azer, Russian sides with Armenia - but Iran has sided with the Christian Armenians over the Shia muslim Azeris - why? Armenians speak an Indo-european language distantly related to Persian, while Azeris are Turkic speakers. IF- VERY big IF - Iran could unite ALL areas of strong Persian cultural influence, AND all nearby areas where their variety of Shia Islam dominate, they could have an empire from Lebanon to Pakistan, from Bahrain to deep in Central Asia. OTOH if they can dominate ONLY where BOTH persian language is dominant AND Shia Islam is dominant, then they have reached their limits. My expectation is that while the former is impossible, they can certainly reach beyond the latter. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-13 10:38:56 AM |
| #5 Murat Doesn't matter if you believe in them or not. Note that I said the later 21st century, not any time soon. Economic coooperation's the first step, but that will lead to more integration of diverging cultures, with some sort of confederation or even federation further down the road. It's as natural as the affinity between Britain and the U.S., though I'd guess it will end up being more like the affinity of the Scandinavian countries. "Greater Turkestan" has the long-term (not immediate) potential to rival the EU — lots of fertile land, natural resources, an infusion from a foreign culture (the Russers) to stimulate intellectual activity. Judging from the Uzbeks I've met, they even have a sense of humor, or at least some do. Right now they're in the "new nation" mode, and if they go the hereditary president route like the Azeris are trying to do or the cult of personality route like Turkmenbashi's got going they'll remain stuck in the rut. Likewise if they stick too long with the iron fist routine than Karimov leans toward. But I think they'll grow out of it. The greater danger is Islamism, not because I'm anti-Muslim (at least for other than esthetic reasons) but because it suffocates intellectual inquiry. Iran's opportunities for expansion are much more limited — parts of Afghanistan, perhaps part of Pak Balochistan, a nibble here and there on the Caspian states. Culturally, they've grown to their limits and the people on the other sides of the borders are foreigners, not cousins. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-11-13 10:21:32 AM |
| #4 Divide and Conquer. |
| Posted by: B 2003-11-13 8:20:37 AM |
| #3 Charles, every army has to focus on priorities, if this priority is defence than one looks at what the theoretical biggest threat could be, in case of Turkey the biggest threat could be the instability in neighbouring countries. The threat definition is very simple, Iran has from Turkey’s neighbours the most powerful army and it is naturally the biggest theoretical threat. To be short this threat definition has nothing to do with supporting the US or nuclear arms whatsoever. It is merely a zero line for the Turkish army capability requirement, the army must be capable of defeating the main threat. How else could one determine a defense procurement policy if one does not determine the threat and minimum capabilities an army should fullfil to. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-13 6:03:11 AM |
| #2 Murat, I don't suppose you could tell us what you think about the HEADLINE. All you did was post about two sentences that Fred wrote. Lets not blow 29 words out of context, ok? I personnaly think this isn't a huge change. Turkey has always known Iran was a threat to them, I believe. It's just that the government there has acknowledged the threat. Then again, Turkey could be doing this to regain favor with the US. We, as the whole world knows, fear the Mullahs getting Nuclear Arms. Ankara might be using this as a 'second chance' after his government screwed our war plans up in Iraq. The clever thing about this is, while they're supporting the US by declaring Iran a threat, they haven't said they agree with us. Only that they consider Iran a threat. This way they won't alienate the countries Muslim population. Turkey itself could fall into the ocean, but Ankara is smart enough to build a boat before it does. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-11-13 4:25:53 AM |
| #1 Good morning Fred, "Greater Turkestan", nobody believes in these kind of utopic theories in central asia believe me, in fact some of the Turkic states have disputes among each other like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, but an economic zone similar to the EU would be nice. Nowadays the main effort in the Turkic states is the standardising of the language and alphabet in a sort of common Turkish language like the use of common English. Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have adopted the Latin alphabet already and abandoned the Russian Cyrillic. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are working to it. And the language standardising is paying of pretty well, in a personal equation I can say with the Turkish language spoken in Turkey one can understand 90% of the Azerbaijani Turkish, 60% of the Turkmenistan Turkish, 45% of the Uzbekistan Turkish and about 10% of the Kazakh and Kyrgyz Turkish (same for the Uighur Turkish in western China). |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-13 2:49:44 AM |