Turkey busts Iranian weapons transfer to Syria / Hezbullah

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Elsewhere, resorting to weapons will only make it worse for those doing so. Kurds in Turkey have the best of conditions compared to others, despite the sarcasm this comment might generate. It's bound to improve, not deteriorate, if Turkey's European track stays on track. That, of course, is a totally different topic .

Stays on track? Dontcha mean gets back on track?

[Ramo]

The topic is pretty boring compared to the Kurds...

They dont have their most important political priorities, and its not at clear to me that the Maliki govt can deliver them. And its not clear to me that a wise Sunni-Allawi coalition wouldnt offer them a substantial part of their priorities.

Egypt was a firm ally of the USA's main adversary, and coopting them was a huge deal. I dont see the US-Kurdish relationship as looking like that - do you really think the KDP/PUK are to Iran as Egypt was to the USSR? Yes, Im quite aware that the KDP/PUK worked with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. They also worked with the Shah, as leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are quite aware. And with Mossad. And IIUC, during the mid-90s, with the CIA and with Allawi. Sure they dont want to alienate Iran unnecessarily, but I hardly think having them shift from their alliance of convenience with SCIRI/Dawa is that huge an act of cooptation. Im not saying the switch will be pulled off, just its not that far fetched.

http://www.aina.org/news/20070311132437.htm

This analogy works. Ocalan is Qutb, Khruschev is Khatami, Brezhnev is Ahmedinejad, Nixon is Bush, the KDP and PUK are factions within the Free Officers Movement (dunno if Talabani's Nasser or Sadat)....

I actually didn't intend that sentence to imply that the situations are completely analagous.

I agree with Ancyrean. Dumping Maliki, in all likelyhood, means giving up at least large parts of Kirkuk, and it's hard to see the Kurds doing that without us offering them something really, really big. As for the article, it is three months old, and the Iraqi press (or released statements Iraqi pols) have never been terribly reliable. Most likely, that was political posturing to get more concessions from Maliki wrt the oil law (which was being drafted at the time).

I just don't think the Iraqi Kurds have that big a short-term problem with Iranian influence in Iraq. Regarding the incident in the op, the PKK has significantly different priorities from the KDP/PUK.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Now, to get back on topic, can we here more about what Turkey is doing to stop Iranian weapons shipments?

As far as I know, whenever there's any intelligence passed on to Turkey about any undeclared shipments, Turkey takes action to thwart it on its soil. Upon such tip-offs, Turkish airforce, for example, forced foreign cargo planes to land for inspection in the past (they all proved to be clean, however).

Most recently, just 3 days ago, an Iranian plane was forced to land for inspections (again with no illegal cargo). These naturally cause tension with Iran, but being old neighbours, both countries at least keep any such event very low profile.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Stays on track? Dontcha mean gets back on track?

Surprisingly, it's still on track, albeit going slowly .

Sure, there are complications stemming mainly from the Cyprus issue, but membership negotiation chapters are opening gradually nevertheless. Up to 3 more is expected to be opened before the end of the German EU presidency, ie before the end of June (some 30 to go). If you'd be surprised, Sarkozy government hinted it won't veto the opening of these .

If you followed the details of the Turkish membership process, you may remind that no chapter will be closed before Turkey agrees to open its ports to the Greek Cypriot state. On the other hand, once Turkey completes the requirements of these chapters, their technical closing will only be a political decision. I believe that decision will be hard to be negative once Turkey will have 100.000+ pages of EU laws adopted through these chapters.

That being said, I'm aware of the general illiteracy/misconceptions/scares in Europe about Turkey, which are certainly a strong element to reckon with .

[Dinner]

I think the main fear of Turkey is its large population especially the high unemployed or under employed portions of it. I mean these guys were freaking out over Poland and Hungary so of course Turkey is causing a stir.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Now, to get back on topic, can we here more about what Turkey is doing to stop Iranian weapons shipments?

Originally posted by Ancyrean
As far as I know, whenever there's any intelligence passed on to Turkey about any undeclared shipments, Turkey takes action to thwart it on its soil. Upon such tip-offs, Turkish airforce, for example, forced foreign cargo planes to land for inspection in the past (they all proved to be clean, however).

Most recently, just 3 days ago, an Iranian plane was forced to land for inspections (again with no illegal cargo). These naturally cause tension with Iran, but being old neighbours, both countries at least keep any such event very low profile.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Sure, there are complications stemming mainly from the Cyprus issue, but membership negotiation chapters are opening gradually nevertheless. Up to 3 more is expected to be opened before the end of the German EU presidency, ie before the end of June (some 30 to go). If you'd be surprised, Sarkozy government hinted it won't veto the opening of these .

If you followed the details of the Turkish membership process, you may remind that no chapter will be closed before Turkey agrees to open its ports to the Greek Cypriot state. On the other hand, once Turkey completes the requirements of these chapters, their technical closing will only be a political decision. I believe that decision will be hard to be negative once Turkey will have 100.000+ pages of EU laws adopted through these chapters.

If Turkey gets into the Union with the Cyprus issue still unresolved I'll personally go to Nicosia and start blowing stuff up.

[Ramo]

I should add one more thing to the discussion of Allawi's bid (since every thread must be about Iraq). It won't be a secular alliance. Fadhila (Basrah Sadrists) would be part of any such governing coalition, as well as possibly the Baghdad contingent that Sadr leads in Parliament. It's worth noting that these groups are also hostile to Kurdistan's annexation of Kirkuk, and are strongly allied with the Turkomen (who are Shia) who inhabit the city. Similarly, some of the Sunni groups interested in the "National Salvation Front," such as the IIP, are not secular. The common denominator here is not secularism, but Arab nationalism, making Kurdish participation implausible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
I should add one more thing to the discussion of Allawi's bid (since every thread must be about Iraq). It won't be a secular alliance. Fadhila (Basrah Sadrists) would be part of any such governing coalition, as well as possibly the Baghdad contingent that Sadr leads in Parliament. It's worth noting that these groups are also hostile to Kurdistan's annexation of Kirkuk, and are strongly allied with the Turkomen (who are Shia) who inhabit the city. Similarly, some of the Sunni groups interested in the "National Salvation Front," such as the IIP, are not secular. The common denominator here is not secularism, but Arab nationalism, making Kurdish participation implausible.

first, I didnt say it would be a secular Alliance as it would include the religious sunni arab parties, as I mentioned. I have hear it would include Fadhila (who are Sadrists in the sense of following the populist ideology of Sadrs father, not following Muqty himself). I had not heard that it would include Muqtys own followers, and given the tense relations between Muqty and Allawi since 2003, and their virtually opposite approaches to the US (and I believe, Iran, although I know you hold that Muqty is less closely tied to Iran than are SCIRI/Dawa) I find it hard to be credit that Muqty will join an Allawi-led coalition.

I have also not heard that Allawi is particularly an advocate of "Arab nationalism". Are you conflating arab nationalism with Iraqi nationalism?

I also think that Fadhila, as well as the Sunni parties, and certainly Allawi, can count. If they cant make a deal with the PUK and KDP, they cant get a parliamentary majority. IIUC about the numbers they cant do that even if they can get all Shia other than Dawa/SCIRI, and Im not sure that is possible, esp given rivalries among Fadhila, Muqty and the the Shia independents, not to mention mistrust between Allawi and Muqty. My impression is also, despite Muqtys denials, which some here beleive, that most Sunni Arab pols in Iraq beleive that Muqty is deeply involved in the sectarian killings by Shia, as much or more so than Dawa/SCIRI.

Ergo, they can either compromise somehow with the Kurds, or they can leave the state in the hands of Maliki et al. So it depends on just how badly they want to unseat Maliki.

[Ramo]

1. Sorry, misread the bit on secularism (thought you were attributing it to the entire coalition Allawi is trying to create, rather than his own list).
2. I agree that Sunnis are skeptical (and have good reason to be so) about Sadr denail of having a role in ethnically cleansing Sunni Arabs, but his name always seems to come up when people talk about Allawi's pet project. One of the many reasons why I'm skeptical of its success.
3. Since when have the Sunni Arabs and Muqty had "virtually opposite approaches to the US?" We just saw that very alliance - Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs successfully pass a resolution mandating that Parliament approve any extension of the American occupation, with KDP/PUK/SCIRI/Da'wa opposiing the resolution. I don't know where Allawi stood on the matter, but I wouldn't be suprised if he voted in favor of it.
4. I don't think there's a real conception of "Iraqi nationalism." In other words, Kurds and Arabs in Iraq don't seem themselves as part of the same nation, thus any centralist nationalism in Iraq would be Arab in character. It's worth noting, again, that much of Allawi's constituency comes from ex-Ba'athist military officers. It's a more liberal nationalism than Saddam's, but nationalism nonetheless. Are you arguing that Allawi is not a nationalist, but a social democrat (or something like that)?
5. They can count, and that's why Maliki is in power. Unless something dramatically changes in the political dynamic (i.e. if we promise something big to the Kurds), that's how it'll remain.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

3. Since when have the Sunni Arabs and Muqty had "virtually opposite approaches to the US?" We just saw that very alliance - Sadrists and the Sunni Arabs successfully pass a resolution mandating that Parliament approve any extension of the American occupation, with KDP/PUK/SCIRI/Da'wa opposiing the resolution. I don't know where Allawi stood on the matter, but I wouldn't be suprised if he voted in favor of it.

Once again, I didnt say the Sunnis and Sadrs positions on the US were opposite, I said Sadrs and Allawis were. Allawi was part of the group of exiles working with the US pre-March 2003, was on the Iraqi governing council, and worked with the US as PM. AFAIK he continues to support a US presence.

4. I don't think there's a real conception of "Iraqi nationalism." In other words, Kurds and Arabs in Iraq don't seem themselves as part of the same nation, thus any centralist nationalism in Iraq would be Arab in character. It's worth noting, again, that much of Allawi's constituency comes from ex-Ba'athist military officers. It's a more liberal nationalism than Saddam's, but nationalism nonetheless. Are you arguing that Allawi is not a nationalist, but a social democrat (or something like that)?

Im arguing that Allawi is not a pan-Arab nationalist, but wants to see an Iraqi state that stands up principally for Iraqi interests, and not one that sees itself as a leader of the Palestinian cause, of arab unity, or of other Pan Arab causes, as the Baath were. My impression is that his lists constituency encompasses a good part of middle class Baghdad, both Sunni and Shia (and the Iraqi Communist party is also part as well) I dont think making Iraq a true binational Arab-Kurdish state is a priority for him, but AFAICT compromising with the Kurds to get rid of the worst Shiite fundies, to weaken Iranian influence, and establish a state that will be effectively more secular (even if it includes religious parties joining for their own reasons) is something he consider.

They can count, and that's why Maliki is in power. Unless something dramatically changes in the political dynamic (i.e. if we promise something big to the Kurds), that's how it'll remain.

Do they want to stay in opposition forever? Do they count on military victory in a civil war? They have tremendous incentive to reach a deal with the Kurds, which leads to me lend some credence to the rumors in the press that some outreach is underway.

[Dinner]

Turkish security officials say Turkish troops have entered northern Iraq

By Selcan Hacaoglu
ASSOCIATED PRESS

9:03 a.m. June 6, 2007

ANKARA, Turkey – Several thousand Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq early Wednesday to chase Kurdish guerrillas who operate from bases there, Turkish security officials told The Associated Press.

Two senior security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the raid was limited in scope and that it did not constitute the kind of large incursion that Turkish leaders have been discussing in recent weeks.


Advertisement
“It is not a major offensive and the number of troops is not in the tens of thousands,” one of the officials told the AP by telephone. The official is based in southeast Turkey, where the military has been battling separatist Kurdish rebels since they took up arms in 1984.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports but was “very concerned.”

The last major Turkish incursion into northern Iraq was in 1997, when about 50,000 troops were sent to the region.

The officials did not say where the Turkish force was operating in northern Iraq, nor did he say how long they would be there. Both officials are involved in anti-rebel operations, though they did not disclose whether they participated in the planning of the operation on Wednesday.

The officials said any confrontation with Iraqi Kurdish groups, who have warned against a Turkish incursion, could trigger a larger cross-border operation. The Turkish military has asked the government in Ankara to approve such an incursion, but the government has not given formal approval.

An official at military headquarters in Ankara declined to confirm or deny the report that Turkish troops had entered Iraq.

Turkish troops have staged so-called “hot pursuits” into northern Iraq in the past, usually after citing reports of attacks against Turkish soldiers in the border region.

They have sometimes shelled suspected rebel positions across the border.

Turkish authorities rarely acknowledge such military operations, which were more frequent before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The Turkish military said rebels across the border in Iraq opened fire Wednesday on a Turkish military outpost in the province of Hakkari, which borders both Iraq and Iran. It said there were no casualties.

Turkey has been building up its military forces on the Iraqi border recently, amid debate among political and military leaders about whether to attack separatist rebels of the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers' Party. The rebels stage raids in southeast Turkey after crossing over from hideouts in Iraq.

“We can't confirm a thing at this time, but we are looking into it and obviously we are very concerned,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a military spokesman in Baghdad.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the government has not seen any major operations along the border.

“There has been intermittent shelling, for instance, attacks, certain violations, minor violations on the border which we have documented and reported back to the Turkish side, but honestly we haven't seen any major operations along the border,” Zebari told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

“We are aware of this Turkish troops buildup on the border and the Iraqi government position has been that we will not accept or tolerate any military incursion into Iraqi territories,” he said.

“We have urged all sides, including the Kurdish leadership, to ease tension and to seek dialogue to resolve all outstanding issues because we believe any military incursion into the northern provinces would only lead to further escalations and instability and this is in nobody's interests, not in Iraq's, nor the United States, nor Turkey,” he added. “We are in contact with the Turkish officials and we have friendly, good relations with the Turkish government.”

George Bagus, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also said his office had no knowledge about such an operation and declined to comment further.

During major incursions in the 1990s, fighting occurred on a front stretching more than 100 miles, mostly in rugged terrain where communications were difficult and the Turkish Kurds were already entrenched in the mountains.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070606-0903-turkey-iraq.html

[Arrian]

****, here we go.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

supposedly a small scale incursion "in hot pursuit" after Kurdish rebels which went across the border. The Turks are saying it is less then 10,000 troops.

[Ancyrean]

It was bound to happen.

To give you a clue, here are what happened only today, on top of yesterday's deadly attack (death toll from that one turned out to be 7, not the original 8 as reported):

- PKK exploded a remote controlled mine on another patrol near Diyarbakir, wounding 6 soldiers, none reportedly serious,
- Another remote controlled land mine targeted an army convoy at another area near Diyarbakir, no one was hurt,
- A conventional mine laid by the PKK killed two villagers in the border province of Sirnak.

The PKK seems to have gone on a pitch fever for the past few days. The Turkish army is already conducting a army-corps size military operation inside Turkey near the Iraqi border. It is very easy for that operation to spill over a few miles into Northern Iraq.

On the other hand, Turkish newspapers quote foreign minister Gul denying any large scale operation. What he means, I gather, is that this is not the Big One on the Kandil area that eveybody is so nervous about.