http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=123456

The Turkish stake in this is both obvious, and more nuanced than readily assumed. The obvious: First, Syria is a howlingly obvious emerging market. Turkey’s largest mobile service provider wanted, and would likely have received, a concession to enter the Syrian market. American pressure to demur has generally been understood to be decisive in preventing such a deal, which in my opinion may yet happen.

More importantly, why wouldn’t a government whose raison d’etre is market-friendliness embrace a neighbor which might want to buy plastic buckets that don’t have holes in them? A strong retail business that originated in AK party ties, the hard-discount retailer BIM, has already set up shop in Morocco: http://www.bim.com.tr/en/bim_2q09_results_presentation.pps . The point is not that this government embodies a “Neo-Ottoman” policy as its way in the world. BIM is, last time I check, about 49 percent floated and not simply a surrogate for politics by way of commerce. But why wouldn’t people who like the idea of regional influence with vague historic connotations encourage the radical idea of selling Arabs groceries and the odd school supply through a vertically integrated chain of producers?

Less apparent is the presumptive Turkish reading of the regional situation. Do they think that Obama may stare down this Israeli government, and cause it to fall? Either way, commit to an unwieldy pariah ally, when your stock in trade is relations with all? There’s no doubt that the AKP mandarins have no real fondness for Zionism, but they’re also keen not to be overtaken on the (pious/isolationist/chauvisnist) right in holding this Israeli government at arm’s length. Who ever won an election shaking hands Benjamin Netanyahu?

In short: there’s nothing to lose by being nice to Syria – they’ll never be on the hook for the real burden of a Syrian-Israeli deal, namely paying to relocate Golan settlers. And they couldn’t possibly provide Syria’s real demand in that equation, which is a Libyan-style grand bargain, or at least a guarantee of non-intervention. So why over-interpret the matter?

My two cents. The grand regional/civilizational interpretations re Turkey and the “”West” are mostly silly, in my view. Their EU accession process may be doomed for other reasons, including the EU’s constitutional crisis prior to the last round of expansion. (Ghassan Karam,, they’re not negotiating the “if” of membership – it’s supposed to be the modalities of when at this point, which makes makes Romania and Bulgaria a complete snub.) Today’s foreign policy is entirely mercenary, or rational, if that’s better, as yesterday’s. These guys are just better than their predecessors at not spitting in their own faces for no good reason.

what about containing Iran’s influence in the Middle East? Containing the Kurdish situation developing near their borders? Turkey has urgent security needs.
I think the last Iraqi war has pushed Turkey to reconsider involving itself in the turmoils of the Middle East. Also, the cold war is over, and Turkey is more free to take a more independent role with no Soviet Union hovering around, giving her more interest in expanding towards the Balkans and maybe our side.
I think also, the turkish leadership is tired of the EU. Maybe for Turkey to go west, it has to go east first. Furthermore, we should not forget the internal dimension. The Turkish-Israeli relations are based on a positive relation between the two military establishments. Maybe the AK is trying to somehow settle some accounts with the generals and cutting some of their power.
This topic is so interesting. I have more questions than answers. Lets wait and see.

Syria Comment has a very interesting post on the Association Agreement [with the European Union] that, apparently, the Syrians did NOT sign on Thursday.

“Syrian officials have not publicly commented on the reasons for not signing the deal, beyond saying that they needed more time to study the agreement, although the draft text was finalised and initialled in a ceremony in Damascus last December.

Assad did not mention the association agreement directly. He said a drive by Syria to strengthen relations with its northern neighbour Turkey in the last several years would not come at the expense of Europe.”

Full text here: http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=4229

I disagree with you. I am not convinced that the foreign policy perspective of the JDP is simply a reflection of the “Islamic” character of the party. The JDP leadership proved to be pragmatic and very willing to be in good terms with Germany, Russia and Italy when it comes to energy markets and gas routes. Also, Erdoğan and Gül were arguably the two leaders that most worked to achieve Turkey’s accession to the EU.

The Jerusalem Post article is interesting, but I am also not convinced when Martin Indyk claims that Turkey’s drift towards the Arab countries is a result of the business class being “in no position to stand up”. Conversely, you may argue that there’s a generation of JDP-friendly businessmen, in particular from Anatolia, pushing for further economic integration with the Arab markets. So there is neo-Ottomanism perhaps, but there may also be economic interests that lie behind a strengthened regional cooperation.

Finally, would a CHP government drastically reverse this rapprochement with Syria? I am not sure.