Ever since talk of American intervention in Iraq began heating up, Turkish policy on cooperation has generally been as follows: keep a close eye on the situation and clearly express reluctance, but if Washington begins to display greater decisiveness, take part in the action. The primary reasons for such a policy are Turkey's immediate proximity to Iraq and its unpleasant memories from the Gulf War.
An uninvited guest – Saddam Husayn – may dominate the August 21 military planning session at President George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The publicized agenda for this session does not mention Iraq, but then again, neither did the Bush speech at West Point in June 2002. Nevertheless, the doctrine Bush set out in that speech – the doctrine of preventive war – will receive its first test case with Iraq. Bush's argument in June was that the United States must be prepared to take preemptive action against rogue states that acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which could be transferred to terrorists if not used directly by such states.
Topic:
Security and Religion
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, South Africa, Baghdad, and Arabia
Turkey's attitude will be critical in the event the United States seeks to remove Saddam Husayn through use of force. Simple geography demands that any military option include Turkey. What do Turks think about the prospect of direct U.S. military action to topple Saddam? The short answer is: they hate the idea. But sitting it out is not an option.
Topic:
Security and Religion
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Turkey, Middle East, and Arabia
Hizballah has not yet been made a clear target of America's war on terrorism. Recently, the organization has been taking advantage of the political space granted to it by this fact in order to frustrate both the war on terrorism and any plans for a campaign against Iraq.
The speech delivered by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) in Istanbul on July 14 was a detailed, comprehensive statement of U.S. policy on Turkey. In the clearest expression of U.S. policy on Turkish-Iraqi relations to date, Wolfowitz observed that "it is vital to Turkey for the people of Iraq to govern themselves democratically, with full respect for the rights of minorities, including the Turcomans, and to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq." Yet, how will current Turkish crises affect the prospects for U.S.-Turkish cooperation on Iraq?
Topic:
Security and Religion
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Turkey, Middle East, and Arabia
In his June 1 West Point address, President George W. Bush announced a policy of using preemption against countries that support terrorism and can deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The preeminent such case in the world is the government of Iraqi president Saddam Husayn. The United States can no longer tolerate that regime and must take action in order to succeed in its broader war on terrorism. A U.S. campaign against Iraq should have four objectives: 1) remove Saddam Husayn and his supporters from power, 2) install an Iraqi government based on democratic principles, 3) rebuild the Iraqi economy, and 4) eliminate Iraq's WMD.
Simmering political problems in Turkey reached a boil following the resignation of the deputy prime minister this week, throwing into doubt both the health of the Ecevit government and Turkey's critical negotiations with the European Union (EU). The current situation, which is fluid and unpredictable, will also have ramifications for Turkey's role in U.S. efforts regarding Iraq.
Since 1991, the United States has averaged over 34,000 military sorties per year in support of no-fly zone operations in Iraq. One might ask, to what effect?
Among the many advantages of an Iraq without Saddam Husayn, the first clear one is the removal of an unacceptable threat to the Iraqi people. Saddam has shown that he is prepared to put the nation and the region as a whole at risk. At the very least, an Iraq without his regime would be much more friendly to America, and — given Iraqi oil reserves — could even lessen American dependence on Saudi oil.
Tomorrow's conference of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Vienna comes at a time when higher oil prices have been reflected in increased gasoline prices over the last two months. Indeed, further price hikes are possible, particularly as talk of war with Iraq has strengthened the futures market in recent days. Presently, the cartel influences rather than controls the world price of oil and, unlike in 1973, sees its role as maintaining supply. Last May, in the National Energy Review (NER), the Bush administration appeared unwilling to criticize the production policies of OPEC, which is dominated by Middle Eastern states. How has this view been affected by the events of September 11? Furthermore, how might OPEC respond as the Bush administration pursues the war on terrorism and confronts the "axis of evil," which includes two OPEC members — Iran and Iraq?