Briefing 51
/ Middle East
& North Africa 13 December 2016
Turkey and Iran: Bitter Friends, Bosom Rivals
New frictions in Iraq and Syria threaten Ankara and
Tehran’s usually peaceful management of their Middle East rivalries. To rebuild
trust and avert open conflict, they should coordinate de-escalation, exchange
intelligence and designate representatives to open a new channel between their
leaders.
I. Overview
For nearly two
centuries and despite their fierce geopolitical competition from the Levant to
Iraq and the Caucasus, Turkey and Iran have kept the peace between themselves,
compartmentalised growing energy and commercial relations and even cooperated
regionally when their interests converged. Yet today, while their economies are
increasingly intertwined, a profound disagreement over core interests in Iraq
and Syria is putting these two former empires on a collision course. It is not
too late for a critically needed reset, but only if both recognise their
fundamental interest in reversing course and taking steps that allow them to
manage their differences peacefully, as they have done for almost 200 years.
Overlapping
ethnicities and cultures can at times make the two countries seem like two
sides of the same coin, but Iran is a leading regional proponent of both Shiite
Islam and theocratic governance, while Turkey’s secular constitution is built
on a bedrock of Sunni Islamic practice. As their officials and diplomats
attest, Turkey and Iran generally concur on the strength of the relationship
they have carefully nurtured during a long history of cohabitation. Since the
upheavals that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa from 2011,
however, frictions have increased over what each sees as the other’s hostile
manoeuvring in two countries of critical importance to both: Iraq and Syria.
Their inability to accommodate each other has the potential to undermine or
even undo their strong ties.
Both have empowered
local partners and proxies on the battlefields of Mosul, Tel Afar, Aleppo and
Raqqa that are forcefully positioning themselves to control whatever emerges
from the debris of today’s wars. Though both have attempted to build on shared
interests – defeating or at least marginalising Islamic State (IS) and curbing
the rise of autonomy-minded Syrian Kurds – deep suspicions about the other’s
ambitions to benefit from the chaos have stopped them from reaching an
arrangement that could lower the flames. The dynamics instead point toward
deepening sectarian tensions, greater bloodshed, growing instability across the
region and greater risks of direct – even if inadvertent – military
confrontation between them where their spheres of influence collide. The
possibility that an Iranian-made drone killed four Turkish soldiers in northern
Syria on 24 November 2016, as Ankara alleges, points toward perilous
escalation.
To reverse course
and avoid worse, they need to overcome mutual mistrust. To this end, and as a
pressing priority, they should establish a channel for continuous high-level
negotiations over their regional postures. The pace of such meetings as have
been held has been problematic: periodic senior encounters lasting one or two
days, followed by relatively long periods of diplomatic vacuum that tend to be
filled with escalation of proxy wars and one-upmanship. President Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan of Turkey and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei of Iran should designate
personal representatives with the authority to manage the diplomatic channel.
If they do this,
and to demonstrate seriousness and goodwill, the governments should also take
confidence-building steps, from more intelligence cooperation to coordinated de-escalation
where conflict is most acute. In northern Iraq, Iran might thus offer as a
first step to rein in Shiite militias deployed in Ninewa governorate, even as
units nominally accountable to the Iraqi prime minister in his capacity as
commander-in-chief, in return for Turkey agreeing to withdraw its tanks and
other heavy weapons from the area. Confidence-building measures, if well
executed, could pave the way for agreed principles of good neighbourliness,
mutual recognition of each other’s core interests and legitimate security
concerns in the region and an articulation of clear red lines with respect to
actions each deems hostile.
The U.S. and
Russia, which have strong military ties with Turkey and Iran respectively, as
well as in each case disagreements and conflicting interests, should support
such steps. For now, Turkey and Iran remain caught in the web of Russia-U.S.
relations, manoeuvring to create space for autonomous decisions; they will be
able to succeed only to the extent they find a way to work together.
Only by finding common ground can Turkey and Iran contribute to a more
stable and secure region.
De-escalation and
increased Ankara-Tehran cooperation are necessary but insufficient to resolve
the metastasising, intersecting crises involving many actors and heightened
sectarian passions. Even getting to that point would be hard. Electoral
calendars in both countries and the imperatives of domestic politics and
balancing ties with regional partners wary of a rapprochement could hinder
progress. But the effort would be important and should be pursued; it could at
least help reduce the sectarian tensions fanned by unhelpful rhetoric from both
leaderships.
Only by finding
common ground can Turkey and Iran contribute to a more stable and secure
region. The alternative – crystallised in the zero-sum dynamic that marks
Iran’s relations with the region’s other major Sunni power, Saudi Arabia – is
even greater disorder and suffering.
II. The Region’s Siamese Twins
Turkey and Iran
have long competed for hegemony in their shared neighbourhood, particularly the
Levant and Iraq (this briefing’s focus), but since the last full-scale
Ottoman-Persian war (1821-1823), they have maintained largely peaceful
relations.[fn]The Persian Sassanid (224-651) and Roman Byzantine
(330-1453) empires and their eventual inheritors, the Safavids (1501-1736) and
Ottomans (1299-1923), fought repeatedly for control of Mesopotamia, which today
is mainly Iraq and Syria. See Walter Emil Kaegi, Heraclius, Emperor
of Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003); Stephen Dale, The Muslim Empires of the
Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals (Cambridge, 2009).The 532-km
border between Iran and Turkey emerged from a 1932 treaty that reflected, with
minor adjustments, the frontier delineated in 1869.Hide Footnote
The competition outlived their transformation from empires to
nation-states, escalating at times of tectonic geostrategic shifts, such as the
Soviet Union’s collapse, which opened new space for rivalry in the Caucasus and
Central Asia, the break-up of Yugoslavia and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq. Most recently, the 2011 Arab uprisings gave both countries, posing as
champions of the popular movements, an opportunity to remake the region
according to their own interests.[fn]Bayram Sinkaya, “Rationalization of Turkey-Iran Relations: Prospects and Limits”,
Insight Turkey, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012), pp. 137-156. “Khamenei hails ‘Islamic’ uprisings”, Al-Jazeera, 4 February
2011; “Erdoğan pitches Turkey’s democratic model on ‘Arab Spring’ tour”,
Christian Science Monitor, 16 September 2011.Hide Footnote
As two of the
region’s strongest non-Arab states, with similar geographic and demographic
sizes and tradition of statehood, Turkey and Iran have not perceived one
another as an existential threat. Yet, their myriad social, political,
religious and ethnic differences have often pitted them against each other, as
has geostrategic orientation, particularly Turkey’s ties with the U.S. and
Israel and Iran’s hostility toward both.[fn]Turkey has spent most of the past century writing European laws into its
statute books in support of explicitly republican, secular constitutions, while
Iran has experienced first absolute monarchy and then theocratic rule. Nearly a
quarter of Iran’s population are ethnic Azeris, who speak a Turkic mother
tongue. “Iran: NATO radar in Turkey serves to protect Israel”,
Associated Press, 5 October 2011; “Leader’s advisor: Iran should reconsider relations with Turkey”,
Mehr News, 28 April 2016.Hide Footnote However,
they also share deep historic, cultural and economic ties. Over the past two
decades, their economies have become increasingly intertwined. Iran supplies
nearly a fifth of Turkey’s oil and natural gas; Turkey is its neighbour’s
gateway to Europe, with more than a fifth of Iran’s land trade transiting its
territory. This link became a lifeline for Iran during its most vulnerable
recent periods, the 1980-1988 war with Iraq and the peak of nuclear sanctions
in 2011-2013.[fn]According to Turkey’s Petroleum Pipeline
Corporation (BOTAŞ), Iran is Turkey’s main gas provider after Russia, some ten
billion cubic metres annually, while after Iraq, Iran is Turkey’s largest oil
supplier. “Sector Report”, 2015. Between March 2014 and March 2015, more than
110,000 trucks carried goods through the Bazargan border post, compared to
nearly 45,000 crossing Iran’s border with Afghanistan during that period.
“2014-2015 Annual Report”, Iran Road Maintenance and Transportation
Organisation. A senior Turkish diplomat said, “the phrase we hear the most when
visiting Tehran in the aftermath of the nuclear deal is, ‘we never forget the
friends who stood by us during tough times’”. Crisis Group interview, Ankara, 5
April 2016.
With Iran’s economy
unburdened from nuclear-related sanctions due to the 2015 nuclear accord, both
countries appear committed to boosting their nearly $10 billion bilateral
trade, while fencing off their geostrategic differences.[fn]Data from Turkish Statistical Institute. “Iran and Turkey
aim to triple trade to $30 billion”, Agence France-Presse, 5 March
2016. “Turkey’s Unit
International says agrees $4.2 billion deal to build Iran power plants”,
Reuters, 4 June 2016; “Turkey says it
wants to buy more gas from Iran”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
12 August 2016; “Turkey to
establish exclusive industrial park in Iran”, Tehran Times,
26 October 2016. Bilateral trade peaked at $21.9 billion in 2012, mostly from a
twelve-fold increase in Turkish gold exports. Onur Ant, “Iran, secret
gold and the mystery trade boosting Turkish exports”, Bloomberg,
13 April 2015. Crisis Group interviews, Mohammad Ebrahim Taherian, Iran’s
ambassador to Turkey; Mesut Özcan, director, Diplomatic Academy, Turkish
foreign ministry, both Ankara, 4 April 2016.Hide Footnote
But ability to do so is likely a function of two other factors: common
concerns over Kurdish separatism and conflicting interests in shaping the
political order in Iraq and Syria. The former might draw them closer, the
latter could drive them further apart – while uncertainty over the fate of the
nuclear deal under the incoming U.S. administration, which appears keen on
curbing Tehran’s regional influence, underlines their economic link’s vital
importance and casts a shadow over their overall relationship.
A. Shared Fears
Turkey and Iran –
home to, respectively, the region’s largest and second-largest Kurdish
populations – fear Kurdish separatist sentiments.[fn]An estimated eighteen and ten million Kurds reside in Turkey and Iran
respectively.Hide Footnote The Kurdistan Workers’
Party (PKK) has fought an insurgency in Turkey since 1984 that has cost nearly
40,000 lives. The conflict’s latest stretch, since the collapse of peace talks
in July 2015, has been particularly bloody, devastating large parts of
south-eastern Turkey.[fn]Crisis Group Europe
Briefing N°80, The Human Cost
of the PKK Conflict in Turkey: The Case of Sur, 17 March 2016.
According to Crisis Group’s open-source database on the Turkey-PKK
conflict, www.crisisgroup.be/interactives/turkey, between 20 July 2015 and 2
December 2016 some 816 state security force members, 986 PKK militants and 372
civilians were killed, predominantly in Turkey’s south-eastern provinces.Hide Footnote Iran, too, has long faced off with Kurdish
insurgent movements, but their rebellions have been scattered and transient.[fn]The only independent Kurdish state to date was established in Iran in 1946,
the “Mahabad Republic”, with the Soviet Union’s support. It collapsed in less
than a year. William Eagleton, Jr, The Kurdish Republic of 1946 (London,
1963).Hide Footnote The Kurdish Democratic
Party of Iran (KDPI) mounted an armed uprising in the aftermath of the 1979
Islamic revolution that was suppressed in 1982. The KDPI and another group,
Komalah, continued low-level insurgency until 1996, when they put down their
arms. In 2004, a new group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), that
followed the PKK’s leadership and ideology emerged, but in 2011 it, too, opted
for a ceasefire which, despite occasional clashes, still holds.
In mid-2016, Iran
experienced an apparent, perhaps short-lived, revival of the largely dormant
insurgency in its Kurdish region.[fn]Declaring a new
armed uprising after nearly two decades, the KDPI clashed on at least nine
occasions with Iranian Revolutionary Guards in 2016. PJAK and another leftist
Iranian Kurdish group, the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), each clashed six
times. Iran often responded by shelling border areas within Iraq’s Kurdistan
region. “Iran shelling
Kurdistan Region’s northeastern border”, Rudaw, 17 September
2016.Hide Footnote It is possible that some of
the attacks were instigated by regional rivals such as Saudi Arabia as
retaliation against perceived Iranian meddling in their backyards.[fn]Iranian national security officials and PKK leaders say they believe Saudi
Arabia has resuscitated the KDPI as part of its intensifying proxy war with
Iran. Crisis Group interviews, Tehran, May 2016; Qandil, June 2016.Hide Footnote It is also unclear whether the groups
involved have enough support in Iran or among their hosts in northern Iraq,
where they have been based, to sustain the fight.[fn]Data on the participation rate in Iran’s 2016 parliamentary elections can
be used as a barometer of separatist movements’ lack of support. The rate in
Kermanshah and Kurdistan, Kurdish-majority provinces, was 60 and 53 per cent
respectively, both higher than Tehran’s. Occasionally, local grievances spark
protests in Iran’s Kurdish regions, but these tend to peter out quickly. “Violent protest hits Kurdish city in northwest Iran”, Al
Jazeera, 8 May 2015. Jhilwan Qazzaz, a Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
spokesman said, “we do not want KRG territories to be used by any group to
threaten the security of our neighbouring countries. This is a very clear
stance of KRG, and all, with KDPI included, are informed of this”. “Kurds step up attacks as cold war with Iran threatens to spark”,
Middle East Eye, 16 September 2016.Hide Footnote
Meanwhile, the government has taken corrective measures in response to
the Kurdish region’s longstanding demands for investment, economic development
and mother-tongue education.[fn]The Rouhani
administration inaugurated one of Iran’s largest petrochemical complexes in
Mahabad and authorised mother-tongue education in the region’s schools and
universities. “Rouhani unveils ‘largest industrial complex’ in western Iran”,
Mehr News, 31 May 2016; “آموزش زبانهای محلی کردی و ترکی در مدارس” [“Education
in Kurdish and Turkish at local schools”], Iran, 1 June 2016.Hide Footnote
In dealing with
pan-Kurdish nationalist sentiment, Iran and Turkey have often cooperated, but
they have been at loggerheads for the past five years.[fn]Between 1991 and 2003, the two, along with Syria, consulted closely to
prevent emergence of an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. For more background,
see Elliot Hentov, Asymmetry of Interest: Turkish-Iranian Relations since
1979 (Saarbrucken, 2012). In 1998, Iran mediated between Turkey and Syria,
which were on the verge of military confrontation over the latter’s sheltering
of PKK leader Abdallah Öcalan and his fighters. Mahmut Bali Aykan, “The Turkish-Syrian Crisis of October 1998: A Turkish View”, Middle
East Policy, vol. 6, no. 4 (June 1999), p. 178.Hide Footnote
In Iraq, Ankara has supported Masoud Barzani, the Kurdistan Regional
Government’s (KRG) president and leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party
(KDP), despite his push for a statehood referendum. Tehran backs Barzani’s
rival, Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the Movement for
Change (Gorran) and the PKK, which has expanded its presence in northern Iraq,
including Sinjar and south of Kirkuk.
In northern Syria,
too, they have backed different Kurdish groups. Though an empowered PKK and its
affiliates theoretically pose a threat to both, the extensive territorial gains
made by the PKK-affiliated Syrian Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military
wing, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), that run directly counter to Turkish
interest have occurred with Iran’s implicit consent in support of the Syrian
regime.[fn]Beše Hozat, co-chair of the Union of Communities in
Kurdistan (Koma Civakên Kurdistan, KCK), an umbrella organisation with PKK
affiliates in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, said, “when ten to twenty million
Kurds in Turkey and Iran see that four million in Syria rule themselves with
dignity, they would want the same privilege”. Crisis Group interview, Qandil, 26
June 2016.Hide Footnote Officials in Ankara
say these gains embolden the PKK by giving it logistical and operational
support for attacks in Turkey, cutting off Turkey from the Arab world and
paving the way for creation of an autonomous statelet in northern Syria, which
the PKK and its local affiliates call “Rojava” (Western Kurdistan).[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Turkish diplomats and security officials, Ankara,
April-August 2016.Hide Footnote
Turkey has backed
the Kurdistan National Council (KNC), a coalition of twelve small Syrian
Kurdish parties with close ties to Iraqi Kurdish parties, as a counterweight to
the PYD; encouraged the KDP to control the border between Iraqi and Syrian
Kurdistan, the PYD’s lifeline to the outside world; and intervened militarily
in northern Syria in August 2016: Operation Euphrates Shield aimed to prevent
the YPG from connecting its two eastern cantons, Jazeera and Kobani, with
Afrin, its third, non-contiguous canton north west of Aleppo, drive IS from the
border and create a zone sufficiently safe to absorb part of Syria’s displaced
population.[fn]Selcan Hacaoglu, “Erdoğan plans Syrian ‘safe zone’ as military campaign widens”,
Bloomberg, 19 September 2016.Hide Footnote
In support of the
Syrian government’s position prioritising the fight against anti-regime rebels
and seeking to deter Turkey from supporting them, Iran over the past five years
has engaged the PYD’s leadership and even encouraged the group’s territorial
expansion to deny those areas to the armed opposition.[fn]Salih Muslim, the PYD’s co-chair, has visited Iran several times in the
past few years. Crisis Group interviews, Iranian officials, Tehran, March-May
2016. A former Revolutionary Guard member with recent Syria experience said,
“we don’t need to provide material support to the PYD-YPG, but we facilitate
dialogue and cooperation between Damascus and Syrian Kurds in the fight against
common foes [IS and the Turkish-backed armed opposition]”. Crisis Group
interview, Tehran, September 2016. In July 2012, the PYD-YPG quickly took over Kurdish
areas in northern Syria without a regime effort to recapture them. Since then,
it has largely engaged Damascus in a conciliatory, non-confrontational manner,
while steadily expanding its territorial control at the expense of rebel and
jihadist groups. For more on PYD-Syrian regime dynamics, see Crisis Group
Middle East Report N°151, Flight of
Icarus? The PYD’s Precarious Rise in Syria, 8 May 2014.Hide Footnote But the PYD’s ties with the U.S. and
Russia and its declaration of a federal system in the territory under its
control in March 2016 appear to have transformed Tehran’s perception of the
group from a tactical ally to a potential strategic threat.[fn]“Kurds declare ‘federal region’ in Syria, says official”, Wall
Street Journal, 24 March 2016.Hide Footnote
An Iranian national security official commented: “Self-rule is
contagious. An autonomous Kurdish region [in Syria] will trigger the
fragmentation of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey, replacing major regional states
with an archipelago of weak statelets”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Tehran, April 2016. Many in Tehran see a U.S.
conspiracy, though the U.S. has tried to keep Iraq a unitary state and
prevented the PYD from connecting the Syrian territories it controls. A senior
Iranian diplomat described the prevalent perception in the leadership: “The
pattern in Syria has an air of déjà vu. Following the Iraqi Kurdistan model,
the U.S. is first supporting [Syrian] Kurds’ territorial gains, then ensuring
their access to energy resources that would fuel their arms purchases from the
U.S., followed by fostering close military and intelligence links between them
and the Israelis, and eventually supporting their bid for independence”. This,
he said, “must be nipped in the bud”. Crisis Group interview, Tehran, May 2016.Hide Footnote Another Iranian official added a crucial
nuance:
Iran is concerned
about the possibility of a Kurdish state, but it isn’t threatened by the
Kurdish issue, given the deeper integration of Iranian Kurds in our society. As
such, Iran agrees with Turkey in opposing a Kurdish state, but fundamentally
disagrees with Turkey’s approach towards its Kurds.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Berlin, November 2016.Hide Footnote
Turkey is alarmed
by what it perceives as collusion between Iran and the PKK, of which Tehran’s
tolerance of PYD-YPG activities is only a part.[fn]For more than two decades, Turkey has accused Iran of using the PKK to
pressure it. Officials trace the new phase of Iran’s entente with the PKK to
2011, when they allege the latter agreed to restrain PJAK in return for more
manoeuvring space in northern Iraq and Syria. Crisis Group interviews, Turkish
security official, Ankara, April 2016; senior Turkish diplomat, Ankara, June
2016. “İran, Kandil’e bayrak dikti” [“Iran planted a flag in
Qandil”], Milliyet, 25 August 2015. PJAK’s 2011 ceasefire exacerbated
Turkish-Iranian mistrust. After Turkey shared intelligence on the location of
PKK leader Murat Karayılan’s sanctuary, his escape and withdrawal of PJAK
fighters from Iran’s border along the Qandil mountain range deepened Turkish
suspicions of Iran’s ties with the PKK. “Karayılan’ı İran Kurtardı” [“Iran saved Karayılan”], Sabah,
20 August 2011. Both Iranian and PKK officials deny direct cooperation.
“It is impossible for the PKK to cooperate with a country that does not respect
Kurdish rights”, Cemil Bayık, a senior PKK leader, said. “But neither Iran nor
the PKK wants to open a new front now”, he added, “as this would divert
attention from more important priorities in Iraq and Syria and entail serious
domestic implications: reactivation of PJAK in Iran and KRG pressure on the PKK
presence in Iraq”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Qandil, 26 June 2016.
Bayık’s official title is co-chair of the Union of Communities in Kurdistan
(Koma Civakên Kurdistan, KCK). Echoing the same view, an Iranian Revolutionary
Guard strategist said, “we consider the PKK a terrorist organisation and a
threat, but both Iran and the PKK have bigger fish to fry at the moment”.
Crisis Group interview, Tehran, May 2016.Hide Footnote
Even if Iran and
the PKK share a short-term tactical interest in defeating IS while
consolidating ties with partners and affiliates in Iraq and Syria, their
long-term interests do not align. The former seeks to preserve the existing
order; the latter strives to overturn it to carve out a Kurdish state.
Territorial gains, U.S. and Russian support and the weakness of their
traditional Syrian and Iraqi antagonists have given the PKK and its affiliates
confidence that any Turco-Iranian collusion against them could be neutralised.[fn]Referring to August 2016 clashes between Syrian government forces and the
YPG in northern Syria, Ilham Ahmed, a PYD official, noted emergence of a “new
concept” agreed by Turkey, Iran and Syria, though “it isn’t fully clear whether
this is strategic or tactical”. Quoted by ANF News, 23 August 2016. Cemil Bayık
said, “the days of the [1975] Algiers’ accord [that settled an Iran-Iraq border
dispute and resulted in Tehran ending support for Iraqi Kurds, allowing their
suppression by the Saddam regime] are over. The West needs the Kurds … against
IS and understands that both Iran and Turkey have played an unconstructive
role”. Crisis Group interview, Qandil, 26 June 2016. Zohra Ramishti, a female
fighter in Iraq with the Iranian-Kurdish leftist Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK),
said, “when we finish here [in Iraq], we will continue our fight for Rojhelat
[the Kurdish term for eastern Kurdistan]”. Quoted in Kim Deen, “First IS, then Iran: Kurdish-Iranian leader has eyes on ultimate goal”,
Middle East Eye, 1 October 2016; Ali Hashem, “Iranian Kurds fighting IS in Iraq put Tehran on alert”, Al-Monitor,
28 November 2016.Hide Footnote That confidence may
well be inflated, and their pursuit of further territorial objectives could put
them on a collision course with Turkey and Iran if and when IS is dislodged
from the places it currently holds.
B. Mutual Mistrust
Crisis Group on the Ground Crisis Group Senior Analysts Nigar Göksel
and Ali Vaez meet with former Turkish President Abdullah Gül, May 2016. CRISIS
GROUP
Turkish officials
could not fathom Assad agreeing to lead a transition that would result in his
ouster.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, former and current Turkish
officials, Istanbul and Ankara, March-August 2016. Yusuf Burak Rende, foreign
ministry deputy director for the Middle East, said moreover, “Turkey is not
budging on Assad, because even if we did, the opposition will never accept
Assad remaining in power”. Crisis Group interview, Ankara, 7 April 2016.Hide Footnote More importantly, they calculated that
military dynamics and time were in their favour. Abdullah Gül, the then president,
later said, “our government did not pursue an agreement with Iran because it
thought Assad would be toppled in a few months”. From Ankara’s perspective,
Assad’s battlefield losses would remove the need to compromise or at least
improve a deal’s terms.[fn]Crisis Group
interviews, former President Gül, 10 May 2016; former Turkish official,
Istanbul, March 2016; senior Turkish official, Ankara, April 2016.Hide Footnote
After nearly three
years of mutual escalation in Syria, a second chance for Turco-Iranian dialogue
appeared following the July 2016 failed coup in Turkey. Iran’s swift support
for Erdoğan led to a warming of ties and resumption of talks on Syria.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Iranian official, Ankara, August 2016; senior
Iranian diplomat, New York, September 2016. An Iranian diplomat said it took
the Iranian Supreme National Security Council’s crisis cell less than a half
hour to conclude that “any alternatives to the status quo in Turkey would be
worse for us”. Crisis Group interview, Ankara, August 2016. Mevlut Çavuşoğlu,
Turkey’s foreign minister, said: “During the coup night, I did not sleep until
morning; nor did my friend Javad Zarif. He was the foreign minister I talked to
most, calling me five times during the night”. Quoted in “Iran’s foreign minister boosts ties during Ankara visit”,
Voice of America, 12 August 2016.Hide Footnote Turkish-Russian
reconciliation, fuelled in part by YPG advances in northern Syria, probably
also contributed to Ankara’s rethinking of its Syria policy.
This time, the
parties put aside the most divisive, seemingly irreconcilable issue: Assad’s
fate.[fn]Describing the motivation behind Turkey’s
deployment of forces in Syria, Erdoğan said, “we do not have an eye on Syrian
soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are
there for the establishment of justice. We entered there to end the rule of the
tyrant al-Assad who terrorises with state terror”. Quoted in “Turkey entered Syria to end al-Assad’s rule: President Erdoğan”,
Hürriyet, 29 November 2016.Hide Footnote
Tehran continued to insist that a swift transition away from Assad before
stabilising the country would lead to state collapse and chaos that could only
benefit Sunni jihadists. For Turkey, his departure remained, Ibrahim Kalın,
chief adviser to Erdoğan, said, “the key symbolic and practical component of
any acceptable transitional process”. They agreed to focus, however, on what
political system (presidential or parliamentary) and power-sharing mechanism
could work in a post-conflict Syria.[fn]Crisis Group
interviews, Iranian national security officials and diplomats, Tehran,
April-August 2016; Ankara, 16 June 2016; senior Iranian diplomat, New York,
September 2016.Hide Footnote But after two
high-level rounds, Turkey’s military intervention in northern Syria, Operation
Euphrates Shield, disrupted the talks and exacerbated mistrust. Iranian officials
expressed surprise Turkey had not notified them of the operation despite the
presence of a senior Iranian official in Ankara the day before.[fn]An Iranian official said: “Iran’s deputy foreign minister was in Ankara one
day before Euphrates Shield to discuss the situation in Syria. But his Turkish
counterparts did not mention a word about the imminent offensive”. Crisis Group
interview, New York, September 2016. “Iran foreign ministry calls on Turkey to quickly end Syria intervention”,
IRNA.ir, 30 August 2016.Hide Footnote Turkey
may have feared that Iran would tip off the YPG.
III. Between Competition and Cooperation
Despite their long
relationship, Turkey and Iran harbour deep mutual mistrust. Suspicions are
evident even in the bilateral economic realm.[fn]In the mid-2000s, Iranian authorities annulled major contracts with
Turkey’s TAV Airports Holding and TurkCell communications that threatened
vested interests of powerful stakeholders in Iran. The two also bitterly
disputed the price of Iran’s natural gas exports. “Turkey wins gas
price row against Iran in court”, Hürriyet, 2 February 2016.
A preferential trade deal, ten years in negotiation, was widely criticised in
Iran as undermining domestic industries in 2015. “بررسي توافقنامه
تجارت ترجيحي ميان ايران و تركيه” [“Assessing Preferential Trade
Agreement between Turkey and Iran”], Iranian Parliament’s Research Centre,
March 2015. A senior Turkish official said, “when Iranians complain Turkey is
not as eager as Europeans to reengage after the nuclear deal, I tell them:
‘We’ve been there, done that, and good luck!’” Crisis Group interview, Ankara,
April 2016.Hide Footnote They are particularly
acute, however, regarding regional manoeuvring: each views the other as seeking
hegemony, if not to recapture lost glory, through violent proxies. Iran decries
Turkey’s active support of the opposition in its attempt to bring down the
Syrian regime, thus endangering Iran’s strategic link with Hizbollah in
Lebanon, and accuses it of supporting Sunni jihadist groups in Syria and
allowing IS recruits to transit its territory on their way to Syria and Iraq.
Turkey is alarmed by what it sees as Iranian support for the PKK and its
affiliates in carving out an autonomous zone on its border with Syria, and by
the actions of these same groups and Iraqi Shiite militias in northern Iraq,
once the Ottoman province of Mosul (Mosul Vilayet) and still viewed by Ankara
as its “turf”. It deems these developments a direct threat to the stability of
its borders with Syria and Iraq and the area’s Sunni inhabitants.
Tehran interprets
Turkey’s Syria policy as primarily a product of a neo-Ottoman ambition to
regain clout and empower pro-Turkey Sunnis in territories ruled by its
progenitor. “What changed in Syria [after 2011] was neither the government’s
nature nor Iran’s ties with it”, an Iranian national security official said,
“but Turkish ambitions”. Moreover, Iran blames Ankara for not stemming the flow
of Salafi jihadists through Turkish territory into Syria and for giving them
logistical and financial support.[fn]Crisis Group
interviews, Iranian officials, Tehran, Istanbul, March-August 2016. A senior
Iranian diplomat said, “Erdoğan thought that instability in the region was a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to mould the region in Turkey’s image, empower
the Muslim Brotherhood and rebuild the Ottoman Empire – without realising that
empire building is not as easy as building hotels and shopping malls across the
region”. An Iranian diplomat said, “Just take Ahrar al-Sham, Turkey’s favourite
jihadist group. They work with al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda, and want to
establish a Taliban-like system in Syria; but Turkey still maintains they are
mainstream and reasonable alternatives for Syria’s future”. “Turkey, Jordan aid Syria-bound ‘terrorists’: Iran”, Agence
France-Presse, 13 July 2012. “رضایی:ایران اسناد فروش نفت داعش به ترکیه را در اختیار دارد” [“Rezaei:
Iran possesses documents on IS oil sales to Turkey], IRNA.ir, 4 December 2015.Hide Footnote
In the same vein,
officials in Ankara contend that Iran seeks to resuscitate the Persian Empire –
this time with a Shiite streak – and to do so in formerly Ottoman territories.
In March 2015, President Erdoğan accused Iran of fighting IS in Iraq “only to
take its place”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Turkish officials, Ankara
and Istanbul, March-August 2016. “Turkey’s Erdoğan says can’t tolerate Iran bid to dominate Middle East”,
Reuters, 26 March 2015.Hide Footnote Turkey
also says that Iran’s mobilisation of Shiite militias from across the region to
protect the rule of a minority sect, the Alawites, over a majority-Sunni
population in Syria has deepened sectarian tensions, providing Sunni jihadists
with a potent recruitment tool.[fn]Crisis Group interviews,
Turkish diplomats and security officials, Ankara, April, June 2016. Crisis
Group has written: “Contrary to conventional wisdom, Syria’s is not an Alawite
(an offshoot of Shiism) regime, and that community hardly lives in opulence.
But it is a regime thanks to which the Alawites overcame their second-class
status and escaped a history of harassment and massacres”. Middle East Report
N°128, Syria’s Mutating
Conflict, 1 August 2012.Hide Footnote
In trading
accusations, each decries the other’s refusal to acknowledge its view of
reality, while neglecting that each has acted in ways for which it faults the
other: use of hard power and support for non-state actors. Attempts to build on
common ground have failed because of suspicions, misperceptions and
miscalculations. In September 2013, the new government of President Hassan
Rouhani floated an initiative to resolve the Syrian crisis. Foreign Minister
Javad Zarif presented what he said was a plan developed with the commander of
the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, to his
Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoğlu.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, Vienna, 19
November 2014; Revolutionary Guard Corps strategist, Tehran, May 2016. The plan
outlined four steps: 1) ceasefire; 2) national unity government; 3)
constitutional reform aimed particularly at constraining presidential powers;
and 4) presidential and legislative elections under UN supervision. Hossein
Amir-Abdollahian, “Iran’s four-part plan for a political solution in Syria”,
Al-Monitor, 5 March 2014.Hide Footnote Several
months of shuttle diplomacy yielded no results, Zarif said:
We agreed on every
detail, except a clause in the final phase of the plan which called for
UN-monitored elections. Turkish leaders wanted Assad barred …. I noted that
this should not be a concern in an internationally monitored election,
particularly if, as Turkey holds, Assad has a dreadful record and a minority
constituency. But Davutoğlu refused …, and our efforts came to naught.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Vienna, 19 November 2014.Hide Footnote
With each failure
to find an accommodation, the context of Turkey’s and Iran’s rivalry has become
more complex and disagreements more intractable. What they have in common in
Syria is that neither can tolerate a divided country or complete disorder. What
is critically important for Iran, however, is that whatever order there is
preserves Syria’s geostrategic orientation as part of the “axis of resistance”:
to project power into the Levant, generally, and to keep its strategic depth
vis-à-vis Israel via its link with Hizbollah, in particular. While Turkey would
like to see Assad gone and a more inclusive Sunni-led order emerge in Damascus
that would be friendlier, its absolute priority is to have a stable border and
a curb on PKK-led Kurdish aspirations. Both seek to preserve Iraq’s territorial
integrity as well, but ensuring Shiite-majority rule is as critical for Iran as
a more inclusive role for Sunnis in governance is for Turkey.
These objectives
are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and interests in Syria at least are
probably more closely aligned today than for five years. Both have increasingly
focused on fighting IS and pushing back against the PYD’s announcement of a
federal system in the north that they fear could intensify centrifugal forces
rending the country. They need dialogue, however, to accommodate differences in
their priorities: containing the PYD-YPG for Turkey, saving Assad for Iran.[fn]Ibrahim Kalın, Erdoğan’s chief adviser, said, “the national security threat
… from Kurdish separatism is more acute for Turkey than for Iran”. Crisis Group
interview, Ankara, 16 June 2016. A senior U.S. official said, “two years ago,
Erdoğan had three priorities, in this order: Assad, Kurds, IS. Today it is
Kurds, IS, Assad”. Crisis Group interview, Washington, 29 June 2016.Hide Footnote
For now, there are more reasons to believe the two will persist on their
current path than change course.
For now, there are
more reasons to believe the two will persist on their current path than change
course. That Turkey sees Iran as increasingly encroaching on its historic
sphere of influence, especially in and around the Aleppo and Mosul
battlefields, exacerbates tensions. Having pushed IS out of the towns of
Jarablous, al-Rai and Dabiq near the Turkish border between August and October,
Syrian rebels backed by the Turkish army began to advance southwards to fulfil
Erdoğan’s pledge to clear a 5,000-sq. km zone in northern Syria. If they reach
strategically important al-Bab east of Aleppo, held by IS but coveted by the
YPG as a land bridge between its Kobani and Afrin cantons, they would come
dangerously close to the Syrian army and Iranian-allied forces, as well, on the
other side, to U.S.-backed, YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) north
of Aleppo.[fn]“Turkey ‘obliged’ to press on to Syria’s al-Bab,
Erdogan says”, Reuters, 22 October 2016. Controlling al-Bab is critically
important for Turkey as a means of blocking the YPG from connecting its
cantons; its value to the Syrian regime is due to its proximity to the Aleppo
theatre. A reported Syrian strike on Turkish forces near al-Bab on 24 November
2016 was presumably a warning shot, preceded by verbal warnings in Syrian government
media. “Turkey blames Syrian government for deadly attack on Turkish soldiers”,
Middle East Eye, 24 November 2016.Hide Footnote
Turkey claiming that an Iranian-made drone killed four of its soldiers
near al-Bab on 24 November is an ominous sign.[fn]Rudaw, 7 December 2016. “Iran might have hit Turkish soldiers, Pentagon says”, Hürriyet,
9 December 2016. An Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps strategist said,
“Turkey’s understanding with Russia is that Turkish intervention in Syria will
not extend beyond a depth of 12 km. Al-Bab is 30 km from the Turkish border.
The deeper they go, the costlier it will become for them”. Crisis Group
interview, Tehran, December 2016.Hide Footnote
Similar dynamics
exist in Iraq. Turkey’s insistence on a role for the proxy militia it has
trained on its Bashiqa military base east of Mosul, the Sunni Arab al-Hashd
al-Watani (also known as “Mosul Knights”), beside the Peshmerga of Barzani’s
pro-Turkish KDP in the operation to retake Mosul from IS triggered an
Ankara-Baghdad war of words. Turkish officials contend that Baghdad’s
opposition to a Turkish role and presence in the north derives from its
alliance with Tehran.[fn]Tim Arango and
Michael Gordon, “Turkey’s push to join battle for Mosul inflames tension with Iraq”,
New York Times, 23 October 2016. Crisis Group interview, senior Turkish
diplomat, Ankara, April 2016. The ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP)
deputy chairman, Yasin Aktay, said, “it is Iran that does not want Turkish
participation in the Mosul battle. But it does not say it openly. Instead it
pushes the Iraqi government to say it”. Asharq al-Awsat, 2 November
2016.Hide Footnote
Meanwhile,
Iran-backed Shiite militias (al-Hashd al-Shaabi) have indicated intent to push
toward Tel Afar, an old Ottoman garrison town west of Mosul with a majority
Turkmen population, ostensibly to prevent IS fighters from escaping toward the
Syrian border. The prospect of Shiite militias entering Tel Afar alarmed
Ankara, which deployed tanks and artillery in Silopi close to its border with
Iraq to warn of intervention in case of reprisals against the city’s Sunnis.[fn]“Tal Afar will be the cemetery of Turkish soldiers should Turkey attempt to
take part in the battle”, Hadi al-Ameri, head of the Badr Organisation and a
Hashd al-Shaabi leader said. Quoted in Mustafa Saadoun, “Iran, Turkey fight
over Tal Afar”, Al-Monitor, 18 November 2016. Erdoğan warned: “Tal
Afar is a totally Turkmen city, with half Shia and half Sunni Muslims … if
Hashd al-Shaabi terrorizes the region, our response would be different”. Quoted
in “Erdoğan warns of Shia militia entering Iraq’s Tal Afar”,
Anadolu Agency, 29 October 2016. Historically, Tel Afar has had a Turkoman
population, divided fairly evenly between Sunnis and Shiites. It has not been
free of Iraq’s post-2003 sectarian violence, which saw Shiite Islamist parties
come to power and Sunnis resort to insurgency. IS conquered it in 2014, driving
out its Shiite population. Several IS commanders are, or were (until killed by
U.S. strikes), Sunni Turkmen from Tel Afar.Hide Footnote
That provoked a harsh response from the Iraqi prime minister, who warned:
“We do not want war with Turkey … but if a confrontation happens, we are ready
for it … and will deal with [Turkey] as an enemy”.[fn]“Iraq-Turkey tension rises amid battle for Mosul”, Al-Jazeera,
2 November 2016. An Iranian official tried to put distance between his and
Iraq’s leadership, saying that “though the Iraqi government asked Iran to side
with Baghdad against Ankara …, we decided not to interfere”. Crisis Group
interview, Berlin, November 2016.Hide Footnote Ankara
also sees Tehran’s hand in the presence of PKK and YPG fighters in Sinjar, west
of Mosul close to the Syrian border.[fn]Crisis Group
interviews, Turkish diplomat, Ankara, June 2016; Turkish analyst, Washington,
October 2016.Hide Footnote The view in Tehran is
the opposite: Turkey is seen as seeking to create a Sunni-dominated federal
region in northern Iraq with greater autonomy, as suggested by some Iraqi Sunni
politicians close to Ankara, ostensibly to protect minority communities, in
reality to counterbalance Iran’s influence elsewhere in Iraq.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, member, Iranian parliament foreign affairs
committee; ex-member, Quds Force, both Tehran, October 2016. Two brothers close
to Turkey, Osama al-Nujayfi, ex-Iraqi parliament speaker, and Atheel, ex-Ninewa
governor, favour more Ninewa autonomy once IS is defeated. “Sunnis demand autonomous region for Nineveh post-IS”, Rudaw,
29 July 2016.Hide Footnote
That each side
perceives the other in a zero-sum light provides further impetus for proceeding
on the current course. Each appears determined to spoil the other’s prospects.
Ankara, a Turkish security official said, “fears Iran’s triumph in Syria or
Iraq will embolden it to step further into our turf”. An Iranian national
security official expressed concern over Turkish muscle-flexing, saying,
without apparent irony considering Iran’s role in Iraq and Syria: “Once you
change regimes or the demographic compositions of other countries by sending
your tanks across the border, you empty the notion of state sovereignty of any
meaning”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Istanbul, June 2016,
Tehran, October 2016.Hide Footnote
The looming U.S.
transition is another incentive for Turkey and Iran to create as many facts on
the ground as possible before a new administration sets its Iraq and Syria
policies. This may explain the Russian-Iranian-Syrian push to subdue east
Aleppo and Turkey’s attempt to establish a de facto safe zone in northern
Syria. Equally important may be the domestic appeal of bold nationalistic
rhetoric in the run-up to the constitutional referendum on whether to grant
Erdoğan more executive powers, anticipated in mid-2017, and Iran’s May
presidential election.
There is an alternative. Ankara and Tehran could de-escalate and
re-energise cooperation.
Even if dynamics
deliver short-term gains to either, they entail serious risk. More escalation
could turn proxy conflicts into direct, even if inadvertent, military
confrontation in northern Syria or Iraq. Even without that, cross-regional
alliances involving ever more aggressive actors are exacerbating mistrust and
deepening sectarian rifts that prolong the standoff. There is an alternative.
Ankara and Tehran could de-escalate and re-energise cooperation. Officials
express interest but scepticism the other would show goodwill and, more
importantly, flexibility.[fn]A Turkish security
official said, “Turkey and Iran could be France and Germany … working to
stabilise the region but that requires partnership based on equality and
trust”. Crisis Group interview, Istanbul, June 2016. An Iranian diplomat said,
“we have reached out to Turkey on regional issues more than to any other
government … but have almost nothing to show … to sceptics who believe
compromise with Erdoğan is impossible”. Crisis Group interview, Tehran,
September 2016.Hide Footnote Iranian officials deem
Turkey’s approach to differences erratic or, as an Iranian diplomat put it, “a
function of Erdoğan’s mood and megalomania”. Turks say the Iranians neither
recognise Turkey’s legitimate interests nor demonstrate any flexibility on key
issues, such as post-Assad transition or equitable power sharing in Iraq and
Syria.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Tehran, July 2016. For an
example of Turkish turnabouts, see “Syrian rebels stunned as Turkey signals
normalisation of Damascus relations”, Guardian, 13 July 2016; “Turkey: Assad can be part of transition in Syria”, Associated
Press, 20 August 2016. Crisis Group interviews, Turkish diplomat, Ankara, June
2016; Turkish foreign policy experts, Ankara, August 2016. A senior Turkish
diplomat complained: “The Iranians use the same tired arguments and maximalist
goals they did five years ago. They invite us to focus on fighting terrorism as
a way of utilising Turkish influence to restore the status quo ante, with Assad
in full control of Syria. I understand what they want, but where is their
give?” Crisis Group interview, Ankara, April 2016.Hide Footnote
Yet, both have exhibited an ability to moderate escalating tensions.[fn]A Turkish academic called Turkey’s handling of the April 2016 Organisation
of Islamic Cooperation summit in Istanbul a case in point: “Turkey sided with
Saudi Arabia in condemning Iran’s meddling … but then went out of its way in
welcoming President Rouhani in Ankara the next day”. Crisis Group interview,
Istanbul, 11 May 2016. Scott Peterson, “Despite deep divides over Syria, Turkey rolls out the welcome mat for
Iran”, Christian Science Monitor, 14 April 2016. Each has
offered to mediate the other’s regional conflicts. “Turkey says ready to help calm Saudi Arabia-Iran tensions”,
Agence France-Presse, 5 January 2016; “Leader’s top
aide: Iran ready to mediate between Turkey, Iraq”, Fars News, 30
October 2016.Hide Footnote
Rivalry has exposed
the limits of Turkey’s and Iran’s power projection instead of expanding their
clout. In northern Syria, Turkey has seen the most serious threat to its
national security in decades emerge: growing PYD-YPG strength, cross-border
infiltration by jihadists who conduct attacks inside Turkey and arrival of
nearly three million Syrian refugees.[fn]Crisis Group Europe Report N°241, Turkey’s Refugee
Crisis: The Politics of Permanence, 30 November 2016.Hide Footnote Iran has shouldered the burden of military
protection and financial support of a pivotal ally at risk, at the price of
incurring the Sunni world’s enmity. Inability to work together has diminished
their ability to influence extra-regional partners (Russia for Iran, the U.S.
for Turkey) that instead of taking their interests into account have tried to
contain their aspirations.
Ultimately Turkey
and Iran, as neighbours, will have to live with the outcome of the conflicts
now burning around them. Any sustainable solution will require a regional power
balance tolerable for both. This can only be achieved if they cooperate, rein
in their proxies and recognise one another’s core strategic and security
interests in Syria and Iraq.
IV. Conclusion
Today’s geostrategic
competition between Turkey and Iran is the latest iteration of an old power
game, but with an increasingly ominous twist as they warily eye each other’s
moves in Iraq and Syria, prime their proxies and, in Turkey’s case, prepare to
escalate direct military involvement. How the two choose to deploy their power,
with whom they align and whether they can manage or overcome their differences
is vitally important not only to them, but also to their neighbours and other
states with a stake in the Middle East. Among the actors involved in the
region’s wars, however, no two are more suited to identify ways toward renewed
mutual accommodation than Turkey and Iran. They have extensive communication
channels and long experience in striking geostrategic deals, engage in
intensive trade and importantly share a core interest in preserving their
neighbours’ territorial integrity.
As the region’s
conflicts worsen, the future becomes more unpredictable, with no actor
insulated from potential harm. Today’s seductive opportunities may become
tomorrow’s smothering traps. It should be an interest of those that have the
ability, maturity and long history of peaceful relations not to allow
themselves to be sucked further into an uncertain future but to agree to a
critical course correction that, while not settling all conflicts, could at
least help lessen overall tensions.
As the region’s conflicts worsen, the future becomes more unpredictable,
with no actor insulated from potential harm.
To do so, as a
pressing priority, they should establish a channel for continuous high-level
negotiations over their regional postures. The pace of such meetings as have
been held has been problematic: periodic senior encounters lasting one or two
days, followed by relatively long periods of diplomatic vacuum that tend to be
filled with escalation of proxy wars and one-upmanship. President Erdoğan and
Supreme Leader Khamenei should designate personal representatives with the
authority to manage the diplomatic channel.[fn]Diplomats on both sides expressed scepticism about whether their
counterparts have the authority to negotiate on behalf of their governments.
They seem to believe that only officials in the two leaders’ inner circles can
deliver. Crisis Group interviews, Iranian and Turkish officials, Ankara,
April-June 2016.Hide Footnote This could allow
Ankara and Tehran to go beyond merely managing differences – with the risks of
accidents, miscalculations and miscommunications this entails – and frankly
acknowledge one another’s interests and security concerns in their shared
neighbourhood. Without such a strategic understanding, piecemeal transactional
arrangements will not yield the desired results, as progress on one issue could
be neutralised by setbacks elsewhere.[fn]For instance, in 2015, Turkey facilitated talks between Iran and the
Turkish-backed rebel group Ahrar al-Sham in Syria, which led to a rare
population swap agreement between the rebel-controlled village of Zabadani,
besieged by the government, and Fuaa and Kefraya, pro-regime villages
surrounded by rebels. The exchange did little to help de-escalate the wider
conflict. Nour Samaha, “Besieged Syria rebels evacuated in rare deal”, Al Jazeera, 28
December 2015.Hide Footnote
The U.S. and Russia
should adopt a coherent, supportive approach toward the two regional powers and
their conflicting aspirations for primacy, pressing their respective allies to
take steps that can help avoid an escalation that would be in neither Russian
nor U.S. interests.
In sum, Turkey and
Iran need to set in motion a virtuous dynamic that, by enabling negotiation of
a sustainable modus vivendi, could stabilise their relationship and start
reducing the flames burning in the region. This requires difficult reciprocal
concessions and confidence-building steps but would protect their interests far
better than continuation of a highly unstable and unpredictable status quo or,
worse still, escalation and direct military confrontation.
Istanbul/Tehran/Brussels,
13 December 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment