Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. Why Pakistan won’t be next to normalize with Israel
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Domestic constraints, support for Palestine and growing ties with Iran will likely continue to keep Pakistan and Israel apart.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, Normalization, and Domestic Policy
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine
43. Assessing the US strategy in Iraq
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Only an integrated political, military and economic strategy targeting the Iranian system in all its aspects, with a long-term commitment to local allies and the mission, can succeed.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Conflict, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
44. Reassessing Russian Capabilities in the Levant and North Africa
- Author:
- Frederic M. Wehrey and Andrew S. Weiss
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Russia may be back in the Middle East, but is it a truly strategic player? The picture is decidedly mixed. After abandoning most of its presence in the Levant and North Africa during the late 1980s, the Kremlin has alarmed Western policymakers in recent years by filling power vacuums and exploiting the missteps of the United States and the European states. Moscow panders to the insecurities and ambitions of local regimes, trying to enrich itself along the way. While Russian activism is part of a broader push for great power status, most of its policies are rooted more in opportunism than grand strategy. Yet Russian influence is formidable in many respects. In war-wracked states like Syria and Libya, Moscow has adroitly deployed military forces and engaged with actors that are off-limits to Westerners, thus positioning itself as a significant power broker. In Egypt and Algeria, it has pursued arms deals that are unencumbered by human rights conditions. Russia’s economic footprint is expanding in fields ranging from infrastructure to tourism to energy, contributing, in some instances, to the region’s cronyism and corruption. At the same time, a closer look at Russian activism reveals that its ability to shape events in the Middle East is far more modest than is commonly assumed. Russia has neither the tools nor the willingness to tackle the region’s deep-seated socioeconomic and governance problems. In Syria, the limits of the Kremlin’s military commitment have been exposed amid clashes with other powerful, outside players and a hardening stalemate on the ground. For now, Moscow is simply not in a position to achieve its desired military or political outcomes absent a significant investment of new resources. Russian economic penetration is driven mainly by short-term objectives and a search for outsized financial rewards that sometimes fail to materialize or to make Moscow an attractive partner. Russian inroads are further limited by regional factors like fractured politics and capricious local actors, who, despite being plied with Russian attention and support, do not behave as docile proxies. In many instances, Middle Eastern rulers exert far more power in shaping the extent of Russian influence than conventional narratives suggest. Successive leaders of Egypt, for instance, have perfected the game of soliciting Russia’s attention to gain leverage over other patrons, namely the United States. For their part, Israeli leaders have worked hard to ensure that Russia does not throw major obstacles in the way of Israel’s ongoing campaign against Iranian military encroachment in Syria—yet they surely take note when Moscow does the bare minimum in raising concerns about the situation in Gaza. The limits of Russian influence are similarly noticeable in the heartbreaking economic crisis in Lebanon, where Moscow is little more than a bystander. With these limitations in mind, Washington should avoid viewing the region through a zero-sum, Cold War lens that sees every development as a net gain or loss for Moscow or minimizes the agency of local actors. In the context of multiple policy challenges across the globe and at home, U.S. decisionmakers need to prioritize the areas of Russian influence that necessitate a response. In so doing, they should avoid playing the arms sales game on Moscow’s terms or letting themselves be instrumentalized by autocratic Middle Eastern rulers who point to Russian overtures to seek leniency and support from Washington. U.S. and European policymakers have ample tools at their disposal that can frustrate or slow the more malign forms of Moscow’s inroads. Yet the net impact of such pushback on Russian resolve should not be overstated. Instead, Washington should focus its energies on its biggest comparative advantage vis-à-vis Moscow in the region: namely, its abundant sources of influence and leverage in the economic and security spheres, its still-potent soft power, and its leadership of multilateral diplomacy and the rules-based global order.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Geopolitics, Economy, and Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Eurasia, Middle East, North America, and Levant
45. How Syria Changed Turkey’s Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Francesco Siccardi
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Between August 2016 and the present, Turkey has launched four military operations in northern Syria. Each operation has served specific objectives and was designed to respond to rapidly changing scenarios on the ground. It is possible to identify the key priorities that have informed Turkey’s Syria policy over the years. Boiled down to its core, the Turkish government’s activism in Syria has been driven by domestic politics and has helped Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) preserve power. Domestically, Ankara has used the Syrian conflict as a pretext to suppress the rights of the Kurds living in Turkey and limit their parliamentary representation to secure a landmark constitutional reform in 2017. In the following years, successive military operations in Syria have helped Erdoğan connect with increasingly nationalistic constituencies and drum up support around key electoral dates. Finally, after the failed coup in July 2016, the Turkish government’s Syria policy played a major role in rebuilding the credibility of the Turkish Armed Forces while redrawing the balance between civilian and military power. In foreign policy terms, Turkey’s military operations in Syria have resulted in increasingly tense relations with the United States. Washington’s support for the Syrian Kurds has alienated Ankara to an extent that U.S. policymakers failed to anticipate. The thorniest topic of the day in the U.S.-Turkey bilateral relation—Ankara’s decision to deploy the Russian S-400 missile system—is also deeply related to the Syrian crisis. This decision was made in the context of a strategic realignment between Turkey and Russia that has helped both countries pursue their respective objectives in Syria: the survival of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime for Moscow and the weakening of the Syrian Kurds for Ankara. Finally, Ankara’s involvement in Syria has also given Turkey new leverage over the EU when it comes to the management of refugee flows. Solving the question of Syrian refugees in Turkey has been a priority of the Turkish government since the early stages of the Syrian civil war—and a main driver of Ankara’s policies toward both Syria and the EU. Overall, Ankara’s involvement in Syria has not only been a source of conflict—or rapprochement—with its traditional partners and neighbors across the region. It has also equipped Turkey with new tools for conducting a more aggressive, nationalistic foreign policy. The strategies Turkey has employed in Syria have boosted the country’s image and international role. These operations have secured a seat for Turkey at the negotiating table with Russia and the United States. Ankara has used these tools, these lessons learned, and its new capabilities to inform its revisionist foreign policy posture. Going forward, and with an eye on the country’s 2023 presidential election, Turkey will continue to use these tools to reinforce its position in the international arena.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, European Union, Syrian War, and Military
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, Turkey, Middle East, and Syria
46. Turkey’s African adventure: Taking stock of a new chapter in EU-Turkey relations
- Author:
- Ioannis N. Grigoriadis and Georgios Christos Kostaras
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- Since its official adoption in 2005, Turkey’s “Africa Opening” (Afrika Açılımı) has become one of the most important elements in its foreign policy and resulted in the diversification of Turkey’s economic and political relations with sub-Saharan African states. While African-Turkish relations were broadly perceived as advanced by 2010, Ankara´s humanitarian involvement in Somalia the following year has been a catalyst for Turkey´s growing influence in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel. Emphasizing both the absence of a colonial past and its religious affinities, Turkey has further promoted its relations and influence across the continent. This is most evident in the Sahel, where the strategies of Ankara and Paris are at loggerheads. EU and Turkish interests in Africa are not necessarily irreconcilable; Africa, a continent whose economic and strategic significance is set to sharply rise, deserves more attention from Greece and the European Union.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Politics, Bilateral Relations, European Union, and Economy
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Europe, Turkey, Middle East, and Mediterranean
47. Turkish drones, Greek challenges
- Author:
- Antonis Kamaras
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- This paper analyses the evolution of Turkey’s capacity to conduct drone-led warfare, an evolution driven by its assertive national security and foreign policy. It connects this feature of Turkey’s war-fighting capability to the debate on the impact drones have on the modern battlefield and on conflictual interstate relations. The paper attributes the underdevelopment of Greece’s drone and counter-drone capacity to the country’s fiscal crisis and to the civilian leadership’s unwillingness to make use of Greece’s alliances, geographical position and R&D ecosystem to develop such capacities. The analysis identifies the factors and processes that can accelerate the speed at which the Greek armed forces ready themselves to meet the evolving challenges—including drones—posed by their assertive neighbour.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, National Security, Drones, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Greece, and Mediterranean
48. Turkey’s Post-2016 Foreign Policy Drivers: Militarisation, Islam, Civilisation and Power
- Author:
- Ahmet Öztürk
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- Dramatic political changes in Turkey are not limited to the degradation of state institutions or the democratic backsliding. Turkey is experiencing a substantial change in foreign policy as well. In this context, this study argues that new Turkey’s new foreign policy understanding rests on four inter-related parameters that pertain to the priorities of the country’s ruling coalition: militarisation, Islam, civilisation and power.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Islam, Civilization, and Militarization
- Political Geography:
- Turkey, Middle East, and Mediterranean
49. Turkey and the West: A Hostile Dance
- Author:
- Nick Danforth
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- Tensions between Turkey and the West have steadily worsened over the past five years, but analysts are still no closer to predicting what this means for the future. Many assume that longstanding strategic and economic ties will ultimately force both sides to muddle through and preserve their relationship, while others anticipate that pressure will build to the point where a decisive break becomes inevitable. This paper examines a number of different scenarios that have been put forward for Turkey’s relations with the US and EU, then tries to navigate between the most plausible among them to predict how this hostile dance might progress.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, Middle East, United States of America, and Mediterranean
50. Revisiting and going beyond the EU-Turkey migration agreement of 2016: an opportunity for Greece to overcome being just “Europe’s aspis”
- Author:
- Kemal Kirisçi
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
- Abstract:
- In contrast to early last year, marked by a “border crisis” that erupted after the Turkish President finally put into action his long-standing threat to “open the border” for Syrian refugees, the year 2021 had a more promising start. The intense tensions in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean that followed the “border crisis” appear to be subsiding. The European Council statement of March 25 offers a possible framework for dialogue and diplomacy to take over from what was an annus horribilis in Greek-Turkish and EU-Turkish relations. Within this framework, room is also made for revisiting the EU-Turkey statement adopted in March 2016 to manage the aftermath of the European migration crisis that had seen a mass displacement of refugees and migrants primarily from Turkey to Greece and on to Europe. The statement has had many opponents and its implementation has faced multiple grievances and recriminations from both sides. Addressing and overcoming these challenges will call for extensive diplomatic effort, good will and take considerable time. In the interim, however, the emerging positive climate offers the possibility to explore expanding cooperation in a relatively successful but inadequately appreciated part of the EU-Turkey statement known as the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRIT). FRIT has been instrumental in supporting Syrian and other refugees in Turkey. It has been an important manifestation of burden-sharing with Turkey and has benefitted refugees in concrete terms. Advancing cooperation in this area would also help contribute to mutual confidence building and have a positive spill over into other more complicated issue areas in the migration domain and broader bilateral relations.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Migration, Treaties and Agreements, and Refugees
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, Middle East, Greece, and Mediterranean