I really doubt it. - Edit 1
Before modification by Legolas at 01/06/2010 11:33:02 AM
And it might even extend to the violence which occurred on the Marmara. Could it be that this is a way for Turkey (and possibly others?) to show its displeasure over the treatment it received from the Obama administration regarding the last-minute agreement mediated by Erdoğan and Lula with Iran? I mean that in a way which goes beyond the indignity suffered and loss of pride, though one can't rule those out entirely.
I'd like to find out just what the assailants on the Marmara do for day jobs. It's also worth noting that Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have been enjoying pretty good relations lately. Likud and the Likudniks in America should be able to claim at least half of the credit for that.
I'd like to find out just what the assailants on the Marmara do for day jobs. It's also worth noting that Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have been enjoying pretty good relations lately. Likud and the Likudniks in America should be able to claim at least half of the credit for that.
That Turkey planned the violence on the Mavi Marmara, that is. That they now have political reasons for drumming up the scandal, that's for sure - you need look no further than the opinion poll released this week in Turkey, indicating that the main opposition party CHP made a big jump in the polls after a leader change.
Turkey has a policy of good relations with all of its neighbours if possible, so I think you'd be wrong to conclude that better relations with Iran have to mean worse relations with the US, at least from Turkey's side. Davudoglu, the minister of Foreign Affairs, has been accused of Neo-Ottomanism and wanting to revive Turkey's leading role in the Middle East, but he doesn't intend to do that at the cost of bad relations with the West.