Odds on a war with Iran before 2013?

[Phox]

Hmm. I find Turkey's position interesting, though unsurprising. Likewise, the political jockeying to get someone else to do the dirty work. I will have to pay attention to the developments on this.

[Cain]

Turkey's been on the out with Israel for a long time, but is practically supporting a rebel army in Syria, so in this case, their interests converge.

The former has led the Turkish state to be hysterically decried as a New Ottoman Empire by US conservatives, because, you see, some allies (Israel) are more equal than others (NATO allies).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Turkey's been on the out with Israel for a long time, but is practically supporting a rebel army in Syria, so in this case, their interests converge.

The former has led the Turkish state to be hysterically decried as a New Ottoman Empire by US conservatives, because, you see, some allies (Israel) are more equal than others (NATO allies).

I've been doing a lot of research on the history of Turkey... I personally don't think I'd ever want to be their enemy. From the early period of the Gokturks and Hunturks up through the Ottomans and then Atatürk, these people have historically kicked some serious ass. Beyond just the millitary might, the overwhelming nationalism is interesting as well. There are lots of internal conflicts, disagreements etc... but they hold a solidarity of "WE ARE TURKS FIRST". If they have an outside enemy, all internal conflict gets pushed aside. The most publicly visible internal issues surround the Kurds. The Turkish Kurds protest and have loud disagreements, but as soon as the PKK crosses the border from Iraq, the Turkish Kurds ready to kill for Turkey.

In the Left vs Right, there's all the normal political fighting, but if a politician from one side tried the American technique of "They aren't a real Turk" or "They want to destroy our nation" they would be booed out of politics.

I would never want to take these people on in a fight, especially as they continue to gain influence in the region.

[East Coast Hustle]

They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

Cain, my guess is that Turkey wouldn't act militarily against Iran except in the most extreme of circumstances because it would probably put an end to any hopes of joining the EU if they did act unilaterally. And if they did decide they had reason to take military action against Iran, I have my doubts as to whether NATO would back them. What's your take on that aspect of this?

[Cain]

I'd be surprised if they did anything in any scenario except the one with Iranian troops using Syria as a staging ground for the invasion of Israel (which seems very unlikely indeed).

I'm not so sure they care that much about joining the EU any more - what I'm hearing is they've realised France and Germany are going to keep kicking entry into the Eurozone down the road for, well, forever.  When you're letting in Bulgaria and Romania before Turkey, it seems fairly obvious it's not corruption, economics or unstable politics are the issue here (it's not religion so much as the CAP, but the former probably plays some role).  They generally want to keep the EU on side though, for trading purposes.

But Turkey and Iran do have a quid quo pro on the Kurdish question, which is of great concernt to Ankara, since Baghdad cannot really effectively act on any claims it has north of Mosul.  That's also another reason for their undermining of Syria - lots of PKK types found refgue in Damascus.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

I'd say 3:

Attila the Hun (for obvious reasons)
Sultan Suleiman (military genius and badass)
Ataturk (took on the Brits, French, Aussies etc, then took out what was left of the Ottomans and chased the Greeks out of what is now Western Turkey)

Cain, my guess is that Turkey wouldn't act militarily against Iran except in the most extreme of circumstances because it would probably put an end to any hopes of joining the EU if they did act unilaterally. And if they did decide they had reason to take military action against Iran, I have my doubts as to whether NATO would back them. What's your take on that aspect of this?

I think they could bring enough political pressure to force Iran to play ball... especially if Israel came to terms on the Pali issue. Unilaterally going to war preemptively with Iran is unlikely IMO. However, if they could get credit for fixing Israel and the Pali's as well as ending the nuclear threat from Iran, I think it would put them exactly in the position they want to be in regionally.

I agree with Cain's points as well... Turkey is quickly distancing itself from the EU, not just because of the difficulty getting in, but because recent events economically have left Turkey doing very well, while the EU is struggling. The President (or was it the PM?) recently said in a news conference that Turkey will no longer be pursuing a position in the EU.

As for the PKK issue, its currently Turkey's biggest internal concern. They're already making incursions into Northern Iraq.

[Triple Zero]

They did produce one of the world's all-time badasses. As a marginally informed outsider, it seems to me that Turkey generally acts as a stabilizing and moderating force in a region of the world that sorely needs one.

I'd say 3:

Attila the Hun (for obvious reasons)
Sultan Suleiman (military genius and badass)
Ataturk (took on the Brits, French, Aussies etc, then took out what was left of the Ottomans and chased the Greeks out of what is now Western Turkey)

What about the guy that did multiple helicopter-assisted prison breaks, he was Greek, wasn't he?

[Verbal Mike]

Just to give y'all some perspective on how batshit insane Israeli politics are, in the scenario where Erdogan calls Netanyahu and says "look, the Iranians are about to [invade/bomb/poop on] you to smithereens, but I'm willing to put all of my force behind stopping that if you immediately go on CNN and announce an end to the occupation and the siege on Gaza" – even in that scenario I'm not sure if Netanyahu would do it. I think he and Barak may be able to count on gaining more politically by commanding an insane defense-and-counterattack at the cost of say, a quarter of our population, than they would by ending the oppression of the Palestinians. This in the short term, which in Israeli politics is also the only term.

I wish they weren't such a bunch of short-sighted, self-interested, pompous, systemically corrupt ex-generals voted in by a public that thinks the Jewish people are still exiles and essentially think of Israel as one big Eastern European shtetl (albeit militarized) – but that's what they are, and that's what the public is, and the politics of the country in question tend to favor the guy who looks like a big bad-ass rather than the guy who actually dose some good for a change.
The last guy who tried to reap political gain by doing something that seems like a bold move towards peace was Sharon with his "disengagement" from Gaza, a move designed to prove that pulling out of the West Bank is impossible. It probably worked out exactly as he expected, except for the part where he fell into a coma soon after. The disengagement further radicalized the residents of nutjob settlements (about 1/3-1/2 of the West Bank), led to the election of the most insane, self-destructive government in Israel's history, and set Gaza up as a case to point at and say "look what happens when we try to give them freedom". (The fact that Gaza's occupation has been an unbroken chain for decades is irrelevant, because the disengagement has been thoroughly spun as its end, the siege as a completely separate thing. Also irrelevant to most Israelis is that we put an end to one of the first democratically-elected governments in the Arab world when we decided Hamas was the wrong choice and forced the Palestinians into a civil war.)

Right now I wouldn't count on any scenario or any amount of objective self-interest causing Israel to end the occupation (the necessary first step towards ending the conflict.) With the right public atmosphere leading up to the events, who knows, but if there's been any (alleged) terrorist attack in the two weeks preceding, I'd bet on Netanyahu playing the tough general and dragging the US in after him.

[East Coast Hustle]

Apparently, Sarkozy can see the writing on the wall. this would appear at first blush to be the first step in distancing France from being entangled in any upcoming conflicts in the region: http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-told-obama-fed-israeli-pm-092347721.html

[Cain]

Sarkozy, for his many faults, has been something akin to a voice of reason in Middle Eastern politics.  I believe he has Jewish roots of some kind, which may explain his interest in the region beyond the normal.

[Cain]

Someone just blew up an Iranian Revolutionary Guard arms depot.  They're claiming it is an accident, which it may well be.

The interesting thing is, even if it was provocation by the USA or Israel, they obviously don't want to claim it was.  They're not above lying, Iran is a state, after all, but they're clearly not interested in a scrap, if they're not using this for propaganda purposes.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Someone just blew up an Iranian Revolutionary Guard arms depot.  They're claiming it is an accident, which it may well be.

The interesting thing is, even if it was provocation by the USA or Israel, they obviously don't want to claim it was.  They're not above lying, Iran is a state, after all, but they're clearly not interested in a scrap, if they're not using this for propaganda purposes.

Some sources are claiming that an Iranian missile expert was killed in the blast.

http://www.debka.com/article/21474/

Keep in mind, I havent seen anything about this in the MSM and Im not sure of how reliable the source is.

[Cain]

Debka are pretty unreliable, according to what I hear.  The fact they're not charging for their analysis, and that they're allied with World Net Daily, is rather telling.

Which doesn't mean they're wrong, only that we need confirmation.

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/iran-exile-group-claims-blast-near-tehran-hit-closely-guarded-missile-base/2011/11/12/gIQArKv4FN_story.html

Among those killed was Hasan Moghaddam, a senior Guard commander.

http://www.mideastmag.com/114597/iran-loses-its-top-missile-expert-in-explosions-sparked-by-failed-bid-to-fit-nuclear-warhead-on-shahab-3/

Hassan Moghadam, head of Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) missile development and sections of its nuclear program, was killed in the explosions that hit two IRGC bases 46 kilometers west of Tehran Saturday, Nov. 12.

[Cain]

An exiled Iranian dissident group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq or MEK, meanwhile claimed that the blast hit a missile base run by the Revolutionary guard rather than an ammunition depot.

I'm sure that's just a misprint, and what they actually meant was "a Saddam Hussein supporting terrorist group and political death cult, the MeK, said"...

I see they mention that, later on, but by that point, most readers have lost interest.  Also, lol, nukes.