turkey and iran: facing the challenge of the arab spring

7/29/2019 Turkey and Iran: Facing the Challenge of the Arab Spring

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/turkey-and-iran-facing-the-challenge-of-the-arab-spring 1/4

Summary: Turkey and Iran have

different perspectives on the

transformation of the Middle

East in the wake of the Arab

Spring. Why are Tehran and

Ankara not able to avoid a rivalry

on Syria? Will they be able to

nd a way to strike a balance

and move beyond the currentphase, as in the past? What

are the limits of the escalation

in the rivalry between Turkey

and Iran on Syria? Turkey and

Iran’s preferences in Syria are

reections of the government

systems they want to have

in their own countries. The

conicting perspectives are

not likely to be reconciled by

pragmatic concerns. The current

phase of confrontation is part of

a larger domestic transformationof Iran and Turkey under the

inuence of the Arab Spring.

Analysis

Turkey and Iran: Facing the Challenge

of the Arab Spring

by Bülent Aras

February 19, 2013

Washington, DC • Berlin • Paris

Brussels • Belgrade • Ankara

Bucharest • Warsaw • Tunis

O f f C

Analysis

Introductionurkey and Iran have dierentperspectives on the transormationo the Middle East in the wake o the Arab Spring. It is almost a givenin the analyses that urkey and Iranhave rival positions. Tose pointingto the rivalry speculate about theurther deterioration o their rela-tions, and even a possibility o regionalconict. Tis is, o course, not some-thing Ankara and ehran may want

to see, considering that both aceserious domestic challenges as well asthe radical transormations in theirneighborhood. ehran’s situation ismore complicated, with the nuclearissue and the problems with the West.Nonetheless, it is also possible to hearpragmatic calls. For instance, HosseinMousevian, a ormer top Iraniannational security ocer recently said:

Currently, Iran and Turkey (along with Turkey’s U.S. and Arab allies)are inaming the regional rivalry over Syria and beyond, while inter-nationally Russia and the United States exacerbate it. Instead o widening the rif, Turkey and Iranshould utilize their inuence and leverage to orchestrate regional and

international crisis management or the region.1

Henri Barkey argues that urkish-Iranian relations historically had abitter taste o competition. I thiscontext is ignored, one may tend toexaggerate the current problems.2 Aormer top Iranian national security ocial and a urkey expert agree thatthe current stalemate is likely tempo-rary. urkey and Iran may choose

to utilize their relative powers orleading the transormation o the new Middle East. Tis suggestion makessense since urkey has hosted Iraniannuclear talks in the past and it still islooked on avorably by Iranian society and, to a lesser extent, in its stateestablishment.

However, there is no signal that urkeyand Iran may reach an agreement, andeven agree to disagree, on the ArabSpring at some point in the oreseeableuture. Why are ehran and Ankaranot able to avoid a rivalry on Syria?Will they be able to nd a way to

1 Hossein Mousevian, “An Opportunity for a U.S.-Iran

Paradigm Shift,” Washington Quarterly , vol.36, no.1

(2013), p. 134.

2 Henri J. Barkey, “Turkish-Iranian Competition after the

Arab Spring,” Survival, vol. 54, no. 6, (2012), pp. 139-

162.



Analysis

2

Analysis

The former models of inward-

oriented rulers, who were resistant

to international inuences,

are giving way to new outward-

looking leaders with a focus on

honor, liberty, freedom, and good

governance.

strike a balance and move beyond the current phase, as in

the past? What are the limits o the escalation in the rivalry between urkey and Iran on Syria?

Te missing element in Mousevian and Barkey’s analysesis the deep impact o the Arab Spring on the domestic andinternational politics o these two countries. Te barrierbetween domestic politics and regional order is ast disap-pearing in the Middle East. urkey and Iran’s preerencesin Syria are indeed reections o the government systemsthey want to have in their own countries. Tereore, theconicting perspectives are not likely to be reconciled by pragmatic concerns. Te current phase o conrontation is

part o a larger transormation o Iran and urkey under theinuence o the Arab Spring.

The Meaning of the Arab Spring

Te Arab Spring encompassed ideas and agents that tran-scend the domestic and international divide in an unprece-dented ashion in recent history. Te space or independentdomains in the Middle East exists no more. Te popularuprisings in a number o Arab countries are part o a largertransormation that stretches rom North Arica to innerAsia. Tis transormation is not likely to end without a

reorientation o the political landscapes o the countries inthe Near and Middle East. Te Arab Spring also touchesupon the search or new ethical perspectives in a changinginternational system, with the relative decline o ormerhegemonic powers and the rise o new countries. Since theArab Spring has an impact at the regional and internationallevels, it requires an interlinked analysis.

It is, in this sense, a serious blow to the Middle East’s statusquo, which was already outdated in a changing internationalenvironment. Te ormer models o inward-oriented rulers,who were resistant to international inuences, are givingway to new outward-looking leaders with a ocus on honor,liberty, reedom, and good governance. Te Arab Spring hasalso meant a challenge to the survival strategies o authori-tarian rules through changes in regional power balances,international alliances, and an emulation o Asian devel-opmentalist models. A new critical mass is likely to makemore robust transormation possible rom the middle-to-long run.

Te ideas that brought Arab youth to the streets did notemanate rom the works o well-known Islamist or socialistthinkers but were the universal values o honor, dignity, andreedom. It does not mean these writers did not have animpact, but they have not been source o inspiration or thepopular uprisings in Arab world.3 Te long-lasting stability o authoritarian rule has been largely replaced by a new balance in the region, with a renewed pattern o relationshipwith the outside world.

Te international responses to the Arab Spring have alsorenewed the discussion about the ethical ramework o theemerging international system. Te so-called rising powersadopted an isolated or non-interventionist attitude towardthe Arab Spring while trying to preserve their economicinterests in the region. Considering the disappointment o the masses with the West in terms o pursuing long-termrelations with ormer authoritarian rulers in Arab Springcountries, the behavior o the rising powers underlinedthe crisis o the international system. Tere seems to be nooreseeable prospect o change in the system. In contrast,the Arab Spring implies a possible tectonic shif in theinternational system as it touches upon a ault line o ethicaldeciency.

3 Firozeh Kashani-Sabet, “Freedom Springs Eternal,” International Journal of Middle Eas

Studies, vol.44, no.1, (2012), p. 157.



Analysis

3

Analysis

The Impact of Arab Spring

Te Arab Spring is diusing a set o norms that has startedto change power, authority, and transboundary loyalty patterns in the region. Te experience o other countriesthat have undergone this kind o transormation is notnecessarily helpul here. As Solingen put orward aptly,domestic structures and legacies may acilitate or block transnational diusion.4 Iran’s response, or example, hasbeen to block the diusion, which may erode that govern-ment’s avored model o political survival. Iran’s strategy is to wage the struggle beyond its borders. Iranian policy in Syria is to build a rewall against the inuence o ArabSpring. Te Iranian establishment aces a crisis o major

renovation and reorm, which may not end without asystemic change in the Islamic Republic. A serious blow to Iran has been the loss o legitimacy in the Arab streets,which served as a provider o moral ground. Te Iranianregime’s proclaimed “nativity” and “siding with theoppressed” lef it to ally with ruthless dictators and seek reuge in Asian style authoritarianism. Iranian policy inSyria aims to preserve an inward-looking approach in theMiddle East, which is already disappearing.

Te Iranian establishment tried to claim some success in theuprisings by raming it as Islamic awakening. Tis is also an

attempt to play to a domestic audience and preserve theirhold on power at home. Teir aim is simply regime main-tenance and survival. urkish policymakers, in contrast,extended immediate support to the popular uprisings inSyria and utilized alliances with NAO and the UnitedStates or security concerns.

For urkish leadership, the regional transormation hasbeen a clear warning that urkey cannot manage a regionalrole without addressing its own democratic decits at home.Teir responses are clear indications o their domesticpreerences. New administrations in the Middle East will bemore sensitive to the Palestinian question and less riendly to Israeli and the U.S. policies. In addition, one may expecta stronger sense o Islamic solidarity. Tis situation is likely to put an end to the long-time Iranian domination o theseareas and erode ehran’s ability to project sof power inthe region. It orces urkey into a position o enriching itsown aspects o sof power, i.e., democracy, and o building

4 Etel Solingen, “The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of International Diffusion,”

International Studies Quarterly , vol.56, no.4, (2012), pp. 631-644.

urther capacity in oreign policy to address the complicated

regional dynamics.

Iran and Turkey: The Way Forward

Te Arab Spring seems to be leaving permanent scars onthe course o domestic and oreign policies o urkey andIran. Te relations between the two countries have alwaysbeen complicated and multidimensional. Te relations alsoused to have a domestic dimension, which made relations vulnerable to power struggles at home. oday, however, thesituation is much dierent. urkey and Iran ace a criticalperiod o transormation in their neighborhood, which

orces policymakers into a dicult situation in terms o oreign policy choices and the structure o domestic land-scapes. Te rivalry in Syria is not similar to the earlier cycleso conrontation, which used to normalize afer a periodo tension. Te situation is more about domestic structuresand survival strategies o political systems rather thanspecic interests in oreign policy.

Te competing positions in Syria are the result o theirstruggle with the diusion o a new set o norms and theregion’s changing political atmosphere. Syria is both arewall or Iran and a chance or urkey to prove its adapt-

ability to the new situation. Te real battleground is theirrespective domestic landscapes, and their own challenge o transormation to good governance and societal rule. We

The rivalry in Syria is not similar to

the earlier cycles of confrontation,

which used to normalize after a

period of tension. The situation is

more about domestic structures

and survival strategies of political

systems rather than specic

interests in foreign policy.



Analysis

4

Analysis

About the Author

Bülent Aras has been the chairman o the Foreign Ministry’s Strategic

Research Center since November 2010. He is currently a visiting

ellow with Wilson Center. He is also an academic advisor to the

minister o oreign aairs. He became a ull proessor at Işık Univer-

sity in 2006. He has also taught at the Department o Humanities and

Social Sciences o Istanbul echnical University. Pro. Aras has had 13

books published abroad and at home. His articles have appeared in

numerous magazines and newspapers and have been translated into

several languages.

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) strengthens

transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges

and opportunities in the spirit o the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by

supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic

sphere, by convening leaders and members o the policy and business

communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic

topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to oster renewed

commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF

supports a number o initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded

in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-prot organization through a gif rom

Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF

maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition

to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has oces in Berlin,Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, Warsaw, and unis. GMF

also has smaller representations in Bratislava, urin, and Stockholm.

About the On Turkey Series

GMF’s On urkey is an ongoing series o analysis bries about urkey’s

current political situation and its uture. GMF provides regular anal-

ysis bries by leading urkish, European, and American writers and

intellectuals, with a ocus on dispatches rom on-the-ground urkish

observers. o access the latest bries, please visit our web site at www.

gmus.org/turkey or subscribe to our mailing list at http://database.

gmus.org/reaction.

will see how long the Iranian rewalls hold beore trans-

ormation comes to the country. urkey’s challenge is toraise the quality o democratic rule at home. Tere is reasonor optimism given the possibility that the uture course o political development in these two countries may convergeunder the transormative inuence o the Arab Spring. Buti this convergence does not occur, their relations may acemore challenging cyclical turns and tensions in uture.

Tis is a period or leaving behind the old habits and ideaso the past, which is not easy or policymakers in thisregion. Will they resist or lead the transormation? urkishand Iranian policymakers’ course o action will have a

lasting impact on not only bilateral relations but also theuture o the region.

http://www.gmfus.org/

http://database.gmfus.org/reaction




http://www.gmfus.org/

turkey and iran: facing the challenge of the arab spring

Documents