With the fundamental and wide spread criticism of Ankara's foreign policy coming from all the domestic-foreign-media, the capitol is acting based on “emotional incentives”, for the “requirement of its diplomacy real-politics did not draw attention”…
Some newspapers are publishing columns saying that for Turkey to give support for a coalition against Yemen and raising its objections towards Iran are critically lacking validity in the same way.
Is this really so?
The foundation of these criticisms is being formed on these bases: 1. Supporting the Sunni block is wrong. 2. The initiative towards Yemen is not democratic. 3. The ones who form the coalition, the monarch administrations, are far from democracy and only have the objective to protect their own governments. 4. Turkey must stay as far as possible from this. 5. Otherwise Turkey could find themselves in a very bloody situation. (This column has been written many times about the details of the regional foot games that certain anti-democratic administration's whom joined the coalition are playing. This example is a small part of the map that will lead you astray.)
By looking at these points, for example with Ankara, which is being accused of acting romantic in their zero issue strategy in Syria and their neighbors, are the same pens acting the same in the topic of Yemen and Iran or is there another situation here?
This is that 'real' that it even dragged the superpowers
What we shared on the 28th… “We are changing the angle; where is the U.S. in this politically? Is Washington, the leader of all of the coalition's military operations in the region, compatible with this war's political front? This is a legitimate question and if America's politics is sliding towards the Shia's in Iran, Iraq and Syria have 'changed here', then an explanation is needed.”
Here you are…
“According to U.S. officials: 1. The Saudi's hid from Washington, the main details of their military activities in Yemen until the last minute, 2. There is missing information from the American side about the objective of the Saudis, 3. Hence the U.S. cannot make guesses for the outcome of the successfulness of the operation, 4. The Obama administration does not want to directly get involved in the military activity in Yemen, 5. Riyadh is exaggerating the extent of the relationship between Iran and the Houthis, 6. A “panic intervention” relating to Saudi Arabia's actions will cause Yemen to fall to pieces, 7. The effectiveness of the coalition is in doubt because it was formed so quickly by Saudi Arabia with Sunni-Arab countries.” (With Yemen strikes, Saudis show growing independence from U.S., 26/03, Reuters.)
As a result, this report/writing from American officials, whose names are being kept secret, might show that the Obama administration is reluctant and maybe even against Saudi Arabia joining the operations in Yemen.
Isn't America publicly and officially supporting this coalition with political and intelligence/technical means?
How is this?
This is called real-politics.
Does the set map of the coalition against Tehran which has Morocco on one side and Pakistan on the other mean anything? Including Iran and Russia, who will return to the negotiation table?
In that case, what could be the claim of those pens that have caught fire about Ankara taking position?.. 1. They do not know, understand the topic.2. Even when they do know!.. I am not sure which one is worse.
Lift that map up from one side and take a look underneath
Just as in Turkey, if there weren't people who made us waste our time, I was going to explain in detail how the wheel of foreign policy for the coalition is spinning, and taken out the example of Pakistan…
Let us try with the amount of space we have left. There is strong information that brother country Pakistan joined/is joining the coalition against Yemen. I already spoke about that the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, will get angry at a threat towards Riyadh. Actually, the national media is reporting that Pakistan will join the ground war.
Islamabad and Riyadh have special relations between them. There are two themes in which one is clear and the other has been overlooked, 1. The recent and urgent trip of Prime Minister Sharif to Saudi Arabia. ('Curiosity about Saudi invitation to Sharif', 01/03, Dawn.) 2. The meeting called 'The sharing of Pakistan's nuclear capacity with Saudi Arabia' that Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Rashad Mahmood attended with Saudi King Salman and Saudi Minister of Defense Mohammed bin Salman! (It was on February 3, and probably when the Yemen topic started to be thought of, for those who were wondering this was a clue.)
Pakistan's important difference is this; they own one of the strongest armies in the Muslim world and separately, they are a 'moderate' country. (This brings it to the U.S. will have as an ally, Islamabad, that they will like in Basra.) Islamabad is now in the Gulf, in Iran's tensions, in Yemen and is a side. This calls another superpower to the region.
As soon as the statements that targeted the Yemen crisis and Tehran were heard, Iran turned their face to Moscow. It is already certain that Russia will not give support to the coalition and these scores will be settled in the United Nations.
China must not be forgotten after again sending battle ships to the area as soon as the operation began… This means Pakistan has entered the game, India has entered the game. Delhi can act together with Iran and Russia, but if it breaks its silence (!), it can setup mediation between the sides.
Do those who are saying, 'Turkish romanticism is ruining foreign policy' know this for example? Anyway, we were not expecting any more than this.
Note: These electrical outages aren't an issue that can be solved on a crisis table. It must be looked at separately.