Marshall Auerback addresses in an exclusive analysis the growing tensions between the once close allies Turkey and Israel. He sees a “dangerous kind of conflict that could easily spin out of control a la World War 1.”
Turkey slowly but surely is becoming a likely candidate for future superpower. It possesses the 17th largest economy in the world and, according to Goldman Sachs, has a good shot at breaking into the top 10 by 2050. Its economic muscle is also well defended: after decades of NATO assistance, the Turkish military is now a regional powerhouse. Another element of their growing influence: they have a lot of water.
That's the resource the world runs short of first (circa 2045-50, according to current population models).
Although Turkey does not usually figure prominently in the world's collective consciousness in the manner of, say, China, recent developments in the Middle East have forced us to look toward the reemerging Anatolian Tiger.
In the last month alone, Turkish mediation efforts nearly heralded a breakthrough in the Iran nuclear crisis, and Ankara supported the flotilla that recently tried to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. With these and other less high-profile interventions, Turkey has stepped out of the shadows and now threatens to settle into the prominent place on the world stage once held by its predecessor. But have they threatened a response from Israel.
Think about this argument I have been mulling over in my mind :
1. Will the Israelis or the Turks back down?
My guess is that Netanyahu's gov't would collapse if he even suggested "backing off" behind closed doors. I think this rigidity makes the situation really dangerous in terms of its potential for a disastrous escalation. Erdogan (and his government) are very cautious, patient, cunning, and determined. I don't think their move was taken lightly or in passion. And he is a Turk, and that means nothing, if not stubborn.
2. Can a third party diffuse the crisis?
Someone has to devise some sort of cooling off period, but I don't see anyone or organization with that kind of leverage, except perhaps the AIPAC leadership (i.e., if they read the riot act to Netanyahu by telling him he had to back off to preserve US de facto alliance, which of course will never happen). Where is the "great power" potential to stabilize the situation? Here is my read on that question: EU is turned inward by its crisis, and probably has too much baggage to rein in Israel. Obama, who may have right instincts, is weak willed; in addition, he is also being turned inward as well, consumed by his own escalating domestic political, economic, and ecological problems. We have worked overtime to marginalize Russia in ME, so I see is little hope there (although situation is tailor made for Putin--probably the smartest leader on the international stage-- to step in). China is a not player in this issue and may even benefit from an eruption.
3. Meanwhile, you have a conflict with dangerous structural asymmetries: One side is increasingly isolated and that side is the only side with nucs. Moreover, that side's ideology makes it predisposed (1) to attack pre-emptively and (2) to see what it wants to see, because its Orientation is shaped by values of self righteous paranoia, not to mention a Masada complex. The other side is more calculating, cautious, but very stubborn and senses it has the high ground morally, both in terms of domestic and international politics. My sense its Turkey's appreciation that closer to reality than Israel's, but in the end, it does not matter whether Turkey's moral appreciation is correct, it only matters what Turkey believes.
My conclusion: Given these opposing moral outlooks, we face the most dangerous kind of conflict that could easily spin out of control a la World War I, with no great power outsider to temper an unfolding set of confrontation dynamics that could easily taken on a life of their own.
