Turkey’s Despicable Betrayal – But Who Leaked the Story?

 In the murky world of international espionage and covert operations, there are certain rules that are “carved in stone”. 

The cardinal rule is that you do not betray confidential and sensitive information to your ally’s enemy. 
   In 2011 Turkey broke that rule in a way that caused serious damage to Israeli and American intelligence operations in the Middle East, cost the lives of at least ten Mossad agents in Iran and badly damaged Turkey’s worldwide reputation as a reliable ally.
   Background: In 1949, Secular Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with the Jewish State. Strong military, strategic, and economic relations developed over the next six decades. 
   By 1999, trade and tourism were booming, the Israeli Air Force trained in Turkish airspace, joint military exercises were the norm, Turkey purchased drones from Israel and the Israelis upgraded Turkish combat jets and tanks. There was high-tech cooperation on numerous projects, as well as plans for regional water sharing.
   A unique intelligence alliance started with a secret meeting in Ankara in 1958 between Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and Turkish PM Adnan Menderes. “The concrete result was a formal but top-secret agreement for comprehensive cooperation” between the Mossad and Turkish intelligence, wrote Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman in their 2012 book, “Spies Against Armageddon.”
   As noted in a well-researched expose by David Ignatius published on October 16 in the Washington Post [1]: “The groundwork had been laid secretly by Reuven Shiloah, the founding director of the Mossad, as part of what he called a ‘peripheral alliance strategy’. Through that partnership, Israel provided training in espionage to the Turks...” and Turkey facilitated Israeli intelligence and military operations in Syria, Iraq and, after 1979 – Iran.
   Relations cooled after Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister in 2003. Though Erdogan paid an official visit to Israel in 2005, his strong anti-Israeli rhetoric and close relations with the Moslem Brotherhood (MB) indicated an intentional shift of Turkish alignment from a secular, Israel-oriented position to an Islamist, pro-MB one. 
   While relations got worse after the 2010 flotilla incident, military and intelligence cooperation continued quietly, with crucial, actionable information on Iran being shared with the US and NATO.  
   With the revelation last week by David Ignatius of Turkey’s responsibility for the capture of the Israeli spies in Iran, relations have hit a new low.
   In his article, Ignatius says: “The Turkish-Israeli relationship became so poisonous early last year that the Turkish government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have disclosed to Iranian intelligence the identities of up to ten Iranians who had been meeting inside Turkey with their Mossad case officers.” 
   According to Iranian sources these suspects, all Iranian Kurds, were arrested, “interrogated” until they confessed, tried in secret and executed. Sources in the US describe the Turkish action as a “significant” loss of intelligence. The Israelis call it a despicable, wicked betrayal.
   The intriguing question is: Why did this story come out only now…and who leaked it?  
   Four countries know exactly what happened: Iran, Turkey, Israel and the US. Does one of them have a motive to ruin Turkey’s standing in the world of international diplomacy and espionage, at this delicate time?

• Iran? – No. Why “burn” a highly prolific “fifth column” in NATO.
• Turkey? – No. The exposure caused huge embarrassment and loss of face and trust throughout the world.
• Israel? – No. Maintains a good relation with the Turkish army (though NOT with Turkey’s equivalent of the CIA).
• The US? No. Why disgrace a US ally, NATO member and close friend of the administration? 

But maybe that’s just the point…:  
   According to Israeli analysts, the leak about Turkey’s “betrayal” and the fingering of Hakan Fidan, Turkey’s all powerful spy chief and close confidant of Erdogan, as the person who has been passing highly sensitive information to Iran for years, actually came from high level US sources, but not from the White House.
   These analysts argue that in the US government there are those who are uncomfortable with the current Middle East Policies. By leaking facts to discredit Turkey and its spy-chief, they hope to throw a proverbial monkey-wrench into a key component of that policy, thus forcing the administration to rethink what’s best for America, Egypt…and Israel.  As of now, and in the absence of more details, I find it hard to dispute their logic.
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-turkey-blows-israels-cover-for-iranian-spy-ring/2013/10/16/7d9c1eb2-3686-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html

Egypt – America’s Ill-advised policy

   A popular axiom of Mid-East experts is: “As Egypt goes – so goes the Arab World.”  Modern history bears that out. 

   When Egypt attacked Israel in 1948, so did Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. When Egypt aligned with the Soviet Union in the 50’s and 60’s, so did many other Arab countries. 
   And when Egypt signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1979, so did Jordan, and within a short time Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and other Arab states established informal ties with the Jewish State.
   Egypt, with over 80 million citizens and the strongest Arab military, is the natural leader of the Sunni Arab countries. The Egyptian military is the most respected organization in the Arab world.
   Egypt also owns, secures and operates the Suez Canal – one of the major strategic and commercial waterways in the world and where the US currently enjoys special privileges no other country has.
   The American brokered peace treaty between Israel and Egypt is a cornerstone of US Middle East policy. 
   Since 9/11 Egypt, has been a staunch ally of the US in the war against Islamist terrorism. For months the Egyptian army has been fighting a war in Sinai to eradicate a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) inspired base of jihadist terrorist groups, including those with American blood on their hands. 
   So it’s ill-advised that, with the Egyptian military playing an important role in fighting America’s enemies, the US announced that it was suspending military and economic aid. The justification was that: a. the military overthrew a democratically elected president, and b. the military used “excessive force.” against demonstrations by MB supporters. 
   Both arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny:

1. While Muhammad Morsi, ranked #3 in the MB hierarchy, may have been elected democratically, he immediately took the undemocratic (and illegal) steps of nullifying the Egyptian Constitution and writing a strictly Sharia based one, gave himself the power to legislate, and issued very undemocratic orders that he and his edicts were above the law and the courts. 
2. With the majority of Egyptians fed up with Morsi’s extreme Islamism, the deteriorating economy, and the fact that he allowed the establishment of an MB controlled terrorist base in Sinai, millions took to the streets throughout Egypt to peacefully demand Morsi’s resignation and new elections.
3. When the army refused Morsi’s order to use force against the demonstrators, he and the MB leadership sent in their armed thugs, resulting in many casualties.
4. After Morsi and the rest of the MB leadership were arrested on charges of incitement to violence and murder, the Chief of Staff immediately appointed a civilian acting president, who set up a civilian government that is writing a new constitution. Elections for the presidency and parliament are planned for early spring. So much for the “military coup” argument.
5. Last month’s pro Morsi demonstrations were violent. Government buildings were attacked with firebombs and live ammunition. Though 54 demonstrators were killed, the army used reasonable force in defending itself. Many of the pro-MB demonstrators wore green headbands proclaiming their intended martyrdom for Islam.  

   While conflicting US statements about the arms freeze were nuanced, the reaction in the Arab world was anything but.
   Anti-American sentiments in Egypt and other countries were whipped up by the usually pro-Western media claiming that the arms freeze was accompanied by a demand to release Morsi and the other MB leaders, and that the MB be included in the interim government (it was invited but refused to join). There are now calls to revoke America’s special privileges in the Suez Canal.
   Saudi Arabia, angered by the American move, immediately transferred another $2 billion to the Egyptian interim government, and promised to finance or supply any military equipment needed.
   Justified or not, the perception today is that America supports the anti-west Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most undemocratic and oppressive organizations in the world. And in the Middle East – perception is everything. 
   Sometimes you have to be smart…in addition to being right. Remember the axiom…
   Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.

Then Bibi Arrived

   Last week, this column discussed the “charm offensive” launched in the US by Iranian president Hassan Rouhani. As pointed out, anyone who just scratches the smiling front Rouhani presents will find beneath it a smart, ruthless, calculating, extreme Islamist cleric who has spent the last thirty five years faithfully serving the Ayatollah regimes in Iran and their obsessive quest for nuclear weapons.

   Let me make this as clear as I can – The current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, understood that with  sanctions taking a punishing toll on Iran’s economy while the US and Israel threaten military action against his precious nuclear bomb program…it was not in his interest to have another divisive “Ahmadinejad” type as president. Nor, he suspected, would the people elect one.
   So he hand-picked his trusted smiling minion, Rouhani, and marketed him (especially through social media) as a “moderate” and “reformer” compared to the other five scowling candidates. 
   Khamenei made sure to hide inconvenient fly-specs in Rouhani’s past, like the fact that he oversaw Iran’s nuclear weapons project for sixteen years (“he was just a negotiator”), or the fact that his son committed suicide in protest and disgust over his father’s blind obedience to the Supreme Leader (left an unambiguous suicide note). Few in Iran were surprised that Rouhani won by a landslide.      In NY, war weary delegates at the UN, as well as star struck media personalities and politicians hung on to his every word.
   "Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," he said to a gullible world.
  He said that he listened carefully to president Obama's speech, and hoped that the United States "will refrain from following the short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups" so that the two nations "can arrive at a framework to manage our differences." 
       Back in Iran Rouhani boasted that the Americans had literally begged his people five different times to arrange a handshake or short meeting with President Obama – and that he refused because “it would not have been appropriate”.
   Only after lengthy negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (and at what price?) did he reluctantly agree to accept a short phone call.
    Much of the media and a few politicians fell right into the Iranian honey-pot trap. After all, he said in front of every camera that Iran is not building nuclear weapons. He’s the President of Iran and a devout cleric – surely he must be telling the truth. Just look at that smile...
   
And then Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in the US…and the honey (hopefully) turned to vinegar. 
   With no cartoon gimmicks and no flashy presentations this time, Bibi gave a simple and laser-sharp message to President Obama, the UN General Assembly and as many TV cameras and radio microphones he could get in front of.    
   He said that he did not believe Iran's claims that its nuclear program was intended for research purposes; That Rouhani is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’; That only the Supreme leader decides regarding Iran’s nuclear program and that "The world mustn’t fall for the Iranian ploy and alleviate the sanctions as long as the Iranians do not dismantle their nuclear program."
   Bibi made it clear that any lifting of sanctions as part of negotiations must come AFTER, not before:

1. A total and verified cessation of all Uranium enrichment
2. Dismantling the unfinished Heavy Water nuclear reactor at Arak (which could produce Plutonium) 
3. Removal from Iran of all enriched Uranium.
4. Removal from Iran of enrichment equipment including centrifuges and conversion facilities. 

 Speaking to the Iranians directly on BBC’s Persian station, Netanyahu warned them that Israel was dead serious about using the military option if sanctions and real negotiations do not succeed, and in a short time.
   In his meetings and interviews last week, Bibi made it clear that Israel can, and will, stop Iran from reaching nuclear break-out, even if it has to it alone.
  Was Bibi more convincing than Rouhani? I hope so, because for the US, the Iranian nuclear issue is part of a multi-player global chess game.  For Israel, it’s a question of national survival. And I mean that in the broadest Jewish perspective.

Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.