GEORGIA’S CONFLICT AND IRAN AND TURKEY
By Rayyan al-Shawaf
THE DAILY STAR
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Although the Russo-Georgian military clash is over, its ramifications
will be felt for a long time, especially as the political crisis
between the two countries remains unresolved. In the Middle East,
two major countries, Turkey and Iran, have been directly affected
by the recent events. While Turkey stands to lose should Russia and
Georgia fail to resolve their differences, Iran stands to win.
An embattled Russia cornered by the West would never forgive NATO
member Turkey; as a result, Russian-Turkish relations would plummet and
Russia might even stop providing Turkey with natural gas. In casting
about for allies, Russia would find a similarly isolated Iran to be
amenable to giving the two countries’ ties a strategic dimension,
but only in return for political and economic concessions. Thus, the
Russo-Georgian crisis may ironically change the balance of power in
the Middle East.
Both Russia and Iran have become increasingly alarmed with the
West’s attempts to bypass them in the quest for oil. Moscow wanted the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, the world’s second longest, to pass
through Russia. That way, Russia would not only benefit financially,
but also be able to exert some control over the supply of oil to
the West, much as it does with the longest pipeline in the world,
the Druzhba, which flows from southeast Russia to Europe. During
its invasion of Georgia, Russia pointedly demonstrated that it can
threaten the BTC pipeline, and that, as Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev recently put it, "Russia is a nation to be reckoned with."
Meanwhile, Iran, most of whose oil flows to Asia, has long sought to
lay oil pipelines to the West, a desire more often than not frustrated
by Western sanctions. By supporting Russia in its current confrontation
with the West, Tehran may have secured a future economic and political
payoff. This would be especially true should Iran have extracted from
Russia a commitment to devise a common oil strategy vis-a-vis the West.
However, even without this possibility, there are several indicators
of the benefits that may accrue to Iran as a result of its pro-Russian
policy. For example, Iranian (and Syrian) requests for a sophisticated
missile defense system are being taken seriously in Moscow, much to
the chagrin of the United States and Israel. When one remembers that
Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant – built with Russian support – is slated
to begin operation in 2009, it becomes apparent that Iran may be on the
verge of radically enhancing its regional and international position.
Even as Iran makes a bid for regional power status, Turkey has
almost by accident emerged as the country that could hold the key to
solving the Russo-Georgian crisis. Indeed, Turkey is exceptionally
well-positioned to be mediator, a role it is already playing with some
success between Syria and Israel, and to a lesser extent between
Iran and the West. Russia is Turkey’s biggest trading partner,
and Turkey is dependant on Russian natural gas. At the same time,
Turkey maintains strong economic and military ties with Georgia,
which aspires to join NATO, of which Turkey is a strategic member.
Turkey cannot afford to allow its relations with Russia to deteriorate
– they have already been strained by the passage of American ships
through the Bosphorus on their way to the Georgian port of Batumi –
but neither can it shun the West’s call for supporting Georgia. As
a result, mediating the current conflict is not only a role that
could propel Turkey into the limelight as a major regional player,
but also a necessity insofar as Turkish politico-economic imperatives
are concerned.
If Turkey meets the challenge, there may even be added benefits.
Turkish-Armenian relations could thaw, which would be of great
significance to the oil and natural gas industry. The most direct
overland route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey
would begin in Azerbaijan and pass through Armenia. Yet no such
pipeline has ever been constructed due to political instability:
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war over Nagorno-Karabakh and remain
at loggerheads, while Turkey’s border with Armenia has been closed
since 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan.
With the Russo-Georgian clash illustrating the vulnerability of
Georgia, through which the BTC pipeline passes, Armenia’s importance
has increased.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul, on a groundbreaking visit to Yerevan
last week for a Turkish-Armenian soccer match, spoke about the need for
the countries of the Caucasus to work together to enhance stability. To
that end, Turkey has called for the creation of a regional cooperation
group comprising Turkey, Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The trajectory of the Russo-Georgian conflict during the next few
months could be critical in determining what happens in the Middle
East. If mediation succeeds in bringing the two sides together and
defusing the crisis, Russia will not find it necessary to turn to
Iran. If the successful mediation is Turkish, then Turkey will have
demonstrated a unique ability to bring stability to the Caucasus,
broker Syrian-Israeli peace talks, and mediate between Iran and
the West.
On the other hand, if the conflict drags on, Russia’s ties to the West
and Turkey will inevitably deteriorate. Facing diplomatic isolation
and possibly even sanctions, Russia may forge a strategic alliance
with Iran, thereby drastically increasing Iranian influence in the
Middle East.
Is a freelance writer and reviewer based in Beirut. He wrote this
commentary for THE DAILY STAR.