Trend Middle East Desk Commentator Ulviyya Sadikhova
Political development which triggered the Near East last year, shaped into diplomatic scandals between the U.S. and its key regional allies - Turkey and Israel in the first quarter of 2010.
Even emotions around scandal between Ankara and Washington over the adoption of a resolution on so-called "Armenian genocide" at the American Congress did not calm, a sudden turn in U.S. relations with its most important friend and ally - Israel occurred in mid. of March. It seems that it occurred because of less important topic as the construction of settlements. It is evident that the issue of settlements is not the main obstacle in the peace process, but rather for the Palestinians to put their conditions before the White House in talks with Israel.
Breaking peace process amid deepening disagreement between Turkey and Israel, central military allies in the region put new obstacles for the U.S. in achieving regional goals.
Washington, preferring not interfere into the Israeli-Turkish disagreements, does not understand it will lad to further division of the Near East into zones of influence and intensify the anti-American policy in the region.
Israel and Turkey seem not to reconcile: within two months of some diplomatic scandals on the Turkish-Israeli front there appeared a ground for new mutual accusations: Turkish media reported on Tuesday about concerns of the Israeli army over intrusion of unmanned, which can be Turkish ones, into air of Israel.
Therefore, there is a rhetorical question for the U.S.: whom it is profitable to make a key partner in the Near East - Turkey or Israel? The first seems to be more prospective, because Israel evolves more problems for the U.S. than promoting the U.S. policy in the region.
Israel is also very much anxious over dramatic changes in the U.S. policy in the peace policy. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that officials in Jerusalem are dissatisfied with the Obama Administration's violation of obligations taken in 2004 during the George W. Bush administration and frames of cooperation established during the Bill Clinton's administration in 2000. Discontent of Israel, which for the first time over the past 30 years has faced acute diplomatic crisis in its relations with the U.S., is explained with the Obama Administration's decision to achieve in the Near East, i.e. to establish a Palestinian state, in the nearest two years through indirect Palestinian-Israeli talks.
So, the U.S. can itself sign a document with Palestinians, not even setting Israel at table of talks, because indirect dialogue enables Washington to continue peace process with party separately.
Haaretz writes that such decisive steps by the U.S. might lead to loss of confidence to American devotion to ensuring security of Israel, as it was since the very beginning of establishment of the Jewish state after World War II.
In other words, Israel warns the White House that future confidence to the U.S. policy in the Israeli establishment is made questionable unless it fulfills the commitments.
Is that irreconcilability of Israel profitable for the current U.S. Administration?
The latest report from the Pentagon about the obstacles posed by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to implement U.S. military interests in the Middle East, showed that Washington sees one of the reasons for the growth of anti-U.S mood and the influence of al-Qaeda in the region as U.S. favoritism towards Israel. Obama's predecessor - the Bush administration preferred to attribute the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the overall counter-terrorist fight of Israel and the U.S. in the region, which led to more violence in the region.
The U.S Chief in the Middle East, Gen. Petraeus's report made it clear that the repeated military clashes between Israel and its neighbors deepen resentment in the Arab world by the U.S. role in the region, and open new ways for al-Qaeda and Iranian influence to penetrate in the Arab world through its allies - Hezbollah and Hamas.
Petraeus's statement reflected Washington's opinion. It is unthinkable under the previous administration. It envisages that Israel's security and the need to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis are U.S. major national interests.
Washington realizes that time in the Middle East is against them. Military operations in Afghanistan do not give the expected results. Iraq is on the brink of an inter-tribal war between the pro-Iranian religious parties, the Sunni forces and the Kurdish authorities in northern. The sore Iranian nuclear program creates more conditions for the race for nuclear armament in the region.
Recent warnings from Arab leaders on the intention to seek ways to acquire their nuclear technologies are enough, if Israel does not provide the IAEA with data about nuclear reactors and nuclear warheads, and ratify the world nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the nearest future.
The U.S. does not want such progress of developments, and Israel will hardly help in settling these problems. Therefore, Turkey is promoted to a position of central strategic ally, which has good relations with the Muslim world and the West.
Why Turkey, but not the very Egypt, which concluded peace with Israel or Saudi Arabia, supporting U.S. policy in the region?
During the short timeframe Ankara could establish firm political and economic relations with all Arab countries and commence political dialogue with Iran, even formal military ally Israel.
It is enough to remind how fast and successfully Turkey become goods friend with Syria, despite the two countries were on the verge of war in the end of 1990s due to PKK (Kurdish Worker Party) terrorists' presence in Syria.
Moreover, Turkey killed two birds with one stone: conciliated major Iranian ally among Arab countries and solved Alevi community in the country, due to the Syrian government's belonging to this religious current.
The Obama Administration saw that the Syrian leadership, which has cool relations with Egypt and the Saudi Kingdom, can properly cooperate with NATO member, and launched a dialogue about improving relations Damascus with less fear.
Another point concern Turkey's role in Iraq, which is facing an acute political crisis amid withdrawal of American troops. When the U.S. took a decision to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the American politician well knew that the country would face radical changes in politics, especially after the 2010 elections. They were not mistaken.
Struggle between pro- and anti-Iran parties, disagreement between among the Kurdish political forces in the north with local Turkmans for a status of oil-rich Kirkuk, bassists' activities against the central power may lead to collapse of Iraq both in the federation and autonomy, which is desirable neither for the U.S. nor Turkey, nor Arab countries.
Washington apprehends that Iran could take advantage of the vacuum, which appeared in the Iraqi security after the withdrawal of the U.S. contingent, broke out a new resistance between Shiite and Sunnite forces in the struggle for power. So, Washington, which is focused on a military campaign in Afghanistan, would hardly mind increasing Turkish influence in Iraq, which is mainly directed at preventing stringing Kurdish parties.
Therefore, the Turkish-U.S. relations are experiencing worse time. The U.S. is unwilling to lose such an important ally in the Near East.
It is not ruled out that soon Israel will find itself as the second in a list of U.S. allies.