By Hakan Okçal
Forty Cleavers or Forty Mules for Iran?
No information has leaked from the U.S.-Iran talks in Oman other than the statements from the two sides portraying them as positive. But it is no secret that Iran is faced with an impossible choice, like a thief in a Turkish fairy tale.
As the story goes, a thief was brought before the Sultan and given two choices for his crimes: either face the blades of forty butcher cleavers or have forty mules (cleaver and mule rhyme in Turkish). The thief initially thinks that the mule option was not a punishment but an award, so he picks the latter. But he soon finds out that this was even worse because he would be dragged in different directions by forty mules and be torn apart.
The mullah regime of Iran seems trapped in such an impossible dilemma. Its choices are either disgraceful capitulation or a new military attack more fatal than the one in June.
The U.S. is asking much more than the mullahs can possibly succumb to: relinquish its nuclear program, disarm its missiles and disengage from proxy paramilitary organisations. The release of all political prisoners could be another U.S. demand although this seems to be on the back-burner for the time being. Welcome to the new America!
Iran has declared that it is only prepared for nuclear negotiations. The Iranian foreign minister made it clear that Iran will not bow to pressure to deliver the 400+ kg of highly enriched uranium it has amassed and may be used for nuclear weapons production, to a third party as a neutral custodian.
CAMPAIGNING AGAINST WAR
These irreconcilable positions do not raise any hope. Under the present circumstances, war is the only likely scenario, although Turkey and several Arab nations are campaigning against it.
Iran cannot defend itself against American and possibly Israeli attacks but still has the capacity to wreak havoc in the region by firing missiles against U.S. bases in several countries including Turkey. Turkey will also be a prime destination of a refugee influx.
Until war breaks out, a blockade around Iran like the one imposed against Venezuela should also not surprise anybody. Although the U.S. will do its utmost to further weaken the mullahs who hold the reins in Iran, a total collapse of the regime or a civil war leading to fragmentation along ethnic and religious lines cannot be a desired outcome for the U.S. A chaotic situation triggered by war leading to a refugee exodus toward neighbors and the disruption of energy supply lines from the Gulf cannot be easily contained.
Therefore it is only logical that the U.S. will try to play its role along the same old Venezuelan scenario by decapitating Iran’s criminal leadership but collaborating with its secondary cadres. If Iran can be denuclearised, its missiles curtailed to an acceptable level and its ties with proxy organisations severed, then neither the U.S. nor Israel should have a problem as long as its new leaders collaborate. That is exactly what happened in Syria.
ERDOĞAN’S OPTIONS
Common wisdom dictates that easing tensions in the region should be in Turkey’s interest. However, this would not satisfy Erdoğan for the simple reason that his chances of playing a historical role in shaping Turkey’s neighborhood seem to be slipping away. Not only is Syria evolving against Erdoğan’s plans, but the venue of the Iranian talks, initially planned for Turkey, was also moved to Oman.
This was a painful blow for Erdoğan’s desire to play the arbiter in the conflict. Such a role would place him in the international limelight and raise his chances in the next elections, although he has no right to stand as a legitimate candidate, according to the constitution.
If Iran manages to mend fences with the U.S. in one way or another, this would spell difficulties for Erdoğan since he would no longer be the sole darling of Trump, who might leave him out in the cold. Erdoğan is already alienated from Putin due to his cozy relations with Trump and the anti-Russian role he played during the downfall of the Assad regime. Furthermore, the EU seems unimpressed by Turkey’s elevated role for the new European defence architecture. In spite of his desperate efforts, Erdoğan is still met with skepticism in the Arab world. And let us not forget that Europe’s new partner Modi does not harbor congenial feelings for him.
Given these facts, he should be reverting to democracy and the rule of law in his own country if he is keen to ameliorate his image both internally and externally. He needs to avoid being seen as a pawn in Trump’s playbook. Although initial news suggests that he is not willing to participate in the Washington meeting of the Board of Peace, he will find it difficult to resist Trump. His relations with Trump will be a litmus test if he is really aware of his vulnerabilities.
But all indicators point to the fact that he will stay on his present course and refuse to seize the moment.
* Hakan Okçal is a retired Turkish ambassador. He joined the Foreign Ministry in 1978 and served in various diplomatic posts, including NATO, Bonn, Berlin, and as Consul General in Komotini. He was Turkey's Ambassador to Abuja, to Skopje, and later to Seoul. After retiring in 2018, he lectured on diplomacy at universities for five years and is currently a member of the Ankara Policy Center (APM).
