NATO Heads For The Rocks--Again

NATO has been the cynosure of mission drift ever since the Soviet Union went toes up twenty years ago.  The attacks of 9/11 provided a brief respite from its drift into uselessness.  With the pervasive disillusionment over the adventure in Afghanistan rising, the organization is once more heading to the abyss.

This is not to say that NATO no longer has a vital reason for existence.  It does.  While life may be all kisses and hugs with the Russians, the ground truth remains: Europe remains a threatened region.  The elites of the place may not like to admit it and the budget crunches militate against a realistic appraisal of the degree of threat currently extant, but neither can gainsay the looming mushroom shaped shadow of Iran.

The Iranian potential has been directly addressed by the US proposal to base interceptor missiles and associated radar facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland.  The US under two very different presidents has pushed the installation as being critical for the defense of Western Europe against incoming Iranian missiles.  At least some other NATO members have joined with the US in this effort, braving the opposition of Moscow backed by all the usual Kremlin huffings and puffings.  The matter is still on the table after years of talks, preliminary actions, diplomatic faux pas, and alterations in the hardware constellation and basing concepts.

Now the measure is being opposed by NATO member Turkey.  Under the AKP, a political party with strong roots in armed political Islam, Turkey has moved ever closer to Iran.  The calculating Turkish leader, Erdogan, along with the ambitious and naive Brazilian president Lula brokered a specious "deal" regarding Iran's nuclear program last year which was rejected by the US and its partners.  Since then Erdogan and company have spewed anti-American words beyond count, alternating attacks on Washington with standard issue antisemitic billingsgate in the direction of Israel.

Recently the Turkish government announced it was removing Iran from the list of countries threatening Turkey.  At the same time the Ankara Bunch hyped the new joint campaign against Kurds which was being mounted with both Iran and Syria.  As the hoary cliche has it, "birds of a feather..."

Furthering the Tehran agenda, the Turkish delegation to NATO has opened what it is pleased to call "negotiations" with a view to blocking the deployment of the anti-ballistic missile system if it is targeted against Iran.  Suddenly the Erdogan government is very much opposed to the idea of NATO calling Syria or Iran "enemies."  The peace loving Turks are offended by the notion that any neighboring country might actually use ballistic missiles and consider the defense system to be provocative.

The "negotiations" opened by the Turks in Brussels will lead to one of two outcomes.  NATO will develop some formula which will not name Iran or Syria but will represent the system as a counter to a broad spectrum of hypothetical threats from somewhere in northwest Asia.  Or it will not.

If NATO does not invent some sort of diplomatic language acceptable to the very sensitive people in Ankara, then the Turks will have the potential to directly block deployment.  NATO runs by consensus; this means that a single formal objection prevails.  The consensus approach gives Iran's strong ally the power to prevent Western and Central Europe from undertaking necessary defense measures.  Does the word "absurd" come to mind?  Or "idiotic?"  Maybe "asinine."

Of course, NATO could drop the consensus theme.  This would, of necessity as well as calculation, hack off Ankara.  The Turks might even threaten to leave the organization.  This eventuality will upset any number of multikulti oriented folks.  Winds of chaos would be seen blowing throughout Europe.  All the usual and quite expectable hyperbole would ensue.

If NATO is to continue as a relevant body meriting American support and participation, it has no choice but to come to terms with the nature of the threats confronting Europe now and into the future.  While there is always a remote possibility that Russia will rethink its current foreign policy and grab a blast from the Soviet past, the real threat, the one which is up close and personal, is that of armed political Islam.  It should go without saying that Iran is the pillar of armed political Islam.

The mullahs and their frontmen have diplomatic ambitions which are literally global in nature.  At the moment the primary focus is on what Tehran sees as their "near abroad."  That is the Persian Gulf, the Central Asian Republics, Northwest Asia, and the Mideast.  But their vision is not myopic.  Beyond the "near abroad" are other regions in which Tehran seeks clout.  Europe is one.  Latin America is another.  And, should those prove insufficient to meet the Iranian appetite, there is the rest of the world.

Absurd as it may seem on first sight, Iran defines itself as a global power in the making.  Given ruthless ambition, nuclear weapons, regional hegemony, and a combination of Chinese support and Western spinelessness, the ambition is not so hallucinatory.

Europeans well understand a phenomenon which went by the name of "Finlandization."  The Soviet Union had no need to occupy Finland after World War II.  The threat was sufficient to assure Finland was compliant, a dutiful stooge on the world stage and an accommodating supplier of advanced technology icebreakers and other equipment at artificially low prices.

It was the American presence along with the American nuclear deterrent which prevented the Soviet Union from expanding the concept from Finland to all of Europe.  It is illustrative to note that whenever the US was preoccupied elsewhere or going through its post-Vietnam angst, Europeans made placatory moves toward the Kremlin.

The same dynamic is possible, even probable, should (or when) Iran gains a nuclear capability to go with its missiles and ambitions.  This gives additional impetus to the planned ABM system.  There is no doubt that the leaders in Iran understand this.  They are realists in many essential respects.  Thus, it is critical to the longer term needs of Iranian policy that the planned deployment be stopped or at least delayed as long as possible.

Turkey is playing Tehran's game once again.  The US and other powers need to call Ankara on this move.  Call the bluff.  No negotiations.  No calling the planned system by some euphemism.  Tell the Turks the time has come to choose sides: NATO or Tehran.  Let the dinosaurs of the multicultural sort wheeze, moan, and groan.  If NATO is to survive, perhaps to be reborn, it must be as the bulwark against the expansion of armed political Islam.

To do this, the countries of NATO must tell the Turks bluntly that the days of the expansionist Ottoman Empire are gone.  The gates of Vienna are long locked.  And, no combination of Islamic ambition and Turkish revanchism will unlock them.