The Return of the Axes to the Region

When the Zionist movement laid down its preconceptions and its plans to establish an entity for the Jews in Palestine, those preconceptions and plans included the conditions for a peaceful existence which guarantees a lasting existence and survival in the region and when the project of the Israeli state was raised, her character, type of existence and relationships in the region were pondered over at an international level. America has taken it upon herself to maintain the security of that state and secure her survival; and when America established her influence in the region, she decided to curtail Israel so that she could not share that influence with her. Hence, the curtailment of Israel and the maintaining of her security became one of America’s vital interests in the region. So, she set about supplying her with the most sophisticated weapons and arms of mass destruction. The Israeli state has planned for her survival through relying on her own military, economic and political resources, as by being superior in these domains, she would generate for herself the favourable circumstances for her survival.
As for Britain, she deemed that Israel should be her active partner in the region, and one of the prerequisites of this role was for Israel to integrate in the region so as not to appear as an alien body. Hence, Britain decided to establish an umbrella for Israel that would enable her to play her role naturally in the region as a state like any other within the region. The umbrella that Britain opted for was to establish in Palestine a joint democratic and secular state, akin to Lebanon, then this state would join the Arab League once it has entered into a confederation with Jordan; thus becoming part of the region. Once the tendency started to shift locally, regionally and internationally towards the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state in Palestine, Britain placed the idea of a democratic state on the shelf and modified the format of the umbrella; she started thinking of Israel becoming a state within a wider community, encompassing the states of the Middle East i.e. a Middle Eastern community. This Middle Eastern community would achieve two objective:

1 - Marketing Israel in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

2 - Make the relationships between the states of the region built on a regional basis, hence, influence would belong to the strongest state.

The call for a Middle Eastern community came out in the open when the peace agreements between Israel on the one hand and the Palestinians and Jordanians on the other hand in the years 1993 and 1994. Shimon Perez appointed himself as the propagator and the marketer of this idea when he started calling for a new Middle East. Perez expressed the true nature of he had been harbouring in his mind in terms of objectives when he declared in a swaggering and defiant manner during the Casablanca economic summit in 1994: "The Arabs have tried the leadership of Egypt for four decades, and it brought them nothing but destruction and calamities; it is high time they tried the leadership of Israel." The politicians and the media in Egypt and Syria reacted fiercely against the call for a Middle Eastern community, and so did Ismat Abdul-Majid , the Secretary General of the Arab League, for they viewed this call as being destructive to the Arab League and its role, as well as the role of the influential Arab states within the League. Amidst these speculative and media preludes, the military and economic agreements between Turkey and Israel came into being. The two countries stunned the other states of the region by announcing in February 1996 the signing of a military agreement. Though the two states had said that the agreement would lead to the opening of the airspace of each country for the other country’s aviation for training and manoeuvring purposes, and that it would also lead to the exchange of military information and the modernisation of the Turkish fighter planes, they however kept the details of the agreement secret. Then the two states moved a step further towards a strategic agreement by declaring in May that they had just signed a naval agreement leading to the performing of joint manoeuvres. These agreements caused a convulsion in Egypt, Syria and Iran. These states viewed these agreements as an alliance or as a prelude to an alliance that could threaten their security and give the two countries the upper hand and the leading role in the region.

After a series of media skirmishes, president Hosni Mubarak visited Turkey in June 1996 to explore the truth of the matter; president Dimiril did his best to reassure Mubarak that the bilateral cooperation did not constitute an axis and that it was not targeted at any third party. However, he did not disclose to him the nature of these agreements.

Since the turn of the year, the pattern of the meetings and the exchange of visits between Turkish and Israeli officials quickened and the announcements which shed light on the substance and the importance of these agreements increased. Last February, the Turkish Chief of Staff visited Israel and at the beginning of April, David Levy, the Israeli foreign minister, visited Ankara. Then at the end of April, the Turkish defence minister visited Israel. He said to the Israeli radio: " Turkey shall not retract from her military agreement with Israel, which would allow the Israeli fighter planes to fly over Turkey for aerial training purposes." He added: "The Israeli training sorties over the Turkish airspace will continue." In a press conference held just before his talks with his Israeli counterpart, the Turkish minister stressed that the cooperation between Turkey and Israel was "not targeted at any other party." He also said: "Turkey attach a great importance to her cooperation with Israel, and I believe that this cooperation between us will contribute to the stability in the region and will further the peace process."

As for Mordachai, the Israeli defence minister, he pledge Israel’s commitment to help Turkey in her fight against terrorism. In his welcoming speech of the Turkish minister, he said that his country "will do her utmost to consolidate the security and the economic ties with Turkey." He added: "Both our countries are free, democratic and they champion peace. Cooperation between us is necessary to achieve stability in the Middle East." Mordachai added: "We think that the military cooperation between Israel and Turkey could act as a deterrent against any attack that countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria could contemplate launching against Israel." He also added: "It is imperative for the two democratic countries, Israel and Turkey, to combine their efforts for the sake of stability within the two countries." Netanyahu confirmed what the two officials had declared when he announced that "the cooperation between Israel and Turkey should be strengthened in order to face the terrorists threat and secure the stability of the whole region." On his return from Israel, the Turkish defence minister expressed the following day his country’s concern towards Syria and Iran’s endeavours to modernise their chemical warfare and ballistic missiles capabilities. He said in an explicit threatening manner: "Such countries’ acquisition of arms of mass destruction raises the concern of not just our countries, i.e. Turkey and Israel, but also that of Nato." The Turkish press quoted him as saying: "Syria is acting as the headquarters of the terrorism targeting both Turkey and Israel, and Iran is accessory to this terrorism." On 5th May, the deputy Chief of Staff, General Shafiq Bir, described as the strong man of the military institution, visited Israel at the head of a delegation that included 26 officers and civil servants. He reiterated during his visit what the Turkish defence minister had said; i.e. that the purpose of his country’s cooperation with Israel was to put an end to the terrorism perpetrated by the Islamists in Lebanon and the separatists in Turkey. He added: "It is every country’s duty to cooperate against terrorism." He also said: "I have reviewed a host of proposals pertaining the modernising of fighter planes and the joint production of field tanks." The two sides reiterated in their statements expressions such as "achieving security and stability in the region.", "prevent terrorism", "prevent Syria from launching a strike against Israel" and "fighting terrorism."

As for the inducement of the peace process, this meant applying pressure on Syria, once she has been surrounded, in order to make her soften her stance and push her towards making a host of concessions to Israel. All of this indicates that the two countries are heading towards establishing a joint military axis, that is if they had not already reached this. It is worth mentioning some of the regional and international reactions: Egypt, Syria and Iran condemned the Israeli-Turkish axis. Amr Moussa, the Egyptian foreign minister, said: "the Israeli-Turkish axis serves the interests of one party at the expense of another, and any action of this type will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response."

As for Jordan, she holds a different stance, for King Hussein visited Ankara in May 1996, accompanied by his Chief of Staff. He said on his return: "The Jordanian-Turkish ties are stronger than the axes and the alliances. The ties between Jordan and Turkey are firmly established and Inshallah they will be strengthened in all aspects and domains." On 21st November 1996, the Turkish defence minister declared in a press conference that: "Jordan and Turkey would soon be signing an agreement of defence." He also outlined that negotiations pertaining such agreements were at present being conducted, and that once these are concluded, a cooperation bringing benefits to both sides will be established." Few days later, the semi-official Jordanian newspaper "Al-Rai" confirmed the news. This means that Jordan is on its way to joining the axis; however, it would be difficult for Jordan to join the axis under such circumstances, as long as the peace process is facing a stumbling block.

As for America, she denied having any involvement in the Israeli-Turkish agreements. On 7th May 1997, the U.S. defence ministry spokesman denied the involvement of American officers in the strategic talks taking place between Israel and Turkey. He said: "These talks are not trilateral and the U.S. has no connection with them." He then added: "Some middle ranking officers are now in Israel taking part in the talks with Israel and Turkey pertaining future manoeuvres, but this has no connection whatsoever with the strategic talks between the Turks and the Israelis." The Turkish deputy Chief of Staff denied for his part during his visit to Israel the participation of U.S. officials in the talks." The U.S.-Turkish relations are going to be strained for several reasons, namely because of America’s refusal to hand over to Turkey weapons which she had earlier purchased for America; these include three frigates, purchased to strengthen the Turkish fleet in the Aegean Sea, and three Super Cobra helicopters, which Turkey plans to use against the Turkish Kurd rebels. The Turkish defence minister has asked Israel to mediate on Turkey’s behalf for the U.S. to release the arms purchases. America’s position towards the bilateral talks is fitting with her stance towards Israel, which deems her curtailment and isolation from the region.

Britain did not voice her opinion directly, but the British Foreign Secretary revealed Britain’s policy and designs on 4th November 1996, when he called, during his tour of the region, for the establishment of a Middle Eastern Cooperation Community, akin to the European Security and Cooperation Organisation. He explained that he had sought the opinion of the countries in the region and he found that the majority of the countries welcomed such an idea. Amr Moussa dismissed the idea instantly, before he even looked at the official wording of the statement. Ismat Abdul-Majid for his part, summoned the British ambassador to Cairo and expressed his surprise at such a proposal. He added: "We cannot imagine a regional cooperation in the Middle East while Israel continues to occupy Arab lands and while Iran continues to occupy in the Gulf islands belonging to the United Arab Emirates. If Rifkind mentioned that the call for a Middle Eastern community has expanded beyond the region itself, it would be because he undoubtedly realised that the diverse loyalties in the region prevent the establishment of this community and that all it could yield would be the establishment of axes, and this is what is effectively taking place. The Egyptian foreign minister, Amr Moussa, said for his part that the Israeli-Turkish axis will be met with a corresponding and equally strong response, and the foundation of a corresponding axis already exists in the shape of Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia; however, since this axis would not able to face up to the Israeli-Turkish axis, it is necessary to invite another country to join it, and Iran is the prime candidate. This is so because the Israeli-Turkish axis threatens Iran directly; also, because Syria, the main injured party of the Israeli-Turkish axis, enjoys a warm relation with Iran, and she started to use this friendship to break the ice between Iran and Egypt.

As a result of the Syrian mediation, Ali Akbar Valiyati, the Iranian foreign minister, visited Egypt under the pretext of handing to president Mubarak an invitation to attend the Islamic Summit to be held next December. The Egyptian president met him for two hours, during which they discussed the various bilateral and regional issues. Valiyati and Moussa outlined in their press conference that "the resumption of diplomatic ties between the two countries was not improbable." Valiyati said during the press conference: "When the contacts between the two countries increase, it will become easy to generate the favourable atmosphere for the resumption of the diplomatic relations." This is also what Amr Moussa hinted at by saying: "It is imperative to have a shared willingness to resume the ties, and any steps undertaken towards this initiative will be undertaken at the moment determined by both of us." The issues which had led to the freezing of the relations between the two countries are not critical, for Iran does not genuinely oppose the peace process; her opposition is merely an outbidding of stances, and the present strain in the relations between Egypt and Israel could be used by Iran as a pretext to vindicate her rapprochement with Egypt, and the display of a willingness to undertake a joint action to save Al-Quds could serve as an even stronger vindication. Valiyati was quoted as saying in the press conference: "The Islamic countries should work towards solving this issue." He also explained that the Egyptian and Iranian viewpoints are identical."

As for the terrorism which Egypt claims that Iran is sponsoring against Egypt, Iran in fact does not work against Egypt, nor does she work towards exporting the Iranian revolution to Egypt; the rulers of Egypt are aware of the Iranian position and nevertheless the Egyptian rulers will be content with a declaration from the Iranian officials stating that Iran does not work against Egypt, or that they will not do so.

The struggle over the roles in the Gulf constitutes the fundamental difference between the two countries. Since Egypt has always been acting as the mother state, or the big brother of the Arab countries, she therefore finds herself face to face with Iran who seeks to spread her hegemony over the Gulf region. This is why Egypt has strived and is still striving to activate the Damascus Declaration. However, the conflict of interests between the two countries in the Gulf region should not hinder the restoration of ties between them and the coordination in other matters. Amr Moussa outlined in the press conference that the Gulf states should not be angered in case the relations between Egypt and Iran are resumed because "all the Gulf states have diplomatic ties with Iran." Amr Moussa has used the press conference to send a message to Turkey and Israel by saying: "The manoeuvres which are about to take place between Turkey raises concerns. He outlined that : "If this happened, there would be a reaction and we shall look into the matter; also, there will be a consultation about the causes and the intentions of such action." If Amr Moussa’s statement that every action would be met with a corresponding reaction equal in power does not foretell Egypt’s present moves, it then foretells her future moves towards establishing a parallel axis, equal to the Israeli/Turkish axis by including Iran in the Egyptian/Syrian/Saudi axis.

17th Muharram 1418 / 24th May 1997