Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Turkey on verge of military cooperation with Iran against Kurdish militants

America’s silence is both puzzling and telling.

Published

on

772 Views

Turkish media have begun reporting on the high probability of Iran and Turkey establishing a long term task-force for joint cross-border military operations against Kurdish militants including the Turkey based PKK and the Iran based Kurdish group PJAK.

Both groups are regarded as terrorists by Ankara and Tehran and the recent meeting between General Mohammad Baqeri, the most senior general in Iran and Turkey’s President Erdogan indicates that the armed forces of both countries as well as political leaders are in far closer communication than in previous years or decades for that matter.

The pro-government Turkish outlet Daily Sabah has printed the following quote from The Turkish President. He said of possible cooperation with Iran,

“We have discussed the details on what kind of work we can carry out amongst us. There are damages that the PKK and its branch in Iran causes. We will carry out these discussions with the understanding that the threats can be defeated with the cooperation of both countries in a short time”.

This move cements Turkey’s further move away from NATO and closer to Eurasian powers, in this case Iran.

As I recently wrote in The Duran

“Turkey and Iran are already cooperating as members of the Astana Group whose mission is now strengthened by Turkey’s move away from the anti-government forces in Syria. Both countries additionally have found themselves on the same side in the Qatar crisis, although Turkey’s backing of Doha is far stronger than Iran’s. That being said, as Qatar and Iran sit on the same gas field, the prospects of long term Qatari-Iranian cooperation over energy remain very high.

At the same time, Turkey is building a large border wall on the Iranian border in a move to physically cut off Turkey from Kurdish regions of Iran. Iran has been generally cooperative in respect of the wall as Iran does not want to see Kurdish militants unite across the region any more than Turkey, Syria or Iraq do….

With Turkey now concentrating almost exclusively on stopping the advance of Kurdish militants in Syria, there is even a possibility that Iran or Russia for that matter could facilitate direct communication between Ankara and Damascus, something which hasn’t officially happened since 2012. To this point, the gradual process of reconciliation between Ankara and Damascus might already by in its embryonic stages. While many in Syria find Turkey’s long time support of anti-government terrorists to be unforgivable, the pragmatic desire to contain Kurdish nationalism may eventually trump such considerations.

The fact that the leaders of the second largest army in NATO, Turkey, are conducting history making meetings with the military leaders of Iran is a further sign that Turkey may in fact exit NATO sooner rather than later or at the very least continue to downgrade its de-facto relations with the US led bloc”.

READ MORE: Historic Turkey-Iran summit silenced by the media

Not only is Turkey now buying defensive weapons from Russia but may soon be cooperating with Iran against a mutual Kurdish enemy, one which in Syria and in some ways Iraq, is strongly backed by the United States, so much s that the Kurdish led SDF forces in Syria are now little more than a proxy of the Pentagon.

The United States has thus far done nothing to assuage Turkish fears that America seeks to establish a Kurdish state on Turkey’s southern borders nor has the US responded to the reports regarding a possible Turkish-Iranian cooperative initiative or alliance.

To quote the old aphorism, America is ‘quiet….a little bit too quiet’.

In the past, the US had been criticised for saying little about the frequent power grabs and authoritarian style of government which President Erdogan has brought about in Turkey. America’s absence from the international debate on the human rights, political rights and rights to freely express opposition opinion in Turkey has been noted by the internal Turkish opposition, although strictly speaking it is certainly not an American issue, however America typically tends to make many foreign issues their own.

Prior to Erdogan’s pivot towards Eurasia, America’s silence over concerns from Turkish opposition forces, including the primary secular Kemalist CHP opposition party could be easily explained by the fact that Erdogan was the leader of a NATO member state who was on the same side as the US in Syria and in other conflicts.

Now though, a lot has changed. Turkey has withdrawn its support for anti-government forces in Syria and has stated clearly that it regards America’s arming of Kurdish militants in Syria as a threat to Turkish security. On top of this, Turkey now is on the verge of cooperating with Iran, the country every American president since 1979 has loved to hate.

America already shelters one Turkish opposition figure, the Islamist extremist Fethullah Gulen. Turkey considers Gulen the leader of a terrorist group but America still refuses to extradite him to Turkey in spite of technically being a NATO ally.

Could America be planning to exploit Gulen’s organisation or other less than peaceful opposition figures in Turkey, including but not limited to Gulfi funded Salaist terrorists in order to intentionally sow tensions in Turkey? Could America be trying to do the same with the PKK? These are the questions which now bear serious scrutiny among all those concealed with the stability of the Middle East and western Eurasia.

The fear for many in Turkey is that America has already turned against them without even having the decency to declare their actual position. The less America says about Turkey, the more average Turks should pay attention to what is not being said.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
1 Comment

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
tapatioLeanne NankivellPeter HallamAnniesdunbarMariaaburr Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

The US is a bit too quiet? Then check the goings-on at the embassy in Ankara, and at the NATO bases in Turkey. As the “Alien” movie poster said: “Be afraid, be very AFRAID!”

Mariaaburr
Guest
Mariaaburr

Clear97h

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ai37:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs327CashGroupClear/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai37..,…..

Anniesdunbar
Guest
Anniesdunbar

Sky92c

Google is paying 97$ per hour! work for few hours and have longer with friends & family!
On tuesday I got a Smart new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ai112d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobs402CashShopSky/GetPay$97/Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!ai112l..,…

Curtis Bok
Guest
Curtis Bok

Please find a new font to use for quotations in your stories!

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

America has a VERY long history of implementing a Divide and Conquer strategy in area’s it wishes to control. We see it happen in the Middle East, Asia, South America; and the Great Plan to subdivide Russia so as to forever again prevent it reemergence as a super power. The have a long history of backing both sides in conflicts; one overtly and one covertly so as to get the opponents to weaken themselves. It is a common strategy. Turkey SHOULD be very wary. The U.$. has opinions on everything. (Although I don’t know why the media include their obligatory… Read more »

Leanne Nankivell
Guest
Leanne Nankivell

Get George to put his videos on the new decentralized network onG.social There won’t be any censoring of his work the. Time to leave YouTube and go with the decentralized networks that are not controlled.

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

I didn’t know about onG.social. Who sponsors that? Who owns it? Who pulls the ropes?

Leanne Nankivell
Guest
Leanne Nankivell

It is a blockchain project and no one essentially owns it however you have the founders who have worked hard to put together a platform that is fair and not owned and controlled by a small faction. Here you can read the whitepaper and see what you think. https://www.ongcoin.io/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/onG-social-ICO-8-11-17.pdf and if you want to take a look at the project then here is the link to the home page. http://ong.social/ It is a new project and may take time to build but all the right reasons are there. With the censoring of YouTube these new decentralize projects are certainly worth… Read more »

Leanne Nankivell
Guest
Leanne Nankivell

There is also this page that tells you about the team if you scroll down. https://www.ongcoin.io/

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

This looks very interesting… especially the Gravity Algorithm for ‘valid’ media; rewarding people for posting stuff that appeals and is valid content. I like that a lot.

Leanne Nankivell
Guest
Leanne Nankivell

It is Peter. Are you on Telegram? I can get you on a chat where you can talk to Christopher Kramer. These guys agenda is for a peoples platform…

stevek9
Guest
stevek9

A side question for the Duran writers: Why would Russia sell the S400 system to Turkey? … how about some pros/cons and a rationale of selling anti-aircraft systems to a country that shot down one of Russia’s planes not so long ago.

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Could it be that Both Putin and Erdogan know that the next planes Turkish radar will be locking on will be F-16s, not MIGs. Zionist/US support for the Kurds means more US/Israeli support for terrorism in Turkey and elsewhere.

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

Re: S400. Whist the S400 is good, it is now old tech. NATO probably has the plans and has been developing counter measures for a while. There is an incubation and development phase for all that stuff. Russia now has the S500; and whilst similar to the S400, Russia will be migrating to the S500 across the board over the next 5-10 years. This is how Russia works. Make some money on ‘currently used tech’ as it migrates to the newer tech. The S400 is good, but it won’t be long before the plans are available and people start imitating… Read more »

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

The S400 is an effective weapon and is more than adequate to discourage IDF cowards from flying and will give the USAF and Navy second thoughts, too.
The US military may be willing to kill for the empire – but, will they die for it?

tapatio
Guest
tapatio

Mr Erdogan seems to like the grass on both sides of the fence. Not someone to be trusted. Turkey needs to realize that it is part of the East and will never be viewed as an equal in the West.

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending