Russia, Iran And Turkey Converge On One Point

Donate

Russia, Iran And Turkey Converge On One Point

Sputnik/ Igor Zarembo

Written by Dmitri Evstafiev; Originally appeared at eurasia.expert, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

On November 22, in Sochi, an unusual summit will be held [SF comment: It already took place] – talks between the leaders of Russia, Iran and Turkey. At the centre of attention will be the settlement in Syria, where the three countries come out as guarantors of peace. Along with that, cooperation in the Moscow-Ankara-Tehran triangle can go beyond the Syrian scope. Professor of the NRU “Higher School of Economics” Dmitry Evstafiev assessed the prospects of the “axis” formed between the three countries and the accession of Azerbaijan.

Preparing to Redraw Maps

On the main agenda of the meeting of the leaders of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Sochi on November 22 are issues related to the necessity to start the political reconstruction process of Syria and the prevention of its transformation into a platform for the development of Islamic radicalism, however on an internal socio-economic basis. It is possible, if there are no effective political mechanisms created, reflecting the new system of interests and influence, which arose both inside and around Syria.

In addition, the three countries are concerned that in the issues of the Syrian settlement the United States are beginning to take a more and more unconstructive position, which can bring destabilisation. Especially considering that the USA in today’s Syria and Iraq will “lose” almost nothing, and they may not particularly care for the fate of their assets and allies.

It is difficult not to notice, however, that the tripartite summit of Russia, Iran and Turkey in Sochi has become a kind of an “answer” to the APEC summit of Da Nag (Vietnam) and the preceding Sino-American negotiations. Agreements between the United States and China stayed away from the “strategic partnership”, but were clearly marked as “pre-freezing” strategic rivalry between the two countries, which was seen as the epicentre of processes in the Asia-Pacific region over the last few years.

World politics abhors a vacuum, especially if politics are in a transition period. In conditions of stagnation in key economic and political terms, Asia-Pacific region (obviously in the absence of a force majeure by the DPRK) will intensify attempts to change the situation in other regions. At a minimum, approaching the new cycle of showdowns in the Asia Pacific region relations with new opportunities. And at a maximum, protecting oneself from possible economic and political destabilisation.

Neither Russia, Iran or Turkey claim for global leadership, but have the status and capacity substantially greater than what the term “regional power” attributes. Three countries, although Turkey to a lesser extent, were focused on the connecting processes for the formation of a new economic space in South-East Asia. Now comes the time for them to restructure their own relationships in order to approach the new “points of bifurcation” with the best outcome.

The Potential of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran «Axis»

And from this point of view the potential of the “troika” Russia-Iran-Turkey is much more than just cooperative interaction in Syria or even in the Middle East. Speaking of development prospects of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran “axis” it is necessary to note three conditions that makes this geopolitical project not just interesting but also potentially of leadership.

First, the basis of the Moscow-Istanbul-Tehran “axis”, without a doubt, is the economic interests. Primarily, it is the formation of the logistics corridor “North-South”, which now can be viewed in an operational way. There is sufficient transit and, most importantly, non-transit goods for it.

But beyond the economic factors the “axis” brings together a shared vision of military-political issues and security. Not only in Syria or in general in the Middle East, but also in the broader context of South Asia and partially in Africa, in the Horn of Africa.

As practice shows, political and military components of the coalition are now the most enduring elements of the partnership.

This is due to the deceleration of globalisation and preparation of key governments of the world to the significant redistribution of markets in the calculation of the new industrial revolution and the restructuring of global political institutions. As counter-examples we can cite the fate of the Trans-Atlantic economic partnership and NATO.

Second, challenges of industrial modernisation stand before the partner countries. And in circumstances when former concepts of development, based on the idea of connection to the centre of economic growth in the EU, with variations, they lose their relevance. Over a potential range of industrial goods the countries practically do not compete with each other with the exception of certain areas. But they do not appear crucial against the background and can be harmonised in the development process of foreign markets.

The countries are too different for the “intraspecific” competition to emerge. The industrial modernisation will allow to further “spread” competitive “zones”. The partner countries stand before necessary new industrial modernisation but for each it will be different at the sectorial and technological focus.

It is important as well that the “axis”, for the economic cooperation to be successful, becomes a community with a base population of over 300 million people, which is sufficient for the development and initial commercial implementation of technologically rich projects. The community potentially has good chances for the formation of self-sufficient financial investments and billing cycles, with a high level of resistance to external pressure. Problems with access to financial tools are experienced, at the least, by two of the three countries of the “core”, Russia and Iran, and it seems that in the near future, Turkey will begin to experience it as well.

Third, at the “core” the axis naturally formed its own “semi-periphery” and “periphery” countries, which objectively will be pulled in into the “core’s” economic processes and projects. Moreover, these countries are different as to their status and capabilities and development. This gives the “core” of the “axis” sufficient flexibility to secure economic and political interests at the national level.

Around the “core” partnerships can be built with other countries ranging from Syria (logistically important territories and valuable agricultural space) and ending with Qatar (financial resources and a favourable geographical position), not excluding Egypt, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and several other countries.

With such allies, each participant of the “core” can find its own specific niche interest, both political and economic. This does not mean that there will not be any conflicts. On the contrary, in such strong members of the “core” contradictions are inevitable. However, a compromise will be easier to find amid the multiplicity of opportunities, facilitating economic and political “exchanges”.

Challenges for the New Coalition

The paradox of the relations in the Russia-Iran-Turkey triangle is that separately at the level of bilateral relations, the three countries are doomed to contradictions and the absence of long-term prospects, not to mention a strategic partnership. Any bilateral partnership will trigger a reaction not only from foreign players but also from the inside of the respective states. Indeed, the economic and political interests of partner countries are more than contradictory. This is obvious by looking at the confused and not yet successful cooperation of Russia and Iran, despite the good prospects.

But within the coalition, the objectives directed not against each other but on the “development” of the outer space, these three states may well create a relatively self-contained vector with a minimum of internal contradictions, which, of course, will not be able to completely avoid.

A key issue stands in front of the three “core” countries of the coalition. The answer to it depends on how the “troika” will be able to outgrow the framework of the situational alliance. The talk is about the formation of a new system of relations in the Caspian region. And the key issue will be the resolution, or at least long-term stabilisation, of the Karabakh conflict. Otherwise the level of political risks, limited investment processes in the “core” and around it, in the North-South corridor space, will be too considerable. But most importantly, the partnership system will not be able to include Azerbaijan, which in its potential in the future may become the fourth member of the “core”. The leadership of Azerbaijan clearly has the political will and common sense to do this.

The development of the “troika” partnership with Azerbaijan could significantly change the balance of power and relations not only in the Caspian region but also in the whole post-Soviet space.

And, of course, it must be understood that the potential geo-economic “axis” Moscow-Ankara-Tehran is highly vulnerable to information and political manipulations. This requires in-depth and thoughtful interaction at the expert and information level. Moreover, such manipulations are simply predetermined by the situation not only in Syria, but also in general in the Middle East.

The future of the Moscow-Tehran-Ankara “axis” is largely a matter of development and alignment of interests, not an immediate political institutionalisation. The formation of a new coalition will unlikely to resemble a geopolitical “revolution”. Its success will be judged initially by how and in what form the inclusion of the relative “semi-peripheral” countries will occur.

It is important as well that the new geopolitical and geo-economic “troika”, if its development is successful, will become a project, in many respects, an alternative EEU, at least because of the focus on the real industrialisation, not only the formation of the free regime and participation in logistics projects. For Russia, the economic success in filling the new coalition will be a real step towards not only political, but also a geo-economic multi-direction. This will be for the Eurasian states fundamentally a new challenge.

Dmitri Evstafiev, professor NRU “Higher School of Economics”

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Zainab Ali

    God bless these peace makers – hoping more countries will join in like iraq and lebanon especially with china and russia as the main miitary superiority/support

    • dutchnational

      Yes, god bless the peacemakers.

      As keeping the peace rquires preparing for war, the Nato should more urgently upgrade its weapon systems, much more urgent than at present. Luckily, the first preparations for this urgency are already taking place.

      • Barba_Papa

        It’s taken almost 30 years of neglect and constant wear and tear on senseless missions alongside the US for European militaries to reach their current low point. It will take at least a decade of constant investment and strategic vision to undo that damage. In Russia Putin had that vision and the determination to do so. And plenty of time to enact that. In contrast most European governments barely last two terms, have no strategic vision, other then hang on the military coat tails of the US, nor the will to do so. And not the least important, they can barely agree on anything together.

        • Johnpd

          Percisely. Which is why the 1%s Banksters love our “Democratic” political system.
          1%s own/control the MSSM, Main Slime Stream Media, which puppets the poxy bought & paid for (bribed, blackmailed or both), here for 5 years, gone tomorrow kiddy diddling politicians.

      • Joe

        Nato aka US is surrounding Russia with all kinds of firepower .

        All will be waste of money as it is obvious Russia will never attack Europe but rather wants to work closely economically.
        ..and US is so far away.

        With this trioka Russia is covered and secured the ME .

        Putin has done it again with US caught flat footed.

    • Nigel Maund

      Time for an end to the Globalists and their war mad Imperialist champions, Israel, the US and the UK. Time to bring peace and prosperity to the region, stamp out terrorism and rid the region of the CIA and their proxy terrorists and US special forces trainers and advisors. It is as simple as that. Let’s hope that other Central Asian countries and the Lebanon join in too.

      • Freespirit

        To “stamp out terrorism” requires “stamping out” ( in one way or another) the ROOT cause – Washington, London and Tel Aviv and their CONTROLLERS- House of Rothschild, House of Windsor and The Vatican

        • Nigel Maund

          Totally agree!

          • Freespirit

            That means you are one of a VERY FEW, AWAKE individuals

  • Rob

    The terrorist Israel want to take whole Palestine with in next four months.

    Therefore, they have accelerated demolishing and confiscating private Palestinian houses and properties for the cause of greater Israel because Israel knows that after ISIS in Iraq and Syria the next number is of Israel in which Israel cannot do these crimes.

  • Rob

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6jSyqcrwVY

    Putin has destroyed 10 years old U.S. plan for Syria! Whole Syrian conflict in 11 minutes!

    America, Saudi Arabia, and their all puppets Israel, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, SDF are all evil brutal killers and of course they are losers. The booby trap IEDs and suicide bombings are their inventions to butche nations in our world.

    • Rodger

      I still can’t figure out what this whole Arab spring was supposed to achieve. Whatever it was it didn’t work out.

      • Rob

        It was the US-CIA worst strategy which have facilitated the Russia to emerged a global power. Second the Syrian, Iraqi, Afghani, Yemeni and Palestinian war helped the world communities and nations a lot to figure out that America and their puppet terrorists like Israel, ISIS, Al-Qaeda are evils, please keep yourself away from them.

      • Johnpd

        Arab Spring was attempt to provoke revolutions across the Middle East & North Africa to forward the project of ZIO/US/UK/Bankster world hegemony.

        Food prices were doubled by US farmers, major food exporters, putting huge amounts of their crops into US car gas tanks as ethanol, a supposedly “environmental” policy.
        Men will riot & revolt to get food into the bellies of their wives & kids.

        Foreign mercenaries were used to fire on both govt police & peaceful protesters, 2011 in Syria, 2014 in Ukraine, to provoke revolution.

        Partial success in Ukraine: the Fascists did not get the real prize, the warm water port Sevastopol in Crimea. Complete failure in Syria: the Fascists did not get Russian warm water port Tartus, nor did they depose Assad.

        Fascists got their arses kicked.

        • Rodger

          I know what they did. But what they thought to achieve with it I can’t see. The Ukraine isn’t much of a prize and neither is Syria. If Russia needs a new port on the Black Sea they can build one in loads of places in their own country even before they got the Crimea back.

          • Johnpd

            How true is the saying: “One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him drink”, especially if he has the head of a mule, eh?

          • Rodger

            You don’t know the difference between a goal and a method?

          • Johnpd

            I guess I know the difference between simple stupidity, deliberate obtuseness & obvious misdirection.

  • This article reads as if A. Korybko wrote it: too many words, not particularly focused.

  • Tommy Jensen

    US are inside all three countries as a trojan horse.
    US have bases and surveillance radars in Turkey, US have 13 bases in Syria, US have multiple big bases in Iraq close to Iran with surveillance radars, US have big bases in Afghanistan sitting on all heroine business close to Iran, and US have bases in Georgia and Ukraine and Romania with surveillance radars and bioweapon-laboratories and can use the East-European duffers as spies or cannonfodder.
    Obvious that US will never let your little reserve EU happen………………………………….LOL.

  • Starlight

    Turkey is 100% in the West’s sphere of influence (see Britain’s involvement in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire). The failed ‘coup’ in Turkey was a classic intelligence play to make it seem as if Turkey might swap sides. Rest assured, Putin is aware of the game, but seeks to make hay while the Sun shines.

    Iran is that nation Russia voted to sanction to death at the UN when Iran was accused of developing the tech for nukes- the same nukes Putin has stated publicly he is delighted the jews of Israel have in abundance. So Russia is part of the pure racist hypocrisy that leads to Iran not even being allowed to buy Russia’s s-400 air defence system (Putin finally gave Iran the obsolete s-300 system Iran had contracted to but years and years ago- but Russia hadn’t delivered under UN sanction rules Putin has promised to never impose on Israel).

    So the ‘partners’ here boil down to Russia, a NATO double agent, and an ‘ally’ of passing convenience that Russia has constantly mistreated at the UN.

    Putin could easily state that if Iran must be punished over (non-existant) nukes, Israel must be punished one thousand times more for its massive biological, chemical and nuclear WMD stockpiles. How do you think Iranian leaders consider Russia’s racist hypocrisy over this issue? Iran knows Russia is completely loyal to Israel.

    Real alliances are built on trust, honesty, and mutual friendship. Alliances of convenience fall apart as soon as they are really tested.

  • Michael Qiao

    The axis powers has Risen again

  • Rodney Loder

    Uncle Un (Kim Jong Un) and Chinese US pre freeze of conflicting interests are a juxtaposition of remarkable balance, whoever should wobble the line will collect a mud pie, and it’s the identical situation that exists in the ME. Somebody should start presenting this new seminal confluence of historical forces both Secular and Theological as an acronym so everyone can get the picture of First Strike Suicide.

  • Joe

    All three have one common unfriendly foe

    And three if them in ME will form really powerful trio

  • Xanatos

    Turkey is an unstable partner. They’ll have to do more than promise to buy an s-400 before anyone can trust them.

  • gustavo

    Nobody must trust Turkey (NATO member, and terrorists supporter).

  • Johnpd

    This is a bullshit little article attempting to build a “coalition” based on one poxy meeting.
    Not ONE poxy mention of an existing coalition building since 2013 at least: the Chinese One Belt One Road project.
    What wank waffle.

  • Papo Machete

    Guarantors of peace yet the country face OCCUPATION ,Also Turkey is responsible of Trillions in infrastructure destruction and hundreds of thousands of ppl ASSASINATED many in a gruesome way .TURKEY AND RUSSIA has flipflopped many times but Turkey in Particular trained and gave undisturbed passage to thousands of terrorists to Syria ,Obviously they should paid ,as for Russia i think they have the power to STOP the carnage right at the beginning but they chose to play the ZIONAZI game ,The corbett report talk about the new world order 2.0 ,on one side Russia DID NOT LET bloodsuckers do to Syria what they did to Libya BUT they need to have integrity .The elephant in the room ISRAHELL want “GREATEST ISRAHELL” from the EUPHRATES to the sea ,so if they are not disciplined they will keep looking for ways to IGNITE the mid east in what they call the BATTLE of all Battles. In Libya is a market for slaves ,many pictures and stories are rolling,