Egypt Neither Follows Turkey, Nor Copies Iran

Our view of the issue of Iran-Turkey relations can create an atmosphere for a pathological look at the general atmosphere of Iran's foreign policy and our relations with the world that surrounds us. It seems that despite the three decades during which we have gradually attempted to define a diplomatic tradition, our view of the surrounding world is still filled with numerous misunderstandings. The points that I refer to from this perspective with regard to our relations with Turkey are, in fact, examples of our problems with the surrounding world. Some of these issues are of course very obvious but unfortunately in our media, political and even operational atmosphere, they are sometimes ignored.

The first obvious point which is ignored is that the majority of foreign players can, in the best case scenario, be our partners and allies and not our followers. In most cases, we do not seek friends or partners in our relations with other countries; instead we try to find followers. This is while there are rare instances of this type of relationship between countries. The majority of international players either confront us or, in the best case scenario, are considered as colleagues or, in an ideal situation, our partners. This must be accepted as a fact in our interactions with the outside world.

The other point which must be considered in our view of the international scene is that the other players have their own interests and the differences of interests will lead to different policies. The task of foreign policy is the management of these differences, not to necessarily eliminate them. In the international arena, there is no other way but to manage these differences. This issue includes relations between Iran and Turkey. 

The other issue which we sometimes are faced with is self-identification with our surrounding atmosphere. It means that we analyze other countries with our own conditions, while such a view is totally wrong in the international arena. It must be considered that each country has its own conditions and those conditions must be considered in their analysis. We always ask why Iran did something and why other countries did not do so. It must be considered that Iran acts based on its own ecology and geopolitics and others act based on their own circumstances. 

The fourth point which is sometimes ignored is that the task of foreign policy is the collection of apparent contradictions. For example, it is sometimes proposed whether having relations with a certain country deserves to be the victim of relations with another country? No. Relations with any country must not be victimized by relations with another country. The task of foreign policy is the collection of all these apparent contradictions. Of course, if there is no possibility of collecting these contradictions, the priorities of that country with regard to that issue and its timing determine which relations should be maintained. What is proposed today with regard to the Syrian crisis and the differences between Iran and Turkey about this matter is the difference of priorities and Iran and Turkey's outlook of the issue of Syria.

It is necessary to have a closer look at the reality of Turkey. In international relations, an image of reality is sometimes more important than the reality itself and replaces it. Thus, the extent of the closeness of our images from the realities prepares the ground for managing foreign policy. Unfortunately, we are faced with some type of extremism in this regard and generally we have a black and white look of the issues. Sometimes we launch campaigns about the Islamic Turkey and create expectations for ourselves and the public opinion and then, with regard to Turkey's approach about Syria, we state that Turkey is the lackey of the US and imperialism.

The question that we must answer is whether what has happened in Erdogan's Turkey is a national project? Or is this project designed and managed by international and foreign players? I believe that this is a national project, but a project that seeks regional and international acceptance and does not intend to confront the structure of international power. Within this framework, Turkey under Erdogan and the Islamists who follow Erdogan has been transformed from a political Islam that confronts secular systems in their domestic policies into a copy of Islamic concepts which can be called social Islam. 

Turkey's foreign policy can be summarized in two principles. In its regional policy, Turkey seeks to return to its past self which is interpreted as neo-Ottomanism. This policy means returning to the historical and civilizational aspect of Turkey without its geographical concept. The issue of Palestine is considered as one of the priorities and important issues of Turkey in this policy but in the form of Erdoganism; meaning that their view and outlook of the issue of Palestine is not necessarily similar to our view and outlook of this issue. 

The second principle of Turkey's foreign policy is to achieve national objectives through critical interaction with the structure of international power. It means that, for example, during the US and its allies' invasion of Iraq, Turkey did not allow US forces to use its territory to attack Iraq. This critical interaction can be seen in other issues as well. For instance, with regard to the issue of managing the Syrian crisis, the Turks have considerable differences with the Americans which are not paid attention to in Iran. 

The last point is that we must accept the reality of Turkey and the differences of our interests with this country and try to pay attention to our similarities with it and manage the differences, and not to allow one of our foreign policy priorities, Syria, to cause another priority of our foreign policy, i.e. our relations with our great and historical neighbor Turkey, to be overshadowed. 

In Iran, the issue of the models of Iran and Turkey is much discussed. Nevertheless, I believe that this issue of models is, to some extent, accompanied by extreme simplification of complex phenomena of foreign policy. The fact is that any country has its own political geography and social and political conditions and its own civilization. If we look at the issues from this perspective, we will be able to comprehend the differences between, for example, Egypt and Tunisia. It means if we look at the model which the Ennahda movement follows in Tunisia and the model which the Muslim Brotherhood has on its agenda, we will find out that although both of these countries are among Arab States and their location is close to each other, due to their differences in political geography and their social, political and civil differences, two separate models are followed. For example, in Egypt, when parliamentary elections are held, 25% of the seats are won by the Salafis in their first election campaigns while such a thing does not happen in Tunisia. Can a political player be inconsiderate towards this matter? It is due to the same reason that when Erdogan talks about Turkey's model and secularism in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is the first which issues a statement saying that Turkey's model is not suitable for Egypt. Therefore, it seems that each country creates its own model and the Egyptians will never follow Turkey or, on the same basis, Iran's model; instead they will create their own model.