Didn't Edogan just explicitly threaten to invade Israel?
Somehow their mediation potential feels... Lacking
26
mkondr5 days ago
+12
First was Pakistan and their minister tirade against Israel, now Turkey. It’s almost like these guys are not really a good fit for mediator role due to, I don’t know, expressed clear lack of impartiality
12
jakderrida5 days ago
+1
Please name every country that's loyal to Israel and not in this war already.
1
dz45055 days ago
+3
Uganda.
3
jakderrida5 days ago
+1
Let's hope they pull off a ceasefire.
1
dz45055 days ago
+2
Also India, if they want to get involved, which doesn’t seem like they do.
2
jakderrida5 days ago
+1
I don't really blame them.
1
dz45055 days ago
+1
In the end it matters less on who is willing to meditate than the terms itself.
If both sides is willing to hear the mediators out then it’s a go.
For sure I also hope they can broker a peace deal.
1
CHNSK5 days ago
No he didn’t.
0
imminatural5 days ago
+11
>Turkey’s credibility as a mediator isn't
With Erdogan at the helm the US and Israel won't trust Turkey, given his track record of... nothing.
Turkey can't even cooperate with the Kurds in their own country, they need the Iranian Kurds to be suppressed, so their strategy is as complex as: pretend the war never happened.
11
jakderrida5 days ago
+3
The piece points to indirect communication between Washington and Tehran and cites Turkey’s prior ambition to broker Iran-related diplomacy, including the 2010 fuel-swap effort. That does not prove Turkey is an effective mediator, but it does make “nothing” an unfair caricature.
The Kurdish point does not really rebut the article’s claims. It may speak to Turkey’s motives or regional credibility, but the article is about whether Turkey is trying to mediate through indirect channels, not whether Turkey is morally consistent across every regional issue.
3
dz45055 days ago
+1
Save it from whom?
Unless US is willing to put boots on the ground or the local populace rise up.
Doesn’t look like neither is happening.
Best course of action would be to broke a nuclear deal and move on. The regime change ship already sailed.
1
[deleted]5 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
jakderrida5 days ago
+3
/s?
3
[deleted]5 days ago
+1
[deleted]
1
jazir555 days ago
+2
Because they can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
2
[deleted]5 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
zenbu-no-kami5 days ago
+1
It does that even week with all this market manipulation
1
humbleObserver5 days ago
+1
When do you think that's going to occur?
1
Polytechnika5 days ago
+3
If the blockade of Hormuz by the US does indeed materialise and persist for the time being - as soon as Chinas oil starts to run out.
3
Ultra_Metal5 days ago
+1
Turkey is trying to save the criminal regime that murdered tens of thousands of people.
1
jakderrida5 days ago
+1
It certainly does serve their self-interest. What else would you trust from a state-actor?
1
Ultra_Metal5 days ago
+1
I would expect every state to be against regimes that massacre tens of thousands of their own people.
1
THEPIGWHODIDIT5 days ago
-9
Israel won't engage given their shifting narrative towards Turkey being the new Iran
-9
Epyr5 days ago
+12
The only people I hear saying that are Turkish officials who have a record of hating Israel and seem to be starting to drum up Turkish support for themselves
12
jakderrida5 days ago
+7
The article is not claiming Israel is about to happily let Turkey mediate everything. Had you read more than the headline, you'd see that Israel's reluctance is already referenced.
"Turkey’s credibility as a mediator is strengthened by access and geography but limited by several factors, including Israeli hostility and distrust, vulnerability to Iranian missiles, and domestic political incentives for anti-U.S. and anti-Israel rhetoric."
It is claiming Turkey is one intermediary among several, mostly through indirect channels.
26 Comments