The rapprochement between Iran and Turkey may seem to be something that falls within the scope of science fiction, but it is not. The Foreign Minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, met on Friday in Turkey with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The sides discussed issues of mutual interest.
Turkey and Iran have common views on various regional and international issues, Zarif said after his meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister.
According to Zarif, the meeting with Erdogan was conducted in a positive atmosphere.
And it happened just a few weeks after Barack Obama announced his decision to ease economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and a few days after the inauguration of the Marmaray railway tunnel.
What is very interesting is that the Iranian leadership and Erdogan could speak face-to-face when Erdogan makes his planned visit to Tehran in January 2014. So said the Iranian Foreign Minister.
Iran is interested in developing ties with Turkey, and wants them to expand further, said Zarif during his meeting with Turkish President Abdullah Gul.
Zarif said that the development of the existing relations between the two states is the desire of the Supreme Leader, as well as of the Iranian President and the government.
The Turkish President said that the election of the new President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has helped create a new image of the country, and noted that Turkey was pleased by this fact.
Gul invited his Iranian counterpart to visit Turkey for a visit, noting the need for expansion of ties in all fields, particularly in economic and political areas.
In three weeks, said Zarif, Tehran will host a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). The ECO is an intergovernmental regional organization established in 1985 by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. It provides a platform for the promotion of economic, technical and cultural cooperation among the member states.
The organization was expanded in 1992, adding Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
According to the Iranian Foreign Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Ahmet Davutoglu, will visit Iran in order to participate in the meeting, as well as to strengthen bilateral cooperation: "The basis of Iran's foreign policy is the development of comprehensive relations with neighboring countries, especially in the political, economic and cultural fields."
And what could be wrong with that?
Nothing, aside from the fact that one country is enriching uranium and the other appears to have nuclear ambitions. Both of these states are involved in the Syrian bloodbath, and both have historical Islamic hegemonic ambitions in the region. Turkey is friends with Hamas and Iran with Hizballah. Both have poor human rights records.
Yet in 1994, it was known that Turkey was helping the Chechen Mujahideen. Georgia and Azerbaijan were transport corridors for the movement of jihadists in the north Caucasus.
I would like to look in the eyes of the "wise men" who believe that an Iran-Turkey alliance could lead to stability in the region.
But on the other hand, what to do? How to prevent such a union? If preventing it is even possible, should it be done?
Iran is developing its presence in the region militarily and economically. Oman will become a center for the sale of Iranian gas in the region, said the Iranian Oil Minister, Bijan Namdar Zanganeh, on Sunday.
"The negotiations with Oman, the last round of which was held on Saturday, were held successfully, and we fully agreed on the main issues," said Zanganeh.
According to Zanganeh, Oman and Iran will sign a contract by the end of the Iranian calendar year (March 19, 2014) or sometime early next year.
"We have not discussed the price of gas," he said.
Tehran first agreed on the issue of transportation of gas to Oman, and then searched for markets in the region, Zanganeh added.
That casts the economic sanctions in serious jeopardy. Yet what action is taken against this? Is Iran bypassing the eyes and ears of U.S. legislators?
We can immediately recall the analogy of the 20th century. This is reminiscent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the division of Europe that was to lead to peace in the region. As we all know, instead the world was caught up in a war that has took millions of lives.
Now U.S. and European diplomats are following a course of action similar to that of Stalin in the 20th century.
Whether this is a mistake or an intentional action remains to be seen, but the fact that negotiations are being imposed on Israel to divide Jerusalem and force the Jewish State to sign a peace treaty reducing it to the 1967 borders is very similar to the logic of the tragic events of the 20th century. And this cannot lead to peace in the Middle East, any more than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact brought peace to Europe.