Given the recent events sweeping the Middle East, the role of Turkey as a regional model or inspiration has gained considerable traction. As a longtime ally of the West and new partner of Iran and Syria, Turkey has been seeking the role of mediator and model in every available arena including Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.

"Syria's economy is in tatters and in need of reforms, regardless of the outcome of the protests. Unless Syria wants to follow the path of North Korea as an international pariah, which is nearly impossible because of its porous borders and central geographic location as a regional crossroads, Damascus has little choice but to look to Ankara for economic help. Stability — or, in reality, status-quo maintenance — has been the mantra of Ankara’s dealing with the Syrian crisis. But Ankara must give the regime in Damascus an incentive to make way for meaningful reforms, including economic liberalization, representative elections and transparent application of rules of law that the protesters are demanding."

"...[F]ast-growing Turkey has become Syria's biggest trading partner and Damascus' long-term lifeline, both economically and geopolitically. The countries' ties have resulted in the establishment of a High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council, a free-trade zone, a visa-free travel regime and several mediation efforts over the past two years. In many ways, Syria has benefited more from its partnership with Turkey than it has from its two-decades-long alliance with Iran."

"The dangers in the current situation are very real. Even if the current crisis is not deepened by further quakes or a worsening of the nuclear contamination, it is a terrible blow to Japan's shaky economic recovery. It may well reinforce an already existing tendency toward isolation in the country's foreign and security policy. Yet there are opportunities as well. Having shown the world their resilience in the face of a terrible natural disaster, the people of northern Japan may have the chance to rebuild a stronger nation with the help of both domestic and international allies and enemies alike."

"Turkey's position on Libya is basically rooted in its large investments in the country and close personal contacts between its leaders. In addition to the well-publicized "human rights" award that Erdoğan received from Qaddafi in December 2010, there are more pressing national economic interests at play. Over the past ten years Turkey has won almost all lucrative construction contracts in Libya and consequently as many as 30,000 Turkish citizens were working and doing business in Libya at the time of the uprisings."

"If the behavior of Iranian government after the 1979 revolution and the Kuwaiti government after it was liberated from Iraqi occupation in 1991 can shed light on how a post-Khadafy government will behave in Libya, then Turkey would be better off to reconsider its position. In both cases the new governments in power politicized their foreign trade and contract awarding procedures. Nations that were perceived to have been friendly during the struggle were rewarded with profitable contracts while those perceived to have been hostile were ignored. If Turkey does not join the countries that are putting more and more pressure on Moammar Khadafy, it risks losing not only its hard earned credibility in the region as a champion of democracy but also its access to the Libyan economy after Khadafy is defeated."

"Because it must compete, the AKP also speaks to Turks across a much wider range of issues. Today the AKP speaks for a large portion of the Turkish voters who want to see changes made in the approach and character of both their Republic and its international relations toward the West and Israel. With a majority of the Turkish parliament and municipal administrations controlled by the AKP since 2002, the very structure of the secular Turkish Republic is beginning to change. Not through a radical revolution, but rather through an incremental and technical process mandated by the Turkish constitution, something the Brotherhood has never been a part of in Egypt. The AKP draws its strength from its pragmatism not its ideology...."

"The rise of the conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its Muslim worldview as the dominant and unrivaled force in Turkish politics, as demonstrated by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's successful approval of a Sept. 12 constitutional referendum, has only heightened fears among many in Washington. Rather than seeing further democratization in Turkey and noting the domestic pressures facing a populist AKP government, they see a final nail in the coffins of the military and secular elites that once protected U.S. interests."

"...[T]he arrival of thousands of Christians will be a heavy social and economic burden on the government and people of Kurdistan. Yet this humanitarian gesture might offer them several positive benefits. First, it will generate considerable international goodwill for the Kurdish region, which would be invaluable in future negotiations with the central government over disputed territories. Second, as mentioned earlier, Christians are a highly educated and skilled minority who would contribute further to the economic prosperity of the Kurdish region. Finally, by accommodating the Christians, the Kurdish region can demonstrate that it is a tolerant and multicultural society, and hence further enhance its image as a role model for the rest of Iraq and perhaps even the Middle East."

Given the headline-grabbing actions of Turkey this summer with regard to both Israel and Iran, a powerful narrative has emerged in which the West has "lost" Turkey. In this Brief, Dr. Joshua W. Walker argues that this narrative ignores the process of democratization in Turkey and the domestic pressures facing a populist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. To this end, this Brief evaluates US-Turkish relations by placing the recent tensions in a larger historical context and assesses various points of convergence and divergence in this relationship today.