Scientists celebrated Sunday after finding more than 700 suspected new planets — including up to 140 similar in size to Earth — in just six weeks of using a powerful new space observatory.

Early results from NASA’s Kepler Mission, a small satellite observing deep space, suggested planets like Earth were far more common than previously thought.

Past discoveries suggested most planets outside our solar system were gas giants such as Jupiter and Saturn — but the new evidence tipped the balance in favor of solid worlds.

Astronomers said the discovery meant the chances of eventually finding truly Earth-like planets capable of sustaining life rose sharply.

NASA so far formally announced only five new exoplanets — those outside our solar system — from the mission because its scientists were still analyzing Kepler’s finds to confirm they are actually planets.

“The figures suggest our galaxy, the Milky Way [which has more than 100 billion stars] will contain 100 million habitable planets, and soon we will be identifying the first of them,” said Dimitar Sasselov, professor of astronomy at Harvard University and a scientist on the Kepler Mission. “There is a lot more work we need to do with this, but the statistical result is loud and clear, and it is that planets like our own Earth are out there.”

Diaspora Affairs and Public Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein slammed Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone on Monday for comments he made in an interview to Britain’s Sunday Times, in which he downplayed the Holocaust, defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and complained about Jewish influence in the United States.

Edelstein said that Stone’s statements to the newspaper were racist and anti-Semitic and made him sick.

“Beyond the ignorance he proves with his comments, his demonization of the Jewish people could be a sequel to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the minister said. “When a man of Stone’s stature says such things, it could lead to a new wave of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, and it may even cause real harm to Jewish communities and individuals.”

In the interview, Stone said America’s focus on the Holocaust was a product of the “Jewish domination of the media.” He said his upcoming Showtime documentary series Secret History of America would put Hitler and Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.” “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed],” Stone said.

When asked by the interviewer why so much of an emphasis had been placed on the Holocaust, Stone responded, “The Jewish domination of the media. There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

Stone, who recently met with Ahmadinejad, said American policy toward Iran was “horrible.”

“Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy,” he said. “But we don’t know the full story!”

By contrast, Stone praised Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as “a brave, blunt, earthy” man, who does not censor the Internet in his country.

Stone also raised an uproar when he defended Hitler at a press conference in January.

“Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply,” he said at the time. “He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect.”

Simon Wiesenthal Center director Rabbi Marvin Hier responded then that “to talk about ‘placing Adolf Hitler in context’ is like placing cancer in context, instead of recognizing cancer for what it really is – a horrible disease, just as we must recognize Hitler as the ultimate expression of evil.”

The Dead Sea’s shoreline is sinking by a meter a year, and it is feared that it will literally ”dry up” by the year 2050 – unless immediate efforts are made to save what many are calling one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World. While the facts are well known, experts are divided regarding a solution as to how to save the “lowest point on earth.”

One of the main ideas being forwarded to stabilize the water level of the Dead Sea is the much-heralded, yet controversial, Red-Dead Sea Conveyance Project, which involves digging a canal and a series of water pipeline conduits 160 kilometers from the Gulf of Akaba to a location on the salt lake’s southern perimeter in order to bring between 1,000 and 2,000 MCM (million cubic meters) of water annually to replenish and stabilize its water level.

Included in the scope of the project will be desalination plants to provide as much as 850 MCM of fresh water per annum that will be divided among Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians; as well as generating thousands of megawatts of electricity from hydroelectric power stations that will use the energy from the incoming Red Sea water to operate their generators.

Although plans for the project have been in the works for well over a decade and the subject of several hearings sponsored recently by the World Bank, environmental groups are expressing concern that the building of the conduit in the Arava Valley between Israel and Jordan, as well as the mixing of highly saline and mineral-laden Dead Sea water with less saline Red Sea water, will result in serious and irreversible environmental changes.

These changes, it is feared, will affect not only the unique bio-diversity of the Dead Sea basin and the Arava, but that of the Red Sea as well – including its shoreline and coral reefs.

“THOSE IN favor of the Dead Sea Conveyance Project think that it will solve all problems at once as it is planned to produce both electricity and fresh water as well as stabilize the Dead Sea,” Gideon Bromberg of the environmental activist organization Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) told Metro following a recent World Bank hearing in Jerusalem on the feasibility of the much publicized “Red-Dead” conduit project.

If it is finally approved, the project is expected to take between 20 and 27 years to complete and is estimated to cost as much as $15 billion at today’s values.

Present at the hearing in Jerusalem were a number of people of diverse backgrounds, including scientists, environmentalists, representatives of the Dead Sea’s mineral production industries, health science specialists and politicians. Introductory remarks were made by Dr.

Alexander McFail, lead water and sanitation specialist for the World Bank, Washington DC, who has been involved in four of the five regional hearings hosted by the bank dealing with the ongoing feasibility study.

Afterwards, participants were invited to express their views.

“The ongoing study [of mixing both Red and Dead Sea waters] has not been given enough time for viable alternatives to the proposed project to be evaluated,” said MK Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), one of the politicians present at the hearing. “Twelve months’ allowance for the study is insufficient to determine the feasibility of other options.”

Also present at the hearing were Israel Water Authority director Uri Shani and former Israel Geological Survey head Michael Bythe, both of whom agreed with the MK concerning the time factor for the water mixing study.

“The scientists carrying out these studies at the Dead Sea are not being given enough time to come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding the long-term effects of mixing Dead and Red Sea waters together,” Shani said.

Added Bythe: “We all know that this feasibility study will end with inconclusive results, and that a decision will have to be made on how to move forward only after that happens.”

Two days prior to the June 16 World Bank hearing, FoEME conducted a media tour to the Dead Sea for local and foreign journalists, to show them the ongoing experiments involved in mixing the highly saline and mineral rich Dead Sea waters with the less saline, “living” waters of the Red Sea.

The studies are being carried out by scientists connected with the Israel Geological Survey, and funded by a number of entities, including the Israeli government; the World Bank, via donor countries; the Dead Sea Works; and environmental groups, including FoEME.

The main highlight of the tour involved seeing the experimental pools of water containing various “mixes” of Dead and Red Sea waters over periods of time ranging from a few weeks to several years.

Some of the pools showed that the water mixture has taken on a reddish appearance, said to be the result of algae growth caused by the less saline Red Sea water.

Other pools had floating on them clumps of the mineral gypsum – also not normally occurring in natural Dead Sea water.

“Mixing Red Sea water introduces sulfides which are not naturally found in Dead Sea water. These sulfides result in algae growth that appears to cause the water to change color,” said Dr. Itai Gavrielli of the Israel Geological Survey, who along with several other scientists has been conducting these studies.

Gavrielli went on to say that these sulfides are not found naturally in the waters of the Dead Sea. Often referred to as a “master mixer” of Dead and Red Sea waters, Gavrielli has been involved in these studies for more than 10 years.

“We were conducting studies in finding ways to replenish the lake’s water level long before groups like the World Bank became interested,” he noted. “Our models of the lake’s chemical and mineral composition take into account only the lake’s past and present situation, and we have no way of calibrating models for the future. We hope to have a more accurate model completed within the next few months.”

Regarding the change in water color, Gavrielli compares the phenomenon to what occurs in the Great Salt Lake in the American State of Utah.

“This occurrence is due to the mixing of highly saline “dead” waters with those with living organisms in them, as occurs in the Great Salt Lake. While some people think color change caused by the algae bloom makes the lake look more attractive, we have no way of knowing how this will affect the unique mineral composition of the Dead Sea,” Gavrielli adds.

According to studies conducted by Bromberg’s FoEME, the main reason for the rapid decline of the Dead Sea’s water level is due to the near-cessation of the Lower Jordan River’s natural flow, of which only about 2 percent of the stream’s natural freshwater flow eventually reaches the Dead Sea. And most of what does arrive there consists of a mixture of raw sewage and diverted saline water from salt springs and fish ponds in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee (Kinneret).

The ongoing studies to determine how channeling Red Sea water into the Dead Sea will affect the lake’s overall mineral composition is of particular interest to the World Bank, because of its role in providing financial assistance for part of the conduit project. The results of the feasibility study have to be turned in by next summer in order for the World Bank to authorize its approval for the funding.

World Bank specialist Dr. Alexander McFail told Metro that at the moment, no real conclusions have been forthcoming from the present studies.

“What we [at the World Bank] would like to see would be a “pilot study” involving a much larger amount of Red Sea water being mixed with Dead Sea water. The current models [using small test pools] are just not conclusive enough to show the desired test results.”

McFail added that a technical steering committee will review a report that was due to be submitted to them on July 15 in order to determine at what stage current tests are standing.

Regarding the 2011 time limit for the entire report to be turned in for review, he noted: “I have heard this concern several times, regarding the amount of time being given. But this date [June 30, 2011] has been given by those ordering the report, and that’s also when the money allocated for the study runs out.”

A sum of US $1.5 million has been allocated by donors for the study report.

“The conduit project is a very expensive undertaking that will take at least 20 years to complete. It will only provide around 250 jobs, as compared to our favored option, the revitalization of the Lower Jordan River, which will create hundreds or even thousands of jobs in tourism and other industries,” said FoEME Israel director Bromberg, contacted at his Tel Aviv office.

“JORDAN NOW appears to be planning to go at building a good part of the conduit project alone – which is not exactly in the spirit of good neighborly relations that should be occurring in such an endeavor.

“We can understand why they are so much interested in this plan, as they are suffering from a severe lack of fresh water; and they have a big need for the energy that might be generated from hydroelectric power.

“What hasn’t been divulged is that producing desalinated water from this project will cost as much as three times the cost of producing fresh water from coastal desalination plants, such as the one in Ashkelon. This is largely due to requiring as much as an additional 250 megawatts of power just to pump the desalinated water up to the Amman area – which is equal to at least two Ashkelon size power stations,” said Bromberg.

Bromberg’s estimate of the creation of “around 250 jobs” varies considerably from that predicted by the Delek Group’s chairman, Yitzhak Tshuva, who has expressed an interest in the project.

Tshuva mentioned the project in a speech he gave at the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange in June 2009, when he painted an optimistic forecast of “up to a million jobs” being created by the Red-Dead Conduit Project, and by “spin-off” industries connected with it.

In the speech, reported in Israel’s Globes financial newspaper, Tshuva talked about increasing Israel’s freshwater supplies through desalination, including the desalination of Red Sea water destined for the Dead Sea.

Gavrielli noted to Metro that “so far, (Delek) has only expressed an interest in involvement in this project.”

A few years back, the project was also known as the “Valley of Peace Conduit,” when Jordan and Israel were planning to cooperate in constructing it. But that was before media information coming from Jordan seemed to indicate that the Hashemite Kingdom was making plans toward constructing a unilateral version of the conduit and the desalination and power plants, with one desalination plant planned to be erected alongside Akaba. “Jordan has instigated preparations for what it is calling the ‘Jordan Red Sea Project’ – a replication of the proposed Red Sea-Dead Sea Water Conveyance Project, currently the subject of World Bank studies, but on a smaller, first-stage scale,” Bromberg noted.

World Bank representative McFail told Metro that the World Bank has no interest whatsoever in the Jordan Red Sea Project, which is considered a strictly private venture: “We at the World Bank are only involved in the public or tri-lateral project that involves Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians. Jordan, for its part, is involved in both the trilateral project, as well as a private project of its own, the Jordan Red Sea Project, also known as the Jordan National Project.

“The private Jordanian project, which includes building a desalination plant at Akaba, also includes realestate projects which only they are involved in. The desalinated water (from the completed Akaba plant) will also be for Jordanian use only,” McFail said, adding, though, that “the Jordanians will not proceed with their private version of the conduit project until the trilateral public one begins. The Jordanians are also very interested in learning the results of the studies, and have no plans to begin their own project until the public one commences.”

TO OBTAIN the Jordanian side of the story, regarding the kingdom’s plans for the project, Metro contacted Skip Holland, project chairman of the Jordanian government sponsored Jordan Red Sea Project. Holland said that he was “not at liberty to discuss the project, as the government of Jordan wants to control all responses on the project.”

Chris Decker, formerly connected with the JRS Project, said that “the main reason for the project is to stabilize the Dead Sea, which has been receding considerably in recent years.” He went on to say that once completed, “the results will be beneficial to everyone in the region.”

Bromberg and his Friends of the Earth Middle East organization claim to have one of the most logical and environmentally sound solutions to restoring the Dead Sea’s water level, and that solution involves restoring the Lower Jordan River’s original flow by at least 30%.

Bromberg is concerned that the time frame being given by the World Bank for the completion of the water mixing studies of Gavrielli and his team of scientists at the Dead Sea is not long enough to reach the conclusive results needed to determine the viability of the conduit project. Both Bromberg and Gavrielli believe the study is being rushed and is lacking in thoroughness.

Ongoing geological studies note that the Dead Sea’s present shoreline of -411 meters is expected to drop to -430 by the year 2030. Gavrielli said the lake would never dry up completely, since it is being partially replenished by water from underground springs, as well as by occasional seasonal inflows from winter rainstorms (as happened this past winter, when several flash floods occurred in the area).

Both he and Bromberg believe that the lake’s depletion is being caused largely by human causes – including local industries which intentionally “dry up” portions of the lake to extract minerals; by the development of hotels and other tourist attractions; and, most of all, by the diversion of fresh water from the Lower Jordan River.

“The Dead Sea can be stabilized by returning a minimum of at least 30% of the Lower Jordan River’s original flow,” Bromberg concluded. “This can be done at a much more economical price, in both money and in terms of environmental impact, than the Red- Dead Conveyance Project – especially if both Israel and Jordan are equal partners in this endeavor.

“The result could turn the Lower Jordan into a ‘living river’ once again, with all its environmental and tourism benefits; and this would stabilize the Dead Sea naturally, benefiting both Israel and Jordan, as well as the Palestinians.

“That in our view is the best ‘neighborly’ solution for reviving a lake that is considered by many to be one of the Seven New Wonders of the World.”

McFail also pointed out alternatives to the conveyance project, which he said are noted in the World Bank Web site under “Terms of Reference”: “As can be seen in this category, included in the alternatives to be studied are those that suggest alternative plans for the Lower Jordan River; as well as those that involve changing crop types and cultivation methods.

Also to be considered… is a combination of the alternatives…”

* EU imposes new Iran sanction Restrictions follow last month’s unilateral US sanctions.

* US says Wikileaks could threaten national security The United States has condemned as “irresponsible” the leak of 90,000 military records, saying publication could threaten national security.

* “If Hezbollah strikes, we hit Lebanon” Barak issues warning against resuming rocket attacks from North.

* “Settlements will return to normal” Lieberman, Netanyahu say settlement freeze will end in September.

* Raising the Dead Is the “Red-Dead Sea Conveyance Project” viable?

* “Jews dominate the media” Director Oliver Stone makes anti-Semitic comments, supports Iran.

* Ex-CIA chief: Strike on Iran seems more likely now A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

* Top U.S. officer warns Afghan war will get worse More NATO troops will die in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer, but Washington’s goal of turning the tide against the insurgency by year’s end is within reach, the top U.S. military officer said.

* NASA’s Deep Space Camera Locates Host of “Earths” Scientists celebrated Sunday after finding more than 700 suspected new planets — including up to 140 similar in size to Earth — in just six weeks of using a powerful new space observatory.

* Abbas Under Pressure for Direct Talks Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is under intense international pressure to begin holding direct talks with Israel.

A quiet but intense debate is ongoing within senior circles of the governing Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (Justice and Development Party: AKP) in Turkey over whether or not this is the time to proceed rapidly with the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons.

At stake is Turkey’s strategic parity with other nuclear powers in the region: Russia
, Israel, Pakistan, and Iran. Highly-placed sources indicate that Turkey has been deliberating the acquisition of military nuclear capability for some time, but has been constrained by its need to maintain good relations with the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) partners generally, as well as the European Union (EU). The Turkish General Staff (Genelkurmay Baskanlari: GB) is also engaged in this debate, but, for the most part, this is a debate dominated by the civilian leadership.

Turkish acquisition of nuclear weapons would significantly transform the balance of power and the strategic dynamic of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Greater Black Sea Basin (GBSB), and the Caucasus, and would be the cornerstone of Turkey’s ambitious program to restore what it sees as its historical pan-Turkist mission. Indeed, without nuclear weapons — at least as far as regional perception is concerned — Turkey could not compete against a nuclear Iran or be seen as an independent “great power” in the region.

Nuclear weapons research has long been underway, under conditions of extreme secrecy, in Turkey, and the AKP leadership is aware that it is probable that this will become public knowledge as the effort becomes more intense.

 It is not totally dependent on, but benefits from, the acquisition by Turkey of uranium-based nuclear power reactors, which will ultimately provide a base of fissionable materials to sustain an indigenous nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, however, nuclear weapons research — which requires only a minimal amount of fissionable material, obtainable on the world market — can continue separately. There is no doubt that Turkey’s growing relationships with Iran, Brazil, and Pakistan have been — as far as the Turkish leadership is concerned — with the military nuclear program partially in mind.

As far back as 1998, Turkish media reports indicated that then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had offered Turkey cooperation in the development of nuclear weapons.1 [Significantly, Nawaz Sharif is poised to make a political comeback in Pakistan in the next general elections.] The dramatic lowering of leverage which the U.S. and EU have over Turkish strategic direction over the past 18 months, coupled with the growing separation with Israel at the behest of the AKP as a means of reducing the domestic Turkish political influence of the General Staff, along with the perceived need to firmly establish a stronger measure of Turkish independence from Russia, are all contributory factors in the Turkish Government’s moves to press ahead as rapidly as possible with the nuclear weapons and nuclear power programs.

What is significant is that Turkey played a significant rôle in the early 1980s in helping Pakistan acquire systems for the development of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, and there is little doubt that Turkey now expects a quid pro quo. Pakistan, despite ill-informed Western media speculation, has been extremely cautious about sharing its nuclear weapons knowledge, and may not deliver what Ankara wants with regard to nuclear cooperation at this point. Nonetheless, the growing military supply relationship between Turkey and Pakistan highlights the quiet cooperation between the two former Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) member states, and now Turkey and Iran (another former CENTO member) have cautiously come back together under the aegis of the Russian regional energy networking. In 1992, U.S. Senator John Glenn and other U.S. congressmen accused Turkey of supplying sensitive technology to Pakistan in order to aid in Pakistan’s acquisition of uranium enrichment technology.

The Turkish Government has been careful about moving ahead with independent nuclear weapons capabilities until this point because such a move could have precipitated a cut-off of Turkey from the U.S. and EU economies and its position within NATO. Now, however, Turkey is reaching a junction point where Turkish membership of the EU is seen by many in the Turkish Government as no longer feasible or desirable and the AKP is beginning to feel as though it has the General Staff (GB) more or less under control and not in a position to challenge or overthrow the civilian Islamist Government. On the other hand, Russia — which more or less took off the velvet gloves with Turkey in early 2009 to bring Ankara within the Russian strategic orbit2 — is not in a strong position to stop Turkey moving ahead with its nuclear weapons program, just as it has been unable to stop Iran in its process of acquiring externally-built nuclear weapons and developing its own nuclear weapons production capabilities.

Very senior sources in Israel, Russia, and the U.S. have privately expressed concern that Turkey is proceeding with its nuclear weapons program, and that Turkey has obtained a significant knowledge of nuclear weapons technology, protocols, and operational doctrine from its association with NATO and Israel. Moreover, officials in Israel, Russia, and the U.S. are fully aware that neither the Turkish Government nor the Turkish military pays any attention to confidentiality clauses, end user certificates, or use strictures on weapons, intelligence, or defense systems made available to Turkey by its allies. One Israeli official told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs:

“We are all fully aware that when the Turkish Armed Forces invaded Cyprus in 1974 they did so using U.S. military equipment in defiance of the use strictures placed on that equipment when it was provided by the U.S. to Turkey. Today, Turkey is in open violation of all of its agreements with the U.S. and Israel with regard to the U.S. and Israeli military systems which are the backbone of the Turkish Armed Forces now occupying Northern Cyprus.” This was the first disclosure that Israeli military equipment was being used by the Turkish military in Cyprus, and that this was a violation of understandings between Turkey and Israel when the equipment was supplied.

The Turkish Armed Forces have long worked with the U.S. military on the use of nuclear weapons, particularly artillery-launched, air-delivered, and theater-level ballistic missile-delivered nuclear warheads and bombs. U.S. nuclear weapons are still based in Turkey. On November 23, 2009, the U.S. left-leaning Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — an anti-nuclear organization — published a report by Alexandra Bell and Benjamin Loehrke. stating: “Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 [nuclear] gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base. Fifty of these bombs are reportedly assigned for delivery by U.S. pilots, and 40 are assigned for delivery by the Turkish Air Force. However, no permanent nuclear-capable U.S. fighter wing is based at Incirlik, and the Turkish Air Force is reportedly not certified for NATO nuclear missions, meaning nuclear-capable F-16s from other U.S. bases would need to be brought in if Turkey’s bombs were ever needed.”

Turkish analyst and author Mehmet Kalyoncu, writing on September 19, 2008, in Today’s Zalman website, noted: “Ankara is intensifying its lobbying in Western capitals, most notably in Washington, to get the green light to develop nuclear weapons. Ankara presents itself as the most viable nuclear power in the region to counterbalance the nuclear Iran, pointing out that the other likely candidates, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria, which lack democratic institutions, checks and balances and transparency, cannot be trusted with such military capabilities. Furthermore, Ankara is seeking to justify its quest for nuclear weapons by arguing that with or without the approval of its Western allies Turkey has to develop such capabilities because a nuclear Iran next to its border puts Turkish national security under threat. Accordingly, Ankara is seeking assistance from the major material and know-how suppliers, such as the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Israel. Finally, the United States tacitly approves Turkey’s acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities in order to both counterbalance a nuclear Iran in the Middle East and to prevent another rogue state in the region besides Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Consequently, the U.S. is competing with the other suppliers to seize the lion share in Turkey’s emerging nuclear market.”

Kalyoncu continued:

      Any possible reluctance on the side of Turkey’s Western allies to provide Turkey with the necessary material and know-how to develop nuclear weapons will encourage Ankara to seek other possible partners, which are quite numerous, including Iran itself. The most likely scenarios and the alternative scenarios of Turkey acquiring nuclear weapons or the capability of building nuclear weapons differ from each other not in terms of Turkey’s driving motivations but in terms of the acquisition process.

      It is possible that the United States and the European Union will not give the green light to Turkey to acquire nuclear weapon capabilities, and will at the same time try to deter Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and/or another nuclear aspirant from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. However, the two cannot succeed in doing so, as is the case with Iran. In addition, the U.S. and the EU may not provide a credible and reliable guarantee to Turkey that they will protect Turkey against a nuclear threat. Actually, no such guarantee, including the NATO membership, may suffice to convince Turkey to stop its quest for nuclear weapon capabilities given the destructive capability of a nuclear attack and the fact that its very national security is at stake. Worried with the risk of remaining weak and vulnerable in its region and being threatened by a rogue nuclear power, Turkey would then seek nuclear weapon capabilities, risking confrontation with both the United States and the European Union. After all, then the domestic public opinion wouldn’t just condone Turkey acquiring nuclear weapons, but demand it from the government.

      Given that Turkey’s Western allies do not condone Turkey becoming a nuclear power, Ankara is forced to seek non-Western partners and suppliers for its nuclear program. Turkey does not have difficulty in finding them.

      Actually, most likely, they would find Turkey anyway. Respectively, Pakistan, Russia, Israel and finally Iran are among the possible partners in Turkey’s nuclear endeavor. Historically, Pakistan has always been supportive of the idea of Turkey becoming a nuclear power. Islamabad first approached Ankara to offer Pakistan’s assistance to Turkey in developing nuclear weapons during the rule of Gen. Zia ul-Haq in the 1960s and then during the rule of Nawaz Sharif in the late 1990s. However, Ankara had to disregard both offers because of concerns about alienating its Western allies. However, under the current circumstances, the national security threat Turkey faces and the Western allies’ refusal to address Turkey’s concerns make it imperative for Ankara to seek Pakistan’s help in developing a nuclear weapons program.

      Once Turkey comes out as a possible buyer of nuclear material and technology, Israel, Turkey’s long-time ally in the Middle East, would also want to help Turkey by selling it the necessary material, equipment and know-how. Similarly, Russia is likely to reap the benefits of this emerging market for its nuclear technology before the U.S. or the EU does. Finally, though reluctantly, Tehran would also be willing to assist Ankara, calculating that Turkey’s becoming a nuclear power would only further legitimize Iran having nuclear weapons, even if it would eliminate Iran’s chances of becoming the sole regional leader.

It now seems clear that the AKP Government feels that the Turkish population would be ready to support a move toward nuclear weapons even at the expense of finally ending the Turkish entry process into the EU. However, it is by no means certain that the EU entry process would be formally stopped — even though it has become totally academic at this point, in any event — even if Turkey went ahead with an open nuclear program. What seems more likely, however, is that the Turkish Government will continue to deny its nuclear weapons program for as long as possible; indeed, until testing or deployment, even if the reality becomes obvious. After all, it fully understands how Israel operates in this regard: the Israeli Government will still not confirm the presence of a nuclear weapons capability in the Israel Defense Force (IDF), almost a half-century after Israel acquired military nuclear capabilities.

There has been no response from sources in the Hellenic Defense Forces as to a reaction by Greece to the acquisition by Turkey of nuclear weapons, but the emergence of the realization that Turkey is now moving in this direction would further spur Greece to boost its strategic relations with Israel (Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou visited Israel on July 21, 2010, the first visit by a Greek Prime Minister since Konstantinos Mitsotakis visited in 1992). This process is now underway.

One of the major areas for the international trade in illicit nuclear materials — both technologies and fissionable material — has been Croatia and the Albanian (particularly Kosovo Albanian) mafia. Most of this trade has involved systems and matériel from the former Soviet Union. Turkey’s strenuous and discreet program of support for the Kosovo Albanians, the Islamists in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Croatians in their wars of the 1990s against the Serbs, should now be seen, also, in the light of the nuclear ambitions of Turkey as well as in the light of its attempts to restore dominion over the former Ottoman sphere in the Balkans.

The Turkish moves to resume influence in the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, the Horn of Africa, and the Maghreb are also part of the new Turkish strategic dynamic. Already, Turkish officials have felt that they could resume influence in administering conflict resolution issues in the Horn of Africa, and the presence of Turkish officials and actions in Somalia are now overt. Ankara also recently hosted a major conference on Horn of Africa issues, even though Ottoman influence in the region have largely been forgotten by all but the Turks.

Overall, Turkish strategic initiatives have been designed, à priori, to give the Islamist AKP absolute control at home, reducing the military to a pre-republic (ie: Ottoman) status in Turkey, but also to challenge the other “great powers”, including Russia, the U.S., the UK, and France, as well as to the regional authority of the Iranians, Egyptians, and Israelis. There is some belief in Ankara that this “window of opportunity” provided by U.S. powerlessness and EU confusion will not be open long, and that Ankara must act on all its strategic initiatives even before the Russians can assert dominance over the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, Ankara is moving rapidly, perhaps to the point of recklessness. Absent a coherent response from the EU, the U.S., and particularly from a distracted Greece, Turkey may well attempt to further entrench itself in Cyprus, quite apart from making strenuous claims elsewhere in the region.