http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2007/92066.htm For me and the political analysts of my trust, USA is admitting to be in deep shit. USA is planning for Post-Iraq era. I think it should be common sense, that Turkey will implement its influence and interests in areas of Iraq after USA has left. This is outcome of a clinical assesment of our power and our neighbours' power or even flyflyflyfly-weights as Kurds in Iraq. Time is on our side. It is a question of 6-20 months until Turkey gets what it wants in Iraq. Simply by USA "redeploying" and Turkey projecting power with all avaible to there, what is currently by USA presence for different reasons not wholly possible as Turkey wants to do. And Turkey does not half things, as it would be the case whilst USA is in Iraq. The question where USA is in deep shit is about Iran. USA does not want Iran-Turkey gas agreements and mutually built natural gas electricity stations and Hydro-power dams. Also USA does not want Turkey to cooperate with Iran in Iraq after USA has left to the disadvantage of US allies like Jordan and Saudi-Arabia. If we trust "Stratfor", which i trust as credible and comply to my assumption of things from outside USA, USA does also need someone to counterbalance Iran, and Turkey is the biggest leverage which USA has knocked its door. This assumption bases on USA not attacking Iran. http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=293204&selected=Analyses There is the question of what USA has to offer for Turkey, which Turkey can not achieve byitself in the region after USA has redeployed and the region is open to Turkey like a women after an cesarean cut, and by this move the action area for other neighbours dramatically narrows in regions where Turkey acts. Iran therefore wants to ensure, that Turkey will not project power behind North-Iraq and taht Turkey restricts itself to North-Iraq. Iran giving licence to 2 Turkish oil-firms to drill in biggest natural gas field of world, "South-Pars", going to Joint-Veture with Turkey to transport Iranian gas 50/50 to Europe and opening Iranian electricity monopol sector for Turkish Electricity Firms to make major bucks there, is an investment by Iran which will pay for them in long-term. Iranian thinking is possibly to ensure, that Iran can expand into its influence areas in South-Iraq and Lebanon and Turkey has nothing to fear from economical terms by this expansion as Turkey therefore expands directly into Iran. Deals with Turkey are economically maybe not rational but by strategic thinking they are from view of Iran. Against Arabs, Iran will be possible to force its power projection over them. The only obstacle is Turkey, in case of Turkey not restricting itself to North-Iraq and whirl-pooling Iranian plans. Turkey is another calibre then Saudi-Arabia and in an multiparty open conflict, what would be the case if Turkey expands into Middle and South Iraq would still be the horse to bet on. To be honest, i think not that Turkey has an interest in exhausting its ressources to counterbalance anyone in areas which are not primarily our interest areas and an expansion by Iran is not against our primary interests. Countries in the region will seek to arrange with Turkey rather then conflicting Turkey. And these arrangements are not negative for Turkey's interest, as by these arrangements the other side offers Turkey more then Turkey offers. Of course Lebanon, South-Iraq we also have interests but these are more of economical nature of Soft-Power. In the end there live Arabs and not ethnic relatives of Turkey and if we can export our goods there, then it is not really the case who rules there officially or inofficially. And Iran extending its influence to these regions? Not that kind of problem for Turkey to exhaust its ressources to stop that Iranian expansion. Allthough stopping Iran is in Turkey's reach. In the region no neighbour will try to piss Turkey in areas of Turkish interest, as this will trigger Turkey to act against them and they are then in deep shit like USA is currently generally speaking in reliance to Iraq and Iran. Now my questions: Do you share my assumptions, that USA needs a counterbalanceing force for Iran after USA "redeploys" completely or frequentially and the only option is Turkey? Ans is in this context Nicholas Burns' statements related? And what from American view Turkey has to gain by confronting Iran directly and indirectly in the region? Confronting is not always military related, the fact to be there and show flag can whirlpool already plans and stop Iranian expansion, which is in Turkey's ability like stratfor correctly analyses. From Turkish view exhausting ressources like military substance, economic growth, economic interests for anyones (USA's) interests is not that kind of status we want to be. We would in the end-effect be USA's dog like Israel, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia is and this is against Turkish self-confident interests to project power rekated to our interests in the region and not those of USA. Our whole economic opportunities within Iran would be damaged, TPAO will only produce 20 billion m³ natural gas in Iran where Turkish total consumption is between 28-30 billion m³. In the end-effect, Turkey would exhaust its ressources and bind its focus totally on Iran whilst Turkish focus is not only in Mid-East, and USA, Israel and Sunnite Arabs will laugh about finding dumb Turks doing the work for them. If USA reaches to Turkey with such motive of counterbalanceing Iran, USA must know this, that Turkey knows all this i wrote. And the last thing: USA's new weapons subvention to Middle-East dogs will not block Iran. It will only force Iran to exhaust more ressources in its strategies.