After spending three days in Turkey talking with experts both critical and supportive of the countries policies one comes out thinking of just how deep Turkey's ties run with the US and broader Western realm. Of course when we take a look at Turkish policies towards Syria this will not come as a surprise to many but before the Syrian crisis there were a great number of people who viewed that the AK party led by premier Recep Tayyeb Erdogan was pursuing its own independent policy especially with the anti Israeli language coming from Turkish officials.

But analysts point out that Turkey's policies were never independent of the western camp even when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyeb Erdogan reached his peak in popularity with fiery anti "Israeli" statements and his

vocal support for the Palestinians.

These analysts point to the fact that Turkey joined the pro western camp after the second world war and was tilted very much with the American's during the cold war against communism. (Turkeys joining of Nato at that time was clear evidence of its anti Soviet and pro western orientation).And with this Turkey joined the world of capitalism and liberal economies making it hence very much linked with the west. It is for these reasons according to these experts that Turkey cannot just abandon the west and join forces with the resistance axis led by Iran.

One expert in Istanbul who asked not to be identified said that "Erdogan and his party cannot simply abandon a policy which has been practiced for so long in just a matter of a few years". He was even more blunt when he told me that "America is controlling everything in Turkey" and "could topple the Erdogan government within a day if it chose to do so". While others don't use this exact same language they do make the same point that Turkey decided long ago to side with west and has become so closely linked to the western system that it was difficult to change this now.

Nuray Mert who is a professor at the University of Istanbul told me that "just as Turkey had chosen the west against communism, it remained with the west against the so-called Islamic threat". She implies hence that in the current face off between the Iranian led camp and the American led camp , Turkey remains in the latter. Of course Turkeys' continued membership with Nato, its ongoing ties with "Israel", and most important of all its agreement to host the Nato missile defense shield which is believed to be directed against Iran (not to mention the Turkish stance towards Syria) leave little room to doubt this analysis.

What's more Mert implies that the anti "Israeli" language from Turkish officials was not contrary to US wishes. "The US left space for the anti "Israeli" rhetoric coming from Turkey in order to counter the rising popularity of Iran" she says. Meaning that the US realizes anti "Israeli" stances are the best way to gain popularity in the Middle east and hence turned a blind eye to the anti "Israeli" stances in Ankara so as to take some of this popularity away from Iran. What she also notes is that Turkeys improved ties with Damascus for example came just as Western countries like the US and France pursued a policy of engagement with Damascus.( with the hope of separating it from the alliance with Iran). The conclusion which can be made here is that Turkish regional policies in general come in concert with Western policies, at least for the time being.

At the same time Mert describes Turkish officials' intentions as sincere towards having good ties with all neighboring countries and the Muslim world. But she adds that the Turkish government "failed to realize the depth of the confrontation" between the Iranian led axis on one hand and the US led axis on the other.

But something else which must be noted is that the AK party has been very vocal in supporting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear file.(Turkey, together with Brazil even brokered an agreement last year on Iranian uranium enrichment only to be rebuffed by the west).Thus while Turkey has its pro western affiliation it has no interests in escalation with Iran.

This can be seen not only by Turkish support for diplomacy with Tehran but also because Ankara stands to lose a lot from deteriorated ties with the Islamic republic.

Turkey for one has its own Kurdish problem which it must deal with and Iranian support here is crucial. Another factor is that Turkey has an expanding economy which requires oil and hence a need for good ties with Tehran not to mention the presence of a significant Shiite population in Turkey.

So Turkey is keen on preserving ties with Iran and on a diplomatic solution to the stand-off between the Islamic republic and the west. But at the same time it cannot act independent of the western policy.

Hence how can one read between the lines of the latest developments in Iranian Turkish ties with the visit of Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davut Oglu to Tehran and the proposal of holding the 5+1 nuclear talks in Istanbul which was accepted by Iran. This, in addition to the visit of Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani to turkey. As stated above this all reflects Turkish enthusiasm for preserving good ties with Tehran but it also may very well reflect some kind of western inclination to promote communication, if not dialogue with Tehran.

If Turkish policies cannot be separated from the broader western policies then the proposal to host nuclear talks with Iran must have some kind of western backing. This also seems logical when one looks at recent statements and developments like Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's repeated comments on Washington's enthusiasm to communicate with Iran and the US navies rescue of Iranian hostages held captive by Somali pirates!