U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to visit Turkey this week indicates that he is looking to Ankara to help implement his diplomatic strategy in the Middle East, a role to which Turkey aspires but has not yet demonstrated the capacity to fulfill. A predominantly Muslim democracy located at the intersection of Europe and the Middle East, Turkey has enjoyed a strategic partnership with the United States for nearly 60 years. But the nature of the alliance has come into question recently as result of the American invasion of Iraq as well as changes within Turkey itself.

The Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was the proximate cause of the unraveling of Turkish-U.S. relations. The Pentagon was caught by surprise when the Turkish Parliament refused to allow U.S. troops to launch the invasion from its territory and relations were further tested by a dispute in 2007 over Turkey's incursion against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, operating along the Turkish-Iraqi border. The more enduring, structural reason for the deterioration of the relationship is the ascent of the moderately Islamist Justice and Development Party, or AKP, which has governed Turkey since 2002. While the AKP remains committed to the NATO alliance and to joining the European Union, the new guard has pursued a policy of "strategic depth.” This policy orientation defines Turkey's interests more broadly than the staunchly secular, pro- Western military establishment that governed Turkey during the Cold War and identified the Western alliance as the main pillar of its foreign policy.

These events are irreversible and setting relations on a new track will be no easy task. Turkey is a growing regional power with its own diverse set of interests, and will not accept a role as America’s junior partner. There is, however, plenty of room for U.S.-Turkish cooperation. As the only country in the Middle East to enjoy friendships with the United States, Israel, Iran, and the Arab states, Turkey is a natural candidate to help the Obama administration implement its diplomatic agenda on a range of issues including disengaging from Iraq, initiating dialogue with Iran and Syria, and furthering progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The mediator role is one that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has embraced, and emphasized during Turkey's successful campaign to win a temporary rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2009 to 2010 term. Ankara sponsored talks between Israel and Syria last year, sought to broker a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas during the recent Gaza war, and has offered to mediate discussions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.

In this regard, the United States and Turkish interests overlap – Turkey wants to expand and promote Israel’s strategic depth through peace while liberating Palestinians and wants Iran to be integrated into the region. On Iraq, Washington and Ankara share the same goal: a stable, unified Iraq with limited Iranian influence. Turkish companies have invested more than $4.5 billion mostly in the northern part of the country and Ankara's negotiations with the Kurdistan Regional Government have progressed unexpectedly well, leading President Gül to make Turkey's first presidential trip to Baghdad in 33 years last month.

As part of its effort to join the European Union, Turkey has taken unprecedented steps to mend relations with its neighbors with which it has historical grievances. Relations with Armenia are better than they have been since Ankara closed the border in 1993 and Turkey has also made a strong effort to solve its conflict with Greece over the divided island of Cyprus. These positive developments aside, Ankara still has a way to go before it can be considered a responsible regional and global stakeholder. In an effort to please everyone, Turkey is often unwilling to make difficult choices on issues of important international consequence. This is unfortunate, because Turkey should be leveraging its unique diplomatic position to help pressure all of the relevant parties – including the United States and Israel – to make the compromises necessary for substantial policy shifts in the region.

The controversy over Iran's nuclear weapons program provides an illustrative example. While in Washington this past November, Prime Minister Erdogan said, "We are against the possession of nuclear weapons in our region ... but those who ask Iran not to produce nuclear weapons should themselves give up their nuclear weapons first." It is infeasible that the United States and Europe will fully dismantle their nuclear arsenals in the time that it will take for Iran to build a bomb. Therefore, Erdogan’s statement does nothing to help facilitate American-Iranian dialogue or to construct a practical solution to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program and the arms race in the Middle East that could follow.

Or take the case of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, or ICC, for being directly responsible for the pro-government militia in Sudan's Darfur province. The UN estimates that the Darfur conflict has resulted in the deaths of "as many as 300,000" in Sudan’s Darfur region and the displacement of an additional 2.5 million people. Nevertheless, Turkey hosted President al-Bashir twice last year and has indicated that it may vote at the Security Council to suspend the ICC's arrest warrant.

Contrast Ankara's friendly policy toward the Sudanese regime with Prime Minister Erdogan’s harsh criticism of Israel's incursion into Gaza, which culminated in Prime Minister Erdogan's angry tirade against Israeli President Shimon Perez at the World Economic Forum in Davos. While the Turkish reaction to Israel's offensive is understandable, the double standard is not. Of course, this double standard is shared with many in America and Europe – but in reverse. Turkey is well placed to point out that double standard by being one of the few countries in the world to take principled stand on both Gaza and Sudan.

For Turkey to earn the place on the international stage that it seeks, its leaders need to continue to respond to domestic sentiments while also assuming more principled stands across the board. Turkey’s long-term interests lie not in simply maintaining friendly relationships with all of its neighbors, but in using its unique position to transcend traditional alliances and help forge enduring compromises. Encouraging Turkey to fulfill this role should be President Obama's main message to Turkish officials this week.