I noted Mehmet Oz's position starting to shift a while ago, and I had a different theory. My thought had to do with his daughter, who married an American guy of Serbian descent. I won't discuss religion, here or anywhere else, but I want to make a point to which historical practices are relevant. Daphne Oz got married on August 26, 2010, to John Jovanovic, a former classmate at Princeton University. His parents are Nada Jovanovic Dimitric and Stretko Dimitric of Chicago. John Jovanovic is a Serbian Orthodox Christian, a sect that almost never circumcises. (I saved a copy of the August 29, 2010 wedding announcement in the New York Times.)
So, the odds are pretty strong that Dr Oz has an intact son-in-law. It could be that Jovanovic has already made it clear to Mehmet Oz's that his grandsons will remain intact. In any event, it's clear that the marriage brought together two cultures that have very different attitudes and practices regarding the circumcision of minors.
Of course, Dr. Oz comes from a cultural heritage where circumcision is basically 100%. While Turkey is a relatively secular society, circumcision is still always performed on boys about the time they're in second grade and it's a huge deal, with months of planning planning, lots of pageantry, big family expense and tons of peer pressure. There's no way out of it, for either the parents or the boy. And Turkish boys raised elsewhere in Europe, particularly Germany, are sometimes left intact but when they return at 17 for their mandatory military service (many remain Turkish citizens even if they've never set foot there), it's a standard hazing ritual that the rest of their unit holds them down and circumcises them. This became such a well-documented issue that a judge in Germany actually granted asylum to an 18-year-old Turkish man because his getting cut in the Turkish army was a certainty, and for the first time a judge concluded that involuntary male genital cutting was the functional equivalent of involuntary female genital cutting for the purpose of asylum laws.
Dr. Oz, despite his medical training and the AAP's repeated stance that circumcision is not necessary for either health or hygiene, was originally steeped in circumcision as a standard practice. He got a double dose, from both growing up in the USA and coming from a cultural heritage where being intact past the age of 8 is basically unthinkable. For a while it seemed a sure-fire winner to publicly say circumcision was harmless, even beneficial. But as many have pointed out here, Dr. Oz is also a very public personality in a country that's trending away from infant circumcision. Couple that with a much loved, possibly intact, Ivy-educated son-in-law (and attendant family) and the shift in his attitude and recommendation seems quite understandable.