Will the ice melt between Türkiye, US?

In order to answer this question, we need to take as basis the general U.S. perception of Türkiye. Note that there is a serious difference between the European states’ perception of Turks and Türkiye, and the U.S. perception of Turks and Türkiye. Europeans’ perception of Turks and Türkiye bears a historical depth and tangibility. It is possible to prove this through Austria, Germany, Italy, France, and the U.K. The relations Turks and Türkiye built with these states and their people is multidimensional beyond the historical tangibility and depth. We probably experienced more disadvantages of these relations than we did advantages.

Following World War II, we were relieved of the burden of the suffocating relations Türkiye carried on at the first degree and directly with European forces. A new power beyond the ocean, the U.S., was dominating the world. In fact, this new power was historically disconnected and far from Turks and Türkiye. Hence, in contrast to Europeans, it viewed us as extremely non-complex. They neither knew much about Turks and Türkiye, nor were they very curious to find out. They had the U.K.’s deep archives. But their view of Türkiye was functional. They did not make culture calculations that would trouble Turks and Turkey culturally, and burden them with heavy tasks. It alreadyhad macro plans regarding the cultural Americanization of the whole world. They knew Turks would get their share of this too. The U.S. had no problem with Turks being Muslim. Türkiye could well be part of NATO as a Muslim state. (If NATO was founded by France or Germany, it would have been either difficult or impossible for Türkiye to join this organization.) Türkiye joined the NATO siege due to the advantage of its geostrategic position in the case of a likely World War III, and stopped the Soviets for a while through its martial capacity. Hence, the U.S. had a superficial, instrumental, and functional view of Türkiye during the Cold War.

Issues started and grew afterthe Cold War ended. A new enemy was needed to replace the collapsed Soviet Union. This could no longer be an economic or political-ideological enemy. There was no longer an opponent that could be an alternative to the U.S. economic model , or in general to the Western economic model – at least on paper.The political variable was at least ominous for the neo-liberal wave of the time. Emphasizing democracy, especially at the same intensity as the Cold War era, could have pushed into difficult position leaders such as Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl, who were busy curbing the divisive branches of their own democracies. They could not choose ideological enemies either, because the end of ideologies was declared through the end of that history theory. The U.S., struggling without an enemy, finally certified its enemy with a very European transformation as cultural and religious: First, Islam, as the primary hard core, second, being from the East, which is slightly more flexible compared to Islam. At first, the Islamic Republic of Islam and North Korea were the starting points. When these were not enough, organizations such as Taliban, Al Qaida, Daesh, Boko Haram, et cetera were added to the hardcore, then eventually the Arab Baathists, China and Russia were added to the chain surrounding it.

This world seems to be more suffocating than the Cold War. Though Cold War was a vicious circle, the struggle was economic, political, and ideological. A fight around these three concepts had to inevitably and eventually make a reference to a concept like civilization, that would play arbitrator. Civilization emerged from these three concepts, and all three concepts were devoted to elevating civilization. Economy promised welfare, politics promised democracy, while ideology promised the elimination of ideology, in other words, it promised to be the subject. This was perhaps the guarantee against the World War III threat. Once the hostilization process shifts to the faith and culture axis, civilization does not work as an intersectional reference cluster. This, in the lightest terms, is a retreat to primitiveness. The new right or conservativeness captivated by empty economism, the new left mesmerized by terms such as cultural liberation and autonomy, were jointly fooled and lost their civilization claims. Economism paved

the way for an economy free of moral concerns made competitiveness and winning an objective within itself and drove these sentiments to the most destructive and most inhumane level. Cultural liberation or autonomy, on the other hand, gave rise to new tribalisms and served no use other than driving the world simultaneously into the Crusades and the Thirty Years’ Wars climate.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s Democrats and Autocrats differentiation has no meaningful political response. He codifies this world culturally with ally-enemy codes. Like every cultural code, it has countless flaws. Such codes eventually blow up in the creator’s face. But this new climate must make us deeply comprehend something and stop us from cherishing unnecessary hope. Even at the best times, we couldn’t be anything for the U.S. other than a distant station – one that frequently causes trouble. What would the same eye looking at Türkiye through new and different world equilibriums today see other than a disturbing excessiveness?