The points Ahmad al-Sharaa emphasized in the interview contained clear and definitive answers to those seeking to poison Syrian-Lebanese relations once again:

"We, as Syria, want to contribute to the establishment of stability in our region through political, diplomatic, and economic channels," said Sharaa, reminding that they have made concrete proposals to the US and other international parties for resolving the Lebanon issue and ending hostilities. Noting that with economic relations between Syria and Lebanon being put on track, the impact of the crisis on both countries would also be reduced, Sharaa said, "Instability in Lebanon directly affects us, especially in border areas. Negotiation is the only option to prevent further escalation of tensions." Emphasizing that there are serious differences of opinion between Lebanon's current administration and Hezbollah on one side and Damascus on the other, Sharaa stated that nevertheless, they are open to dialogue as long as it serves the interests of both countries.

Ahmad al-Sharaa's statements were received with satisfaction on the Lebanese front. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in a phone call with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, described President Sharaa's approach to Lebanon as "sincere and brotherly." Similar statements and messages of thanks came from the Lebanese government.

A history of grievance

Syrian-Lebanese relations have had a painful trajectory from the first half of the last century to the present day:

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, France, which placed today's Syria and Lebanon under mandate rule, divided Syria into provinces and transformed Lebanon into a separate entity under the name "Greater Lebanon." France, which deepened division through constant interventions in Lebanon's internal dynamics, finally made Lebanon an independent country in 1943 and itself became a dark shadow over this most fragile country in the Middle East. Lebanon's separation meant the loss of a 225-kilometer coastline on the Mediterranean for Syria. Moreover, ancient Islamic cities such as Tripoli, Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre were also severed from the main body.

When the Lebanese civil war broke out in 1975, Syria under Hafez al-Assad saw this as an opportunity to "regain Lebanon." The Syrian army, which entered Lebanon a year later, remained there for nearly 30 years until the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. During this time, Lebanon became a backyard for all kinds of illegitimate activities of Baathist soldiers and bureaucrats. Drug trafficking, prostitution, gambling, and money laundering were routine activities. Over the years, a strategic partnership based on mutual interest emerged between the Baath and Hezbollah, which had penetrated into the capillaries of the Lebanese state. Iran, Hezbollah's patron, not only felt no discomfort with this partnership but closed its eyes, plugged its ears, and even applauded the crushing of Sunni-Islamist structures in Lebanon through the Hezbollah-Baath alliance.

In the atmosphere created by the Hariri assassination, Syria was forced to withdraw from Lebanon. A few years later, when the Arab Spring erupted, this time Hezbollah militants began pouring into Syria to help the Baath regime suppress civilians with the most brutal methods. For 10 years from 2012 onward, sieges in which people died en masse from starvation, every kind of war crime, displacements, rapes, and horrific events took place. Hezbollah was among the lead actors alongside the Baath regime throughout this process; it approved and supported what was done. Although the pro-Iranian front in Türkiye categorically denies all of this with ideological blindness, everything happened before our eyes.

A principled stance

Despite all these painful memories, the moral stance of Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and his team regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah truly deserves every praise. I hope they are not subjected to pressure beyond their capacity and forced to take steps they do not wish to take.

Will Iran, weakened by war and with its regional power broken, gain strength, or will it remain a weakened state confined to its own mainland? Or will it be marketed as a state that "won a victory against the US"?

What will happen to the relationship between the Gulf countries, which suffered heavy Iranian attacks, and Iran after this? Will the Gulf Arab states realize that the US will not protect them, that it could not even protect its own military bases, that peace with Israel was designed solely to increase Israel's power, and will they fully turn toward a new power partnership, the signs of which we are already seeing?

THE US AND EUROPE CARRYING THE "ISRAEL BURDEN" WILL MEAN "SUICIDE."

Will Israel's space shrink, or will its attacks on Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria intensify? Or will the US and Europe realize that as long as they feed Israel, they will lose the region, and that this will mean suicide for them?

Will the steps taken by Türkiye and regional countries to limit Israel's space be enough to tell the US and Europe something? Or will they remain stuck in that blindness, continuing to carry the "Israel burden" and lose the world?

Will a US that understands that designing the region through Israel is no longer possible see that a map led by Türkiye is more in line with its own interests and move in that direction? Can it escape the image of a "country squeezed into a narrow space" together with Israel? Can it break free from ideological bigotry?

CAN A NEW REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP BECOME A HOPE?

Will a security partnership between countries like Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan force the region — and those who intervene in it from outside — into a new reality? Even if reluctantly, will they see that this is the new reality of the world and begin taking steps in this direction?

From the US and Israel's attack on Iran, brand new realities have emerged in the region. Every country's position is being redefined. Every country's relations with the US and Europe will be redefined. Limiting Israel's space has become a primary priority for all countries.

THAT STATUS QUO HAS COLLAPSED. ISRAEL'S PRIORITY REGIONAL DESIGN PLANS HAVE COLLAPSED.

The US and Europe must know this: the regional status quo established after the First and Second World Wars has collapsed. The power map designed according to European, American, and Israeli supremacy has collapsed.

The inferiority complex and sense of inadequacy toward the West are gone. The region is regaining its old power and turning into a ground that absolutely refuses to be designed from outside.

The US and Europe must know this: the era of intimidating and subjugating regimes and countries through Israel is over. The fear of "what will the US and Europe say" in the face of Israeli aggression has been overcome. The history of occupying, dividing, and disciplining countries through Western weapons and terrorist organizations is over.

The history of the US and Europe establishing relationships with Türkiye and regional countries through Israel, and creating Israel-first regional designs, is over. There is no longer any deterrence in this direction. From now on, as long as Israel exists, the US and Europe will pay the price, and that bill will be very high indeed.

THEY MUST SIT AT THE TABLE WITH TÜRKİYE! ALL THE TABLES WITH ISRAEL HAVE COLLAPSED.

If they want to exist in the region now, they have to sit at the table with Türkiye, with the Arab countries, with Iran. If they continue to ignore them and keep setting up tables with Israel, they will lose forever. In an era when not just the region but the entire world is suffering from the "Israel excess," closing down this "garrison" has become everyone's common interest.

Whatever method they try, as long as they continue on the path with Israel, they will lose. This is inevitable. While Türkiye's awakening, the region's awakening, is turning into a great storm on the axis of the earth from the Atlantic shores to the Pacific, their insistence on "old fairy tales" may be the heaviest blow to Western global supremacy.

THE ERA OF DECLINE, TUTELAGE, AND DESTRUCTION IS OVER. THEY CAN NO LONGER DRAW THE MAPS.

The era of destruction, decline, and tutelage for our region is over. The era of subjugating countries by buying leaders and regimes is over. The era of intimidation through weapons and through Israel is over.

The era of plundering the region's resources, wealth, regimes, and lands is over. The two-hundred-year reign of Western civilization is over. The history in which power, defense, independence, sovereignty, and national borders were determined by the West has come to an end.

"NEW THINGS" ARE GERMINATING IN US. THEY REPRESENT THE "OLD WORLD."

We have woken up to a new world. But they have not woken up. We have dedicated ourselves to a new power, but they have begun to lose power. We have started to think about the great geographical map, while they are still stamping their feet on old maps.

We are trying to place ourselves at the center of the world's new power map after five hundred years; they are trying not to lose what they have. New things are germinating in us; they represent an outdated world. Humanity has raised its flag against the centuries-old destruction of Atlantic dominance; they are retreating further into themselves every day.

If they could only understand Türkiye, that would be enough. Relying on their arrogance, weapons, wealth, and technology, they have begun to roll around in a state of power intoxication.

They underestimated Türkiye, but Türkiye was a political genetic code that formats geography. They got used to holding Türkiye in their palms for a hundred years, but Türkiye was the heir of a power map stretching from the Great Wall of China to Vienna.

THEY COULD NOT STOP TÜRKİYE. SOON THEY WILL TRY TO STOP IT AGAIN.

That Türkiye has now, after a hundred years, returned to its own map once more. It has returned to its own history, its political genetic code. History tells us this: a single return of ours shapes centuries. Those who mistake this for rhetoric have not remembered the history of empires.

We are now witnessing that turning point in history. Not just us, but Europe and the US are witnessing it too. The last twenty years have been spent with attacks from within and without aimed at "stopping Türkiye." They did not succeed.

Not only did they fail, but they could not even slow down Türkiye's momentum. So only one thing remains: to stand close to Türkiye. I believe both the US and Europe will henceforth make standing close to Türkiye a priority policy.

And in this geography, Türkiye's priorities, its view of geography and history, and the partnership map it is trying to establish will be the basis. No one will have the power to prevent this. Those who try to prevent it will lose; those who walk with Türkiye will gain power.

THE "ISRAEL GARRISON" WILL BE DISMANTLED; WARS WILL BE PUSHED "OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHY."

In our new geography, the "Israel Garrison" is a threat and must be dismantled. All terrorist organizations originate from Israel and the West; all must be dismantled.

The era of invading countries and occupying lands will be closed. Wars and conflicts will definitely be pushed outside the geography. All doors leading to sectarian and ethnic differences turning into wars will be closed.

In our new geographical design: from the Strait of Malacca to the Suez Canal, from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, from the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, from land trade corridors to sea passages, all areas will be closed to outside intervention and control. All these regions will be under the strict supervision and sovereignty of regional countries.

THE "NEW GEOGRAPHY" REQUIRES A SUPER BELT.

In the new geographical design: a Super Belt, a Middle Belt economic zone will be established from Central Asia to East Africa, and from South Asia to all of West Asia. This region will be removed from Western invasion maps.

The experience and history of wise cities that transcend states will be carried to the present, common defense resources will be created across this vast area, and the region's wealth will belong to the region.

The new network of relations between Türkiye, Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which other countries are also closely interested in, could form a nucleus for this new world. If political will cannot achieve this goal, threats and the world's new power mathematics may force it. The powerful countries of the region must now know that they have no other choice.

TÜRKİYE MUST POSITION ITSELF ON ISRAEL'S BORDERS

They must now know that Israel, which has no real power, is threatening both Türkiye and Egypt, and will also threaten Saudi Arabia in the same way; that removing Israel from the map remains the only option for the entire great geography; and that no other future history will guarantee security for these countries.

A joint defense shield must be urgently established between Türkiye, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. For example, a rapprochement, even a partnership, between Syria and Lebanon must be urgently built.

Türkiye must position itself on Israel's borders through both Syria and Lebanon. The time to take major steps to close all of Israel's land borders except the Mediterranean is passing.

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE DEFEATED BYZANTIUM AND CHANGED THE ERA. TÜRKİYE WILL DISMANTLE ISRAEL AND CHANGE THE ERA FOR THE SECOND TIME.

Whether the US and Iran reach an agreement or not in the Swiss talks, a new history has begun to flow for the region. The path to be walked will not change. The fate of the geography and its nations has been shaped. Without surrendering to uncertainties, it has become necessary to walk the path opening before us. This will be a new turning point in history.

The Ottomans defeated Byzantium and changed the era. They destroyed the great empire of the Christian world, changing both European and world history. Türkiye will also know how to change history and change the era for a second time by removing Israel from the geographical map. This time, the "Garrison" belonging to the Jewish race, placed at the heart of our geography and causing terrible catastrophes, will be eliminated.

Never underestimate history. Never underestimate the political genetics of nations. Never underestimate the power of geography. The only thing we need to do is push intra-geographical conflicts outside the geography. The rest will follow.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR EVERYONE TO MAKE THE "RIGHT CALCULATION"!

It is unknown what the outcome in Switzerland will be. There may be an agreement, or Israel may sabotage it. Whatever happens, the US and Europe will no longer be able to carry Israel's burden, nor will they have the power to stand against all regional countries for Israel's sake.

The shape of the new regional power map is becoming clear. This storm will continue for hundreds of years. We are certainly making our own right calculation. The time has come for the US and Europe to make the right calculation too. If they do not, they will lose the world they are already losing much faster, and their power in this region will be extraordinarily broken.

Recently, US Vice President JD Vance stated that American taxpayers pay for two‑thirds of Israel's weapons. Americans get nothing out of this perverse relationship. Billions of dollars that could make Americans' lives easier are instead financing Israel's massacres.

The sin of the genocide in Gaza is also on America's neck. The US media reported that President Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call: "Right now everyone hates you, everyone hates Israel because of this." But Trump does not add that the world also hates the US for financing, protecting, and shielding Israel's genocide.

The overwhelming majority in America is fed up with this dynamic of the US being the drum and Israel the stick. As is clear from commentary in the US and Israeli media, Trump also appears tired of this drum‑and‑stick issue. The continuation of the war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz make daily life harder for ordinary Americans, turning it into a ordeal.

The US not only finances Israel's wars, it also fights wars for Israel. It is no secret that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out for Israel's sake. Bush's Neocons obscured the real reason for that war with fabricated pretexts. The Neocons, who packaged Israel's interests as if they were America's own, deceived Americans and the world.

Whatever it does, the economic, political, and reputational cost of unconditional support for Israel grows heavier for Americans every day. Americans now want the stick taken out of Israel's hand. The political consequences of support for Israel impose themselves as an undeniable reality.

To get out of the Iran quagmire, Trump has to rein in Israel. Scolding is not a deterrent, and words have no customs duty. Trump, the "champion of tariffs," knows this well. Words need to translate into action. Both Trump and JD Vance say that the US is the "senior partner" and Israel the "junior partner," and that things operate accordingly. But Israel draws red lines for the US. Israel's red lines are capable of derailing Trump's Iran agreement.

The Trump administration, however, does not say what it will do against Israel's attempts to sabotage the Iran agreement. Unless Trump says clearly what he will do, Netanyahu, whose personal fate depends on his political survival, will not stop escalating tensions. The drum will still be around America's neck, and Israel will keep swinging the stick.

Many analysts in America, however, prefer to explain the US-Israel relationship not as "senior partner‑junior partner," but with the metaphor: "Is the dog wagging the tail, or the tail wagging the dog?" This saying, which shows the usual roles are reversed, means that control lies with the junior partner. It is also used to describe situations where a smaller, dependent state or regional ally manipulates a global superpower into military or political action. Both the invasion of Iraq and Trump's entry into war with Iran under Netanyahu's pressure were cases of the tail wagging the dog.

In 1996, a meeting was held in Washington between President Bill Clinton and Netanyahu. The subject was Palestine. Clinton, annoyed by Netanyahu's imposing and condescending tone, reportedly vented to his advisers after the meeting: "Who does this guy think he is? Who's the superpower here, dammit?"

Netanyahu, in a video recorded in 2001, described how he derailed the Oslo Accords, which were brokered by the US. When asked, "Aren't you afraid of the US reaction?" Netanyahu replied: "America is something that can be moved very easily, steered in the right direction. No one can stand in your way."

In the video, Netanyahu described Clinton as "excessively pro‑Palestinian" and claimed that 80 percent of the American public was on Israel's side. According to a CBS News poll released on Sunday, however, 78 percent of Americans want the war with Iran to end immediately. In this respect, Trump is luckier than Clinton, but can he show Netanyahu who the boss really is?

One of the most important books published in recent times to explain US-Israel relations bears the signature of Amy Kaplan. The book, titled Our American Israel, has the subtitle: The Story of an Entangled Alliance. The title can be understood as "Our American Israel." The subtitle can be translated as "the story of a complex alliance." In this article, I will only discuss the introduction of the book. The author says that Zionism belongs to the US and, by extension, the Anglo-Saxons. In fact, the book even states that Zionism is part of American identity. The following sentences are worth dwelling on:

"This special relationship has never been confined to the United States and Israel alone. From the beginning, it has also encompassed the Palestinian people—even in mainstream narratives that deny their existence or in pervasive images that render them invisible to American eyes. The dominant narratives that identify Israelis with Americans have always been challenged by counter-narratives, both from within and outside the United States. The most popular American story of Israel's founding, as told in the novel and film Exodus, models itself on the American Revolution as an anti-colonial war of independence against the British. In contrast, a counter-narrative champions the Palestinian perspective, which sees Israel's founding as a colonial project supported by Western imperial powers."

The phrase "the identification of Israelis with Americans" reminded me of Edward Said's analyses. The following sentence is also quite important in terms of defining the relationship between the two countries: "The parallel histories of settler colonialism have formed the basis of America's identification with Israel. The destiny of both nations is to possess the Promised Land, as promised by God." The author says that the concept of the chosen people stems from this special mission. "Both nations were initially founded by European colonists who displaced native peoples and seized and transformed their lands in the process of creating a new immigrant nation." Amy Kaplan goes on to say that both nations "deny their own histories of conquest." The "civilizing mission" played a major role in Americans forgetting their history regarding the indigenous peoples of North America. Israelis, too, have believed that by including Palestinians in the category of "animals," they were carrying out a colonial project in the name of Western civilization. From these sentences, we understand that Israel serves as a distorted mirror for Americans. This is precisely what we meant when we said that Zionism is an ideology belonging to Americans and Anglo-Saxons.

The fact that the attacks on Iran did not result in success was the last straw. Israel had already failed to achieve its goals in Gaza, and the genocidal attacks had dragged on for far too long. This situation caused the mirror metaphor to take on a different function. Now, for the first time, Americans are beginning to see their own reality reflected in Israel's mirror. In the last article, I pointed to the growing suspicion toward Zionist ideology. The words of US Vice President James David Vance can be evaluated within this framework of doubt. Because for them, the problem is not merely the failures of the Zionist Israelis. Ideological doubt could also bring with it a questioning of American history. Because the mirror has now begun to tell them the truth.

Of course, this does not look like a full-fledged peace agreement. Because Israel's statements following the announcement of the agreement indicate that the process could be sabotaged at any moment. In this regard, although many positive indicators are beginning to emerge, we can say that the markets are "cautiously optimistic."

As always, the first effects of the agreement news were seen in gold and oil prices. While gold prices have started to rise again, oil prices have dropped significantly. But when will we return to the pre-war situation?

It is obvious that the war has caused severe damage to many economies. In this regard, apart from gold pricing, we must accept the fact that many indicators will not easily return to their pre-war levels, and even if they do, it will take a very long time.

Take oil prices, for example. We predict that oil prices, which were expected to average around $60 per barrel this year before the war, will take much longer to fall back to those levels. Because the oil production infrastructure in the region has suffered very heavy damage. Industry professionals report that repairing damaged facilities and storage units and bringing them back to full capacity will take many years. It is said that repair times for some facilities could reach 3-4 years. According to Wood Mackenzie's study, affected fields could reach only 70% of their former capacity within three months and 90% within six months—assuming everything goes well. In the LNG market, the effects are expected to last for years. It is estimated that the war disabled 3.52 million barrels per day of refining capacity. It will take nearly two months for Gulf refineries to reach 90-95% capacity.

Furthermore, since many countries have used their strategic petroleum reserves, they will create additional oil demand to refill their stocks once the Strait of Hormuz opens. This means continued limited supply and high demand, so prices will take longer to fall to desired levels than estimated.

Another economic indicator affected by the war is inflation. The long-term effects of the rise in commodity prices caused by the war have created additional inflationary pressure in all countries. Some central banks that were preparing to cut interest rates had to raise them instead, while others took additional tightening steps. Moreover, due to "price stickiness," rapidly rising prices take a long time to come back down, and in countries like Türkiye, where pricing behavior is distorted, prices hardly ever come down at all.

The war also caused downward revisions to growth forecasts. Many financial institutions have lowered their global growth projections. Frankly, 2026 can already be declared a complete "lost year." And this is the case even when we are convinced the war is over. In other words, if the current positive atmosphere deteriorates, things could get even worse. So the end of the war does not mean everything will quickly get better. The negative effects of the war will continue to deeply affect everyone, especially the real sector, for some time to come.

Is that still the case now?

I received hundreds of messages from parents in response to my article "Children in the Algorithm Field." Sensitive teachers and psychologists who care about the issue also wrote.

One mother was complaining that her son constantly plays violent games and watches violence-themed simulation content on TikTok.

Another mother said that after her 10-year-old daughter started watching makeup videos, she began constantly comparing herself to others.

Teachers, meanwhile, are drawing attention to almost the same problem: "Students don't listen to us because their attention spans have visibly decreased."

While people were worrying about children, they were actually describing themselves. Because all of us—from seven to seventy—are exposed to the same algorithms.

So let us ask: who decides which content we watch on social media?

We regulate food safety. We regulate banks and pharmaceuticals. So why are we leaving the safety of our minds entirely in the hands of private algorithms?

We open our phones. We don't choose the first video that appears. Nor the next one... In fact, most of the time, we don't even decide who or what to get angry at, what to laugh at, or what to be curious about.

Because algorithms determine our "emotional states." And they don't do this randomly.

In lawsuits filed in different countries around the world and in scientific reports prepared, it is cited that social media platforms use specially designed systems to keep users on screen for as long as possible. Endless scrolling, infinite video feeds, instant notifications, likes, and data-driven personalized content recommendations... These and similar digital "services" are now being loudly discussed not merely as technical features, but as extremely powerful mechanisms through which algorithms direct human behavior.

The lawsuit filed by the Istanbul Family Foundation in May against TikTok, X (Twitter), Google, Instagram, and Facebook was precisely about this great issue of humanity. In the meticulously prepared petition, it is emphasized that social media platforms have gone beyond being tools that enable content sharing and have become algorithmic systems that direct user behavior, manipulate attention spans, and generate addiction.

These determinations may seem exaggerated at first glance. Indeed, the companies in question also make similar and inconsistent defenses in lawsuits filed in many countries around the world.

However, the scientific literature says otherwise. The academic report submitted as an annex to the Family Foundation's petition, along with the studies and expert opinions cited therein, clearly demonstrates that children and adolescents, in particular, are more vulnerable to algorithmic systems. Social media platforms targeting young people, whose brain regions related to decision-making, impulse control, and risk assessment have not yet completed development, operate through "reward mechanisms" that target these vulnerabilities.

The instant, repetitive, and unpredictable content offered by social media platforms turns into addictive "stimulants" in this unstable environment.

The functionality of algorithms is also the greatest proof that billion-dollar companies know human psychology so well and that neurobiological vulnerabilities are being exploited.

The problem is not just children, adolescents, and young people. Looking at the platforms' user numbers, 70 percent of Türkiye's population are active social media users.

In this case, who will protect parents, teachers, journalists, literary figures, mayors, parliamentarians, academics, social scientists, doctors, ministers, district governors, governors, soldiers, commanders, bureaucrats, and heads of state from the algorithms?

The answer to "who" is embedded in the problem itself, and it appears that those who need to take administrative and human measures against this mechanism, which targets every individual in the country, are themselves under the target of the algorithms.

If this were not the case, legal regulations that would make social media companies' algorithms transparent would have been implemented long ago.

While television channels are regulated by RTÜK, food producers by the Ministry of Agriculture, pharmaceutical companies by the Ministry of Health, and banks by the BDDK, algorithms that affect public health, economic security, or public order have been left to the mercy of private companies.

So why should software that influences the attention, behavior, habits, and even emotional states of millions of people not be subject to any public oversight?

In our country, age regulations for children are being implemented, but there is a much larger issue being missed, and unfortunately, no decisive step has been taken on this matter. If algorithms that target the mental health of society like a virus seizing minds are not regulated, other restrictions will fail to achieve their purpose.

The Republic of Türkiye demanding algorithmic transparency from social media companies, establishing independent oversight mechanisms, and intervening in systems that work against society, within a framework that considers children's mental health, family structure, social peace, and public health, is as vital as any defensive maneuver.

The fact that TikTok's data infrastructure has passed into the orbit of Zionist capital and lobbies through Oracle is enough to threaten our national security. This alone should urgently move lawmakers to action.

"The exhibition 'A Nation's Founding Memory,' prepared to commemorate the 150th birth anniversary of Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah, has opened its doors to visitors at the Rami Library. The exhibition, which sheds light on Pakistan's founding process through historical documents and photographs, will be open for free until June 23."

Let me state right away: when I hear Pakistan, two important names immediately come to mind: Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Muhammad Iqbal...

After reading the above news, I wanted to take a quick look at the books I have in my library about these two figures. At first, three works came to my attention. The first of these was Muhammad Iqbal's Hediyetü'l-Hicaz (The Gift of the Hejaz). The work, published in 1968, was translated into Turkish by the late Ali Nihad Tarlan, one of our literary world's distinguished figures. The second is titled Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and Selections from His Works. This was published in 1974 by Prof. Dr. Abdülkadir Karahan. As for the third, it is also from the pen of the same professor. Its title is A Gift to Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Both were published by the Ministry of Culture years ago.

This book, titled A Gift to Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah on the Centenary of His Birth, contains interesting articles about Pakistan's founder. The titles and authors of the articles in the first section can be listed as follows: "Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal's Letters to Him" by Prof. Dr. Abdülkadir Karahan. "Pakistan and Its Founder Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah" by Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Altuğ. "The Work of Quaid-i-Azam" by Prof. Dr. Nevzat Yalçıntaş. "Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Iqbal" by Prof. Dr. Ali Nihad Tarlan.

In the second section are speeches about Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Among these, the speech text of our former Minister of Culture Rıfkı Danışman is of great importance, so I am quoting it below:

"Muhammad Ali, who opened his eyes to the world on December 25, 1876, in Karachi, which later became Pakistan's first capital, as the child of a middle-class family attached to its traditions and the principles of the Islamic faith, was influenced in the strong development of his spiritual side by both his early family upbringing and his education, which began for a short time in a madrasa. The word 'Jinnah' actually means 'thin and delicate.' Despite this, Muhammad Ali did not reject this attribute given to him; throughout his life, he accepted being referred to by this name and title.

Although Jinnah was recognized as the youngest lawyer in the Indian subcontinent at just 20 years of age, and was a jurist who completed his legal studies in England in the shortest time, he never took pride in his status or opportunities. When he entered political life and, despite making friends with many famous figures and gaining broad influence in a short time, he always remained humble, seeking happiness in serving the people, and remained a loyal and self-sacrificing Muslim who did not hesitate to sacrifice his comfort for the sake of securing the rights and freedoms of the Muslims of the Subcontinent.

He did not change during the years when, among the prominent figures of India's Congress Party, he thought of Hindu-Muslim unity and integrity; nor when he withdrew to England as if imposing a kind of exile on himself, occupying himself with studies and planning for future days; nor when he was elected leader of the Muslim League and dedicated his existence to great services. He always possessed the same strong character, the same iron will.

The idea of Indian Muslims establishing a separate state was first put forward by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), the great spiritual poet and Islamic thinker truly described as our era's Mawlana. But it was Muhammad Ali Jinnah who embraced this view and proposal and turned it into an ideal embraced by all Muslims throughout the Himalayan-Subcontinent. Neither Indian leaders like Gandhi and Nehru, nor influential British Viceroys, could turn him from his path or the ideas he proclaimed. His integrity, the invincible determination of measured courage, his foresight and commitment to justice, in short, the strength and durability of his spiritual side, were among the main reasons for his success. His election by the Muslims of Bombay to the Imperial Legislative Council, his invitation to the All-India Muslim League meeting in London, his assuming the chairmanship of the Congress Party delegation that went to the same capital, his organizing a Muslim Congress Party meeting in Lucknow and being considered the architect of the pact known by that city's name, even being called the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, and his resignation from the Congress Party because he opposed and could not make himself heard on the Passive Resistance Movement... All of this derives from his character and strength of never deviating from his path, being determined to maintain his loyalty to his beliefs, and defending the views he considered right to the end.

Even when Jinnah went to England due to his wife's illness and other reasons and practiced law there, he never forgot his ideal; he thought of the future of the Indian Muslims, whom he sincerely desired to become a spiritually strong community. Upon his return to India at the request of the Indian Muslims and especially Liaquat Ali Khan, from his re-election to the Legislative Assembly, to his chairing of the Lahore session of the All-India Muslim League and the adoption of the historic Pakistan Resolution there, he always knew how to remain spiritual and tolerant. He did not change even when he was first given the title 'Quaid-i-Azam' – Great Leader. He knew how to consider himself a poor servant of God and, by His grace and favor, a Muslim charged with establishing the future Pakistan. Finally, when Jinnah, thanks to his determination, knowledge, spiritual faith, and endless effort, succeeded in opening negotiations that would result in the birth of Pakistan, he considered it his duty to follow the same strong character, his unyieldingness despite his frail body, without sacrificing the principles of right, justice and democracy, and without deviating from the straight path while adhering to equal conditions, as his unchanging ideal.

Although he was Pakistan's first Governor-General, first Head of State, and first President of the Constituent Assembly, he took pleasure in living among the people like an ordinary citizen until his death, and in thinking about and striving for his country's tomorrow even on his sickest days. When he passed away from this mortal world on September 11, 1948, at the age of 72, Pakistan experienced the indescribable grief of losing a rarely seen father of the nation, an idealist who had dedicated himself to his nation's issues, and a great founder of a state. But for those who believe that people die but their works live on, Quaid-i-Azam can be considered spiritually alive as long as Pakistan lives. Walking in his footsteps would be to gladden his spirit."

After reading these lines, we too should thank Mr. Rıfkı Danışman. It should also be noted that this esteemed minister of culture was the son of Sakıp Danışman Hoca, the Mufti of Erzurum who lived from 1892 to 1968, and he wrote a book about his father titled Islam is Not an Obstacle to Progress. This book contains extremely important articles expressing Sakıp Hoca's knowledge, wisdom, morality, and character. Indeed, valuable figures such as Mehmet Nuri Yılmaz, Prof. Necati Öner, Mehmed Kırkıncı, Cemaleddin Server Revnakoğlu, and Osman Demirci recount with their memories what a great scholar Sakıp Hoca was. Thus, we also learn what an excellent successor (hayrülhalef) his son Rıfkı Danışman was.

Why not say it: we need culture ministers like him. Unfortunately, we long for them in Türkiye.

In his June 18 article published in the Washington Post, Feith harshly criticized US Vice President J.D. Vance for his role in signing the memorandum with Iran. John Podhoretz, a card‑carrying Neocon, has been accusing Trump of cowardice on his broadcasts, claiming that Trump is afraid to launch a ground operation against Iran.

The target of the Zionists in Israel and the US, and the Neocons, is now "JD Vance." The pro‑Israel hawks and Zionists, who dare not attack Trump directly, have turned their arrows toward JD Vance. Both the Zionists in Israel and those in America are keeping US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth out of the debate.

According to some commentators, Rubio's disappearance from the scene during the signing of the memorandum is because he wants to step forward if the agreement fails. Other commentators believe that wearing down JD Vance would clear the way for Rubio, who aspires to be the presidential nominee in 2028. Senator Ted Cruz, an extreme pro‑Israel figure, instead of staying silent like Rubio, is openly criticizing Trump to put himself in the spotlight.

In his statements, Cruz has emphasized that Trump is receiving "bad advice" on the Iran agreement. Even if Cruz does not say it explicitly, he implies that this advice is coming from Vance. Donald Trump Jr., however, announced in a post on his "X" account on Wednesday that Cruz is "lying through his teeth" about the memorandum text. The younger Trump pointed out that Cruz is trying to weaken his father with fake news.

By virtue of being Vice President, Vance is the strongest candidate for the presidency in 2028. Rubio comes second behind Vance. Cruz, meanwhile, does not yet occupy a notable position in the rankings. Both Rubio and Cruz are among the most trusted names of the Israel Lobby.

The efforts of circles linked to the Israel Lobby to polish Rubio have not gone unnoticed. One reason the Zionists are attacking Vance as a team is to block his candidacy in 2028. Unlike Rubio and Cruz, the Lobby and the Zionists do not see Vance as a "safe" name for Israel. The fact that Vance is listening to the decline in support for Israel among the American public and Republicans under 50 is considered enough for him to be in the Lobby's crosshairs.

The Israel Lobby trusts and makes hefty donations to names whose loyalty to Israel is complete. Many politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, openly state that their legislative duty is to ensure that US administrations and the US Congress remain "pro‑Israel" at all costs.

Batya Ungar‑Sargon, a host on NewsNation who belongs to the "Israel First" wing of the Trumpist camp, commented on Thursday: "Vice President JD Vance forced the US to its knees with a humiliating agreement just weeks before our 250th anniversary, and now he dares to blame Israel for the terrible situation we are in. We are watching our Vice President turn into Tucker Carlson in real time."

Batya Ungar‑Sargon is taking shots at Vance through Tucker Carlson, who was the fiercest opponent of the Iran war in the Trumpist camp and fell out with Trump because of it. Sharply criticizing Vance's criticism of Israel, Ungar‑Sargon issued a warning: "If this was a dress rehearsal for Vance's 2028 campaign, then we have certainly learned a lot."

The staunchly pro‑Israel commentators on Fox News, a channel that supports Trump, are increasingly intensifying their criticism of Vance. So much so that Brian Kilmeade and Marc Thiessen from Fox News have branded the memorandum signed with Iran as "JD Vance's Agreement."

The Zionists note that JD Vance's statements aimed at restraining Israel are the harshest remarks ever made against Israel from the highest levels of a US administration. In Zionist publications, threats are also made that politicians who openly criticize Israel or try to weaken the "US‑Israel Special Relationship" do not end well. In short, the debates over the Iran agreement are growing increasingly fierce and ugly.

REACTIONS TO THE AGREEMENT

The diversity of reactions to Trump's agreement with Iran varies depending on how different parties read it. International actors and regional countries are showing a cautious sense of relief due to the end of the war, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the pursuit of a diplomatic solution. While some Republicans in the US are adopting a cautious stance, there are also figures who sharply criticize Trump. The hawks and pro-Israel figures, along with security circles and opposition figures in Israel, view the agreement as granting excessive concessions to Iran. The fact that the agreement is not a final solution but rather a temporary and fragile memorandum has led even its supporters to make statements along the lines of "let's see how it works in practice."

From Iran's perspective, since the agreement means economic relief through the lifting of sanctions, it is being presented as a success by the pragmatic wing. Indeed, the agreement text, which promises the lifting of sanctions and $300 billion in economic investment, mentions that the "status quo" on Iran's uranium enrichment will be preserved. The hardliners, on the other hand, will argue both that America cannot be trusted and that Iran's nuclear and regional bargaining power has been eroded. While the agreement stands out as a diplomatic success that reduces the possibility of war for now, rather than producing a final solution on fundamental issues such as Iran's nuclear program, missile capacity, and regional proxies, it marks the beginning of a new negotiation process.

A NEW PHASE IN US-ISRAEL RELATIONS

This agreement will not bring US-Israel relations to a breaking point, but it will make the power imbalance and differing priorities in the relationship more apparent. While Washington views the agreement in terms of stopping the war, opening the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilizing energy prices, Israel will evaluate the same text in the context of the Iranian regime's survival, the retention of enriched uranium, the failure to completely eliminate ballistic missiles, and the continued support for Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. While Netanyahu reserves Israel's right to use force in Lebanon, Trump's remarks that "destroying an entire building just because a Hezbollah member entered it" is excessive signaled the continuation of tensions between the two countries.

The strategic alliance between the two countries will continue, but tactical divergence that limits Israel's operational freedom will come to the fore. America will not want to allow Israel to sabotage this agreement, and Netanyahu is also avoiding direct confrontation with Trump. Netanyahu has signaled that he will try to declare victory by arguing that the war's objectives have been achieved, but from now on, he may not easily find America behind him. The US-Israel relationship appears to be directly affected by tensions on the Iran-Lebanon front in the coming period. Although the agreement includes the phrase "America and its allies," the fact that Israel is not a party to the agreement and its statements that it will determine its own policy indicate that tensions between the two countries will continue for some time.

WILL IRAN NORMALIZE?

There are many reasons for a quick "no" to this question. The fact that the ideological organization of the state has determined its security and foreign policy for many years led to Kissinger's famous words: "They need to decide whether they are a state or a cause." Having entered a long-standing challenge and regional struggle with Israel and America, if Iran's leadership reaches a final agreement after the war, the path to normalization will open for it. However, there are many actors who could cause it to squander this opportunity, and their chances of success should not be underestimated. In other words, even if Iran embarks on the path to normalization, there will be forces, primarily Israel, that want to stop it.

If they cannot reach an agreement with Trump in the next 60-day period, the likelihood of a return to war and an ongoing spiral of conflict will increase. This scenario could bring Trump and Netanyahu closer again, and the hardliners against Iran would practically celebrate. Iran appears to have managed, albeit late, to drive a wedge between Trump and Netanyahu, and it should view the coming period as a strategic opportunity to make a new opening with America and put Iran on the path to normalization. Missing this historic chance would be a great disappointment for both the Iranian people and the region, which has been unable to escape war.

The Trump administration appears to have abandoned its maximalist stance and come to a much more reasonable point, but if the negotiation process proves inconclusive, it could return to "factory settings." This could mean a historic opportunity wasted. America ending the war, restricting Israel's room for maneuver, and Iran taking steps toward normalization could turn into a historic turning point for the region. However, if Iran, as after Obama's nuclear agreement, gets caught up in increasing its regional influence and creates instability, it would be back to square one. If the final agreement proves lasting and brings stability to the region, it could even become possible for the tactical differences between America and Israel to gradually turn into a permanent strategic divergence.

In terms of human loss, the war's toll was extremely lopsided: 777 Israelis had been killed and 2,586 wounded. In Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, however, the death toll had already surpassed 15,000, tens of thousands more were wounded or maimed, and a psychological collapse had engulfed the entire Arab world.

Looking at the outcome from the Arab perspective, other dimensions of the matter also come into focus. Political and ideological rivalries among the states were at their peak. The Palestinian cause was ostensibly on everyone's lips and agenda, but for no country—with the exception of Saudi Arabia under King Faisal's rule at the time—was the Palestinian cause more important than the rulers' own fortunes and interests. Israel skillfully exploited the rivalries and conflicts within the Arab world, thereby achieving its outcome with relative ease.

Fifty-nine years later, as we reconsider the Six-Day War, it is deeply tragic that some things have not changed at all: the conflicts and rivalries within the Arab—and Islamic—world still persist in ways that serve Israel's interests. The weight of the occupation continues to make itself felt in Palestinian lands. Al-Aqsa Mosque, along with other religious and historical sites belonging to Muslims, remains under the domination of the Zionist occupation.

However, when we look at the matter from Israel's perspective, some changes are visible: today, there is a global anger, hatred, and revulsion against the Zionist occupation. The occupied Palestinian lands are no longer an "ideal homeland" or a "safe country" for Jews; on the contrary, reverse migration is intensifying. The conflicts and divisions among Jews have escalated to the highest levels in Israel's history. Economic and social disparities in Israel have reached dimensions that are no longer compensable or repairable. The growing strength of the far-right and its becoming "mainstream" within Israeli society has turned into the primary factor shortening Israel's lifespan. Since maintaining the occupation is also psychologically driving Israeli society toward exhaustion, what stands before us is the world's sickest, most reality-detached, and disoriented society. For years, my personal reading has been that Israel's collapse will come from within and through its internal conflicts.

Unless the minds and agendas of the important states in the Islamic world become clear on how to view Palestine, what Palestine means, and what to expect from the Palestinian cause, it seems difficult to take reasonable steps toward a solution. The real knot lies in the contradictions and inconsistencies in approaches to Palestine. If a common definition can be reached, it would also be possible to develop a common stance against the occupation. To be honest, under the current conditions of the Muslim world, this remains for now a utopia. Since the atmosphere of madness that prevails over Israel will also not allow steps to be taken to end the occupation and restore the rights of Palestinians, Israel will—in the old expression—use the time that history has granted it until the appointed hour, and in the end, it will suffer the common fate of all states established by the Jews throughout history, consuming and destroying itself from within.

Is another scenario possible? Of course it is. But for that, we need brave men like the late King Faisal, who would defend Palestine at the cost of their own lives and be prepared to die for that cause, to step onto the stage.

If there is no fixed fight, if the reactions from Israeli circles are not a fabrication, then it becomes clear that the US has made this agreement "despite Israel." This feeds the general global expectation that something is being questioned in US-Israel relations.

WE WILL NOT FORGET THESE FOR A MILLENNIUM!

Let us say this outright: Israel has no power of its own. Israel's power is the United States. For the last thirty years, all the wars that began with the invasion of Iraq have been fought with US power, but for Israel's sake. Vast geographies have been destroyed, countries shattered, cities reduced to rubble, and millions of people killed, all to protect a handful of communities.

The price that the US and Europe have made this region pay for Israel will not be forgotten for a millennium. There is not a single state they have not harmed, not a single nation they have not wounded. There have been two great devastations in our region over the last two centuries.

One is the destruction of World War I and its aftermath. The other is the second destruction that was reignited after the 1950s for the sake of Israel. Thus, "the price of Israel" has been as great for us as a world war.

OUR ANGER IS FIERCE, OUR MEMORY IS VIVID. EVERY MURDER WILL HAVE ITS RECKONING.

Throughout the entire Middle East (West Asia), all of East and North Africa, large parts of South Asia, every inch of the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and all of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, an Israeli devastation has occurred. The nations and states in these regions will no longer pay such a price. However, they will certainly demand an accounting for the prices that have been paid.

Our geography is the center of human civilization. As vast as its tolerance is, its anger is equally fierce, and its memory is terrifyingly vivid. It must be known that every destruction will have its price, and every city has its memory. The crimes, the massacres that the US and Europe have committed in the name of Israel, and what they have made nations endure, will certainly have their reckoning.

WILL THERE BE A BREAK IN US-ISRAEL RELATIONS? DON'T ANSWER IMMEDIATELY!

If the information is correct—and on this matter, everything must be viewed with suspicion—the Trump administration has made a deal with Iran without Israel's knowledge. Netanyahu's reaction of "this is your deal," the statements from figures in Israel's far-right that "Israel is a sovereign state, the deal does not bind us," the anger of racist Israelis within the US, and the general expectation that Israel will sabotage this deal could all be signs of a US-Israel divergence on Iran.

According to some reports, Israel is even officially requesting the details of the agreement from the Trump administration, but the US administration is refusing. Within the US, debates are also beginning over whether "US interests should be prioritized over Israeli interests."

So, will there be a break in US-Israel relations? Can Trump resist Israel? Can Israel's grip on the US be broken? How much longer can Israel's sabotage of US interests be tolerated? Can they put a stop to Israel poisoning the US and exhausting its global credibility?

ISRAEL IS THE MOST HATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS HATRED WILL BE ABSOLUTE!

It is very difficult, even nearly impossible, to make definitive and clear statements on these matters. But still: if there is an American strategic mind beyond Israel's influence, if they can correctly read the profound shift in the global power map, they need to know how to say stop to Israel consuming the US.

They need to see how even in Europe, America's credibility has been exhausted. Israel is currently the most hated country in the world. And the rate is extremely high. America's embrace of this hatred will raise the hatred toward the US to those same levels. Already, on a global scale, this rate is quite high.

THE DEAL IS IN IRAN'S FAVOR. IS THAT WHAT'S DRIVING ISRAEL CRAZY?

We do not know how real Trump's expectation that "Israel should withdraw from Lebanon" is, or how much Israel will listen to him, but Israel's far-right says Trump is constantly scolding Netanyahu. This "scolding" also raises the question of whether it could signal that the US is seeking alternatives in this region despite Israel.

The leaked articles of the US-Iran agreement, if true, are in Iran's favor. These articles indicate that the US is uncomfortable with going to war for Israel. They have accepted almost everything, they are trying to make a fresh start with Iran, and they are almost reversing Israel's justifications for attack. It is clear that these articles are driving Israel crazy.

THE ALLIANCE OF WEAK COUNTRIES: NO GEOGRAPHICAL DESIGN WILL COME OUT OF THIS...

There is a regional power search before us: Israel, together with a fake tribe like Somaliland in the Red Sea, the UAE in the Persian Gulf, the Greek Cypriot administration in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Greece in the Aegean, is designing a geography and a power structure. It is putting on a show of force with these weak countries.

With American weapons, it attacks the entire geography, unleashes storms of terror, is seen as a threat by all countries, and is hated. No geographical design, no equation of regional power can come from this. The moment American weapons are withdrawn, Israel and all these countries will be destroyed.

THE "OWNERS OF THE GEOGRAPHY" HAVE MOVED. THIS WILL CHANGE THE "AXIS OF THE EARTH."

There is also a vast awakening, led by Türkiye, involving the great states and great nations of the region, stretching from East Africa to the borders of India. There is a rise of power that moves with the legacy of great empires and states, and that is changing the power mathematics of the 21st century.

The "owners of the geography" are rising for the first time since World War I, changing the center of the earth, taking the flow of history behind them as Europe enters a period of decline, and weaving a great geographical design thread by thread.

Some European countries have seen this. Even though they participate in the genocide in Gaza and support Israel under US prompting, they have realized that history will no longer flow that way. So, when will American political reason see this? Will they continue to erode the world's greatest power for Israel's sake?

ISRAEL IS SHORTENING AMERICA'S LIFESPAN. IT IS POISONING IT, CONSUMING IT RAPIDLY.

Will they play this gamble and erode US power to protect Israel, accepting isolation from the world? Will they see that the Jewish race has made itself an enemy of the entire world, and that sooner or later it will not hesitate to strike them as well?

Surrendering to a pack of renegades waging war on the human race will destroy all states and nations. The great human family will sooner or later vomit out this poison and bury such empires in history.

The predictions of those who cannot see how Israel is shortening America's lifespan about the future of the world will end in failure.

They still seem unable to perceive how the world outside themselves is moving, how it is seeking power, and how it will format the now-defunct world order. Because they are on the verge of missing the opportunity to look at the world with a reason poisoned by Israel and its power.

THE NEW ARCHITECTS OF GEOGRAPHY ARE TAKING GREAT STEPS.

Türkiye and the architects of the new geographical design are walking with great strides toward the world of the future. Every country in search of global and regional power will want a share of this rise and will want to be seen alongside it.

There will no longer be the destroyed geography of the Cold War and its preceding era. There will be no "manageable" geography. When this happens, those who stand against this power map, which forms the axis of the earth, will also have no power left on the central axis of the earth.

Then, we will see what those who surrendered to Israel's terrorist mentality have lost. We will see how they missed history and power. We will see that Israel cannot hold ground in such a geography. We will also see how the human family has disciplined some states and erased others from history.

THE WEST NO LONGER HAS ANY NEED FOR AN "ISRAELI GARRISON."

So, will the US be able to see this? Or will it lose the world with its mind held hostage by Israel? Remember, the distance between the world and these countries in terms of capital, technology, defense, and human resources is about to close.

The overwhelming amount of the earth's resources is also under the control of the "new powers." History tells us with great examples that it is impossible to dominate the world by force of arms alone.

Israel was Europe's, and then America's, "20th-century garrison." It was a Western front established according to the conditions of that century. But the conditions of the 20th century no longer exist. The order in which the West dominated the entire world is gone. It has neither the power nor the institutions. The West no longer needs a garrison like Israel.

ISRAEL'S BIGGEST LIE: "WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THE WEST..."

Although the genocidal racists try to redefine their strategic value by saying "we are fighting for the West," this has no meaning against the march of nations.

If they are going to believe in this and surrender the entire West to the mentality of a "terror organization," let them do so. Let them choose themselves as sacrifices for Israel. But in a short time, nations will absolutely voice a search beyond the administrators and cadres caught in Israel's networks.

Trump's agreement with Iran may offer such an opportunity to the US. Perhaps American political reason will try to look away from Israel for a while and look at the world. It might realize what kind of trap Israel has set for them. Or it might not; that is their business. But the world will continue to walk its own path and turn.

WHY DOES ISRAEL CONSTANTLY ATTACK TÜRKİYE? WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS FEAR?

These days, Israel is directly attacking Türkiye. By saying "Türkiye is resurrecting the Ottomans," it is trying to scare Arab countries and direct US military power toward Türkiye. It wants to form a front against Türkiye with countries like the Greek Cypriot administration and Greece. It is openly threatening to "attack Türkiye."

But the storm they will face is so great that these words and these pursuits will be of no use. Moreover, the new geographical design will suffocate them, leaving them breathless. The saying "geography is a weapon" has never been as true as it is today. They know very well that this weapon is now being aimed at them.

The US was used against Iran. Will the US also allow itself to be used against Türkiye? Will it calculate the cost of this? Will it see that this would eliminate the US presence in West Asia? I think it will. I think it will not fall into this trap.

It will not, and cannot, allow Israel to turn itself into a "nothing" across the entire geography by manipulating it at its fingertips. No state with any reason would do this. Let us pay attention to Iran hitting all US bases, and the US and Israel being unable to prevent this. It is possible to imagine what else might happen after this.

ISRAEL IS A MERE DETAIL, A TRIVIALITY THAT WILL BE CRUSHED AND PASSED OVER!

Can Trump break out of Israel's orbit? Can he stop Israel? Will the US continue to see itself merely as a weapon for Israel and continue to lose power across the entire geography? It is the American people who will question this. They too should see as soon as possible what we are beginning to see signs of in Europe.

As for us, we are not making this great historical leap, this rise of power, this redesign of geography, against Israel. This is a global-scale search on the axis of the earth. Israel is merely a triviality within this great objective. A detail that will be crushed and passed over as we walk.

This incident was not the first crisis between President Reagan and Prime Minister Begin. In 1980, when Israel declared Jerusalem its "eternal capital," the White House opposed the fait accompli, and Reagan even gave a dismissive reply to Begin, who had invited him to "Israel's capital Jerusalem," saying that he might "visit Israel sometime." Menachem Begin, who had a long terrorist career from the late 1930s onward, caused endless trouble for the American administration from the moment he took office in 1977 with the highest electoral margin in Israeli history, until his resignation in the autumn of 1983, when, overwhelmed by depression following the death of his wife Aliza, he said, "I cannot go on any longer."

When President Reagan announced his Middle East peace plan on September 1, 1982 – later to be known by his name – Begin's cabinet unanimously rejected it within 48 hours. Israel's response was full of serious accusations and reproaches directed at Reagan. Interestingly, Reagan's plan was full of details that would, in the long run, guarantee Israel's presence and security in the Middle East. But Begin, unwilling to think reasonably and sensibly, chose to put Reagan in the crosshairs. At the same time, many of Begin's close associates began making statements against Reagan to the press. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, and Interior Minister Yosef Burg were among the leading figures. On top of all this, Begin sent Reagan a personal letter on September 6, criticizing the geographical naming used in official American statements – such as the West Bank – and reminded him of their Hebrew equivalents. Two days later, Begin made another statement to the Israeli press, accusing the White House administration of trying to overthrow the Israeli government, saying: "Our American friends should know that Israel is not Chile, and I am not Allende!"

These days, in the context of US-Israel relations, we are witnessing an interesting repetition of history. In the White House sits Donald Trump, who, like Ronald Reagan – a famous actor who appeared in 53 films before entering politics – happened to find himself in the presidency. In Israel, the strings are in the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, Menachem Begin's political heir and disciple. The crises between Trump and Netanyahu, which occasionally spill into the press, are almost a carbon copy of the Reagan‑Begin tensions, with one difference: Trump has no filter, and his outbursts are accompanied by profanities.

In these days when the ceasefire agreement with Iran has been announced to the world, the predicament Trump finds himself in is instructive: he cannot even enjoy the end of a war he entered under Israeli pressure. Because at the end of a war entered with the illusion of regime change, the regime in Iran has only grown stronger; street protests have given way to demonstrations in support of the clerical rule. America's Arab allies have been left exposed and vulnerable. Saudi Arabia, which only recently was rumored to be on the verge of signing a peace deal with Israel, has turned away from Tel Aviv and drawn closer to Türkiye and Pakistan. Within this framework, the revival of the Hejaz Railway has been set in motion.

What Trump wants most right now must be for something to happen to Netanyahu so that he withdraws from the political scene – that is, of course, assuming nothing happens to Trump himself first.

Indeed, many Republican senators are warning that if Trump fails to reach a deal that ends the war with Iran and keeps the Strait of Hormuz open, Republicans will face a very tough election. It is a well‑known voter behavior to make the candidates of the president who started a war pay the price of that war, which makes life more expensive for ordinary Americans. Senator Shelley Moore Capito said in a statement to CNN: "It's not just about gas prices, food prices and the like. There is a kind of frustration. I think the pressure is on the president to reach a peaceful resolution and put this issue behind us."

Politicians backed by the 'Israel Lobby', on the other hand, want the war with Iran to continue to the end. Mark Levin and other Zionist commentators in the US strongly oppose any deal with Iran. Mark Levin accuses figures like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Piers Morgan, Matt Gaetz, and Steve Bannon, who oppose the US going to war with Iran, of undermining Trump. According to Levin, these figures should be held responsible if Republicans lose the midterms. Piers Morgan responded by saying that if Republicans suffer losses, it will be because of "war‑mongering idiots" like Mark Levin.

Statements by US Vice President JD Vance that when the interests of the US and Israel diverge, the interests of the American people will come first, are also infuriating the Zionists. Israeli journalist Gila Isaacson, in an article titled "JD Vance Shows His True Colors," noted that Vance voted against the aid package to Israel when he was a senator, and since becoming Vice President has remained silent on 'anti‑Semitism' and opposed the war with Iran, saying: "His past says it all, and it is not the past of a friend."

Gila Isaacson pointed out that Vance has embraced young Republicans who criticize unconditional US support for Israel. Noting that support for Israel, which is a cornerstone of the Republican Party, is surprisingly eroding among young Republicans, Isaacson said: "This is who JD Vance is: a man who understands this shift and does not oppose it, because this shift is politically useful to him." Isaacson, who argues that Vance is leading the Republican Party away from its historic love for and commitment to Israel, ended her article with the sentence: "JD Vance has shown us, repeatedly and clearly, which side he is on. That side is not Israel's side."

Trump wants to reach a deal with Iran as soon as possible. Netanyahu's fate, however, depends on the continuation of the war. While Trump is trying to declare a 'victory' on the surface and climb out of the pit Netanyahu has pushed him into, Netanyahu is trying to keep Trump in the pit. Trump, who entered the war with Iran for Israel's sake, appears tired of Netanyahu's sabotage aimed at derailing the negotiations.

Pro‑Israel politicians are also trying to make military support for Israel permanent by slipping a clause titled "US‑Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" into the National Defense Authorization Act. Senator Tom Cotton, meanwhile, included a clause titled "Enhancing US‑Israel Intelligence Sharing" into the Intelligence Authorization Act.

According to analysts, the mandatory intelligence sharing foreseen in the bill would prevent any future administration from applying pressure to deter Israel's destructive behavior. The bill would effectively legitimize Israel's espionage activities against the US.

These amendment proposals are aimed at preventing anti‑Israel sentiment in American public opinion from eroding unconditional support for Israel. Some analysts argue that Trump could use these proposals as leverage to deter Netanyahu from sabotaging negotiations with Iran.

Everything in Washington, including the negotiations with Iran, is about the US and Israeli elections. Setting up an equation that would save both Trump and Netanyahu seems very difficult. There is a "tug‑of‑war" between Trump and Netanyahu. On the other hand, a fierce battle is also taking place within the Republican camp between those who say "America First" and those who say "Israel First."

IRAN'S LEBANON STRATEGY IN THE NEGOTIATIONS

Direct conflict with ballistic missiles, rather than war through proxies, has now become normal between Iran and Israel. The function of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, which for many years we defined as proxy wars, as a deterrent force against Israeli and American forces, is no longer valid. Israel not only strikes any target it wants in the region at any time, but also tries to move toward its goal of actual territorial expansion under the pretext of creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Although Iran no longer possesses its former proxy power, it is trying to stand by Hezbollah in Lebanon by using its control over the Strait of Hormuz and America's dilemma in the negotiation process.

Instead of retreating despite military pressure, Iran is pursuing a riskier strategy that puts pressure on Israel. While the Trump administration tries to limit Israel's attacks in order to get results from negotiations and also tries to force Iran into a new agreement, it is clear that military pressure is not working. While the intensification of the Iran-Israel war increases the political cost for Trump, it also narrows the diplomatic space. Although Trump responds positively to Iran's effort to include the Lebanon equation in the negotiations, he struggles to control Israeli leader Netanyahu. In this situation, it can be said that Iran's strategy of raising the stakes has been successful in creating a crisis between America and Israel.

THE HORMUZ FACTOR

The Trump administration, which in recent days has used the rhetoric of a heavy response to Iran's downing of an American helicopter, not only limited itself to limited strikes but also described them as self-defense strikes in response to Iran's unnecessary attacks. It seems unlikely that these mutual attacks will evolve into a full-blown escalation process, because the Trump administration prioritizes reaching a deal. Raising the stakes around Hormuz has increased oil prices, but not above $100 per barrel. This indicates that the markets do not expect a full-scale war. This situation, which increases the effect of uncertainty on global economic balances, has not for now turned into a major global energy crisis.

From the perspective of American policy, although the global economic impact of Hormuz creates pressure to reach a deal with Iran, this priority does not hold the same critical importance for Israel and Iran. While Trump tries to reach a deal with Iran, Israel's insistence on continuing military operations both dynamites the peace table and increases economic and political costs. The Hormuz crisis shows that Trump's effort to pressure Iran into a deal has not yielded results. Israel, for its part, is focused on its priorities of redesigning Lebanon and preventing Iran from recovering. Iran, acting with a focus on showing that military pressure will not work, is sending the message that it will not abandon Hezbollah. Therefore, the economic loss created by the Hormuz crisis exerts meaningful pressure only on the Trump administration.

In this equation, the Trump administration appears trapped between returning to war and reaching a deal. Trump is aware that he cannot get what he wants by returning to war, and he also sees that he needs to apply great pressure on Israel to reach a deal. It should not be surprising if the state of deadlock and occasional military escalation becomes permanent from now on, because Trump would need to take political risks to apply full pressure on Israel. In an environment where Iran has already paid a heavy price, controls the Strait of Hormuz, and is not inclined to negotiate under pressure, Trump's negotiation strategy seems unlikely to produce results. On the other hand, a change in the political balances within Israel or the transfer of Congress to Democratic control in the November elections could create an opportunity for a new policy shift for Trump. Aside from taking steps to seize such an opportunity or producing "creative" formulas that break the mold in negotiations, it seems highly likely that the dilemma between war and diplomacy will continue.

WHAT HAS MILITARY SUCCESS ACHIEVED?

The Trump administration, unable to define a clear strategic objective at the outset of the war, instead announced a list of demands, leaving vague at what stage and how it would declare victory and end the conflict. It is of course important that the enemy does not know the cards you hold, but here the problem was that it was not entirely clear why America entered the war in the first place. The fact that the war, which was entered under pressure from Israel and in a context where direct American national interest was not threatened, and even the peace negotiations, are subject to Tel Aviv's veto also stands out as a critical anomaly. Despite establishing air superiority over Iran and largely crippling its missile and nuclear programs, Washington has not been able to declare a political victory. The Israel factor is preventing the fruits of military success from being harvested.

As of today, Washington can neither dictate the terms of peace to Iran nor isolate its enemy. It could even be said that its bargaining power has decreased compared to before the war. While the release of a few billion dollars in funds in exchange for bringing the nuclear program under control was being discussed, the press is now reporting negotiations worth hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange for a peace agreement, many articles of which are in Iran's favor. The fact that the Iranian regime has survived and come to a position to control the Strait of Hormuz shows that while political results have not been achieved, the stranglehold over one of the most critical chokepoints of world trade has worked in Tehran's favor. Despite establishing military superiority, the Trump administration has been unable to force Iran to completely abandon its nuclear activities, open the Strait of Hormuz, and withdraw support from its regional proxies.

HAS ANOTHER OPEN-ENDED, NEVER-ENDING WAR BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST?

In American history, there are examples such as the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, which were entered with the promise of a quick result like the Iran war but continued for many years. There are also examples, though much rarer, like the Gulf War, where American power was used in a coordinated manner toward a specific goal. During the George Bush administration, America's attempt at military operation by effectively using international mechanisms to remove Saddam from Kuwait, with the support of its allies, was able to produce the intended political outcome. However, in a context like the Iran war, where Washington flouts international law, pushes political legitimacy to the background, and uses its military power recklessly for the sake of Israel's security, achieving strategic success was already extremely difficult. Washington, which not only set aside coalition-building but also failed to adequately protect its Gulf allies by making them targets, was unable to form a common front against Iran.

The picture that emerges today resembles neither war nor peace. What stands out is a state of uncertainty and low-intensity conflict, which we can predict will become increasingly permanent. While American strategists are not wrong to argue that it is too early to declare defeat, it is clear that declaring victory will be even more difficult. Iran, seeing America's strategic dilemma, continues to raise the stakes, even risking the devaluation of its own trump cards. Iran, sending a message by economically squeezing America's regional allies, appears pleased that the political bill for global economic troubles is being handed to Washington. The Trump administration, caught between Israel's maximalist stance and Iran's use of the negotiation process to its advantage, is unable to take a stance to end the war as soon as possible by prioritizing American national interest.

The Iran war is turning into a war that America can neither win nor end. Washington's military superiority is indisputable, but it is not possible to say that this has translated into a lasting political order. More importantly, because it cannot accept the existence of a strategic chasm with Israel, it does not fully hold the initiative to determine under what conditions peace will be achieved. Washington, which appears deprived of abilities such as defining its own strategic objective, convincing its allies to side with it, making "grand bargains" with rivals like China, and using military operations to achieve political results, seems likely to create a new status quo that condemns the region and the global economy to a constant cycle of crisis and uncertainty.

While the mobility of Zionist Jews is being restricted, the fact that events in Protestant Europe and the US are moving in the opposite direction can be called "negative differentiation." However, studies show that ordinary people in these countries do not consent to this negative differentiation. The visibly declining public support for Zionist ideology in the US indicates that negative differentiation is also occurring between elites and ordinary people. Perhaps we cannot speak of a very sharp differentiation, but it is very clear that the elites' policy of negative differentiation is leading to a serious loss of support. The rise of racist groups and political movements should also be evaluated within the same framework. We can easily say that this process will lead to a new type of authoritarianism. It does not seem easy to define this process with the concepts and perspectives of the world we are accustomed to.

As an example of the negative differentiation activities of US elites, we can point to the US Congress's pursuit of "military integration" with Israel. As we have tried to express, while US support for Israel is itself provoking reactions domestically, the fact that members of Congress are working on military integration with Israel is not an ordinary event. This news is also not easy to define with the concepts of the world we are accustomed to. The US desire to deepen military integration with Israel seriously challenges traditional perspectives. We can evaluate this as a kind of quest for unification. This would mean the confirmation of a view we have long been trying to express. Personally, I do not share the general belief that the US has surrendered to Jewish power. I hold the same view for England and Germany. These countries have not submitted to "Jewish power" either. However, elites in the US, England, and Germany will not be able to act comfortably due to the public backlash against Israel. The threatening speech of Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), is one of the most striking examples of their inability to act comfortably.

The accustomed approaches to lobbying organizations and groups such as the World Jewish Congress or AIPAC should be seriously questioned. If US and Protestant European elites had not given way, lobbies could not have become a dominant force over US and European politics. In this framework, the military integration of the US and Israel coming to the fore is quite meaningful. Because genocide and war crimes have opened the way for hatred toward Israel. This hatred is also spilling over onto the US and the Anglo-Saxon world. It is also meaningful that the speech of World Jewish Congress President Lauder has been presented on different channels under the headline "Total war against anyone who does not obey the word of the Jewish State." Ronald Lauder says: "The response must be angry, Israel must counterattack every day, every hour, no institution should be exempt from this." Lauder's statements about "tracking down Israel's critics, silencing journalists, targeting everyone who tells the truth" are much more meaningful in the context of "negative differentiation" and "military integration." Ronald Lauder's exclusionary statements toward Turks living in Germany and across Europe are also very important. They are threatening both the domestic and the other at the same time.

There is no difference between a Zionist at the head of the World Jewish Congress and Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who lead settler terrorism in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Lauder also does not object to Israel's genocide and war crimes. The fact that the US Congress is going beyond supporting Israel and making efforts to realize the idea of integration heralds that brand new debates will come to the fore. Elites are forcing everyone to make a choice, both in the US and in Europe. They want to spread negative differentiation to the grassroots.

I can say that from now on, the truly shocking changes will take place in the countries that are attempting negative differentiation.

A similar development is taking place in the US, Israel's patron. America's global image is also at rock bottom, just like Israel's. The headline of the May 31 article by Andrew O'Hehir, editor-in-chief of the influential American news site Salon, was: "Do Americans really know how much the world hates us?" According to information provided by O'Hehir, there has been an explosion in applications for foreign citizenship in the US in the last few years. Noting that he himself holds an Irish passport, O'Hehir points out that in 2025, approximately 20,000 Americans applied for Irish citizenship. Thousands of Americans have also applied for British citizenship.

Likewise, thousands of Americans prefer Canada. Many Americans of European descent are seeking to build a new life for themselves in the countries their families originally came from. O'Hehir, drawing attention to the fact that sociologist Kristin Surak describes Americans wanting to flee the US as "Armageddon Americans," says:

"For those reading this article, it is no longer a secret that America's massive internal division, which shows no sign of healing within our lifetime, is pushing a growing number of people with sufficient means and a flexible lifestyle to consider their options. In the last few years, at least three of my former colleagues have packed up their families, changed their jobs, and moved abroad. More importantly, I don't know anyone who hasn't thought about this issue."

The article notes that while the number of tourists coming to the US was projected to rise from 72 million to 77 million in 2025, it remained at 68 million. There have been dramatic declines in visitors, especially from Canada, France, and Germany. Even though most of the FIFA World Cup will be held in the US this summer, visitation estimates have fallen short of expectations. In April, the number of visitors was down 14 percent from last year.

O'Hehir highlighted a poll conducted in 98 countries by the "Alliance of Democracies Foundation," founded by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark. According to the "Democracy Perception Index," there has been a 38-point drop in America's global net image. O'Hehir notes that the poll, published last month, has been largely ignored by the US media.

Dr. Nico Jaspers, CEO of Nira Data, which conducted the poll for the Alliance of Democracies Foundation, said in his assessment of the results: "The decline in the US image and its increasingly widespread perception as the world's biggest threat — combined with the pessimism prevalent in some parts of Europe — is extremely worrying."

According to the poll, the US ranks among the five most negatively perceived countries in the world. Israel is in first place. The poll also notes that China's global image has improved since 2022. Among the US, China, and Russia, only China has a net positive global image. In Europe, China is viewed more favorably than the US in 20 out of 23 countries polled, with only France, Poland, and Ukraine preferring the US. Even more interestingly, in the "Democracy Perception Index" polls conducted at regular intervals, the US is now perceived more negatively than Russia for the first time.

Another striking point in the poll concerned US overseas military bases. The US has around 800 military bases around the world. Respondents were also asked whether there should be US military bases in their own countries. Among the 97 countries polled, only Puerto Rico, Poland, Israel, and South Korea support American bases. In the Dominican Republic, Romania, Japan, and the Philippines, respondents are evenly divided. In the remaining 86 countries, the majority do not look favorably upon American bases.

Andrew O'Hehir, the Salon writer who notes in his article that the "American Dream" has faded, says that the world's admiration for America began to erode years ago, and that now the world is ready to divorce the US. Undoubtedly, the unconditional support the US gives to Israel also plays a significant role in America's global image being at rock bottom.

In this article, I will try to focus on just one characteristic of settler colonialism: that settlers come from outside to the lands they occupy as a colony. I have previously stated that settlers are among the most important elements of colonialism. Other elements include states and corporations. If we carefully follow the events taking place today, especially in the West Bank, we can make certain observations about the nature of the settlers. They are, I want to emphasize, non-state and illegal actors. In this respect, the Zionist Israelis living in Tel Aviv and the Zionist settlers establishing colonies in the West Bank are legally distinct. But when we try to highlight a somewhat different characteristic that brings them all together, we encounter a different problematic area. Settler colonialism is a system based on cleansing a given geography of its native elements. For that, we need to look at the cleansing of native elements from North America, Australia, and New Zealand. The peoples of Europe, under the leadership of England and France, completely cleansed North America of its native elements. One must dwell on the concept of the Wild West. The other regions of North America, outside the 13 colonies, were colonized by incoming European settler peoples. Back then, just as in the case of Tel Aviv, those living in the 13 colonies and those European settlers involved in the invasion and occupation were distinct from each other. The concepts of settler, invasion, and occupation point to different characteristics of the same system. Most Europeans migrated to North America in the 19th century.

Zionist Jews also have settler status in the historical lands of Palestine. But because earlier settlers achieved their goals, they now have a legal status by their own standards in places like Tel Aviv. Settler colonialism, however, continues in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon. They, too, rely on Tel Aviv just as the European settlers relied on the US formed by the 13 colonies. But Zionist Jews also know that they do not belong to Palestine. That is why they speak of God's promise. The concept of the "Promised Land" in itself says a great deal. This concept alone is the most important evidence that Zionist Jews do not belong to the historical lands of Palestine.

We can only explain within the above framework a striking remark by US politician Bernie Sanders that has been circulating on social media recently. Sanders said, "[Equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis] would be the end of the State of Israel, and I support Israel." A social media user commented on Sanders' words as follows: "Uncle Bernie is saying that the native people of the land, the Palestinians, should not have equal rights with the imported foreign Jews, because that would dilute the privilege of Jewish supremacy."

The contrast between native and settler must be explained by dissecting a colonial ideology like Zionism on the operating table. Because these concepts do not create a context by themselves. Those who object to the concept of "settler" and propose instead the concept of "occupier" are, unfortunately, unable to evaluate events within a context. Trying to refute the Zionists' phrase "Promised Land" by following them and relying on holy books is meaningless. Because Zionist Jews are parts of another whole, and they must be defined by concepts that emerged within the framework of colonialism.

We are transitioning to an economic order where the world economy is no longer determined solely by financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, but also by energy supply security, logistics routes, and critical minerals.

THE COUNTRIES DETERMINING THE WORLD ECONOMY ARE CHANGING

While the world economy after World War II was determined by economic institutions and organizations established by the US and European countries, the influence of these countries has been diminishing in recent years, while China and developing countries, in particular, have come to the fore.

The center of economic gravity is shifting from the US and Europe to countries like China and India.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS ARE CHANGING

The world economy is no longer determined solely by financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

Expectations from the IMF and World Bank, which are guided by the US and European countries, have decreased, and there is also great discomfort with the prescriptions imposed by these institutions.

On the other hand, it is also a fact that there is a search for an economic order in which alternative institutions to the IMF and World Bank are rapidly developing.

ENERGY SUPPLY SECURITY IS NOW A FUNDAMENTAL DETERMINANT

We are in a period where the dependence of economies on energy supply security is stronger.

Countries that ensure energy supply security will also ensure the security of their economies, and it is clear that they will be the least affected by geopolitical risks that escalate on energy supply routes, especially at points like Hormuz, Suez, and the Red Sea.

Therefore, countries that diversify their energy supply security and keep alternative corridors under control will have significant advantages in becoming political and economic powers.

It is clear that Türkiye's recent projects in energy pipelines, especially Turkish Stream and TANAP, and its goal of becoming an energy hub, have made significant contributions to its becoming an important actor in terms of political and economic power.

THE REALITY OF CRITICAL MINERALS

The economy is no longer determined solely by energy sources such as oil, natural gas, or coal.

Alongside energy sources, there are now rare earth elements.

Because rare earth elements are indispensable inputs for green transformation and digitalization.

Therefore, countries that hold rare earth elements will determine who holds power in the economy in the new era.

For this reason, the unipolar economic structure determined by international financial institutions is disappearing; a multipolar, fragmented global economic order is coming, in which energy, critical elements, and logistics routes are dominant.

Indeed, Israeli President Isaac Herzog noted in a program held in West Jerusalem that a process of "beastilization" is taking place, moving from the peripheries of Israeli society toward the center. Ultra-Orthodox National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said in a post, "A president who describes hundreds of thousands of citizens of the State of Israel as beasts is not worthy of the presidency."

Israel, exploding inwardly, tries to prevent fragmentation by spreading violence outward. However, the division within Israeli society is deepening as young, educated Jews flee the country. Among European Jews, the proportion of Israel-born individuals has increased in the last few years. The migration of Jews to Israel was a Zionist project. Now, there is "reverse migration."

According to a study conducted in 2025 by the Israel Democracy Institute, a significant number of young Jews are considering leaving the country. Forty-three percent of those considering emigration prefer European Union countries. The EU is followed by the US and Canada. Israel is no longer a safe haven for Jews. The fact that flights from Israel continue despite claims that anti-Semitism is resurging in Europe is an indication that Zionism has gone bankrupt.

The share of European-origin secular Jews within Israel's population is gradually decreasing. Meanwhile, the population of fundamentalist Jews is steadily increasing. This change in the population structure is a result of the extremely high birth rate among Ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, ensured that Jews studying in yeshivas (Torah schools) were exempt from military service in order to keep Ultra-Orthodox Jews inside the country. These concessions, which were tolerated because the number of Haredim was not very high at the time, have now become an intolerable political phenomenon for secular Jews.

It is said that the number of Haredim refusing to serve in the military constitutes a significant percentage of Israelis of draft age in any given year. Tens of thousands of draft orders are sent, but very few comply with the order. If this situation continues, a serious collapse in personnel numbers is expected by 2027. The failure to address the manpower shortage angers reserve soldiers who are called up repeatedly, as well as their families.

In religious Zionist publications, it is emphasized that those unwilling to serve are not only the Haredim. Religious Zionists complain that the Haredim are being made scapegoats. According to these publications, a significant portion of those who obtain exemptions from military service citing mental health reasons are secular Jews. Likewise, these publications state that obtaining exemption certificates has become a lucrative business for lawyers and psychiatrists.

According to a poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute, 98.5 percent of secular Israelis support imposing sanctions on Haredim who do not serve. Netanyahu's Ultra-Orthodox partners, however, threaten to leave the government if the Haredim are forcibly drafted. Netanyahu's biggest fear is the breakdown of the alliance with the Ultra-Orthodox.

Another issue that secular Jews complain about is that yeshiva students, exempt from military service, do not join the workforce. The budget allocated to yeshivas is also a subject of complaint. Secular Jews describe the yeshivas as "parasites." These factors also play a role in the flight of educated young Jews, an important source of skilled labor, from Israel.

Israel is even considering employing some non-Jewish ethnic groups, including Africans, as "mercenaries" to close its military manpower gap. Such a situation does not seem very acceptable to religious and racist Zionists who emphasize so-called 'Jewish superiority.' In short, emigration, military manpower shortage, and the rift between seculars and Haredim are Israel's nightmares. The Zionists who want to erase Palestinians from their homeland through genocide are also erasing themselves.

IS TRUMP A HAWK OR A BARGAINING LEADER?

In his first term, Trump first withdrew from Obama's nuclear deal and then tried to force Iran into a deal by applying a policy of maximum pressure. In North Korea policy as well, he first threw around the threat of 'fire and fury', but later met with Kim Jong Un in the demilitarized zone and entered North Korea. After targeting the Taliban for years in Afghanistan, he signed the Doha agreement, concretizing America's withdrawal process. In the trade war with China, he first applied sanctions and additional tariffs while seeking a trade deal, and also achieved partial compromises. He took an extremely tough stance against NATO members and then touted member countries increasing their defense budgets as his own success.

In all these examples, we see that Trump is not an ideological hawk but rather a bargaining leader who seeks a deal through his own unique method of raising the stakes. Trump first inflates the crisis with extremely high rhetoric and a sense of urgency, then applies maximum pressure, but sees this as part of the bargaining process. In the maximum pressure process, he has also shown that he can resort to military intervention if necessary, not content with just sanctions and economic pressure. It is possible to say that his entry into the Iran war also stemmed from his thinking that this bargaining approach of his would work. Being 'convinced' by Israel, the high self-confidence from the Maduro operation, the support of the pro-Israel Congress, the Epstein file, and the desire for political victory were influential on Trump, but his belief that he has the bargaining ability to get what he wants from Iran using both soft and hard power stands out as the most critical psychological factor.

REPUBLICAN HAWKS AND THE NETANYAHU FACTOR

While the majority of the American people and even Trump's own base do not want war, the maximalist attitudes of foreign policy hawks in Washington exert influence on Trump. Senators like Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, along with media outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, are influential in shaping Republican politics, while Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also contributes to the spread of the hawkish position through his influence on Congress and the press. These circles continue to advocate for the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capacity, the economic collapse of the regime, and ultimately regime change. Fearing the concessions Trump might make, feeling the need to control oil prices before the November elections, these circles put pressure on the deal by highlighting some unrealistic goals.

The Netanyahu side, for its part, does not shy away from insisting on even more maximalist demands. Israel, putting forward conditions such as the complete destruction of Iran's uranium enrichment capacity, the termination of its missile program, and the withdrawal of support from its regional proxies, uses language that does not allow Trump to achieve a controlled reduction of tension. It should be remembered that Netanyahu openly opposed Obama's nuclear deal and convinced Trump to tear it up. Israel, which has done its utmost to directly sabotage negotiation processes, does not hesitate to announce that it will expand its operations to prevent Trump from including Lebanon in a deal with Iran. While Israel tries to sell the Iran issue, in which it is engaged in a struggle for regional superiority, as an existential issue, Trump sees it as a political victory he can sell before the elections.

IS IRAN CORNERED?

The basic assumption of the hawks' prominent theses is that Iran is cornered and that therefore more pressure will either extract more concessions or topple the regime. However, this thesis asks us to ignore that the Iranian regime, although greatly weakened, has survived despite many crises and existential attacks. The maximum pressure policy in Trump's first term, the Soleimani assassination, the Mahsa Amini protests, the 12-day war of June 2025, and the current war were not enough to topple the regime. Moreover, despite Iran taking a major military blow, as a result of the Trump administration's miscalculations, it has come to a position where it has a say over the Strait of Hormuz. The economic and political relations it has developed with Russia and especially China also help the Iranian regime survive and, more importantly, increase its bargaining power.

Looking at this picture, it is not easy to say that Iran is cornered and trying to reach a deal as soon as possible. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Iran's trump card, the Strait of Hormuz, may face the risk of losing its weight in the medium and long term. However, the inflationary environment created by oil prices will have a direct impact on Trump's political performance in the November elections. Even if we accept that Iran is relatively cornered, its being in a position to bargain makes the declaration of victory that Trump seeks impossible and also gives the hawks a trump card to veto the deal. Instead of sidelining the hawks by 'slamming his hand on the table', Trump insists on trying to give the message that he is the most hawkish and most maximalist actor, thereby limiting his own room for maneuver.

Trump's internal contradiction stands out as his not wanting to continue the war on one hand, and his wanting to sign a grand deal with Iran – one never achieved before – while continuing to appear hawkish on the other. Thus, a cycle emerges: constant threats, sanctions and economic pressure, military operations, a search for temporary compromise, and then a return to pressure. While the hawks argue that Iran can be fully subdued, Trump prefers a method of controlled tension. Since it seems unlikely that the distance between these two approaches can be closed, Trump seeks other agendas to satisfy the hawkish circles by bringing up the Abraham Accords. Trump's Iran strategy can produce neither full war nor genuine peace. Trump, oscillating constantly between escalation and restraint, postpones the negotiation process in search of success, but it seems more likely that this kind of crisis management will perpetuate the problem rather than produce results.

(I would not have wanted to burden our minds with these painful realities on the morning of Eid al-Adha, but in order to celebrate future holidays in a free Palestinian land, we must see this historic turning point and expand this awareness.)

One of the most striking and lasting effects of the Sumud Flotilla emerges right here: European public opinion will now begin to read Israel through the torture marks on their own citizens' bodies and their shattered psyches.

Almost all of the Sumud volunteers I met at the airport in Istanbul were in a deep state of shock. But the most remarkable aspect of what they told me was that none of them highlighted their own suffering. On the contrary, they all cried out the same truth: "What we experienced is nothing compared to the brutality that Palestinians are exposed to every day."

The path opened by Sumud will widen with this great awareness. Because for nearly a century, European societies have either ignored, belittled, or dismissed the pain that the Palestinian people have been crying out, within the "terror" discourses produced by Zionism's perception industry. Moreover, they largely interpreted the expulsion of Palestinians from their villages, the usurpation of their homes, arbitrary arrests, hunger, and civilian deaths as the "inevitable consequence" of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now, however, civilians who set out from prosperous European cities, even if only for a few days, received a full-fledged "Palestinian treatment." Upon their return, they began to ask themselves aloud this crucial question: "If they could do these things to us, in full view of the world, in just a few days, what more might these barbarians have been doing to the Palestinian people for a hundred years?"

For the European activists who learned not from news reports but from their own bodies how the hatred reflected in Itamar Ben-Gvir's mentality turns into systematic humiliation, torture, starvation, and inhuman treatment of innocent civilians, life will be very different from now on.

The testimonies echoing on airport platforms, each one a criminal complaint, reveal the extent of this barbarism. Jesse van Schaik, a 21-year-old Dutch history student, exposes what happened on the prison ship in international waters as follows: "They locked 180 people like animals in four small containers. They took our clothes in the cold. They dragged us by our hair and kicked us, handcuffed our hands and feet, and laughed as they took pictures of us. The most sadistic thing I have ever seen is an Israeli soldier."

French volunteer Laetitia Merle and Australian Violet Coco describe the occupiers' degrading treatment of female activists, the sexual assaults carried out under the guise of body searches, and the psychological pressure. Merle says, "In front of Ben-Gvir, they wanted us to shout 'Long live Israel.' We refused. When I said 'Free Palestine,' I was slapped," offering a glimpse of the glorious resistance under captivity.

The outcry of 67-year-old Irish general practitioner Margaret Connolly is a sledgehammer blow to the Western conscience: "I have never seen such an ugly level of control by an army. I am furious at the impunity of the Zionist states; at the world turning a blind eye to the killing of babies, leaving children in incubators without oxygen, and burning tents."

Dozens of names from different continents – including Frenchman Adrien Jouan, Australian Dr. Webb-Pullman, Irishman Michael Cullen, and New Zealander Ormsby – recount their broken ribs, bruises, and that nauseating joy they saw in the eyes of Israeli soldiers as they were beaten. Social media personality Ömer Aslan's words – "I was brutally beaten by 27 soldiers, they tore everything off me, but Gaza has been living this for years, I forgot my pain" – and what Dr. Abdulhamid Yağmurcu and Fatma Zengin experienced are not merely personal traumas.

The Sumud volunteers, who experienced with their own flesh, bones, and even blood that what Palestinians have been saying for decades was not propaganda or a smear campaign, may not have physically reached Gaza, but they will carry the soul of Gaza entirely back to their countries. They will lay their torture-filled bodies before their peoples as representatives of Gaza. On the other hand, Israel stopped the flotilla with all its military might, but lost another major position on the Western front. The Zionists and their supporters will be defeated by crashing again and again against this wall of civilian awareness.

May our holiday be blessed in every circumstance and situation, especially for the honorable people of Gaza. May these be the steps toward the free days when we will embrace one another…

CHINA IS NOW IN THE POSITION OF RULE-SETTER IN TECHNOLOGY

China is now setting the standards in digital and green technologies that are profoundly changing the world economy.

This transformation affects many sectors, from electric vehicles to the defense industry.

China not only develops technology, but also carries out high-tech production with this technology.

This makes China the central country in high technology and supply chains.

THE NEW ENERGY SOURCE: RARE EARTH ELEMENTS ARE UNDER CHINA'S CONTROL

The most critical area where China holds the jugular vein of the global economic system is undoubtedly critical raw materials and rare earth elements.

The processing and refining capacity of raw materials and rare earth elements, on which countries are dependent in the digital and green transformation, is largely under China's control.

Although the US, which stands out as a rival to China, is trying to establish alternative supply chains, it is impossible for it to substitute or compete in the short term with the ecosystem of raw materials and rare earth elements that China has built over the years.

CHINA HAS THE GOAL OF BECOMING FIRST IN GDP

Currently, while the US is first and China is second in the world in nominal GDP, in the GDP ranking calculated by purchasing power parity, China has overtaken the US to become the world's largest economy.

Therefore, China aims to overtake the US in nominal GDP and become the greatest power in the world.

For China, becoming first in GDP is not only an economic goal; it is also the way to change global financial institutions, reserve currencies, and international trade rules in its favor.

Therefore, with its technological superiority, its processing and refining capacity of raw materials and rare earth elements, and its goal of having the largest GDP in the world economy, China is also challenging the political and economic hegemony that the US has held for years.

This means a new world order.

On this occasion, I wish all our readers a happy Feast of Sacrifice (Eid al-Adha).

After October 7, 2023, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz included Germany's support for Israel in the category of dirty business. This is one of the most important statements made to date. This statement will be examined in much different contexts over time. We had previously tried to interpret Merz's words as an extension of the German understanding of preserving ethnic purity. According to this, Israelis or Zionist Jews will not feel any need for protection in terms of racial or ethnic purity while they ethnically cleanse the native peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean. In Merz's speech, we can see how deeply embedded the understanding of racial or ethnic hierarchy is. From this, we can infer that a few billion dollars to spend on preserving racial purity has no value for Germany. It would be wrong to infer from Merz's words an inferiority or weakness in the face of Israel's power. Indeed, Germany continues to support Israel almost as a whole. Objections to Israel can be heard in countries like France and the US. The real question arises here: Why do the powers and elites representing the state reason in Germany and England support Israel so recklessly?

We must also note that even in France, compared to Germany and England, hesitant attitudes regarding support for Israel are noteworthy. In this regard, it is interesting that the strong representative of the French left, Mélenchon and his party La France Insoumise, are accused by the right and center French forces together with the pro-Israel camp of being "Islamo-Bolsheviks." According to Joseph Massad, the accusation against the left is only a part of "a broader global war waged since the genocide of Palestinians by Israel after October 7, 2023 against socialist forces that insist on defending Palestinian rights." Anti-Israel sentiment appears to be much more broad-based in Spain, Ireland, and Italy. It would be wrong to explain such a division by Jewish power. Germany, England, and the US, together with some Northern European countries, will never give up supporting Israel. In fact, in Germany and England, there is no hesitation whatsoever in supporting Israel despite genocide and war crimes. The hesitant stance of the US after its attack on Iran must also be evaluated together with the excessive support of England and Germany for Israel. It is quite clear that they are not playing games or acting on a theater stage. In this period, we can say that France is also driven by imperial ambitions.

Before October 7, 2023, the major projects in which Protestant, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon Europe, together with the US, were involved were causing unease on a global and regional scale, but these reactions could not become visible. As I tried to express in my last article, this time the Palestinians resisted on a very different plane. The whole world has begun to hate Israel and Zionism. This hatred is mixed with fear. The most important reason for this is that when the whole world looks at Israel, it sees England, the US, and Germany. The hatred directed at Israel and Zionism naturally also turns toward England, the US, and Germany. France also gets its share of this hatred. The reason why Germany, England, and the US continue to support Israel recklessly is also part of the same reality. They too know that Israel is none other than themselves. Statements that Israel directs the US regarding attacks on Iran are also not correct from this perspective. Hesitation or aggression is a reflection of internal tensions.

Zionist Jews were born out of the colonial ambitions of Europe and the US. At that time, almost all colonial states were investing in Zionism and Zionist Jews. Because they kept winning. Now things are changing.

Bolton, who served as National Security Advisor for a while during Trump's first term, was later fired from the White House by Trump. In a later statement about Bolton, Trump even used the words, "If I had listened to him, we would be in World War 5 or 6 right now."

An 'agreement for peace' is not in the Neocons' book. Neocons believe only in brute force. According to them, the US dictates, and its counterpart submits. Two thousand five hundred years ago, imperial Athens wiped out the population of the small island of Melos, even though it posed no threat to them.

The Athenians, demanding unconditional surrender from the Melians, used a phrase to the effect: "The strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept." This so-called negotiation between Athens and Melos passed into modern sources as the "Melian Dialogue."

This dialogue, found in the book of the ancient Athenian general Thucydides, is one of the holy texts of the American Neocons. Irving Kristol, known as the godfather of the Neocons, in an article in 2003, described Thucydides' history as the "favorite Neocon text." Let us recall that the article was published a few months after the US invasion of Iraq.

The darkest man among the Neocons, Jewish American Michael Ledeen, said in a speech in the early 1990s: "Every decade or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, unimportant country and smash it against the wall, just to show the world we're serious." Neocon writer Jonah Goldberg, while arguing for the need to attack Iraq in 2002, summarized Ledeen's views as the "Ledeen doctrine." US interventions, especially in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Venezuela, are seen as applications of this sinister doctrine.

According to Ledeen, who was at the center of many intrigues during the Cold War, the only thing that matters is not the casualties suffered, but losing the war. Today's Neocons also want the war to continue, not an agreement. Republican hawks are also uncomfortable with Trump's agreement plan. These hawks, who played a role in Trump's campaign with Israel to wage war on Iran, now strongly object to any agreement made without the elimination of the Iranian regime.

Senator Roger Wicker, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who argues that a 60-day ceasefire would be a disaster, said on his social media account: "All the gains obtained by Operation Epic Fury will be wasted." Senator Lindsey Graham argued that the realization of the agreement plan would shift the balance of power in the region in Iran's favor and against Israel. Graham said, "If these perceptions are correct, then it becomes a matter of curiosity why the war even started." According to Zionist publications, Senator Graham reflects Israel's concerns.

In his statement on Sunday, however, Graham praised Trump's plan and emphasized that Arab states in the region should sign the "Abraham Accords" with Israel. Graham warned that failing to do so would be "a great account of reckoning." Senator Ted Cruz also stated that he was deeply concerned by the news about the agreement.

Mike Pompeo, who served as Secretary of Defense during Trump's first term, said about the Iran plan: "It has nothing to do with the America First principle. The situation is quite clear: open that damn strait. Prevent Iran's access to money. Eliminate Iran's capabilities so that it cannot threaten our allies in the region. This should have been done long ago. Let's get started." Pompeo also said that Trump's plan looked like it came out of the playbook of the architects of the nuclear deal made during the Obama era.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, in a post on May 24, said: "Mike Pompeo has no idea what he's talking about. That idiot should shut his mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He has never understood the essence of what's going on, how could he?" Trump also said in his statement that people should not listen to those speaking against the agreement plan.

Will another country be targeted to appease the Neocons, who cannot do without war? Cuba, which has been living under a US embargo for a long time, has also been in Trump's sights for a while. Now that it has become clear that Iran is not Venezuela, will the new country to be smashed against the wall be Cuba?

With Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman effectively taking over the administration of Saudi Arabia from 2017 onward, a visible order was brought to the performance of the Hajj and Umrah. First of all, performing Hajj illegally was made impossible, and penalties were raised to astronomical levels. Security measures were tightened, automation was introduced at border crossings, and arbitrary practices that caused long waiting times were eliminated. Because significant items in the announced 2030 Vision project are allocated to revenues from the Hajj and Umrah, the goal was to have as many people as possible visit Mecca and Medina. Within this framework, massive hotel constructions were undertaken, expansion projects in Mecca were accelerated, an online visa system was introduced, individual Umrah was made easier, every part of Mecca and Medina was opened to visitation and tourism, and everywhere was equipped with tourist facilities. Places that in previous periods were not even allowed to be set foot on for religious reasons have now become the main promotional material for the Saudi Arabian Tourism Ministry’s advertisement videos…

The Saudi Arabian ulama are also involved, in order to meet the ever-increasing demand – which is understood will continue to increase. For example, the following discourse has begun to be voiced by many senior scholars and influential figures: The whole of Mecca is a sanctuary (Haram); the Haram does not only mean the Masjid al-Haram. In this framework, it is being said that even if they are far from the Kaaba, the prayer performed in the hotels’ prayer rooms will be equivalent to the prayer performed in the Masjid al-Haram. It is quite clear that these noteworthy and controversial definitions aim to reduce the congestion and density in the center of Mecca.

As possibilities and options increase in areas such as transportation, accommodation, and comfort, the demand for the Hajj and Umrah will also multiply. We might even consider social media as a kind of incentive. We have begun to experience just the edge of it; those who come after us will encounter constant, very crowded visits to Mecca and Medina, focused entirely on pleasure and comfort. From now on, people will go to the Haramayn to fulfill their duty, but will need to exert much more effort than before for tranquility and inner peace. I think those who have visited those places from the 1990s to the present day, and thus have had the chance to observe the transformation on the ground, will understand what I am saying much better.

In this new, fast, outward-looking, advertising-heavy – social-media-heavy – version of the Hajj and Umrah, what is diminished is not only tranquility and inner peace. There is also no atmosphere that would allow Muslims coming from different geographies and gathering in the Hejaz to build a common consciousness, nor one that encourages them in that direction. In fact, it is not even possible to sit down, talk, get to know each other, and bond. Because the circulation is lightning-fast; it is almost impossible to stop and catch one’s breath. Keeping in mind the unpleasant incidents of previous years, the Saudi administration wants Muslims to complete their rites as soon as possible and quickly return to their countries. The haste and rushing at every stage of the worship clearly show this.

There is a general acceptance, as we know, that the Hajj is the annual congress of the Ummah. Given both the point that the Hajj has reached in recent years and the extreme diversification of communication possibilities, perhaps we are coming to times when we need to question this acceptance as well – I don’t know. Still, as emphasized in the verse I mentioned in my previous article, we are obliged to discover those benefits promised to us during the Hajj. Amidst today’s chaos, colorful splendor, misleading glitter, and concrete walls, we must run after that depth.

That is why Westerners foreground their concern to demonize Islam and to cripple Muslims' relationship with Islam through projects like "moderate Islam," and to distance Islam from life.

THE TRUTH THAT FRIGHTENS WESTERNERS!

The fundamental thing that frightens Westerners is that secular Western culture and the experience it has produced have two essential weaknesses: First, the secular Western experience is built on conflict.

Second, secular culture, by its ontological nature, does not grant other cultures the right to exist.

If Islam is not demonized and weakened, in an era where everything takes place on a global scale and global communication tools have become so widespread, it will eventually become clear that Islam lacks such weaknesses; this will trigger a process that will cause the unjust hegemony produced by secular Western culture to crack.

Because secular culture is, in Marcuse's apt description, a "one-dimensional" worldview—a culture that absolutizes only the world/physical reality—it is impossible for it to understand other cultures that are not one-dimensional; therefore, it is also impossible for it to coexist with other cultures.

For these two reasons, secular culture can only sustain its existence by inventing others (imaginary enemies to be turned into ghosts).

This is not only the case in the West, but in all secularized countries. The unimaginable tensions and problems experienced in Türkiye are an indication of this.

IMPOSSIBLE AND TEMPTING MODERN PROJECTS

Throughout the 2,500-year history of Western culture, Westerners, unlike Muslims, have never had the experience of living together with different cultures.

This is the most fundamental reason why discourses such as democracy, freedoms, and human rights were developed in the West. Ontologically, it is impossible for these discourses to be realized in the West.

Because the moment other cultures begin to show even slight signs of existence and vitality, it becomes inevitable that they will be subjected to the assault of secular culture and rendered ineffective.

Today, the fact that Islam has begun to show itself, even if somewhat crookedly, in Europe is enough for Westerners to marginalize and demonize Muslims.

The most concrete example of this is how Jews, the representatives of the only "different" culture in European history, were humiliated for centuries and massacred in masses.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE JEWS WILL ALSO HAPPEN TO MUSLIMS...

Looking at what Jews experienced, it would not be difficult to predict the kind of frightening treatment that Muslims in Europe, whose populations are rapidly increasing, will be subjected to tomorrow.

Westerners know that Islam is currently the only religion that offers principles for granting other cultures the right to exist, and that Muslims have a historical experience of living together with societies belonging to other religions and cultures in peace, justice, and a legal order.

I want to say this to those who might object superficially and shallowly to what I am saying by looking at the miserable state of the Islamic world today: Today, the Islamic world is not independent; it is a world that is the product, work, and captive of colonizers.

The colonizers first shattered the Islamic world into pieces. Then they inflicted "native secular missionaries" upon the Islamic world, using them as puppets to dynamite the dynamism of Muslim societies and block their paths.

The Islamic world lacks a Muslim dignity in terms of protecting its natural resources and liberating its personality (its identity, mind, cultural dynamics, intellectual capabilities).

CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO CROSSFIRES...

On top of that, it remains caught between two cross-cutting secular fires coming from outside and inside: on one hand, struggling not to break its connection with being Muslim, and on the other hand, struggling to strengthen and re-Islamize itself.

In a world where everything takes place on a global scale, if Islam is not demonized, it will easily be understood that the one-dimensional, conflictual, and othering secular Western culture destroys humanity, society, and nature, and does not grant other cultures the right to exist. Then the path will suddenly and spontaneously open for the establishment of a livable global order of peace and justice—an order where Islam accepts everyone as they are, granting the right to exist in the Hereke (a livable world)—and thus for the rapid Islamization of the world.

This is the fundamental reason behind Islamophobia and even the West's enmity toward Islam.

"THE WORLD MUST BE A PLANET WHERE MUSLIMS LIVE!"

This article was published in this column 12 years ago. I am republishing it as is, except for minor corrections.

Let me illustrate with a historical example that what I pointed out in the article is not a fairy tale, and that after the Gaza genocide and the Epstein files—where 500,000 children were kidnapped, raped, and drained of their blood—the world is more pregnant with Islam than ever before.

Marshall Hodgson, a brilliant academic from the University of Chicago who wrote the monumental, unsurpassed three-volume work The Venture of Islam on Islamic civilization, recounts the following anecdote in his pioneering historiography book Rethinking World History: An alien arriving on Earth in the 14th-16th centuries would see Muslims living everywhere from Morocco to China, and would think that this planet must be a planet where Muslims live.

We are not living in a fairy tale. The place where Westerners have brought the world after their colonial and imperialist attacks is a complete hell. As seen in the resistance put up by Muslims in Gaza, only Muslims can bring about an exit from this hell.

The path is open for Islam, but Muslims are absent.

For this, Muslims need to become Muslims again. And so be it.

Happy Eid.

THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA WAR WILL BE PROLONGED

That’s how Ukraine is: the Russians have never been able to accept losing Ukraine (Aleksandr Dugin, in his book Russian Geopolitics, describes with great fury the strategic vacuum forming on the Eastern European flank). The Russians wanted to control this country through proxy rulers, but Europe’s “color revolutions” pushed Moscow first to attack Crimea (2014) and then the Donbas (2022). It is unclear when this file will close. Russia is getting tired. For the first time in a long time, Ukraine regained in April the territory it had lost in February and March. There was hope for a table. However, the €90 billion package expected from Europe, along with pressure from some countries on Zelensky, seems likely to prolong the process. It is said that Putin has instructed his commanders to “finish this by autumn,” while Zelensky has told his side to “prepare as if the war will last another three years.”

TWO MAJOR UNSOLVED CRISES…

That’s how Syria is: after the Cold War ended, it was impossible for Baathist ideology to survive. In fact, the Türkiye-Syria talks in the mid-2000s aimed to normalize Damascus. This was necessary for regional stability. One could say that Ankara “saw Wednesday coming.” But instead of embracing his people and changing, Assad chose to become more brutal and ignite a civil war. The result is clear.

That’s how Karabakh is: the oppression of Azerbaijani Turks by Armenia, established after the collapse of the USSR. Time has worked against Armenia. The Karabakh file was closed at the right time and on the right ground through the Türkiye-Azerbaijan partnership.

The Iranian crisis, which has now entered a certain track, and the Pakistan-India conflict—which is feared could soon escalate (Pakistani commanders expect greater military tension in the medium term)—also fall within this framework. Beyond these, there are two more major unresolved, frozen crises. One is the Balkans… The other is Taiwan. The Balkans are a matter of balance; Taiwan is a matter of time. British intelligence predicted that China would act on Taiwan in 2027. Whether this will actually happen, or whether Beijing will give more time to a tide that is flowing in its favor, remains to be seen.

THE FRAMEWORK FROM TÜRKİYE’S PERSPECTIVE IS NO DIFFERENT

Ankara, too, is closing the old order’s files one by one in order to consolidate its internal and external stability and to secure its place in the new order by shedding its burdens. The issue of PKK terror is exactly that. The PKK is an organization that was set up to drain Türkiye’s energy during the Cold War climate. At this point, it has outlived its purpose. The Terror-Free Türkiye process is trying to close this parenthesis, a remnant of the Cold War.

We have no border issue with Iran. Nor with the Russians. Bulgaria is now a country trying to mind its own business. The problems with Syria ended with the regime change in Damascus. The normalization process with Armenia is continuing at an accelerated pace. The elections on June 7 are important. If Pashinyan keeps his seat, Yerevan will remove the final obstacle to a final peace and will amend its constitution. Hopes are high; the Caucasus could turn into an oasis of peace.

THEY ARE TRYING TO BREAK THE STATUS QUO

That leaves the Aegean and Cyprus issues. The root of the Aegean problem is Italy losing World War II, leading to the ceding of the Twelve Islands to Greece in 1947. Another problem is the occasional flare-up of Greek radical nationalism. The coup attempt aimed at unifying Cyprus with Greece resulted in Türkiye’s intervention on the island. The crisis has been frozen since 1974. Those who read history, based on recent developments, can say that the waters are warming for these two frozen crises.

Greece’s move toward an alliance with Israel, the French attempt to deploy troops to Cyprus, and Athens’ deployment of missiles on the islands are all attempts to break the existing status quo in the Aegean and Cyprus. Türkiye will not remain silent in the face of these. In response to these developments, Ankara signaled a legislative move regarding maritime jurisdiction areas, upon which Greece took a step back and decided to withdraw the Patriots it had placed in Kerpe and Dimetoka (one of my sources said, “They haven’t withdrawn them yet; we are watching”). As Türkiye’s importance for Europe’s security has now been understood, some European capitals appear to be putting pressure on Athens, sending messages like “Don’t spoil our relationship with Türkiye.” Greek Defense Minister Dendias was forced to say, “We are not shaping our defense strategy against Türkiye.”

THESE FILES WILL ALSO CLOSE

But the problems are clear. Maritime jurisdiction areas, Aegean, Cyprus issues await resolution. Greece, suffering from a “small country” syndrome, is pursuing alliances and steps that also harm its own interests. Yet what needs to be done is simple: Turkish and Greek nations will continue to live side by side. Therefore, the problems must be solved through peaceful methods on a rational basis. But unfortunately, our neighbor does not see itself as strong enough to show such maturity.

If that is the framework… If this patched-up bundle won’t hold together… If everything belonging to the old world is unraveling… Then sooner or later, the turn will come to the Aegean and Cyprus. Five years… Or ten years… One way or another… These files will also close. And as they close, who has the last word will matter.

We can assume that with the emergence of important publications on Germany's extraordinary, unconditional support for Israel, the fog over these events will begin to lift. As is well known, there is a widespread belief in our country that, within the framework of Jewish world domination, Germany has also surrendered to Zionism. That fog was created precisely by propaganda that allowed such ideas to form. After October 7, 2023, that kind of fog has also started to dissipate. As mentioned before, Antony Loewenstein's book The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World also showed Germany's involvement in developing occupation technologies. The academic Jürgen Mackert has also tried to demonstrate that Germany's extraordinary support for Israel has nothing to do with bowing to Jewish power. Daniel Marwecki's observation about Germany's desire to return to the political stage as a legitimate actor has the power to completely clear away the fog that still persists.

Today, Israel is being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have tried Israel through certain individuals and ruled that genocide and war crimes have been committed. The Germans certainly knew about Israel's genocide and war crimes. But they openly encouraged Israel, and in doing so, through Zionism as a colonial ideology, they led Britain and the United States to become deeply involved in genocide and war crimes as well. Today, Britain and the United States have become open parties to genocide crimes. British and American elites in particular have repeatedly immersed and re-immersed their own elites and masses in Israel's genocide and war crimes. Now, Hitler and the Germans of World War II are not alone. It is well known how widespread the acceptance of Zionism as an ideology has become in Britain and the United States, through Zionist religious groups. Moreover, Zionism, as a colonial ideology, has Anglo-Saxon origins. Excellent studies have also begun to appear in our country regarding the Anglo-Saxon origins of Zionism. In this context, Fazıl Duygun's book Who Made the Jews Zionists? also highlights the role of Britain and the United States in the emergence of Zionist ideology. France has also become involved in genocide and war crimes in Islamic lands.

Unlike in World War II, the main reason Netanyahu, Starmer, Biden, and Trump cannot stand out as much as Hitler is not personal issues; it is the widespread acceptance of Zionism in Israel, Britain, and the United States, both among elites and through religious groups. The social depth of Zionism in these countries is reaching frightening proportions. Thanks to this depth, the Germans have managed to draw Israel, Britain, and the United States to their side. In a sense, it could even be said that they have taken revenge by spreading the genocide and war crimes of World War II. It is very significant that by giving extreme support to the genocide and war crimes of Zionist Israel, they have made Britain and the United States visible.

Basic concepts such as 'Jewish power' and 'Jewish world domination' have made the realities we are now bringing to light invisible. The Palestinian-Gazan resistance has bought all of humanity time to uncover these realities. Unfortunately, the Palestinians, as an entire nation, have gone collectively to their deaths and suffered great catastrophes like those seen in holy books. These truths cannot be covered up. This is an incredible resistance.

Interestingly, the most shocking results are first being seen in Europe. We can predict that the lineup of France, Germany, Britain, and the United States in terms of involvement in genocide and war crimes will bring about entirely new antagonisms. In future articles, we will try to assess developments in this direction."

The attacks on the latest flotilla have shown us this: The Mediterranean has now turned into a vast zone of surveillance and military operations where Israel acts arbitrarily. The Zionists intervened twice in quick succession against the latest Sumud Flotilla. In the first instance, soldiers were boarded onto the boats in international waters off the island of Crete, hundreds of miles from the shores of Gaza, the intended destination. In the second, on the Cyprus line, activists heading toward Gaza were stopped on the high seas and, in an act of piracy, taken to the port of Ashdod.

On paper—that is, according to existing international agreements and the law of the sea—the Mediterranean's coastal states should have risen up against this piracy. But the fact that Israel can carry out operations wherever it wants, seize ships in international waters in violation of the principle of freedom of the high seas, abduct citizens of dozens of countries, and do all of this without facing any recorded sanctions, shows that the sovereignty order in the Mediterranean has effectively been suspended.

The intervention off Crete was, in fact, also an assault on Europe's presence in the Mediterranean and its claim to sovereignty. Israel sent a message to all the coastal states, especially Italy and Greece: "I determine the security boundaries and the law in the Mediterranean." While the European Union issued only statements of "concern" for days, Israel expanded its operational capacity hundreds of miles from its own shores.

So it is quite possible to say this: The Mediterranean is governed by Israel's undeclared "invisible territorial waters."

There is no institutional force capable of telling Israel "Stop!" in the face of warships, drones, raids, and operations to abduct civilians.

Yet the Mediterranean has its territorial waters, continental shelves, exclusive economic zones, and search-and-rescue areas. There are NATO security zones, European Union maritime borders, energy corridors, and military bases belonging to numerous countries. In other words, the Mediterranean is one of the most sensitive seas in the world, where dozens of states superimpose their sovereignty claims.

Under normal circumstances, any entity conducting military operations hundreds of miles away, entering the areas of responsibility of other countries, would be grounds for an international crisis. But through this process, we have been confronted with another reality:

Israel is now acting with a barbarism that regards not just the occupied Palestinian coast but the entire Mediterranean as its own security zone.

The second intervention, on the Cyprus line, made the situation even worse. In a region where Türkiye, the TRNC, South Cyprus, Egypt, British bases, NATO, and all the flashpoints of the Eastern Mediterranean energy equation intersect, Israel once again carried out its operation and again used de facto force at sea.

The extent to which the structures established by the global system have been neutralized has been exposed by Sumud's "update test."

So what will all of this picture change?

Some may read what has happened as "Israel showed its power and intimidated everyone." But the paint has peeled off. The whole world saw with its naked eyes how weak Europe's discourse of an "international legal order" is—so weak that it cannot protect even a few civilian boats—and how the rhetoric of civilization, human rights, and "standards" has collapsed.

No one will ever again evaluate what happens in the Mediterranean using concepts like "security reflex" or "legitimate defense."

Gaza, which shows why established orders are collapsing and why they are no longer sustainable, continues to shape the world.

This is why the Sumud Flotilla, while demonstrating the will to go to Gaza at the cost of lives, has become a civil mirror of truth, showing the world who actually rules the Mediterranean and with what kind of tyranny.

Sumud has also completely washed away, in the waters of the Mediterranean, that fake legal makeup on the faces of the rulers.

Everyone has now seen that the Gaza blockade does not begin off the coast of Gaza, but has turned into an invisible occupation zone spreading across the entire Mediterranean, haven't they?

According to an article written by Roger Stone, who is known to be close to Trump, the controversy intensified because of a statement reportedly linked to CIA whistleblower James Erdman. The article states that Erdman told a Senate committee that about forty boxes of documents in the custody of the ODNI were seized during a review regarding the declassification of classified material.

It is also said that the documents were removed before they reached the ODNI. According to a statement from the office of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, however, the claim of a "raid" is not true.

It was already known that, under Gabbard's direction, ODNI officials seized documents stored at a CIA facility in April 2025. This ODNI operation also involved Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the daughter-in-law of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Amaryllis, a former CIA agent, had been appointed by Gabbard to a senior position in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Meanwhile, another interesting development occurred. An article in the Washington Post on May 19 stated that Amaryllis Fox Kennedy had resigned because she disagreed with Trump's foreign policy. However, Fox Kennedy, who heaped praise on Trump in a statement on her X account on May 20, maintained that she left her position due to family reasons.

Gabbard was expected to make a statement regarding the "raid" allegations. The expected statement came on Friday. However, Gabbard also announced that she would be stepping down from her position as of June 30, citing family reasons. Trump, for his part, thanked Gabbard for her service on his social media account, saying, "Tulsi did an incredible job, we will miss her."

Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center within the ODNI, had also resigned in March. In his resignation statement, Kent emphasized that even though Iran does not pose an imminent threat to the American nation, war was being started due to pressure from Israel and its lobby in the United States.

The "Israel Lobby" and the "Neocons" had fiercely criticized Tulsi Gabbard's appointment as Director of National Intelligence. Far-right pro-Israel activist Laura Loomer had even campaigned for Trump to fire Gabbard. Meanwhile, a report on the news site Axios stated that Roger Stone had convinced Trump not to remove Gabbard from her position. Stone, in an article he wrote, confirmed that the details in the news report were accurate. In that article, Stone said, "It is quite clear that the leader to whom Loomer is most loyal is not Donald Trump, but Benjamin Netanyahu."

It should be noted that these three resignations, occurring in quick succession, are seen as a reflection of the conflict between intelligence and security agencies due to "Israel."

On the other hand, according to some commentators, the seizure of the "Kennedy Documents" is also related to Israel. For a long time, many commentators have pointed out that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) may have been assassinated in 1963 because he tried to block Israel's nuclear weapons program.

John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent, noted in an interview with him in March 2026 that ten thousand "JFK documents" would never be released to the public because they point to Israel.

Monika Wiesak, known for her books on the "Kennedy Assassination," also complained in an article she wrote on May 2 that while Israel is among the potential suspects in the "Kennedy Assassination," this possibility has been ignored in the investigations. Wiesak, who included a timeline of the tensions between Kennedy and Israel, claimed that Israel breathed a sigh of relief after the assassination, thus freeing its nuclear program from oversight.

The fact that the accused assassin in the "Kennedy Assassination" was killed by Jewish American nightclub owner Jack Ruby while being transferred to prison had confused people. With Ruby's death in prison in 1967, the truth about the "Kennedy Assassination" was also buried in darkness.

It is certainly striking that, even though 63 years have passed since the "Kennedy Assassination," all of the relevant documents have still not been released to the public. If the "secrecy" were solely about individuals, they would have been released long ago. Whatever truths are being hidden will surely come to light one day.

Everyone – especially the media – will ask them how they felt hearing the inhuman behavior of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir, the insults he spewed while foaming at the mouth. As someone who has been treated the same way, I can say one big word: "Nothing." A pathetic Ben‑Gvir whose hatred gets an immediate response, who "displays his Israeli‑ness" in the shadow of the soldiers around him.

Since the day before yesterday, there's been Ben‑Gvir panic in Israeli public opinion and politics. The media and his cabinet colleagues are trying to frame him as an out‑of‑control, unruly, mischievous politician. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said, "You deliberately harmed the state with this disgraceful spectacle. No, you are not the face of Israel," giving the appearance of a political rift. Even the Butcher of Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu, was forced to say that "his attitude toward the flotilla activists is inconsistent with Israel's values and norms."

Right here, a huge manipulation kicks in – as if Israel actually had any values to present to the world. By putting a straitjacket on Ben‑Gvir and diagnosing him as an "out‑of‑control extremist," they try to absolve the rest of Israel. As if there were a reasonable state reason and Ben‑Gvir was just a virus that slipped into that structure. Yet the world – especially since October 7 – has been watching the exact opposite.

Because Ben‑Gvir is the symptom of flare‑ups of a mental illness that Israel has hidden for years but can no longer conceal.

Today, it's not Ben‑Gvir's circle who are killing people in Gaza by starving them. The ones who besiege hospitals, seize aid ships, target journalists, and normalize child deaths as "operational results" – they're all part of the same structure. There is one difference, of course: the others use diplomatic language, while Ben‑Gvir shouts out loud what the average Israeli is thinking.

That's why the Israeli public's real fear isn't so much what Ben‑Gvir does, but that he has started to represent Israel's true state of mind in front of the whole world. Because from inside Israel – which for years has been sold as "the only democracy in the Middle East" – a politician emerges who insults on camera, brags about inhuman treatment, scorns international law, and this man, ahead of upcoming elections, is supported by millions precisely because of his psychopathy.

Aren't all the settlers who raid Palestinian homes in the West Bank and put out their stoves each a Ben‑Gvir? It's the same whether it's a minister who enjoys torturing European civil activists or one of those radical Jewish kids from Hilltop Youth who raid Palestinian homes at midnight.

More importantly: Israel no longer tries to stay afloat by reining in figures like Ben‑Gvir. It tries to stay afloat using their language. Don't be fooled by their attempts to look humane.

With the Gaza genocide, Israel lost its reputation as a "state." Ben‑Gvir's rise happened right in this period. So Ben‑Gvir doesn't just represent Israel. We can say: Israel is getting Ben‑Gvir‑ized.

For all these reasons, we need to shut down those who try to present the Sumud Flotilla as a dismissible "aid flotilla." We can certainly discuss the organization, its shortcomings, what could happen. But those who try to make this civilian mission look like a failure are also covering up the bigger picture.

Because even if Sumud hasn't reached Gaza in two voyages over eight months, it has managed to rip apart the packaging that Israel has been building for years with great care.

The world confronted, live on broadcasts, this Israel: a state afraid of boats carrying humanitarian aid. An army scared of civil activists. A security apparatus that kidnaps people in international waters – and the collapse of a propaganda machine trying to legitimize it all.

For years, Israel had veiled its attacks on Palestinians with the excuse of "security." But this time, facing it were not armed groups, but doctors, lawyers, parliamentarians, sailors, and conscientious people from all over the world. That's where Sumud's biggest impact came in. Sumud cornered Israel humanely, morally, and psychologically.

A handful of activists made visible, in the middle of the Mediterranean, the face that Israel had skillfully hidden for years: its hatred for the rest of humanity – regardless of religion, language, or race.

Israel's real defeat is that, in the face of the civilian, humane, and intellectual vision displayed by the Sumud Flotilla on the Mediterranean, its own asymmetrical propaganda fortress was torn down.

I will keep writing about the impact of Sumud – the movement I'm part of.

INTERNAL PARTY OPPOSITION IS NOT TOLERATED

In Louisiana's primary, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy was pushed out of the race against candidates backed by Trump. Senators who had previously opposed Trump had avoided running in primaries against Trumpist candidates, but Cassidy declared he "would not back down without a fight." With this victory—backing loyalist candidates against a Republican senator for the first time—Trump showed once again that the party has become entirely Trump's party. Cassidy's unforgivable sin was working with Democrats during the impeachment proceedings against Trump and continuing to oppose Trump afterward. Having already appointed only loyalists to his cabinet in his second term, Trump sent the message that the party's Senate and House candidates must also meet this criterion.

Representative Thomas Massie, one of the harshest internal party critics, was also pushed out of the primary race. Massie, who directly confronted the Israel lobby, managed to win support from middle‑aged and young Republican voters despite $16 million spent against him, but he could not convince voters over 65. In this race—which shows how toxic the Israel lobby has become in U.S. politics—a total of $33 million was spent, the most ever spent in a House race. Massie, who made his voice heard through his fierce opposition to the Epstein files, aid to Israel, and the war with Iran, was framed by the Israel lobby as antisemitic. After the election, Massie showed he had not backed down by saying, "I called to congratulate my opponent, but it took a while to reach him in Tel Aviv."

THE TRUMPIST AND PRO‑ISRAEL LINE HARDENS

The sidelining of Trump critics like Cassidy and Massie, with the support of the Israel lobby, sends a clear message to Republican candidates: there is no place in the party for those who oppose Trump and Israel. At a time when Israel has become so controversial and Trump's popularity has hit rock bottom, the party's insistence on a Trumpist and pro‑Israel policy creates a critical risk ahead of the November elections. Overly Trumpist names that scare off independent voters upset with the economy, and pro‑Israel candidates that alienate young voters opposed to the war, could cause the Republican Party to lose its congressional majority in November. A Democratic takeover would mean an attempt to reverse everything Trump has done so far and the launch of impeachment proceedings.

Trump's next target is to defeat Texas Senator John Cornyn in the primaries to be held next week. Although Cornyn has not fiercely opposed Trump, he is not seen as "loyal enough." If Cornyn loses the primary, that Senate seat could become risky for Republicans in November. Trump has decided to unexpectedly back Ken Paxton, a darker Trumpist candidate against Cornyn, appearing willing to risk raising Democrats' hopes in Texas. If the primary‑elected extreme MAGA candidates are seen as too radical and ideological by independent voters, that could backfire on Republicans. In states like Alabama, where Republicans are all but guaranteed to win, such ideological candidates won't be a problem, but in swing states like Georgia—where the electorate is mainly conservative yet both senators are Democrats—they could be a disadvantage.

WILL THE DEMOCRATS SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY?

Despite the Republicans' insistence on a Trumpist and pro‑Israel line, it is hard to say that the Democratic side has crafted a common policy to turn this equation into an opportunity. The progressive left wing of the Democrats has managed to condemn taking money from the Israel lobby as nearly treasonous, but the party's centrist wing prefers to focus on Trump and the economy and is wary of the idea of making Israel into a problem. Moreover, Biden administration officials who support Israel's genocide are now trying to put themselves forward, while even figures like former President Obama—who represent the party's "common sense"—cannot muster the courage to criticize Israel. Although the number of senators like Bernie Sanders, who advocate suspending aid to Israel, has reached historic levels, there are not many politicians willing to directly confront the Israel lobby. This could mean that even if Trumpist candidates lose in November, the Israel lobby will largely retain its influence, depending on the stance of Democratic candidates.

As Trump shows he has succeeded in transforming his party and marches toward November, it remains unclear what kind of unity will be achieved between the Democratic left and center. In the November elections, candidate preferences between the left and center, and their performances, will also shape candidate profiles heading into the 2028 presidential election. Currently, centrist candidates dominate the list of potential Democratic presidential nominees, but one of the prominent lessons from Kamala Harris's defeat was that she could not win without the support of the young, progressive left. The outcome of the November elections will be instructive not only for how the American electorate treats Trumpist and pro‑Israel candidates, but also for how far to the left the Democrats will be tolerated to go. In an election where Trump will insist on Trumpism, the Democrats must come up with a formula that attracts anti‑war, young, and progressive voters, as well as the support of independent voters who are alienated by Trump's tightening of the ranks.

For many years, international media read Türkiye through domestic political disputes, economic crises, tensions with the European Union, and human rights inquiries, but now they are talking about a completely different Türkiye.

Today in the Western media, Türkiye is mentioned as an actor that sustains NATO’s southern flank, influences Black Sea security, is called to the table in Gaza diplomacy, has become a critical threshold country in the Iran‑Israel tension, and cannot be left out of European defence.

The American geopolitical strategist George Friedman made this observation years ago:

“Türkiye is not a rising regional power; it is a re‑emerging historical power.”

The debates taking place in the world media today are shaped exactly around this sentence.

Because the world system is experiencing a major rupture.

The Ukraine war has upended Europe’s security architecture; European states cannot produce a solution from one day to the next.

The Gaza crisis has deeply shaken the West’s claim to moral superiority.

The United States’ global capacity has become debatable.

Trump’s visit to China has shown that the global power competition is moving in China’s favour.

In such periods, geography once again sits at the centre of geopolitical developments.

It is precisely for this reason that Türkiye is regaining a central position.

The American diplomat and academic Henry Kissinger once said in a speech:

“A Middle East where Türkiye is stable and a Middle East where Türkiye is weak are not the same thing.”

The security concern arising in European capitals today reminds us of this fact once again.

There is a sentence frequently repeated in the Western media lately:

“European security cannot be established without Türkiye.”

This statement is not only a military observation.

It is also Europe’s realisation that its own borders no longer start from the Balkans but from Syria, the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The famous historian Niall Ferguson recently made this warning while assessing Europe’s strategic fragility:

“European security is no longer shaped only in Brussels, but also in Ankara.”

The great transformation in the defence industry has profoundly shaped the approaches of the new era.

Türkiye, which once only imported technology from abroad, is now talked about in NATO exercises with its own UAV systems.

European countries now assess Turkish defence companies not only as customers, but as strategic partners.

The British journalist and international relations commentator Tim Marshall, while explaining the decisive power of geography, used the following expression for Türkiye:

“Türkiye is not just a bridge; it is the central lock controlling the passage routes.”

For this reason, Ankara’s position becomes decisive in every crisis heading from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Middle East.

Although Türkiye has been on the world agenda mostly in the field of defence industry over the past month, the most striking change is the competence it has shown in diplomacy.

In this context, the leadership diplomacy carried out by Türkiye, with great experience, has reached a dimension that exceeds the country’s power.

The discourse Türkiye has put forward on Gaza is not just a regional reaction; it also constitutes a strong objection to the moral crisis of the current international order.

The policies Israel is implementing in Gaza and the global debates around the Epstein files have made the President’s statements more visible in the eyes of the international public.

Platforms such as the Antalya Diplomacy Forum are therefore not just meetings; they are turning into a showcase of an alternative vision of the world, a ground where the voices of nations that cannot speak are raised.

Parag Khanna, the Indian‑origin global strategy writer, while describing the new multipolar world order, said the following about countries like Türkiye:

“In the 21st century, it will not be superpowers that will be decisive, but connection hubs.”

Today, Türkiye is becoming exactly such a connection hub.

All of this shows us the following:

Türkiye is no longer just “a bridge between the West and the East.”

Türkiye is becoming one of the game‑making central countries in this era where new power balances are being established.

The real question now is this:

Will Türkiye be able to support this geopolitical rise with economic, technological and mental transformation?

Because history teaches us this:

Geography provides an opportunity, but societies without a vision of civilisation cannot turn that opportunity into lasting power.

In this context, how the steps taken so far should be described may be debated, but I believe that all these outcomes stem from the fact that the President’s belief, mindset and political vision carry a native character.

The strategic orientation Türkiye has shown recently is also fed not only by short‑term political moves, but by a long‑term perspective of history, geography and civilisation.

In this context, I do not know what name to give to the politics implemented in Türkiye for a quarter of a century.

Because naming and creating a paradigm have been entrusted to Westerners, I am among those who think that the existing politics of Türkiye is a deep‑rooted politics and that this politics needs to be coded as an alternative politics.

Trump traveling to Beijing with a plane full of businessmen showed that decoupling the American and Chinese economies, as previously promised, is not an easy task. Trump’s new policy appears aimed at reducing the trade deficits the US runs with China. Chinese President Xi Jinping also signaled that he is prepared to offer Trump certain gestures on this issue. Trump may believe these gestures will provide his party with an advantage in the November elections.

However, this new relationship does not mean that the global hegemonic rivalry between the US and China has come to an end. Although the Chinese side insists that China’s rise is not intended as a challenge to displace the United States from its place on the global stage, China hawks in America do not see it that way. It should also be remembered that China hawks exist in both parties.

Many American analysts agree that any rising power will inevitably be viewed as a threat to US global hegemony. Indeed, Japan’s technological rise in the 1980s deeply alarmed Americans. The arguments now being made against China were once directed at the Japanese as well. The Japanese managed to deflect American pressure by “playing dead.” They stepped back and accepted a status subordinate to the United States.

Americans who see themselves as an “exceptional nation” and argue that a world without US hegemony would descend into chaos cannot afford to lose their influence over the global system. The advantages provided by a global economic system in which the dollar serves as the reserve currency play a crucial role in sustaining American military power. The United States’ military presence, with bases spread across the world, depends on its continued position as the hegemon of the global system.

“Dollar dominance” helped cushion the damage caused by the transfer of American jobs to China. At the same time, cheap Chinese goods enabled ordinary Americans to meet their daily needs affordably. Yet it now appears increasingly clear that this situation was neither sustainable nor destined to remain so. Massive inequality in income and wealth distribution has meanwhile pushed American politics toward greater polarization.

It is obvious that China’s participation in the global economic system played a major role in its rise. Western liberal globalists had long promised that globalization would benefit every country. China hawks in America, however, argue that the US-led liberal global economic system enriched China while impoverishing Americans. Yet it is also true that the relocation of jobs to China made large American corporations even wealthier.

Trump initially appealed to voters who had lost industrial jobs, but later chose to reconcile with corporate America. His additional tariffs, however, placed producers exporting goods to China under severe pressure while also making life considerably harder for ordinary Americans. It appears Trump has been politically forced into pursuing a trade-focused relationship with China in order to escape this trap.

China, meanwhile, expects the United States to respect Beijing’s “red lines” in return for commercial gestures. Indeed, some of Trump’s statements following the “Beijing Summit” give the impression that there may be changes in US policy toward Taiwan. While Xi Jinping approached the summit with a strategic and long-term perspective, Trump adopted a much shorter-term position largely confined to his own presidency.

According to Taiwanese observers, Xi Jinping is making gestures in order to persuade the US to loosen its grip on Taiwan. This strategy is described as “removing the firewood from beneath the boiling cauldron.” This ancient Chinese strategy is viewed as part of China’s broader grand strategy against American hegemony.

China is pursuing a policy of “strategic patience” against a United States whose imperial expansion has reached its limits and which is therefore entering a period of decline. Beijing seeks to continue its economic — and military — growth without obstruction. It prefers to wait and watch the weakening of the international foundations of American power. The essence of the strategy of “removing the firewood from beneath the boiling cauldron” is captured in the following saying:

“A good warrior first makes himself invincible, then waits for the enemy to become vulnerable.”

The Athenian general Thucydides was the first-hand chronicler of the 27-year hegemonic conflict between Athens and Sparta — the Peloponnesian Wars — fought between 431 and 404 BC. Considered the intellectual father of the “Realist” school in international relations, Thucydides argued that the underlying cause of the Peloponnesian Wars was the fear Sparta felt in response to the rise of Athens.

In the ancient Greek world, made up of hundreds of city-states, Sparta was the dominant land power, while the rise of Athens as a maritime empire was seen as a threat capable of overturning the status quo. Some American historians have used this rivalry first as a framework for understanding the competition between Prussia and Britain, then between the United States and the Soviet Union, and now between the US and China.

The term “Thucydides Trap” itself was first coined by Harvard political scientist Prof. Graham Allison. Drawing from a single sentence by Thucydides, Allison theorized competition between hegemonic powers — or “power transitions” — as the “Thucydides Trap.” One reason Allison’s views carry weight is that he has advised several US presidents and defense secretaries on defense policy.

Allison first brought the concept into wider public debate in a 2012 Financial Times article titled “Thucydides’s trap has been sprung in the Pacific,” subtitled: “Graham Allison says China and America are today’s Athens and Sparta.” In his 2017 book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?, Allison argues that 12 of the 16 major power-transition cases over the past 500 years ended in war.

Chinese political scientists, however, often refer to it as the “so-called Thucydides Trap.” According to Allison, China’s rapid rise is creating structural conditions that could lead to a Sino-American war. Some American political scientists, meanwhile, argue that Allison has handed the Chinese Communist Party a powerful rhetorical tool against the US. In their view, the theory helps portray America as a malign power seeking to halt China’s economic rise.

In fact, Allison does not claim that the “Thucydides Trap” makes war inevitable in every case. He has also warned that unless Chinese and American leaders perform better than their predecessors in ancient Greece or early 20th-century Europe, they risk being remembered as the leaders responsible for a devastating war between the two countries.

Xi Jinping was already speaking about the “Thucydides Trap” in November 2013 during the “Understanding China” conference organized in Beijing by the 21st Century Council of the Los Angeles-based globalist Berggruen Institute. Referring to Sparta and Athens, Xi said: “We must all work together to avoid the Thucydides Trap — the destructive tensions that emerge between a rising power and established powers, or among established powers themselves.”

During a meeting with business leaders in Seattle on a September 2015 visit to the US, Xi stated that building a new model of major-country relations based on mutual respect and win-win cooperation with the United States was a priority of Chinese foreign policy. He continued:

“We must base our judgments firmly on facts so as not to become victims of rumors, paranoia, or self-imposed prejudice. There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap in the world. But if major countries repeatedly make strategic miscalculations, they may create such traps for themselves.”

In March 2024, Graham Allison also met Xi Jinping in Beijing. At the time, a discussion was held at the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) in Beijing on the book Escaping the Thucydides Trap: A Dialogue on China-US Relations with Graham Allison, published by the center’s president, Dr. Henry Huiyao Wang. During the event, Allison and Wang discussed what the United States and China would need to do to avoid falling into the “Thucydides Trap.”

Judging by the remarks quoted at the beginning of this article, Xi Jinping appears far more eager to avoid such a trap. The United States, however, is not defined by Trump alone. China hawks in both American political parties remain highly insistent that Washington adopt much tougher policies toward Beijing.

TOWARD A RETURN TO WAR

Although Trump's harsh rejection of Iran's latest offer looks at first like just a diplomatic failure, the real issue is that the regional order is being redefined. Washington insists that Iran give up its nuclear capability and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In contrast, Iran's maximalist demands—lifting sanctions, paying war reparations, and recognizing its control over the Strait—show that no deal is coming anytime soon. By prioritizing these demands and pushing nuclear talks further down the road, Iran is bringing both sides closer to a return to war.

This shows that for Iran, the bargaining has moved beyond mere regime survival. Where Iran once couldn't go beyond rhetoric on demands like kicking the US out of the region, it can now bring those demands to the table. The JCPOA, signed by Obama and canceled by Trump, was reached after technical negotiations on centrifuges, uranium enrichment, and inspections. But the current talks rest on a much more political and strategic foundation: Trump wants total surrender, while Iran is determined to impose its view that "the Gulf cannot be secure without my approval."

REACHING TOO FAR

Trump let himself be pushed by Israeli pressure and manipulation, along with his own instinct for a show of force and a quick win. The result has been a shake-up of the long-standing order in the Strait of Hormuz—the very order he had helped secure for years. This has deeply shaken the confidence that Gulf countries, which rely on US protection, have in Washington. After the Strait was closed, Trump's failure to stop Iran from becoming a "sovereign actor"—despite all his tough talk—has also made people question US naval superiority. In other words, the pressure and lobbying that Israel applied to Washington for its own ends have opened the door to doubts about America's strategic edge in the region.

The key argument Israel used to persuade Washington was how close Iran had come to building a nuclear bomb, and Trump keeps saying Iran will never have one. But it's clear that the Netanyahu government would see any scenario where Iran's regional influence grows or becomes normalized as a strategic threat. Beyond this diplomatic pressure, Israel's increased operations in Lebanon also show it's after a broader regional showdown with Iran. Israel is signaling that its real issue isn't the nuclear problem—it wants regional dominance. In this context, you could say that Israel's regional war with Iran is leading Trump down a path where he may end up losing what he already has while grasping for more.

At this point, even when the two sides sit at the same table, they're basically negotiating over different things. The US focuses on technical nuclear limits and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran is bargaining over regional status. What's more, because Iran believes it has already paid a huge price and holds its strongest card through control of the Strait, the gap between the two sides is hard to close. That's exactly why the chance of a return to war is growing: technical issues can be solved through negotiation, but struggles over regional hegemony usually make a show of force unavoidable.

Iran now sees this process not just as a negotiation to limit its nuclear capacity, but as a hegemonic struggle with a superpower that killed its spiritual leader, wants to topple the regime, and can't be trusted. Given that permanently calling the Strait the "Persian Gulf" also means something to the Iranian people, Tehran won't have much trouble justifying its resistance against America. Still, if Tehran fails to realize that the cost of closing the Strait could eventually normalize, that alternative oil export routes could open up, and that this card could lose its power, it will be making a mistake.

In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ended Britain's dominance over the Suez Canal. The nationalization of the Canal in July 1956 also made the presence of the British military base at Suez unnecessary. Determined to seize the Canal, Britain and France decided in secret talks in mid-October that Israel would attack Egypt.

According to the plan, Israel would attack Egypt under a false pretext. Britain and France would pursue a stalling policy until Israel reached the left bank of the Canal. Britain and France would then issue a so-called ultimatum to both sides; Israel would accept the ultimatum and withdraw its troops 15 kilometers back. It was obvious that Egypt would not accept this ultimatum. Thus, after bombing Egypt from the air, Britain and France would land troops on November 6th.

The timing was telling. The U.S. presidential elections were on November 6th. For this reason, they assumed the United States would stay silent. The plan initially worked like clockwork. However, as a result of strong reactions from the United States and the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and Israel withdrew their troops. In this crisis, the U.S. turned Britain upside down like a turtle and left it stranded. The crisis ended in Egypt's favor.

Just as the British and French were launching their ground offensive, Nasser sank dozens of rusty ships filled with rocks, shutting the Canal to traffic. Like closing the Strait of Hormuz, closing the Suez Canal provided Egypt with a geopolitical lever in negotiations.

The Suez Crisis destroyed the political career of British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden. By resigning in January 1957, Anthony Eden had shown the world that Britain was no longer a great power as before. After the "Suez Moment," no one would ever speak of Britain as an "empire" again. While Britain was knocked down a peg on the global power stage, it was the 'rising America' that took its place.

The British and French must not have forgotten the "Suez Moment," as they did not take part in Trump's plan to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Trump, in turn, reacted on his social media account, saying: "The U.S. will no longer help you, just as you did not help us. Iran is essentially destroyed. The hard part is over. Go get your own oil!"

The title of conservative intellectual Christopher Caldwell's article in the New York Times on May 3rd was "America Is Officially a Declining Empire." Noting that the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran represented more than just a bad idea, Caldwell said, "This attack has turned into a turning point in the decline of the American empire." Like many other analysts, Caldwell also made references to the 1956 Suez Crisis in his article.

American history professor Alfred W. McCoy, in an article titled "Empire's Collapse in the Strait of Hormuz: The Iran War, America's Own Suez Crisis," wrote the following:

"Just as Sir Anthony Eden is sadly remembered today in the United Kingdom as the bumbling prime minister who destroyed the British Empire at Suez, future historians may see Donald Trump as the president who, among other things, damaged U.S. international influence through his micro-military adventure in the Middle East. As empires rise and fall, such geopolitical factors clearly remain a constant element in shaping their destinies – a lesson I have tried to teach in my book, 'Five Continents and the Cold War.'"

Alfred McCoy noted that due to the "Suez Crisis," Britain's currency was on the verge of collapse, and the empire's aura of power evaporated. "Although history never repeats itself exactly," McCoy said, "it seems highly appropriate at this moment to question whether the U.S. intervention in Iran is America's version of the Suez Crisis."

Israel could not have been established without Britain, nor could it survive without U.S. support. Yet Israel, which played a role in the decline of the British Empire, is now playing a similar role for the "American Empire." Many people in the U.S., both on the Right and Left, see this. Israel has become a heavy burden for America. It looks very difficult for the American ship to stay afloat with this ominous load.

Türkiye's relationship with the West is not very similar to that of other countries. Ottoman modernization was a sophisticated process in its own right. However, the hegemony that the West established across the entire world after the First World War, while strengthening its own existence and prosperity, also planned the misery of the remaining nations.

The renewal and production of military equipment, which once caused modernization, has today directly become a symbol of the nationalization of mentality. The defense industry is no longer merely a technical matter; it is also an expression of self-confidence, independence, and the will to emerge powerfully onto the stage of history once again.

Today, all of these technologies exist in countries such as Germany, England, France, and Belgium. However, I do not think that the Turkish defense industry revolution that has taken shape at SAHA Expo would create the same excitement in those countries.

The rise and decline of civilizations are like destiny. When a civilization is on the rise, the climate favors it. Western states, after long periods of prosperity, have become unable to produce leaders or take the lead in world politics.

Türkiye's defense industry revolution is not a coincidence.

When the AK Party governments came to power, they addressed the country's issues in accordance with the principles of rational management. Whatever the country's basic need was at that time, they prioritized it. This approach is something that can be explained by the leadership style of the President.

When natural gas distribution was being carried out in Istanbul, the question was asked, "Why are you prioritizing wealthy neighborhoods?" The answer given was a rational one: "They have purchasing power today." Today, leaving Istanbul aside, all the provinces, towns, and villages of Türkiye have the purchasing power to use natural gas.

The rational management approach that began during the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality period continued later with government policies. The transportation ecosystem, the healthcare ecosystem, urban infrastructure investments, the energy ecosystem, economic management, industrial clusters, and the organized industrial zones established in all four corners of the country formed the cornerstones of this process.

Why did the defense industry develop in the last decade? This year is the tenth anniversary of July 15th. We used to hear certain reports; it was said that ASELSAN engineers committed suicide. Today, we better understand why ASELSAN engineers, from one of the main carrier companies of the defense industry, were murdered by the FETÖ terror group. We see more clearly today how these structures, serving the interests of the state of Israel, betrayed this nation by using its smartest children and billions of dollars' worth of wealth.

We know that it takes decades for an effort to turn into an ecosystem. Many European states that did not make an effort in this regard for a long time have today fallen behind Türkiye.

Why does Türkiye's existence and its defense industry revolution create excitement all over the world?

The leadership effect: Today, the President represents the most experienced and rational leadership in the world.

The second element reinforcing this effect is that Türkiye has largely completed its development without Western support. This gives hope to all underdeveloped countries.

The fact that Türkiye establishes relationships not for profit but on the basis of mutual benefit with many countries, especially its own hinterland, creates significant trust. The will to develop relations even with Armenia, which lost the war, is one notable example of this.

Strong infrastructure prepares the ground for strong diplomacy.

Türkiye's stance in favor of the oppressed and in defense of the climate of peace creates a very powerful impact. The genocide in Gaza has wounded the conscience of the majority of people living on earth. The President's vocal opposition to this genocide, his defiance, and his keeping the issue on the agenda in many international platforms have paved the way for the issue to be discussed more on a global scale.

Today, Spain, Canada, and many European countries; especially Indonesia, Malaysia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the Gulf countries, Azerbaijan, Somalia, the countries of the Organization of Turkic States, Ukraine, and many African countries standing against French colonialism, led by Algeria, as well as Morocco, Tunisia, and Sudan, are experiencing this excitement together with Türkiye.

The expensive defense industry products of Western states are struggling to compete with Türkiye. At the same time, they do not engage in technology transfer. Türkiye, on the other hand, sees many countries as stakeholders in this context.

Many countries from different parts of the world see their dialogue with Türkiye as a shared destiny. After the colonial Western invasion, they carry this partnership as a hope for liberation.

In this context, Türkiye's defense industry revolution does not only excite Turks; it creates hope for the entire region.

A sentence from Ibn Khaldun describes today:

"Just as water resembles water, the future of nations resembles their past."

The war and tension in the Gulf region increase risks in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a hub for energy transfers, causing a new wave of shock in oil markets.

Today, the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil and natural gas passes, is not only a transit point for oil and natural gas but also a determinant of global economic stability.

The continuation of the current uncertainty in the Gulf region and the prolongation of this process cause energy supply to contract and energy prices to move rapidly upward.

This situation in energy brings shocks such as the 1973 and 1979 oil crises back onto the agenda.

ENERGY CRISIS AND THE US'S STRATEGIC GOALS

China, which has a high dependence on energy and is the world's largest oil importer, is highly sensitive to rising energy prices.

The US's intervention in the countries and regions from which China imports energy makes it difficult for China to access energy.

Previously, through its intervention in Venezuela, which is China's largest importer of oil, the US achieved many of its goals by blocking China's access to Venezuelan crude oil.

Now, the US is obstructing energy supply security in the Strait of Hormuz, from which China secures nearly 50 percent of its energy supply security.

Due to this tension, the reduction in oil supply and the sharp rise in prices increase China's production costs, causing it to experience problems in global supply chains.

China, whose energy supply security is threatened, will lose its competitiveness in industrial production, lose its momentum in technology, and slow down its economic growth.

In short, the US is making energy costs unsustainable in order to prevent China from rising to the top spot in the global economy.

This strategy will prevent the existing GDP gap between the US ($30 trillion) and China ($20 trillion) from closing, and will allow the US to maintain its dominance in the economy and energy.

On the other hand, by keeping China busy with an energy crisis, the US will also achieve its goal of blocking the Petro-Yuan move that China has set as a strategic target, and maintaining dollar dominance in oil markets.

A tug-of-war is going on between the US and Iran. It is a race of “who can endure more pain.” Who will give up first? Who will blink first? Trump expects Iran to give up. Iran, meanwhile, is testing America’s endurance by closing the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic lever.

The economic side effects of closing the Strait of Hormuz are a matter of close concern not only to the US but to the whole world. Not to mention the damage that the combination of these side effects would cause if the Houthi forces in Yemen were to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The current situation shows that the results the US has achieved have diverged from the results it hoped for. Expecting an easy surrender, the US has achieved tactical military successes but has lost strategically. Like rowing in a swamp, the US can neither move forward nor turn back.

Carl von Clausewitz, one of the classic masters of military strategy, said: “Do not take the first step without thinking about the last step.” Trump must have deluded himself that the first step was enough for victory. Yet war, once it begins, takes on a different face. That face is constantly changing. Like “Proteus” in ancient Greek mythology, it slips through your fingers by turning into something else the moment you grasp it.

In fact, Trump is repeating the weaknesses that US presidents displayed in America’s wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Although the US played a destructive role in those wars, it failed to achieve the political outcomes it put forward. Those administrations, by avoiding acceptance of losses and continuing to escalate, caused even greater losses. American administrations’ “zero-sum, decisive victory fallacy” also marked their negotiations with combatant forces. It appears that Trump has fallen into the same fallacy.

There is a saying: “Americans will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all the bad options.” The previous war presidents also did the right thing after exhausting all the bad options—because no other option remained. That is what happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan.

War is not something that can be characterized as “all or nothing.” Wars that are not based on realistic political and military goals can turn into a quagmire for those who start them. And the human damage caused by the dangerous belief that decisive victory can be achieved through military success alone is irreparable.

One of the factors that played a role in Barack Obama’s winning the 2008 election was his promise to end the Iraq War. The American public wanted US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Obama chose this public demand as one of the main pillars of his campaign.

Trump is not stupid; he knows that the American public wants this war, launched for Israel’s interests, to end. However, Trump is not the kind of person who can stomach a withdrawal. Despite convincing signs that the strategy for the Iran war is not working, he prefers to take risks. His prejudice regarding American power also encourages Trump’s gamble.

On the other hand, Trump is under pressure from the Israel Lobby and affiliated circles. Likewise, one should not forget that Trump is surrounded by hawks who argue that the war should continue as long as the costs are bearable. Trump’s declaration that the costs of the war are bearable for Americans and that Iran has nearly collapsed is merely rhetoric.

The damage caused by the political consequences of the US’s slow abandonment of losing strategies in previous wars is still being debated. Realistic foreign policy experts argue that a state at war will adopt the strategies with the highest probability of success and will take advantage of conflict situations when the benefits outweigh the costs. In the opposite situation, states should quickly abandon a losing strategy.

The “zero-sum decisive victory assumption” is part of American military culture. This bias-based assumption combines with the blind faith that the US can solve any problem anywhere in the world. It is this assumption that motivates the US to intervene in conflicts where winning is impossible or to pursue strategies with a low chance of success. As the case of Iran shows, the US continues to learn the right option the hard way.

The world constructed in 1945 was a system of balances. Every entity was balanced by its opposite. It was a multi-layered system of checks. There existed, so to speak, an engineering achievement. For example, in that world, it was impossible to make an absolute defense of capitalism or liberal values. The values of the socialist camp made them debatable. Likewise, when you began to absolutely defend the socialist system and its values, you would face the objection of capitalist/liberal-democratic values. You could not, say, fuel the economy with infinite and absolute profit maximization along its own asymptote. In that case, the checks of the political sphere would await you. The same applied to politics. Moreover, political structures organized on the nation-state level would also encounter resistance from international and supranational structures that transcended them to a greater or lesser degree. Yes, back then, the enforcement power of these was not tremendous. But ignoring them would cause a deep legitimacy crisis for any national structure. And that was no small thing. In short, every action was, in some way, prevented from becoming extreme.

Extremism was the spirit of the 19th century. At the center of it all was a medium generated by capital's own growth and expansion. This was a savage intensification through industrial capitalism. That it would lead to deep social/class crises was inevitable. The savage extremism of capital was material in nature. Its reflections in life emerged in immense diversity. The great cultural, philosophical, and literary growth of the 19th century was also a function of this. Magnificent philosophical works were written in this century. Extraordinary literary texts, especially novels, were as well. What was produced in every field of art can be evaluated along these lines. Essentially, all of these were forms of extremity. Crafts flow gently within tradition, through circular repetitions. But isn't art and the artist an "extreme" being that constantly agitates this flow and, when necessary, sets out with the claim of "creating" counter-currents against that great flow? The material dimension of extremism was savage. To oppose this with moral motives is extremely easy and simple. But we cannot say the same for processing it culturally and transforming it into effective resistance. For that, a counter-extremism is required. And that is precisely what the intellectual/artistic world of the 19th century did. Narrating the material dimension of the process is, of course, nauseating. Émile Zola counters it with Germinal, and John Steinbeck with The Grapes of Wrath. There, they make the entire weight of the process felt, while also treating the resilience arising from human humanity within it as a hope. The material dimension of the process is cursed, but its cultural dimension is, on the contrary, worthy of exaltation and celebration. What needs to be noted here is not to neglect the deep connections between both dimensions.

However, the work of intensification did not stop there. Ideologies also came into play. That is why the ideological condition itself is to be understood as an extremity. It is usual for ideological processes to fall into a Machiavellian paradox, to see every kind of tool as legitimate on the path to the goal, and to tragically lurch. And it is here that the problem emerged. World War II escalated as Nazism and Fascism eliminated their rivals among these extremities. The crises caused by accumulation and distribution naturally deepened this process. These ideologies, within their own intensifications, added a military dimension to the savage accumulation and expansion processes of capitalism. The result was a complete disaster, with tens of millions dead. What is striking is that the danger originated from two late-modern societies, Germany and Japan, one in Northern Europe and the other in the Pacific. These were nations that industrialized while remaining tied to strong traditions of landed gentry with a high culture of discipline and obedience, and that quickly militarized on the basis of these cultural particularities. The 20th century, beginning in 1945, is the world of regulations and structures built to avoid repeating the catastrophe. It was extremely reasonable to start with the dismantling of the military structures of Germany and Japan.

Just as the 19th century was the age of extremes, the 20th century is the age of pacifications. Yes, the literatures, arts, and ideas of the 20th century will not be as brilliant as those of the 19th. In keeping with the spirit of the century, they will produce quite pacifying outputs.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and real socialism was greeted with a festive, wedding-like atmosphere. It was declared that the Unipolar World had now been established. We see that this process was based on a profound critique of the 20th century. The 20th century was now remembered and condemned as a degenerate, sluggish deadlock. It is often emphasized that the collapse of the Soviets opened the way for humanity. Until the 2020s, the institutions and organizations of the old world remained standing, more or less. But with each passing day, they lost blood and became dysfunctional. After the 2020s, especially starting with the Russia-Ukraine war, they have been reduced to mere signboards.

The 21st century is neither an age of extremes like the 19th, nor an age of pacifications like the 20th. This century is distinguished as an age of provocations, beginning with consumption-oriented daily life. This is the main motive governing its politics, economy, culture, and literature. In the voids that emerge, we hear news every day that Japan and Germany, as two sleeping giants, are rapidly militarizing. Of course, the context is very different from that of the 19th century. There are serious doubts that either current German or Japanese society can achieve this course. I share these doubts. But I must also state that I keep the margin of consideration open. Historical/cultural mental codes do not disappear. You never know. If they do succeed, we will certainly not have returned to the 19th century. History does not repeat itself. But, in the words of my friend Professor Dr. Taşansu Türker, who wrote a book with a quote from Mark Twain, it rhymes with itself. The 20th century wrote a counterpoint to the extremes of the 19th. Could the 21st century not be writing a rhyme to it?

During his visit to Israel last October, Vance’s decision not to go to the Western Wall in Jerusalem disturbed Zionist circles. When American politicians visit Jerusalem, posing at the Western Wall is seen as a sign of absolute support for Israel. Instead of the Western Wall, Vance visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a site of great importance to Christians. Yet, about a month before Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, upon arriving in Jerusalem, made a point of donning a Jewish kippah and visiting the Western Wall for photos.

Vance is known for being distant from America’s endless wars and Neocon policies. It is also said that Vance opposes a ground war with Iran. However, Vance, who is expected to run for President in 2028, avoids expressing this stance openly in public.

The Israel Lobby and Christian Zionists, for their part, are producing content targeting Vance through Tucker Carlson, one of the fiercest opponents of the Iran war. In pro-Israel media, there is propaganda suggesting that Carlson and his allies receive support from the Vice President’s office. This propaganda is interpreted as an attempt to undermine Vance’s candidacy prematurely.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are among the Israel Lobby’s favorites. Behind the scenes, the Lobby is trying to pave the way for Rubio’s candidacy. Of course, Ted Cruz also wants to get on the list by showcasing his absolute support for Israel at every opportunity.

Mark Levin, a Jewish Neocon from Fox News, has opened war on Tucker Carlson. Intense clashes took place between Levin and Carlson in the lead-up to war with Iran. In fact, Levin claimed in a post on X that Carlson wields influence in the Vice President’s office. Buckley Carlson, Tucker’s son, was Vance’s deputy press secretary. Buckley Carlson resigned from that position last month and left Vance’s team.

Another figure targeted by pro-Israel circles within the Trump administration is Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence. Laura Loomer, a hardcore pro-Israel activist and one of the people close to Trump’s ear, has emerged as the main actor in the campaign against Gabbard.

Loomer is making an intense effort to get Trump to fire Gabbard. Loomer argues that Gabbard is the person behind Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) who resigned in protest of the Iran war. According to backstage information in U.S. media, Trump gave up on firing Gabbard after Roger Stone stepped in.

Roger Stone, known for his loyalty to Trump, and Loomer are engaged in heated arguments. In his article last month titled "The Tragedy of Laura Loomer," Stone pointed out that his former friend Loomer had become a supporter of an all-out attack on Iran. According to Stone, Loomer has deviated from the ‘Trumpist line’ by joining the Neocon wing of the Republican Party.

Saying that he suspects Loomer is being backed by wealthy American Zionist donors, Stone included striking details about a conversation with a journalist friend. According to this, Loomer told the journalist about Mossad’s detailed plans for Venezuela. Stone said, "If true, this once again raises the question of who Loomer really works for — an issue she has so far failed to address."

Stating that he was forced to expose Loomer’s real role, Stone continued:

"It is doubtful that Loomer will be satisfied unless President Trump refrains from sending American soldiers into the field, avoids a war with Iran that would cost tens of thousands of American lives, and fails to create billions of dollars in new defense contracts for companies like Halliburton and General Dynamics. Frankly, I don’t think that is President Trump’s plan. However, at this point, it is abundantly clear that the leader Loomer is most loyal to is not Donald Trump, but Benjamin Netanyahu."

While the state of ‘non-conflict’ between the U.S. and Iran continues for now, the debates within the Trump camp are expected to intensify further in the coming days. Because Israel and its close allies in America are pressing Trump to continue fighting Iran — including a ground war.

In a striking analysis, the Israeli newspaper Maariv claimed that a serious disagreement has arisen between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran policy. The article argued that the tension in the Oval Office has left Netanyahu in a difficult position.

The report stated that Trump has approved the extension of the ceasefire, while Israel wanted the attacks to continue.

"TRUMP DOES NOT BELIEVE ATTACKS WILL YIELD RESULTS"

According to Maariv, the main reason for the extension of the ceasefire that began on April 8 is that Trump is not convinced that new attacks will produce better results.

The analysis stated that attacks on Iran's electricity infrastructure and bridges would not accelerate an agreement with the Tehran administration, but on the contrary would reduce the likelihood of dialogue.

"NETANYAHU'S WAR POLICY HAS REACHED A DEAD END"

Maariv argued that Netanyahu's war strategy is no longer producing results. The article claimed that the war has brought Israel more exhaustion than military success, and that political goals have not been achieved.

The report assessed that "the war no longer brings better results, only leads to more exhaustion."

CRISIS IN THE ISRAELI MILITARY

The analysis claimed that the Israeli military is experiencing manpower shortages, discipline problems, and low morale. It alleged that career officers are increasingly resigning and that the military is forced to act under political pressure.

THE PUBLIC IS TIRED OF WAR

Maariv wrote that war fatigue is also increasing among the Israeli public. It argued that rhetoric such as disarming Hamas, eliminating Hezbollah, and "total victory" no longer resonates with society.

The report stated that the public is tired of inconclusive war policies and that support is gradually diminishing.

"HE WANTS TO PROLONG THE WAR UNTIL THE ELECTIONS"

One of the most striking claims in the analysis concerned Netanyahu's political future. Maariv claimed that Netanyahu is trying to gain political advantage by prolonging the war until the elections.

It was alleged that if the war ends, demands for a state commission of inquiry would come back to the forefront, and Netanyahu wants to avoid that.

"NO SOLUTION WITHOUT A NEW GOVERNMENT"

At the end of the article, it was argued that political agreements in Israel can only be advanced by a new government free from corruption allegations.

Maariv claimed that comprehensive political repair is needed to make up for the mistakes of the last 20 years.

CURRENT TOLL OF THE ONGOING GENOCIDE IN GAZA

According to the latest data from the daily field reports published by the Palestinian Diplomatic Center on April 26, 2026, the number of Israeli violations since the ceasefire went into effect has reached 2,604. This means an average of 13.2 violations per day. In other words, a new violation almost every two hours. A ceasefire in which the most consistent party is the regularity of the violations.

These violations are not merely technical or diplomatic headings. Each violation means a house destroyed, a child injured, a mother killed, a neighborhood waking up to fear again. According to the report, the total number of people killed after the ceasefire has risen to 817. Of these, 213 are children, 90 are women, and 23 are elderly. That is, 39.9% of those killed consist of children, women, and the elderly. In the language of war, "civilian casualties"; in the language of humans, the systematic destruction of defenseless lives.

The number of injured has reached 2,296. Of these, 648 are children, 414 are women, and 109 are elderly. Again, 51% of the total injured consist of the most vulnerable groups. This picture alone shows that the target is not just armed elements, but Gazan society itself. Because the future of a society lives through its children, its resilience through its women, and its memory through its elderly.

The nature of the violations also worsens the picture. Among the incidents recorded during the ceasefire period are 1,027 live‑fire attacks, 1,188 airstrikes or artillery shellings, and 286 house demolitions. These are not isolated security incidents, but a continuous regime of military pressure. On the same day, artillery shellings, armed attacks, airstrikes, and building demolitions were reported in Khan Younis, Gaza City, Al‑Bureij, Jabaliya, and North Gaza. In a geography where a ceasefire has been declared, tank fire, drone attacks, and house demolitions are no longer exceptions; they have become routine.

BUT IN GAZA, DEATH DOES NOT COME ONLY BY BOMBS

Sometimes, a truck not passing also means death. According to the ceasefire agreement, 600 aid trucks, including 50 fuel trucks, should enter daily. In reality, the achieved rate is only 37.4% in total. The rate for fuel entry is only 14.7%. These figures show not the insufficiency of aid, but the systematic obstruction of aid. Hospitals without electricity, neighborhoods without water, non‑functioning sewage systems, halted rubble removal activities… Each of these is an invisible weapon of the modern age.

The situation at the Rafah border crossing is no different. Crossings are restricted by arbitrary and humiliating procedures, with only 3,922 of the planned 12,800 people able to move. The compliance rate is 30.6%. That is, patients wait, students wait, families wait, divided. In Gaza, sometimes a bullet kills; sometimes being made to wait kills.

In addition to all this, the report also reminds us of serious violations that have not been resolved: violation of the agreed withdrawal lines, armed control over an additional area of approximately 34 square kilometers outside the agreement, prevention of infrastructure repairs, denial of entry for heavy machinery, torture and inhuman treatment of detainees, uncertainty over the fate of the missing… These are not only ceasefire violations, but also clear violations of international humanitarian law.

Here, words must be chosen carefully. Because in some cases, saying "conflict" obscures the truth. Saying "mutual war" hides the inequality. Saying "violation" sometimes diminishes the magnitude of the crime. What is happening in Gaza is not merely a breach of ceasefire; it is a long‑term policy of annihilation – a genocide – aimed at systematically collapsing a people's capacity to live. Thus, the issue is not just bombardment, but starvation; not just killing, but not letting live.

The international system, for the most part, records the numbers and silences its conscience. Yet numbers are not statistics; they are human fates. 213 children are not a number; they are 213 unfinished lives. 286 house demolitions are not a loss of concrete; they are scattered memories. 14.7% fuel entry is not technical data; it is hospitals operating in the dark.

EXACTLY NOW, WHEN GAZZA NEEDS HELP THE MOST…

This is the picture emerging 200 days after the ceasefire in Gaza. That is, Gazans have even stopped using weapons to defend themselves against so many attacks, but Israel continues to unilaterally attack Gaza, which the ceasefire has rendered defenseless. Worse: before the ceasefire, Muslim peoples had almost entered a race to shower Gaza with aid. That aid, most of which could not reach its destination because it was delayed, actually makes the ceasefire the most opportune time. But behold, with the ceasefire, there has been a tragic drop in the flow of aid. People have largely extinguished the sensitivity they had during the war, having fallen into the illusion that the humanitarian problem in Gaza has ended because of the declared ceasefire. Thus, the ceasefire paradoxically not only ties the hands of Gazans against an aggressive power, but also seems to have cut off the source of incoming aid.

Yet, now, more than ever, aid is needed – not the kind that couldn't reach its destination during the war, but aid for post‑war reconstruction, for Gazans to return to a minimally normal life. Israel wants the Gazans it has driven south, toward Rafah, to stay there. That is why it wants to further consolidate its de facto occupation in the north. But the northerners, knowing this ulterior motive of the occupier, insist on returning – and they are returning. However, the completely destroyed northern region now urgently needs serious aid for reconstruction and for re‑establishing its infrastructure. This aid is very different from simple humanitarian aid to people struggling to survive. It is also support for a people's will to resist occupation with dignity.

The Gazans, alone against the savage‑occupier‑genocidal Zionist‑Crusader world order, have paid a heavy price on behalf of all humanity and saved humanity's honor. What they have done is not atonement for our sins, but this situation throws back in our face a minimum responsibility that falls on us: not to reduce attention to Gaza, and not to refrain from supporting it with our wealth, our words, our stance, and our prayers.

So what will be the reflections on Türkiye of the possible change in the global energy and financial equation?

BECOMING A HUB COUNTRY IN ENERGY

Because the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf to the world has stopped. A prominent alternative is to transport natural gas from Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkmenistan, as well as oil and natural gas from the Gulf countries, to markets via Türkiye.

This situation will make Türkiye not just a country that pipelines pass through, but an energy hub where oil and natural gas are collected.

Türkiye's position both strengthens Türkiye's safe‑haven status and will make Türkiye an indispensable actor in Europe's energy security.

OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME A FINANCIAL HUB

The tension and conflict in the Gulf region have shaken the perception of stability in that region, and consequently caused capital destined for the region's countries to flee.

Because the region is close to Türkiye, attracting that fleeing capital presents an opportunity for Türkiye.

Moreover, it is clear that Türkiye – being safer and more integrated with the global financial system – is in a more advantageous position.

Furthermore, if energy flows shift to Türkiye, this will also accelerate the conduct of energy trade financial transactions through Türkiye.

During this period, tax advantages and other incentives that Türkiye provides could serve as serious motivation for the capital leaving the region to come to Türkiye.

Therefore, if Türkiye is prepared for the current situation, the possibility of Türkiye becoming a hub country in energy and finance is higher than ever.

A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY FOR TÜRKİYE

Although Türkiye is neighboring countries rich in oil and natural gas, for years Türkiye not only failed to benefit from that wealth, but also became the country that paid the price of the region's crises.

Thanks to the major projects it has implemented in energy in recent years, a historic opportunity now lies ahead for Türkiye – rather than being a country that bears the costs in the region – to become a true hub country where energy and finance are managed, priced, and distributed.

Seizing this opportunity that has come to Türkiye's doorstep after a hundred years will make Türkiye the most important power in global markets.

The U.S. presidency is a highly critical and influential position. Even though checks and balances function, the president's initiatives are considerable. Candidates are selected as a function of the competition among the complex power structures in the U.S. So far, no problem. Whichever power structure is dominant at that stage gets its preferred person elected president.

I think there are two types of assassinations. The first can be exemplified by the two attempts on Andrew Jackson, both of which he narrowly escaped. In his campaign, Jackson opposed the establishment of a central bank – i.e., the unchecked structuring of financial forces and their seizure of the U.S. economy – with the slogan “No Banks,” and he won the election. There is very little doubt that the assassination attempt was orchestrated by the financial barons who flew into a rage at his success. Andrew Jackson was a fearless man with a Southern mindset. He resisted to the end. The money barons were only able to achieve their goal later, during the time of Wilson – who was famous for his alcoholism.

The second motive for assassination has a more complex structure. Here, the danger comes not from the adversary, but directly from the forces that brought the president to power. This is largely connected to the president beginning to take decisions that are outside the line, unexpected from him. For example, Bill Clinton, immediately after taking office, swept under the rug the healthcare reform he had very persistently championed during his campaign. The forces surrounding the U.S. medical system did not want it. They warned him with various briefings. He used his head and gave up. If he had resisted to implement that bill, it is certain that bad things would have happened to him as well. Similarly, Kennedy was sacrificed because he launched some initiatives outside the expectations of the U.S. establishment. We know that Kennedy opposed Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, and that he wanted to end the Vietnam War and shift the printing of metallic currency from the Fed to the Treasury.

These were the last straws, and in the end, they paved the way for Kennedy's Vice President – the evangelical Johnson – to succeed the Catholic Kennedy.

In the U.S., the person who becomes president is not allowed to follow any marginal line other than what is expected of him. Playing with the delicate balances of the establishment is an unforgivable sin, and the price is always exacted. It is clear that Trump has attempted this to an unprecedented degree in U.S. history. Among previous presidents, Trump can perhaps be compared most to Andrew Jackson. But that comparison only goes as far as recklessness. I believe there are two elements that give Trump this recklessness. The first is the rottenness of the establishment, its drift into a political dead end – and the resentment that the average masses in the U.S. feel toward this. This is a surge of feeling known as MAGAism. Trump has taken on the role of spokesperson for these masses. He thought he had huge support behind him. The Zionist/evangelical vein within MAGAism was his biggest reservoir. That vein also connected him to Jewish capital in the U.S. The courage he gained through that connection helped him take a radical stance against the establishment. The establishment had invested all its cards in hostility toward Russia via Ukraine and had gotten stuck in a quagmire. The MAGA masses in the U.S. were extremely disturbed by this. They had realized that the costs of the war were falling on them through an already poor economy. Trump took office promising to end wars and to fix the U.S. by deepening anti‑immigrant sentiment and exclusionism. Domestically, he launched a brutal war against Democratic cadres – whom he sees as representatives of the establishment – and against immigrants. He took his hostility to the establishment to extremes of lawlessness and disregard for rules. Abroad, he continued this with threats and blackmail, as in the cases of Greenland and Canada. He was not successful in Ukraine. But at least he compensated for this failure to some extent by withdrawing support from Ukraine. Where he made a mistake was the Middle East. He thought he could establish a Pax Trumpiana in the Middle East through the Abraham Accords. But this design crashed against Israel's savage Zionism. He reached out his hand to Israel and lost his arm. He suddenly found himself in the quagmire of the Iran war. Now he is struggling to get out of there.

There was another matter that Trump did not calculate, or that I think he miscalculated. We have written a lot about this. MAGA is not a monolithic structure. His complicity in Israel's brutality in the Middle East activated the anti‑Semitic deep structures within MAGA that brought him to power. They see Trump as a leader who betrayed them. This tendency is growing stronger and is eroding Trump's base. Field research points to an erosion of his support toward the November elections.

There are two possibilities regarding the assassination attempt against Trump. The attempt came either from forces of the establishment or from anti‑Semitic MAGA supporters. Perhaps years from now that will become clear. But in any case, we can say that Trump no longer has a future. I am among those who think that Trump's number will be up either by the November elections at the latest, or as early as this summer.

This will create great vacuums in the world and in our region. History does not tolerate vacuums. Everyone must have a Plan B. If the opposite happens – if, despite everything, Trump remains standing – then woe to the world.

Previously, we shared ideas about lobbies – which had become one of the main elements of the system in the U.S. and the UK – that fell outside the general consensus. It was not correct to place lobbies at the very top layers of the system, especially from the U.S. perspective. The validity of this view has become much more obvious over time. In a very short period, it has begun to be said that lobbies no longer have their old power in the U.S. In fact, evaluations that lobbies are losing power are now being voiced openly. Lobbies, in fact, were never anything more than one of the channels for distributing the wealth produced by the system. They distributed a portion of the wealth that emerged through think tanks. The people in these organizations had no choice but to produce information that suited the system. Edward Said's concept of authority was probably pointing precisely to such a situation. Zionist Orientalists saw this space created by the system very clearly, and new authorities emerged. The fundamental characteristic of the shift from Orientalist research to field research took shape within this framework. What has emerged, in fact, is a new Orientalism. The story of the transition from Orientalist research to think tanks needs to be examined in a much broader framework, because many people in our country too had become part of the work done in this field. Lobbies had also included such people and institutions in the same network.

After all this, it is impossible not to agree that Netanyahu gave false and misleading information to Trump. But this information is mostly at the tactical level. Almost the entire world sees that the U.S. is trying to get out of much bigger problems. In this framework, the problems the U.S. is having with the UK and European countries, or its image of helplessness in the face of China's rise, point to something far beyond the tactical level. The Jews gained power within the Western alliance. Zionism was also a product of the expansionist understanding of the Anglo-Saxon union. Therefore, the adoption of Zionist ideology by the Jews is a complete consequence. But today, Israel – which has been amassing power within the Western alliance – is making the problems of Western civilization visible. Yes, Netanyahu managed to convince Trump that Iran would fall in a few days, but this is not a matter of being misled by false and incorrect information. Israel and Netanyahu are products of the same system, and they too see that they have reached a limit. Probably Netanyahu's team also believed that Iran would fall in a few days. There is no harm in saying it again: this belief is the result of an authoritarian view of knowledge production. They really believed Iran would fall, and Trump believed it too. They also believed that the Palestinians would leave Gaza. With one final, sudden attack, they would take revenge on Yahya Sinwar, and they would make the Palestinians regret having believed in Hamas. Because they thought they were an irresistible force.

Israel and Zionist Jews were born from the Zionism that the Western alliance produced. The success of the Zionists came from their loyalty to the Western alliance. After World War II, it was the Zionist Jews who formed the backbone of Orientalist studies. They produced knowledge according to the era of their rise and became authorities. Now the Western alliance and the Anglo-Saxon union are experiencing great internal problems. Is this a collapse, or a stagnation, or a temporary crisis? The answer to this question will deeply affect the future of Israel and all Jews.

NEW POWER STRUGGLE ON THE WESTERN FRONT

As the U.S. prepares to reduce its visibility in NATO, who will “dominate” Europe becomes important. The U.S. is encouraging Germany to take responsibility. For the first time since World War II, the Germans have published a military strategy document. They want to use their advanced automotive industry as a defense infrastructure. They are discussing raising the number of troops to 260,000 and bringing back compulsory military service. In this sense, it can be said that Germany is willing to lead Europe (It is said… “For the first time in their history, the Germans are making certain defense demands from us. This is new.”)

This bothers France. Macron was one of the European leaders whom Trump lined up against in the White House. This disturbing image and the “mission” given to Germany came on top of the following developments: One. France has suffered strategic losses in Africa and has been expelled from some countries. Two. It was sidelined in Karabakh, which was under the responsibility of the Minsk Trio. Three. It could not compete in its “former colonies” such as Syria and Lebanon (it tried to bring Damascus and the SDG together in Paris, but hit Ankara’s obstacle. In Lebanon, the Americans sidelined France and sat Israel and Lebanon down at the table.) Macron is now acting more proactively to offset his losses.

THE STATUS OF CYPRUS WILL NOT GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS

In this context, France: One. Wants to form the ground component of security guarantees to be provided after a possible ceasefire in Ukraine. Two. Is trying to organize an international conference on Lebanon and Syria. Three. Is trying to lead an international force to clear mines and open the Strait of Hormuz. Four. Has decided to provide a “nuclear umbrella” to some European countries. Five. Sent frigates to the region when developments related to the Iran war occurred in Cyprus. It is making an agreement to establish a permanent base on the island (This is a step that will permanently change the status of the island of Cyprus. Those who dream of reunification of the island can pour a glass of water on that dream.) Six. Is entering into a mutual defense agreement with Greece.

IS AN EU NATO POSSIBLE?

Dreams are big, but possibilities are limited. Neither France is the old France nor Türkiye the old Türkiye. Even the establishment of an alternative “EU pact” to NATO raises many question marks. Those in the know say… “An EU NATO is not possible. They don’t have that kind of capability.” European soldiers are said to say… “If someone calls us at 3 a.m., we don’t have anyone to pick up the phone.” Germany’s effort to build a 260,000‑man army from its own country runs into a “welfare society and unwilling German youth.” In the end, there is also the risk of becoming like the regional countries that have many weapons and planes but cannot act against Iran.

The United Kingdom took an important step in preparation for the “post‑U.S. era” by offering Türkiye a strategic partnership. London’s imperial instinct provides significant flexibility in its strategic decisions. Europe, on the other hand, is swinging between Von der Leyen’s ideological blindness and Macron’s belated ambitions.

PROXY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY “PROXY COUNTRIES”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – which brought back the reality that “a country can be invaded” – caused alarm bells to ring in Athens. Seeing Türkiye as a threat, Athens, due to its weak position, needs the support of a third power. In return for this support, it has no choice but to accept becoming a proxy power for the country in question (As proxy organizations disappear from the region, they are being replaced by proxy countries. Ukraine was the first example. The second example is Greece.) First, they sought this support from the U.S. (remember the U.S. military activity in Greece). But right now, Mitsotakis cannot get an appointment from Trump. The U.S.’s uncertain policies feed the anxiety in Athens. That’s why (at the U.S.’s prompting) they turned the rudder toward Israel. They are also trying to secure themselves by cooperating with France.

THE EFFORT TO DRAG TÜRKİYE INTO CONFLICT

Türkiye has spent the last 40 years fighting proxy terrorist organizations. The recent “out‑of‑character moves” from Greece (the 12‑mile letter to the UN, placing missile batteries on the islands, alliance with Israel, etc.) are intended to provoke Türkiye. The aim (Israel’s aim) is to force a “premature birth” by dragging Türkiye – which has achieved strategic power concentration through the regime change in Syria and its steps in Libya and Africa – into an indirect conflict. In this way, Israel is trying to draw Türkiye’s attention from the Middle East/Syria to the Aegean, to poison the new language Türkiye has been establishing with the “West,” and to carry out a “preventive” intervention before the revolutions in the Turkish defense industry (in the words of the NATO Secretary General) become permanent. This is the picture from Ankara’s perspective. Let us say that Türkiye is acting patiently and carefully, but will not tolerate the erosion of its rights and interests.

A few years ago, it wouldn’t even have crossed anyone’s mind to say such a thing. But for some time now, the American media has been discussing the deep generational divide that polls have also revealed.

Surveys from Pew Research Center, a leading organization that measures global trends, and NBC News, which takes the pulse of the American people, show that views on Israel have reversed.

The change in America is striking. But what’s really noteworthy are the breakdowns in both studies. The data point to an “undertow” that those who run Israel and the political mindset that unconditionally supports it either don’t see or don’t want to see.

According to a Pew survey released this April, 60% of Americans have an “unfavorable” view of Israel. That percentage rises as the age of respondents goes down.

According to an NBC survey recently analyzed on air with detailed graphics, three‑quarters of young Americans aged 18–29 feel more sympathy for Palestinians than for Israelis.

Overall, there is an even split: 50% of Americans feel closer to Israelis, and the other 50% feel closer to Palestinians. This equal division is the clearest sign that the American public is distancing itself from Israel.

The NBC data also highlight a partisan detail. Republicans see the issue along Trump’s lines, supporting Israel by 81%. Among Democrats, however, there is a major break: 75% say they have more sympathy for Palestinians.

The most important finding of the NBC poll is the clarity with which young voters view political and humanitarian issues. Among Generation Z in the West – those born between 1990 and 2010 – 74% support Palestine, setting aside their political views. Financial Times writer Edward Luce, in an article examining both surveys, says of the political fracture in America: “As the Baby Boomer generation leaves the stage, the anti‑Israel trend in the U.S. seems likely to harden even further.”

American psychologist and academic Jean Twenge, known in our country for her book Generation Me, notes that the worldview of the Baby Boomer generation (born 1946–1964) was shaped by the arrival of television in homes. She particularly highlights Hollywood’s influence, citing film examples.

That Baby Boomer generation grew up with the Israel that was narrated on television. Those now under 50, however, watch Gaza in real time on their cell phones and are in constant interaction with the rest of the world.

So what does this societal attitude, reflected in the polls, herald?

At a time when it is being debated that the U.S. and Israel, despite their military superiority, cannot achieve physical and political dominance over Iran, the marked decline in public support points to a “civil societal alignment” that transcends countries, leaders, and diplomacy. One thing is now very clear: the “memory” of societies is being renewed.

American imperialism’s policy of uprooting civilizations and globalizing countries down to their villages has, ironically, now laid the groundwork for generations who make decisions with their conscience to assert their will through the very communication networks that imperialism itself established.

This social realignment is the clearest sign that politics will change. As Boomers leave the stage, the historical reflexes built upon them will weaken, and the realities that people see and witness – not the past – will shape the present.

In fact, the world is drifting from conflicts between nations toward a larger and more severe battle between a progressively isolated Zionist Israeli mindset and those who say, “We are not like those tyrants.”

PHASES OF AMERICAN HEGEMONY

Walt divides the different manifestations of American power into three periods: the ‘benign hegemony’ of the Cold War, the ‘arrogant hegemony’ of the unipolar era, and the ‘predatory hegemony’ of Trump’s second term. He notes that during the Cold War, although the U.S. dealt with its allies in a tough-but-fair manner, it was not essentially trying to weaken its partners. He reminds us that in the unipolar era, America – unable to control its hubris – took missteps like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its aggressive policies were limited to ‘rogue regimes’ and did not target its allies.

Trump’s understanding stands out as trying to secure maximum concessions and privileges by engaging in one‑on‑one bargaining with all actors, without distinguishing between friend and foe. Instead of a stable, mutually beneficial relationship, this policy aims for the U.S. to come out ahead in every relationship and weaken the other side as much as possible. ‘Predatory hegemony’ makes no distinction between allies and adversaries, treating the balance of power as a zero‑sum equation.

While predatory hegemony leads America to bully its allies – such as those in Europe and Canada – it also forces Washington to seek trade deals with stronger rivals like China. Using sanctions and tariffs as economic weapons, Washington seeks economic concessions in return for providing military protection. At the root of its aversion to multilateralism is the effort to grab the largest possible share of the existing pie, rather than enlarging the pie so that everyone gains more.

According to Walt, the key difference that distinguishes predatory hegemony from the bullying of weaker states by great powers is that, unless compelled, one does not prefer to make demands that would put allies in a difficult position. Moreover, the prosperity and strengthening of friendly countries are seen as fundamentally positive developments for the hegemon. In the world of a predatory hegemon, the great power is always concerned with gaining more than both large and small actors in every situation. The losses suffered by other actors are seen as the most natural outcome of this retail‑style relationship.

THE PARADOX OF PREDATORY HEGEMONY

Walt’s analysis shows that predatory hegemony risks consuming itself. Faced with Trump’s bullying style, allies such as Canada and Europe are seeking alternatives, notably making trade deals with countries like Indonesia, India, and China. When traditional U.S. security commitments on NATO, Ukraine, and Taiwan become part of economic bargaining, this not only increases security risks in the international system but also fuels instability and unpredictability.

‘Predatory’ moves such as the demand to annex Greenland and the operation against Maduro undermine the legitimacy and credibility of American hegemony by flouting international law. Moreover, Trump’s failure to follow through on his threats leads other powers to conclude that Washington is ‘bluffing’. The images of Canada, Denmark (over Greenland), and Iran (over the Strait of Hormuz) not giving in to Trump’s threats can be seen in the same light. Similarly, if China concludes that Trump will not act on Taiwan and takes military steps, this could have an eroding effect on the international system.

It can be said that the reckless use of American hegemony creates a paradox: Trump gets some of what he wants in the short term, but in the long term he loses credibility, legitimacy, and deterrence. Allies seeking alternatives and adversaries unafraid of Washington’s coercive power reinforce this trend, weakening American hegemony.

One could criticize Walt’s framework for overstating the maximalist aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. For example, some will argue that Trump’s trade policies, by modestly increasing the country’s national capacity, have limited China’s advance, especially in high technology. In this context, it could be argued that Trump’s policy is not limited to being predatory but also contains a geo‑economic strategy. Furthermore, one could point to increased NATO security spending and the fact that U.S. allies in Asia (such as Japan and South Korea) are trying to tie themselves even more tightly to Washington.

Nor can it be said that just because the U.S. is unreliable and unpredictable, China’s greater acceptance (compared to the past) means China is more reliable. Some will also argue that it is too early to predict the failure of Walt’s predatory hegemony strategy. Of course, these criticisms have some merit, but beyond them, Walt’s clarification of how Trump’s foreign policy differs from the U.S.’s hegemonic postures in other periods makes an important contribution to the literature.

Trump’s approach – focusing on power balances without distinguishing between ally and adversary, and trying to maximize national interest at the expense of other actors – stands out as the fundamental difference that sets him apart. It is hard to argue that America’s hegemonic power will disappear in the short to medium term, but in the long run, the thesis that this power is being undermined will find an audience. Walt, quoting Hemingway, predicts that American power will decline ‘first gradually, then suddenly’. This prediction also points to how much the belief that Trump’s America will somehow be ‘the kid who comes from behind to win’ has diminished.

It is quite interesting that religion-based approaches have been revived due to their success in directing Jewish communities living in many different countries and geographies toward a specific goal. As is known, at the beginning of the 1990s, the doors of a new era were opened with the thesis of a clash of civilizations. The definition and classification of civilizations at that time originated from Arnold Toynbee. According to them, the main factor determining the clash of civilizations was religion. In this way, they paved the way for a hostile attitude toward Islam and Muslims in the most remote corners of Europe and the United States. In this second period, religion-centered interpretations worked again. A religious war provided great convenience in shaping public opinion.

Although Jews lived in very different countries and geographies, they succeeded in coming together around the same goal and established a new state in Palestine. After the 1990s, they established domination over much wider geographies through religion-based oppositions. When they turned toward Iraq for the second time, it was no coincidence that Bush brought up the Crusades. They succeeded in directing the entire Western world toward the same goal, just as they had mobilized Jewish communities. For this reason, new Orientalist studies in the 1990s were shaped around portraying Islam as a source of evil. The concepts of terror and terrorist were defined on a religious basis.

While reorganizing Jews and Western societies through Zionism, a racist ideology, on one hand, they also caused a religion-based division among Muslims through studies targeting Islam. General concepts such as the West and Europe also gained power within a holistic understanding like "Christendom." Frankly, the non-Western and non-European worlds also played a major role in creating such a perception. The picture we have drawn corresponds to a highly systematic and unequal opposition. The Western and European world, as an unparalleled power that is developed, industrialized, and equipped with weapons, was reconstructing itself in this picture.

It must be seen that the picture we believe has emerged feeds on religion-based approaches and draws its power from religious discourse. Of course, this observation should also bring new and more powerful questions. We can list a few questions as follows: Did the Jews brought from different countries and geographies of the world build a new national identity on the basis of a nation-state through Zionist thought? Did Judaism as a religion truly unite them, as they claim? Have religion-based approaches succeeded, then? On the contrary, what are the main factors that brought them together, and where should these factors be sought? For example, if settlerism is the main factor that brought together Jewish communities living in different parts of the world, then it is inevitable to turn to other sources. The same applies to the concepts of the West and Europe. The holistic structure that brings them together is not religious either. It is not easy to evaluate the concepts of the West and Europe from a holistic perspective. Colonialism and imperialism are systematic structures. These structures must also be explained with their own specific concepts.

Settlerism is one of the most fundamental concepts of colonialism. When analyzing Israel, this concept must be taken as a basis. For example, today we can see that the main factor driving Zionist settlers in the West Bank is land greed. On what plane will the relationship of a Zionist who realizes he cannot satisfy his land greed with Jews and Judaism develop?

When you add the influence of the "Israel Lobby" — which invests in both Republicans and Democrats — over the US Congress, this pressure becomes far more effective. You can also add to this pressure the media influence that pumps pro-Israel narratives into public opinion. The political impact resulting from the combination of these three factors ensures that US support for Israel continues.

However, support for Israel is gradually declining among the American public and among younger generations of Evangelicals. Support for Israel remains high only among older Evangelicals. The trend is moving toward a breakaway from Evangelical churches. While anti-Israel sentiment is growing much more strongly among young Democrats, young Republicans are also undergoing a significant shift in that direction.

On the other hand, within the Trumpist camp, a fierce war is taking place between the "America First" and "Israel First" factions. Conversions from Evangelical Christianity to Catholicism are also increasing due to the moral corruption caused by unconditional support for Israel. Politicians who play on Christian Zionists — starting with Republican Senator Ted Cruz — have begun promoting a narrative that anti-Israel Christians are trying to take over the Republican Party.

One of the most important targets of this pro-Israel narrative is podcast host Tucker Carlson. Carlson, who has millions of young viewers, draws the full wrath of Christian Zionists because he openly criticizes the Israel policies of the Republican Party and Trump.

Christian Zionists try to portray Israel as the front line of a civilizational war between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East." American liberals and neocons also play a significant role in this legitimizing function. Meanwhile, mainstream media shaped American public opinion from the 1950s onward by presenting the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" solely through an Israeli lens. Since mainstream media no longer has any credibility, young Americans have turned to alternative options. Carlson and other podcast shows are among those options.

Christian Zionists portrayed Palestinians as a people who persecute Christians. But the truth was exactly the opposite. It has emerged that Israel wants to expel not only Palestinian Muslims but also "Palestinian Christians" — the oldest Christian community — from occupied lands. Indeed, Israel bombed one of the oldest churches in Gaza, blowing it up along with the people inside. Although Israel and Christian Zionists propagandized that this attack happened by accident, they failed to convince the American public.

Israel's targeting of Christian settlements and churches in southern Lebanon, and the death of a Christian priest as a result, completely demolished the false narratives of Christian Zionists. Thanks to alternative news channels, Israel's crimes can no longer be hidden. Most recently, footage emerged of Israeli soldiers entering a church in southern Lebanon and insulting it, as well as an Israeli soldier smashing a statue of Jesus with a sledgehammer — putting Christian Zionists in a difficult position. Christian Zionists first claimed that this footage was fake.

In a recent podcast episode, Tucker Carson unveiled Israel's atrocities against Christians in an interview with a Christian-Palestinian activist named Alice Kisiya. Carlson pointed out that the money for the sledgehammer, uniform, salary, and weapon used by the soldier who smashed the statue of Jesus came from the pockets of American taxpayers.

Tucker Carlson said that it is fraudulent for Christian Zionists to try to portray criticism of Israel as "anti-Christian." Carlson also noted that Evangelical churches do not help the Palestinian Christians who are suffering from Israeli oppression.

Christian Zionist leaders, whose true colors have been exposed, are deeply worried about young Evangelicals breaking away from Evangelical churches. Zionists, for their part, greatly fear that this development will sooner or later end the bipartisan unconditional support of the United States for Israel.

She is a 38-year-old woman.

No one knows how many innocent people’s bloodshed her narratives have legitimized so far.

But she herself says she has turned the minds of billions of people upside down.

What is certain is that Ella has either justified or obscured massacres.

By the way, she is a soldier.

Naturally, she doesn’t wear a uniform or carry a weapon.

Yet she commands a digital army capable of activating millions of screens simultaneously.

She herself describes her role and what she does.

Down to how they take down “those they hit”…

I am talking about former Israeli military intelligence personnel Ella Kenan.

A video of a speech she gave has been appearing before us for days.

She says: “We work with communities of over 60,000 people worldwide who make our content go viral, who also report antisemitic discourse and fake news to get them removed, and who perform other actions that serve our narrative. We also produce content for non-Jewish influencers who collaborate with us. I proposed setting the agenda instead of reacting to events. (…) I presented the ‘Hamas is ISIS’ narrative and the reasons for it; I gave a short basic training on how we can generate interest and momentum around this narrative. And it worked. Within three or four days, it became the most watched narrative on the internet. It remained viral worldwide for about three months. It even made it into Biden’s speech. Yes, that’s how it all started.”

Loyal to her state and religion, confident and with great self-assurance, Ella Kenan openly explains how they wage war on social media.

Incidentally, perhaps due to power intoxication, she also lets slip how they produced a perception worldwide using ISIS.

She boasts about it, because she says they were successful.

And that is precisely the point I want to draw attention to.

Moreover, this discourse was so successful that, while the genocide continued, a significant segment in Turkey – those who for months began every sentence with “but Hamas” – kept shaping social media.

We cannot know which of them worked directly for Ella Kenan.

But it is as clear as day that the “Hamas is ISIS” narrative was systematically spread in our country as well.

Therefore, no one can claim that certain active social media users in Türkiye do not serve in Ella Kenan’s troll army.

Ella Kenan’s own words, “we also produce content for non-Jewish influencers,” already strengthen this assumption.

There is an organization whose name comes from the concept “Bright Mind.”

Some Israel-based sources state that Bright Mind was founded after October 7, 2023, for the purpose of organized content production and dissemination on social media.

And Ella Kenan is the founder of Bright Mind.

They have a single goal, which they themselves declare: “To strengthen pro-Israeli discourse.”

What is it that they do?

Actually, the method is simple but the impact is huge: they create ready-made content packages, produce slogans and visuals, and then simultaneously circulate them through thousands of accounts.

Thus, a message – even if it appears as a natural discussion – can quickly be brought onto the global agenda according to Israel’s interests and as a result of coordinated dissemination.

There is another detail in Ella Kenan’s statements that seems very normal to her but feels like a confession to us: she says that more than a thousand entries on Wikipedia have been “distorted, deleted, or changed” in favor of Palestine.

Kenan claims that the founder of Wikipedia supported them in carrying out this process.

I say “claims,” but the world’s “Free Encyclopedia,” Wikipedia, did not respond to Ella Kenan.

What could they even say? If they said, “We did not work for Israel,” their donations would be cut. If they said, “We did work,” they would be declaring that they have lost their freedom.

Frankly, it no longer matters whether they make a statement.

Ever since Netanyahu defined social media as a “battlefield,” Israel has started playing for real.

They seized TikTok while it was in China’s hands.

In the last few months, the platform has removed millions of pieces of content supporting Palestine, and now the phase of shutting down major accounts has begun.

It appears that TikTok, under heavy political pressure and algorithmic interference, will soon become Israel’s official hasbara.

Ella Kenan and her ilk are actually telling us something.

We are an open target.

We are under attack from the Eighth Front, and every day we are being captured a little more helplessly.

Meanwhile, our screen time has long surpassed eight hours.

Even if no bombs fall on us for now, it is certain that we will be struck by a slogan, by a lie.

I wonder, will we ever realize it?

While alternative routes are being planned, these most critical regions of the earth — which shape the global economy and security — could become the addresses of major wars.

NOTHING LIKE THIS HAS HAPPENED IN A HUNDRED YEARS

The order established after the First and Second World Wars has collapsed. In a hundred years, the math of global power has never experienced a shock on this scale.

All calculations are being reset and rebuilt. We have entered another extraordinary period of history, and every country with any sense must prepare for this new situation.

International law no longer exists. There are no interstate customs or traditions. No supranational institutions. There is no mechanism left to restrain leaders or states.

No laws of war, no power-sharing. Democracy and human rights have become "old fairy tales". No international treaty means anything anymore; there is nothing left to constrain the world.

NOTHING REMAINS EXCEPT THE SANCTITY OF POWER. GREAT SACRIFICES WILL BE REQUIRED.

In a world fixated on the sanctity of power, how will the future of nations and countries be secured? How will the disintegration and plundering of countries be prevented? In which direction will the flow of history proceed, and how?

This is the only thing all leaders and governments should be thinking about right now. That is why any kind of "extraordinary" measure is possible, and there is no way to fight these threats with old habits.

Thus, none of the definitions made during the two world wars can solve today's problems. Every country, against all possible extraordinary circumstances, must make big decisions, make big preparations, and endure great sacrifices.

“I NEED URANIUM, I’LL TAKE NIGER.” “I NEED NATURAL GAS, I’LL TAKE IRAN.”

“I need uranium — I will invade Niger”, “I need oil — I will seize Venezuela”, “I need minerals — I will take Afghanistan”, “I need the Middle East’s natural gas — I will capture Iran’s resources” — those who say such things are bombing capitals.

In a world where banditry and looting have become normal, the limits of diplomacy have perhaps never been so constrained. We have gone back to the era of empires and kingdoms.

At a time when technology is pushing the boundaries of taking the human race to other universes, the most savage periods of the human race are returning.

MALACCA, SUEZ COULD ALSO BE TARGETED.

The Strait of Hormuz is already one of the world’s most critical spots. Now it has turned into a crisis shaking the entire world. The US has blockaded the region, turning it into a weapon against the global economy.

They could do the same to all maritime passages. The Strait of Malacca, Bab el-Mandeb... They might even start wars over the Suez Canal. They could commit great madness to control the global economy and its resources. It’s hard to guess what a genocidal killer and a man who has taken madness to the extreme might do tomorrow.

LOOK AT HORMUZ, THINK OF THE STRAITS! WHY THE BUILDUP AT DEDEAĞAÇ AND THE ISLANDS?

So when we look at Hormuz, we think of the Çanakkale and Istanbul Straits. If the US-Russia confrontation grows, if the face-off between the US-Europe and Russia-China hardens, and when Türkiye begins to take its place on the historical stage as a new power, the Straits will become a source of major disputes.

Perhaps even wars. The nature of the aggression against Hormuz should push us to think about these things.

For years, they have been building up forces in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria. They are setting up military bases within thirty kilometers of our border. They shake their fingers at Türkiye from Dedeağaç. All the islands in the Aegean have been militarized. US and Israeli soldiers and missiles have been placed there.

WHY THE JOINT FRONT OF ISRAEL, GREECE, AND THE GREEK CYPRIOT ADMINISTRATION?

Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot Administration have formed a joint front. They are making military agreements and conducting drills. They no longer even bother to hide that this is directed against Türkiye.

They are shaping a Western Front stretching from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Black Sea. What we call NATO bases are serving as bases for the US and Israel.

We always thought such preparations could not be made against a NATO member. They always presented it as “preparations to protect Europe against the Russian threat.” It was a lie.

The Greek Cypriot Administration and Greece have already been turned into garrison countries for Israel. The issue in the Aegean is no longer just a Türkiye-Greece problem. Both countries have been placed under tutelage and turned into a front against Türkiye.

THE MIND BEHIND IT IS ISRAEL’S MIND!

Are these preparations a defensive measure to stop Türkiye from striking Greece? Is it fear that Türkiye might take all of Cyprus? Is it an attempt by the European Union to reinforce its borders against the “Turkish threat”? Then why are there no European countries in all these regions — only the US and Israel?

This is not a defense; it is an offensive preparation. Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration, and Israel do not have the power for such an attack. But they are bringing the US into this region. They are operating through the US. They are threatening us with the US military.

What Trump is doing with his madness, the reasoning behind his blockade of Hormuz, is Israel’s reasoning. The reasoning behind Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration is Israel’s reasoning. The plan to blockade the Strait of Hormuz is Israel’s plan.

It is now obvious that this country will try to push Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration into a front against Türkiye. Neither the alliance with the US nor NATO membership can prevent this.

IF HE SAYS “I NEED THE STRAIT AGAINST RUSSIA”! THE ENTIRE BLACK SEA AND AEGEAN WILL BECOME A BATTLEFIELD

Alliances no longer mean anything. At a time when we are discussing leaving NATO with the US, while Europe is chasing new military alliances, new threats must be defined with new sentences.

When we say “Look at Hormuz, think of the Istanbul Strait,” we are not exaggerating. In a world where power relations can change in an instant, we have to think about these things. Do we really think that those who blockade Hormuz today haven’t considered blockading Çanakkale and Istanbul tomorrow? Do you think Israel and the US don’t have this in mind?

If tomorrow Trump says, “I need the Istanbul Strait against Russia” — and he is mad enough to say it — what kind of situation would arise? Israel would produce the justifications, the US would try to implement it, Russia would see it as a threat, and the entire Black Sea and Aegean would be thrown into chaos.

THESE BUILD-UPS ARE FOR THE STRAITS! WESTERN THRACE AND THE ISLANDS MUST BE OPENED FOR DISCUSSION!

The military buildup in Greece and the islands, and the military alliance of Greece, Israel, and the Greek Cypriot Administration, are for the Straits. Let us note this down here as if writing a footnote to history. As time passes, we will see the signs of this much more clearly.

Türkiye is a country that disrupts the games set up from the Persian Gulf to East Africa, creates new games, and has increased its power in the Mediterranean to an incredible degree. It is a country that can overcome such a threat. On the contrary, it is a country that can crush Israel and Greece.

Against such a preparation, Western Thrace and the islands must be opened for discussion. And without any delay. Against such a threat, Türkiye must not stay on the defensive but must generate its own threats. Greece must see the price of being a trigger-puller for Israel.

ANATOLIA MUST BE REUNITED WITH ITS NATURAL BORDERS. THE BORDERS IN THE SEA OF THE ISLANDS MUST BE REDRAWN.

Even if these things don’t happen, Anatolia must be reunited with its natural borders. Western Thrace and the islands must be reunited with Türkiye. As things stand, it is impossible to defend Türkiye.

No country can be positioned at the zero point of the sea. No country can be held hostage on its own shores.

While they are making calculations over the Straits, while they are gathering foreign powers on our borders, the borders in the Sea of the Islands must be redrawn according to Anatolia’s natural frontier.

Athens is playing such a huge gamble that it will be Athens — not Israel — that pays the price. Then it will learn the hard way that Israel does not have the power to defend it.

TÜRKİYE MUST TURN TO THE WESTERN FRONT

Action must be taken now against the idea of blockading the Straits and against the Israel-Greece preparations. Having secured its Eastern and Southern Fronts, Türkiye must turn to the Western Front.

Because the threat always comes from the West. Even the threats on our East and South originate from the West. This has been the case for a thousand years.

We do not want another Battle of Çanakkale. The whole world should know that.

Trump says that closing the Strait of Hormuz did not directly harm the US. Of course, he is not telling the truth on this point. Perhaps it didn’t cause direct harm, but the negative impact of the closed Strait on America’s allies has led to serious questioning of US leadership. The Gulf countries, which pay the US tons of money under the pretext of securing their safety, the European countries that are still official US allies despite everything, and many other nations have suffered major losses because of Israel’s irresponsible behavior. The pressure from all of them is bearing down directly on the United States.

The truth is, these pressures are now in a position to determine the future course of the war. That course is trending toward the war gradually coming to an end. The US and Israel have definitely emerged as losers from this war. They caused great destruction in Iran, but they gained none of the benefits they had hoped for. They nearly brought the Iranian regime to the point of collapse, but by offering it an almost historic opportunity, they actually caused it to become even more consolidated. They saw the final limit—perhaps just short of nuclear—of what all their weapons technology could achieve. Any future order they might try to establish with their remaining threats has lost all seriousness and deterrent power.

Moreover, not only have they led to the formation of a very serious global public opinion in Iran’s favor, but Israel has also taken another step toward becoming the world’s accursed country and people—after Gaza. So much so that even within the US, support for Israel has dropped to its lowest level in history, including in the House of Representatives and Congress. We may soon see decisions being made against Israel even in the US Congress.

All these developments are related to the growing global consensus about the injustice of the war the US and Israel are waging in the region. There is no reasonable person who can be found to support the war against Iran.

WHEN WE SAID “THIS IS REALLY NOT THE TIME”…

This brings us to an important point. We have also said that we are at a moment when everyone should support Iran’s stance against this aggression. Especially as Iran is undeniably part of the Islamic world and is being subjected to this aggression, we said that this is no time to bring up sectarian arguments. We said—and we say again—that now is the time to condemn US-Israeli aggression without any “buts” or discussions of past records.

However, saying this does not mean we should forget the crimes the Iranian regime has committed against its own people and grant it unquestioning forgiveness. Nor does it mean we should whitewash the Shiitization policies it has pursued in Sunni countries, which have led to the deaths, loss of property, displacement, and destruction of homes of millions of Muslims. That record of the Iranian regime remains there like an indelible stain. The aggression it is suffering today, or its struggle against Zionism, does not in any way erase that record. Even if we, out of a sense of responsibility that prioritizes the unity of the Ummah, remain silent, we cannot advise the people of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon—who have directly suffered that oppression, whose children and women have been subjected to Shabbiha and Hashd al-Shaabi rapes and massacres—to forget.

THE PROBLEM OF THOSE WHO ARE MORE IRANIAN THAN IRAN

The reason we are raising this issue today, even though we said “this is not the time,” is not so much about Iran itself, but about the irresponsible and voracious aggression that certain people—known for their pro-Iranianism—are displaying against all Muslims in the name of defending Iran. Using the fact that Iran is currently under US-Israeli attack, they not only try to exonerate it, but also present it as the one unquestionable, unwavering, and infallible representative of truth and righteousness from the very beginning. And anyone who does not accept this, they immediately register as part of the American-Zionist camp.

When we say that this is no time to start sectarian arguments while Iran is fighting the real enemy, Zionist Israel, we see these notorious pro-Iranian figures opening up sectarian arguments with even greater appetite, reopening all the files concerning the Companions of the Prophet in favor of Shiism. Reopening these accounts with cherry-picked narratives about events that happened 1,400 years ago is nothing but sowing fitna. While we are trying mainly to calm the Sunni side by saying “this is not the time,” unfortunately these accounts—more Iranian than Iran—are spewing delusions that are more Shiite than Shiism. What are they trying to achieve by this? Are they really giving support to Iran against the US and Israel? Are they serving the cause of total Islamic unity, which is our only solution against Zionist-Crusader aggression?

The greatest support that could have been given to Iran would have been to criticize it when it was making obvious mistakes, when it was shedding Muslim blood, even when it was acting despotically against its own people. In that sense, we genuinely wanted what was best for Iran. The fact that Iran stands alone today against the US and Israel is not only because the enemy is very powerful, but also because Iran’s actual hostility toward the Sunni world predates its current enemies. Moreover, it is not something anyone has forgotten that Iran did not hesitate to cooperate with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria during the Arab Spring to gain power against Sunni Muslims. If Iran had wanted to, and had followed a different policy, it would today have the unquestionable support of the entire Islamic world.

Nevertheless, we say today: this is not the time. Despite Iran’s record, when even in the Sunni world a new page is being opened with Iran, we also need special protection against the whisperings of those who are more Iranian than Iran and who have no nature other than sowing fitna.

It is noted that the perpetrators of school shootings in the US have been influenced by a subculture called the "True Crime Community." Meanwhile, a former director of the unit dealing with such crimes at the US Department of Justice, while commenting on a school attack that took place in Argentina on March 30, 2026, said, "This is no longer just America's problem."

In 2024, in the state of Kentucky, the suicide of a 13-year-old girl named Audree Heine was found to be linked to the "True Crime Community (TCC)." Her mother learned about this from notes in her daughter's diary found in her school locker, saying she had known nothing about it.

TCC platforms have created an online fan community where perpetrators of school attacks are glorified. In this context, the "Audree Heine case" is still being discussed in the American media. This case revealed how unaware parents are of their children's inner worlds and how they fail to correctly read the signals their children give.

Meanwhile, an article on CNN.com on April 11, signed by Meena Duerson, had the headline: "These mothers' daughters were drawn into a deadly community of school attackers. What you need to know..." The article contained highly disturbing information suggesting that, in addition to Audree Heine, other young girls were also linked to "TCC platforms."

"I thought I knew everything about my daughter," said one mother, who would later learn that her daughter was interested in the perpetrators of the 1999 Columbine High School attack. The mother explained that she had even helped make her daughter's T-shirts featuring symbols reminiscent of those perpetrators. Audree had also posted a photo of herself wearing a Columbine T-shirt, but no one picked up on this danger signal.

Heine's mother said that children join online chat groups with older teens. The mother stated, "My son told me that a classmate of his, wearing a fake mustache and hat, was in a 16+ group chat. The kid is 9 years old."

A 15-year-old female student, Natalie Rupnow, carried out a school attack in the city of Madison on December 16, 2024. The US press reported that Rupnow's father had shared a photo of his daughter at a shooting range on Facebook in the early months of 2024, saying that they had joined a local gun club. Below the photo, it read, "We're enjoying every second of it!" Natalie also knew the combination to the safe where the guns were kept.

As Meena Duerson's article pointed out, it emerged that Audree Heine, Natalie Rupnow, and others who considered carrying out attacks admired the two 17- and 18-year-old perpetrators of the "Columbine Attack" on April 20, 1999, and shared their symbols. The "Columbine attack" served as an inspiration for subsequent school shootings.

As revealed in her diary, Audree Heine's feelings of being ostracized and bullied led her to the "True Crime Community." Heine had fallen for a lie in which the perpetrators of the Columbine Attack were portrayed as the victims. Dave Cullen, known for his research on Columbine, noted in his article titled "The Columbine Killers' Fan Club" in The Atlantic on April 19, 2024, that this attack had become a legend for school shooters and had led to the spread of a broad subculture that glorifies violence.

Cullen said that "TCC followers" are deceived by a myth that the Columbine killers were misfit teens taking revenge on their bullies. According to this, the TCC twists the story, portraying the attackers as 'victims' and the victims as 'villains.' Cullen specifically pointed out that the killers never mentioned the bullying they supposedly suffered in the diaries, online posts, and videos they left behind to explain themselves.

On March 30, 2026, a 15-year-old boy carried out an attack at a high school in the city of San Cristóbal, Argentina. The perpetrator of this case was also linked to the TCC. Official statements noted that the incident had nothing to do with bullying and was solely related to an international online subculture, adding the phrase: "We are facing digital subcultures with anti-human behavioral patterns that aim to glorify and practice violence."

The Quwatli family, whose main source of wealth was trade, had established very strong trading networks on the Baghdad-Damascus and Damascus-Arabia routes. The district of Shaghur, where they settled in Damascus, was located just south of the historic walls and was home to a considerable number of the city's elite. Consequently, the wealth they acquired also opened the doors for them to the circles of politics, culture, and art. After 1860, members of the Quwatli family, who established farms in Ghouta, one of Damascus's most beautiful districts, began to rise to important positions within the Damascene bureaucracy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II. While Ahmed Quwatli took over the management of the agricultural bank, Murad Quwatli was appointed chairman of the city council, and Hasan Quwatli became president of the Damascus Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture. The family's son, Shukri Quwatli, born on October 21, 1891, would go on to become one of the most significant figures in the modern history of Syria.

Thanks to his family's means, Shukri Quwatli received a distinguished primary education and was sent to Istanbul for higher education in 1908. Having learned Turkish perfectly during the five years he spent in the city, by the time Shukri graduated from the Mekteb-i Mülkiye (Ottoman School of Administrative Sciences) in 1913, the storm that would dismantle the Empire was about to break. Quwatli returned to Damascus and began his duties within the Ottoman bureaucracy, but the following year the balances in the Arab lands would begin to shift, and the young Shukri would find himself caught in the waves of Arab nationalism. Joining the Al-Fatat society, the projection of the Young Turks on the Arab front, Quwatli held no political animosity toward the Ottoman Empire; in the post-war period, he positioned himself alongside the nationalists against the French mandate.

Persistently persecuted by the French, and even having his property confiscated and being sent into exile in 1920, Shukri Quwatli returned to Syria in 1936 and assumed the post of finance minister. His personal stance and his family's influence carried Quwatli to the presidency of Syria in 1943, and during his term the country gained its independence from France (April 17, 1946). However, in 1949, Quwatli was overthrown by a military coup staged by Syrian general Husni al-Za'im, who was backed by Israel, and was sent into exile once again. Returning to his country in 1955, Quwatli again shouldered the responsibility of the presidency, but in 1958 he relinquished his seat for the sake of establishing the "United Arab Republic" under pressure and persuasion from Gamal Abdel Nasser. A new military coup in Syria in 1961 dissolved the union with Egypt; the Baathist coup of 1963 began the most horrifying period in Syria's modern history. Shukri Quwatli went into exile yet again and settled in Beirut. This was his final exile…

The Arab world, having suffered a heavy defeat against Israel in the Six-Day War of 1967, would not quickly shake off the shock of the rout. But one of those who felt the weight of the unfolding process most acutely was Shukri Quwatli. While following developments from his home in Beirut, Quwatli received the news of the occupation of the Golan Heights; following days of severe depression, he died of a heart attack on June 30. The Baathist regime's attempts to prevent his burial in Damascus, in accordance with his will, were overcome through the diplomatic pressure of Saudi Arabia's King Faisal. After a crowded funeral prayer held at the Umayyad Mosque on July 1, Shukri Quwatli's body was laid to rest in the historic Bab al-Saghir Cemetery, located in the district where he was born and had lived.

My reason for remembering and reminding others of Shukri Quwatli—who is still remembered with mercy in Syrians' collective memory as one of the rare stars that shone before the Baathist darkness—was a piece of news that came from Beirut last Wednesday: the last surviving child of Quwatli, Hana Hanım, had breathed her last. Hana Quwatli's body was laid to rest in Baathist-darkness-free Syria, in the Damascus district where she spent her childhood, right next to her father.

The children of Syria are returning to their homeland, one by one. Some on foot, some inside coffins. But in their homeland, which has attained its freedom, all of their hearts are now very much at ease.

The negotiation table set up between the US and Iran in Islamabad collapsed after Iran refused to accept American terms. Trump then announced that he would impose a "naval blockade" on Iran. However, this blockade will harm not so much Iran, Russia, or China, but rather America's own allies in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. These three countries obtain the vast majority of the energy they need from the Gulf. Isn't it telling that Trump is responding to the Iran war with a blockade that will harm his allies and increasingly alienate them?

On the other hand, working Americans will also find their daily lives more difficult, especially due to rising diesel prices. For American farmers and truckers, the increase in costs will make food and fertilizer supplies more expensive. This situation is expected to be among the main issues that will severely challenge Republicans in the midterm elections to be held in November.

Netanyahu has no interest in either the worsening of Americans' daily lives or the political risk to Republicans. Focused solely on advancing his own personal agenda, Netanyahu has once again derailed negotiations between the US and Iran by expanding the war to Lebanon. In a statement to Time magazine in early April, Trump said of the Israelis: "They do whatever I tell them. They've been good team players. When I stop, they stop." Now, by claiming that Lebanon is not covered by the ceasefire, Netanyahu has left Trump hanging. Trump must be lamenting, "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Trump's biggest mistake was to take on a war that the majority of Americans do not support, for the sake of Israel's interests. Not only voters who support Democrats, but also a very significant portion of young voters who vote for Republicans do not want this war.

Trump has even begun attacking those within his own camp who oppose this war. Taking a harsh stance against many important allies, starting with Tucker Carlson, Trump is throwing them under the bus in favor of Neocons, Christian Zionists, and the "Israel Lobby." The consequences of alienating Carlson, who has millions of young followers, and others will be felt in the November elections. So much so that many influential Trump supporters appear to have given up hope on Trump.

In the 2024 elections, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris lost both herself and her party's control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress by failing to commit to halting military aid to Israel. According to information leaked from the Democratic Party's still-unreleased "election autopsy report," the failure to take a clear stance on Israel played a very significant role in Harris's and the Democrats' electoral defeat. A similar debacle over Israel could befall the Republicans in the November elections.

Trump's obsession with saving Netanyahu from going to prison is a subject of great curiosity. Trump has repeatedly pressured Israeli President Isaac Herzog to issue a special pardon for Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption and bribery. Perhaps the most consistent stance of Trump's second term in office has been his frantic efforts to secure Netanyahu's pardon.

In a statement following the joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran that lasted about 12 days in June 2025, Trump said, "Bibi Netanyahu's case MUST BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY, or the Great Hero must be Pardoned." In the same statement, Trump also included the phrase, "It was the United States that saved Israel, and now it will be the United States that saves Bibi Netanyahu."

What could be the reason for Trump's dedication to pulling Netanyahu out of the hole he has fallen into? Trump knows that Netanyahu would commit any atrocity to save himself. Does Trump think that unless Netanyahu is saved, he himself cannot get rid of Netanyahu?

What Netanyahu owes his influence over Trump to remains a secret. The cards Netanyahu holds must be important enough to have driven Trump to attack Iran twice, despite public opposition. Sooner or later, what those cards are will be understood.

IRAN’S NUCLEAR STUBBORNNESS IS NO SURPRISE

During the two‑day talks held in Islamabad over the weekend, the U.S. side announced that no agreement had been reached because Iran refuses to give up its nuclear program. This outcome is of course not surprising at all, since it is not reasonable to expect Iran, which has never abandoned its nuclear program since the 2000s, to give it up after having paid such a heavy price. The main reason Iran has been subjected to attacks by the U.S. and Israel was precisely its refusal to renounce its nuclear capacity. It was a complete irony that Trump, who pulled out of the agreement made with Obama, then moved to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, claiming that Iran was not complying with the deal. Trump’s launching of another war to eliminate nuclear capacity – after he claimed to have completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities in the 12‑day war of June 2025 – also constitutes a deep contradiction.

It appears that Iran, whose nuclear facilities were struck and which lost scientists, had prepared for such a war situation and managed to preserve its uranium. The number of those who believe that producing a nuclear bomb is the only way to prevent another attack on the country after the elimination of Khamenei and the political leadership must have increased significantly. While Iran’s not being defeated – which shows the regime will not be toppled – is in itself a success, expecting it to give up its nuclear program as if it had been defeated is simply unrealistic. In this context, it is also quite difficult to understand why the U.S. side went to Islamabad to negotiate on the condition that Iran “renounce nuclear weapons.” Under these circumstances, it can be said that the two‑week ceasefire is aimed more at calming global markets and controlling fluctuations in oil prices rather than achieving lasting peace.

THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF HORMUZ

The most effective weapon Iran has used so far in the war has been its strategy of imposing economic costs by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The weight of the bill it has presented to both its Gulf neighbors and the U.S. economy has pushed Trump toward a ceasefire and, after the failed talks, into a struggle for control of Hormuz. America’s refusal to allow even Iran‑authorized ships to pass through Hormuz could be effective against Iran, but that will not mean ensuring free passage for all countries. While it is doubtful that the U.S. has the capacity to guarantee that, it is certain that Iran will try to make disruptive moves using drones and mines. For America to keep Hormuz open despite Iran, it would have to deploy a large naval force, clear mines and repel drone attacks.

The fact that the U.S. has so far asked NATO countries for help in keeping Hormuz open, and that Trump has used harsh language when that help did not come, shows that Iran holds a strong card. Trump’s promises at the beginning of the war – to provide state‑backed insurance for ships passing through Hormuz and to escort them militarily – also did not materialize. Washington, which has been trying to buy time and build up more military forces in the region, does not seem likely to implement a more effective strategy going forward. U.S. military capacity would have to mobilize enormous resources to fully open or control Hormuz against Iran’s will. Such a mobilization cannot yield immediate results, and the economic costs incurred during this process will continue to put pressure on the Trump administration.

MISSION CREEP

This picture shows that the war has shifted from focusing on destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capacity to trying to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. This also indicates that in the coming period the war will be fought on a field of Iran’s choosing. Instead of a war in which America can dictate its terms, entering a war in which Iran holds the trump cards can be described as a classic case of mission creep. In situations of mission creep or expansion, it is guaranteed that the war will become longer, more complex and more costly. Even though Trump would like to declare victory and try to open Hormuz through an agreement, he cannot easily extricate himself because Iran demands guarantees that the war will not start again.

From the perspective of Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, a limited success can be mentioned. The aim of this strategy – which allows for new attacks on Iran when necessary – is to weaken Iran and thus fully secure Israel’s regional supremacy. Since this strategy largely shifts the economic cost of closing Hormuz onto America, Israel is not very troubled by the absence of a lasting peace agreement. Israel’s real concern is that Iran’s wings be broken and that a continuous state of war, with periodically intensified doses, be maintained. Even though Trump would like to declare victory and focus on other issues, the fact that the war has evolved into Israel’s strategy means that America is not only entering a war it has long wanted to avoid, but also being dragged into a long‑term engagement. Trump’s unwillingness to make concessions to Iran to get out of this equation means that the war will shift further toward the Hormuz front and become even more protracted.