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.

The ceasefire reached between Iran and the US initially gave the impression that the world had turned back from the brink of a global catastrophe. However, the bombardment that began in the skies of Lebanon in those same hours laid bare, in all its nakedness, for whom and to what extent this ceasefire was actually valid. It was understood from the very first moment that there was no ceasefire; only the map of war was being redrawn.

Neither the War Resembles Old Wars, Nor the Ceasefire, Nor the Language

We see at every stage that the war launched by the Zionist-US attack on Iran is very different from conventional wars. Neither the war resembles the wars we know, nor its justifications, nor its course, nor its ceasefire. It began with the expectation—even the claim—that such an asymmetric war would be resolved within a few hours, not even a few days, in favor of the technologically superior power. Yet after forty days, it became clear that the relatively simple and weak weapons of the weaker side in the asymmetric balance are capable of far more than imagined.

With simple and cheap weapons, great damage can be inflicted on very heavy and expensive weapons. We had seen this in Gaza as well. In that war, where Merkava tanks worth five million dollars were neutralized by Yasin-105 rockets costing 500–1000 dollars, what was truly powerful was not those rockets, but the hearts, faith and courage of those who carried and used them. In today's wars, where technology is thought to determine everything, it has been shown once again that this factor cannot be completely eliminated.

If It Weren't for Miscalculations, Wars Would Be So Easy to Win

In the war against Iran, it was thought that military superiority would quickly detach the Iranian people from a regime they were already tired of, thereby determining the outcome of the war. The opposite happened. The people, tired of the forty-seven-year-old regime, united in the face of US-Israeli attacks and gave an utterly unexpected response. The US army is not the first army to be misled by incorrect predictions and faulty sociological readings in wars. In essence, a power that decides to attack from that moment on only pays attention to sociological analyses that confirm its own aggression. Yet a more general and impartial sociology tells us that an external attack most often strengthens internal consolidation.

Even the ceasefire that began with Pakistan's initiative at a moment when no cards remained unplayed except the nuclear one, and hearts were in mouths, is different from known ceasefires. This two-week ceasefire, secured in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, was presented as a "diplomatic success" as a result of Pakistan's intensive mediation. Indeed, this process produced a rare ground of consensus involving regional actors and global powers.

A Selective Ceasefire or a Tactic

However, a fact that emerged in the very first hours of this consensus turned the whole picture upside down: the ceasefire was not for everyone.

Israel's attacks on Lebanon became the most naked expression of this "selective ceasefire." The airstrikes that began only hours after the declaration of the ceasefire caused hundreds of casualties in the first days. But what was truly striking was that the attacks did not stop, and their toll multiplied in the last two days. The fact that the number of dead has now approached two thousand shows that this is no longer a "military operation" but large-scale destruction.

Information that appeared in the Israeli press at the outset, suggesting that "the ceasefire would also cover Lebanon," was quickly withdrawn. The Israeli Chief of Staff's announcement that the attacks would continue, followed by the Netanyahu government's declaration that the ceasefire did not cover Lebanon, revealed once again the strategy that had been followed from the very beginning of this war: to separate the fronts of the war and turn each front into a manageable crisis zone within itself.

The fact that US President Trump openly confirmed this distinction shows that this strategy does not belong only to Israel. Defining Lebanon as a "separate front" is not actually limiting the war, but continuing it in a controlled manner. This is not a ceasefire in the classical sense; it is a reorganization of war.

Perhaps the first problem here was that the Iranian side was not aware of this. When Iran entered ceasefire negotiations, it assumed that it would cover all fronts. The US and Israel, knowing full well of Iran's expectation, deemed a limited ceasefire that would only serve their own interests sufficient. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened and the Iranian missiles aimed at Tel Aviv would be stopped.

Their Nature: "They Never Abide by Their Covenants"

Israel, which launched one of the largest attacks in Lebanon's history in the very hours the ceasefire agreement was being signed, once again revealed its well-known nature. What is truly remarkable is that this nature has now spread to the US as well. What we are witnessing today is that words, agreements and diplomacy have lost all value. While conducting negotiations with Iran, the US and Israel started a war, clearly demonstrating that diplomacy can also be used as a tactic of war. In Gaza too, similarly, the ceasefire was turned into a tool that tied the other side's hands, while Israel repeatedly violated it and continued its attacks.

The statements made by Trump, his Secretary of State and the White House spokesperson since the beginning of the war are increasingly turning from political discourse into noise. One day a "full ceasefire" is announced, and the next day the same agreement is declared not to cover Lebanon. Trump's description of the ceasefire as "a pause for a greater conquest" is the clearest exposure of this mentality: peace is not a goal, only a tactical interval.

This language moves away from the seriousness of politics and turns into a field of psychological display. The claim "We will make America great again" is ironically expressed at the cost of eroding the very values that made America great. In the end, neither a consistent strategy nor a persuasive discourse remains.

What is happening in the Middle East today is the collapse not only of a war, but also of a language and a politics. On a ground where ceasefire has lost its meaning, diplomacy has turned into a tactic, and words have lost their credibility, no agreement is permanent anymore. What appears as military superiority in the short term is turning into a deep loss of legitimacy in the long term. The US and Israel may be producing power on the ground today; but at the same time, they are accelerating a process that isolates them from the world.

History has shown us many times: even if wars are won on the front line, they cannot be sustained on a language that has lost its meaning. If a "ceasefire" is no longer valid for everyone, then that means we are inside a war that has not been named—and the true outcome of this war will be the destruction of meanings before the destruction of maps.

To be honest, until I spoke with this Palestinian elder, I wasn't aware of this aspect of the matter. Performing Friday prayer at Masjid al-Aqsa—yes, that was a beautiful and meaningful motivation. Especially if one had already visited Mecca and Medina, adding Jerusalem to the list and having prayed Friday in the "Three Mosques" seemed important to our people. I found this perfectly natural. But our Jerusalemite elder spoke of an urgent need in the city: Jerusalem needed people and congregation, every single day of the week. The streets, the roads, the mosques and the facilities belonging to Muslims (from hotels to restaurants, markets to shops) must not remain empty and unclaimed. That conversation helped illuminate a very current and vital point concerning Jerusalem and Palestine in my mind.

"Whether it is permissible to visit Jerusalem while under Jewish occupation" is a matter sometimes debated in Islamic circles. Since I first set foot in Jerusalem in 2008, the answer to this question in my mind has been very clear: we must visit Jerusalem. Look, I am not talking about any preference or option; this is an obligation. Not leaving Masjid al-Aqsa and the people of Jerusalem alone and sorrowful is a duty that can never be overlooked today. Everyone who has the means must set out on the road to Jerusalem.

The strongest proof in Islamic history that visiting Jerusalem under current circumstances is not religiously objectionable is the famous visit made by the Prophet Muhammad and his companions to the Kaaba before the conquest of Mecca. For this visit, known as the 'umrah of qada' (make-up pilgrimage) after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, permission for three days—that is, a visa in today's terms—was obtained from the Quraysh polytheists who were the city's rulers at the time, and when the time was up, the Muslims left the city. This shows that the fact that an Islamic city is under someone else's control is not an obstacle to visiting it with their permission. Moreover, here we are talking not about just any person, but about the Prophet and his companions. And it is an indisputable truth that Mecca is more virtuous than Jerusalem.

Regarding the necessity of visiting Jerusalem, there are two further contemporary proofs, and they are as strong and convincing as the historical proof I mentioned above:

From the border crossings onward, every time you interact with the occupiers, especially when they realize you have come from Türkiye, you see that they behave extremely aggressively towards you. Anyone travelling to Palestine has certainly experienced this. So, our visit to Jerusalem disturbs the Zionist occupiers. Whatever disturbs the Zionists is automatically good.

My other proof is the sincere and desperate pleas of the people of Jerusalem, like the one conveyed in the conversation above: "Please come more often. Come not only to perform Friday prayer, but every day of the week. Do not leave us alone, do not leave Jerusalem empty, do not leave al-Aqsa sorrowful!" Honestly, while the Muslims who are bearing the full weight of the occupation there are calling us to Jerusalem, debating from the outside "Is it permissible to go or not?" seems absurd.

Praise be to God, the gates of Masjid al-Aqsa have reopened. Now is the time to show up in Jerusalem to stand guard and declare a Jerusalem mobilization. Yes, it will be hard and challenging. Yes, the occupiers may do everything to keep us from entering through the gate of al-Aqsa. No matter what, Jerusalem has opened its arms and is waiting for us.

Debates on whether the ceasefire terms include Israel’s attacks on Lebanon indicate from the very first day that the ceasefire may not be permanent. News such as Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz again also shows how bumpy the negotiation process will be. Freezing the military phase of the war and moving to a negotiation phase is positive both for preventing further chaos in the region and for avoiding an even worse crisis in the global economy. However, Israel’s statements that it will continue its operations to achieve its goals show that it wants to put pressure on the negotiation process. Trump’s acceptance of the ceasefire agreement without consulting Israel also indicates that he has realized how unrealistic the suggestions of his most influential partner in entering the war—that “this will be easy”—truly are. Although Trump took Israel’s suggestions into account when entering the war, in seeking an exit from the war he is forcing Israel into the process and sending the message “I am the real boss.”

Time for Confession?

Although Trump’s desire to end the Iran war before the November elections is a matter of rational political calculation, Israel’s pressure to continue the war has long been causing discomfort in Washington. The fact that many influential media figures who normally support Trump have been expressing harsh reactions to Israel has strengthened the argument that Trump was dragged into this war. However, Trump’s threat to “destroy Iranian civilization” was an unacceptable discourse even for them. Figures like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, who have openly taken a stance against Trump, have been complaining both about Trump’s irrational rhetoric and about America doing Israel’s “dirty work” in the region. This approach, ironically, provided an argument that opened the door for Trump to move toward negotiations by saying that Israel was the real culprit behind the war.

The news analysis published in the New York Times on April 7, which explains how the decision to go to war with Iran was made, provides critical details about Israel’s role while also showing that Trump’s cabinet members are trying to distance themselves from the war decision. The article, published at a stage when Trump was looking for a way out amid the uproar over his threat to destroy Iranian civilization, reports that the war seriously coming onto the agenda was the result of Netanyahu’s efforts. According to the article, which states that the war decision materialized with Netanyahu’s most recent White House visit, only Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth among Trump administration officials supported military intervention. The article, which portrays the decision as ultimately Trump’s, reports that officials warned about the Strait of Hormuz and argued that, contrary to Israel’s claims, regime change was not possible.

While highlighting familiar criticisms such as the lack of a clear strategy, failure to fully achieve objectives, and an unclear exit strategy, the article emphasizes Trump’s final decision to prefer action over remaining passive. However, the article’s critical point is that deep distrust prevails among national security officials regarding the strategic picture presented by Israel and the goals it claims are achievable. It paints a picture where, despite Israel’s pursuit of maximalist and unrealistic goals, the Trump administration entered the war to achieve more reasonable objectives. The information conveyed by administration officials, almost to lay the groundwork for a confession effort, focuses on themes such as Trump being aware of the risks from the start and not falling for Israel’s arguments. In this way, an attempt is made to send the message to the American public that the Trump administration entered the war with a much more realistic stance to achieve its own chosen goals, not Israel’s.

Exit Strategy

Although Trump’s simultaneous declaration of victory from the very first days and his statement that the war could last long stood out as a deep contradiction, it was clear that this was an effort to keep his options open. Unable to get what he wanted on Hormuz and uranium, and also unable to bring NATO into the war as he wished, Trump tried to base his exit strategy on further escalation. Receiving the message from Iran—which responded to the escalation strategy with the same strategy—that it would not surrender easily, Trump kept his maneuvering room wide through rhetoric such as that America had already achieved its goals and that the Strait of Hormuz was someone else’s problem. The spike in oil prices to $140 per barrel increased economic pressure and led to Trump’s “destroy civilization” threat.

It is clear that the pressure on Iran from countries negatively affected by oil supply and price fluctuations—perhaps even more than by Trump’s threats—has been effective. The ceasefire, which provided Trump with a significant way out ahead of his visit to China, will provide short-term relief to global markets, but many obstacles remain to a lasting peace agreement. Trump, who listened to Israel on going to war as in Gaza but left it out of the negotiation process, may follow a similar strategy against Iran. If he cannot or does not want to apply the necessary pressure on Israel and keep it under control, achieving lasting peace will not be possible.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz negatively affects both Gulf countries that rely on oil and natural gas revenues and, at the same time, countries—particularly in Asia—that depend on energy imports from this region.

Therefore, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to pose multiple threats to the global economy.

MACROECONOMIC IMPACTS

The impact of the Strait of Hormuz on economies has manifested itself through supply security concerns and rising crude oil prices.

On the day the war began, the futures price of Brent crude—considered the international benchmark—stood at $72.48 per barrel, whereas it is now around $110, making it clear that this represents a serious shock for economies.

From an energy supply security perspective, the Strait of Hormuz continues to deeply affect Asian countries in particular, as a large share of the region’s energy resources is directed toward China, India, Japan, and South Korea.

The country most dependent on Gulf states is South Korea.

Due to their energy consumption levels and growth potential, countries such as China and India are under significant production and inflationary pressure as a result of rising oil prices and supply disruptions.

The Strait of Hormuz is also affecting energy demand security.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, and Qatar—countries dependent on energy revenues—have not only faced major economic losses but have also been forced to reduce daily production due to the lack of export routes and the saturation of storage capacity.

These conditions not only negatively affect energy supply security but also threaten energy demand security.

IMPACTS ON GLOBAL TRADE

Meanwhile, rising energy prices and disruptions in energy supply security have also pushed up the prices of other critical exports from the region—such as fertilizer, aluminum, and helium—thereby disrupting global supply chains.

It is clear that this will affect many manufacturing sectors.

In addition, alternative transport routes used following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have increased shipping times and raised the overall cost of global trade.

THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ AND THE ECONOMY OF TÜRKİYE

Although Türkiye does not have a high level of direct dependence on Gulf countries, rising energy prices are creating pressure by increasing inflation, delaying potential interest rate cuts by the central bank, and raising the import bill.

In Trump's camp, there are many people—Tucker Carlson foremost among them—who argue that this war should never have started. Carlson met with Trump multiple times but was unable to convince him. It is also said that U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance is not favorable toward this war. Vance, who is known to be very close to Carlson, of course prefers to express this opinion behind closed doors.

According to a report in Time magazine by Eric Cortellessa titled "Inside Trump's Search for a Way Out of the Iran War," White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is worried that Trump's advisers are telling him what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear. The report noted that a rosy picture of how the war is perceived domestically has been painted for Trump, and it highlighted that Wiles has asked those close to Trump's ear to be more candid about the political and economic risks.

The anti-Zionist Jewish writer Peter Beinart, in his podcast titled "Why Does America Never Learn?", emphasized that no one is held accountable for America's endless wars. Beinart drew attention to a recently published survey. According to a regular survey of academics who study the Middle East, political scientists, historians, and experts from other fields, only 5% of this group support the war.

The experts at think tanks funded by major arms companies and the "Israel Lobby," meanwhile, dance to the tune of those who pay them. It is already clear that hawkish politicians to whom the "Israel Lobby" makes donations are working on all fronts to get Trump to attack Iran.

American historian Barbara Tuchman, in her book The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, describes the destructive wars that rulers start by turning a deaf ear to warnings. In a few of my previous articles, I shared some details about the expedition launched by the Athenian Empire in 415 BCE to conquer Sicily, eight hundred miles from Athens. This invasion attempt, undertaken with the expectation of "quick and decisive victory," lasted more than two years.

It was General Nicias who objected in the Athenian assembly to the naval expedition launched against the city of Syracuse in Sicily. The ambitious leader of the neocon faction, Alcibiades, had persuaded the Athenians to conquer Sicily. The Sicilian expedition ended with the destruction of the Athenian navy.

Poor Nicias became the victim of this expedition he could not prevent. Even though Nicias surrendered, he was killed by the Syracusans. The Athenian historian and general Thucydides said: "Nicias was the least deserving of such a misfortune of all the Greeks of my time."

Alcibiades was the most prized student of the famous philosopher Socrates, who doted on him. Yet Socrates' wisdom could not restrain his student's ambitions. According to the historian Plutarch, Socrates sensed that the Sicilian expedition would bring no benefit to Athens. Plutarch notes that because the Sicilian expedition ended in disaster, the Athenians came to understand that Nicias had spoken the truth to them throughout his life.

The Italian politician Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived in the 16th century and wrote The Prince, one of the most famous books of all time, mentions Nicias twice in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. In the section titled "The Deceived People Often Make Decisions That Ruin Them, And Great Hopes And Strong Promises Easily Move Them," Machiavelli speaks of Nicias as "a Greek example" as follows:

"In the city of Athens in Greece, Nicias, a powerful and prudent man, could never persuade the people that it would not be wise to attack Sicily. When this decision, opposed by the wise, was carried out, it led to the complete ruin of Athens."

Machiavelli also says that Alcibiades and his followers advocated for the Sicilian expedition not for the public good but for their own personal interests and ambitions. He notes that Nicias, though it was against his own personal interest, acted virtuously and advised against the expedition. In short, from ancient times to the present, the folly of those who govern marches on.

THE SECOND STEP HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN. CAN WE EVEN IMAGINE THE THIRD AND FOURTH?

The second step has begun after the genocide. Can we imagine the third and fourth? Do you see what kind of threat the great countries and great nations of our region are facing? Can you foresee how far this threat will extend? You might think this is the Iran war. It is not.

If we delay taking measures that we cannot foresee; those who destroyed Baghdad yesterday and Isfahan today will also destroy Jerusalem tomorrow. They will erase everything belonging to Muslims.

The next day they will strike Istanbul, they will strike Mecca. Can we read what is going on in the minds of these barbarians?

OUR SILENCE COULD BE OUR DISASTER.

Today's silence could be tomorrow's destruction, tomorrow's death. In human history, wars used to have a justification. For justice, for power building, for imperial ambitions, and many other reasons, we know.

This war has only one reason: the evil in the minds of Netanyahu and his gang, the Jewish Tribe. Their hatred for the human race. There is no other reason.

We cannot understand this war by looking at history and past events. For the first time, history offers us no justification. Because there is none. This is not a religious war either.

This is not a race war either. There is a terrible disease, of a community that has become "demonic", calibrated to destroy all of humanity's accumulated heritage since Adam.

THEY WILL ALSO FRIGHTEN THE ARABS WITH "TURKOPHOBIA"...

The Gulf countries see this as an Arab-Persian war. That is what they are being told. The war is being framed that way. Muslim societies think this could be a Shia-Sunni war. They are putting a check on "Shia Iran". They are discussing that the regionalization of the war could turn into a Shia-Sunni war.

Yet this is a much greater evil. It is not limited to Iran. It is not retaliation for the evils Iran has done across the region. It is not something that can be understood with the phrase "let Iran's nose be rubbed in the dirt". For them, there is no Shia or Sunni. For them, there is no Arab or Persian.

Be careful about their globalization of "Turkophobia" after Islamophobia. Be careful about how they frighten the Arabs with Iran and with the Turks. They are destroying the region by paralyzing the mind, woven from our weaknesses. They are trying to destroy everything that belongs to Islam and Muslims.

THEY WILL ALSO TARGET PAKISTAN AND TÜRKİYE!

They are trying to erase our countries and cities from the map, to wound our nations so severely that they cannot recover for a hundred years, and to bring them to their knees. You have no more value in their eyes than the oil and gold investments Trump and his team make before every statement.

To win, they could completely destroy Iran. To win, they could immediately destroy Pakistan afterwards. They could begin striking Türkiye. Don't we think at all about the future of this humanity that has hitched itself to a sick-spirited personality like Netanyahu or surrendered to his scheme?

WHY DOES ENGLAND SAY "THIS IS NOT OUR WAR"

Notice; America's closest allies are staying away from the war. England says "This is not our war". France and Italy say "do not use our bases". Spain is raising its flag against the US. All of Europe has seen that this crazy team will destroy the world and is trying to protect itself.

Trump is threatening them with "I will pull out of NATO". He strikes Europe, which is panicking due to the Russian threat, at its greatest fear. But it appears that Netanyahu's noose is around his neck. He has to do whatever Netanyahu says. Moreover, his circle and Israel are assigning him a divine role and exploiting his weaknesses.

GREAT NATIONS CANNOT SURRENDER TO THIS MADNESS.

All nations must urgently calculate where such madness could drag the world. It must be considered how the disaster that started with Iran will test Pakistan, Egypt, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia with fire tomorrow. It must be foreseen how the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Aegean could be engulfed in flames.

Great states, great nations cannot surrender to such madness. Nations that build history, found empires, and shape geography cannot be sacrificed to the ravings of a patient like Netanyahu.

This danger cannot be prevented by silence, by quiet, by efforts to restrain the US, or by the diplomatic traditions we are accustomed to.

THEY WILL ASK US: WHERE ARE THE UMAYYADS, WHERE ARE THE ABBASIDS, WHERE ARE THE SELJUKS, WHERE ARE THE OTTOMANS?

They will ask us: Where are the Umayyads, where are the Abbasids, where are the Seljuks, where are the Ottomans? They will ask us, where is the mind that changed history and established world order? They will ask the Arabs, they will ask the Turks? How can we become the hostage of a handful of tribes?

Currently, all measures are trapped in the thesis that this is an "Israel-Iran war". But it will be understood very soon that this is not the case. Everyone in their right mind knows this. If we remain silent, fronts will open one after another. This will continue until the entire region is destroyed.

US-Europe relations are diverging for the first time since World War II. The US is alone for the first time since then. It has lost the world, lost itself, for Israel. Now Europe is trying to shake off the US burden. It is trying to create a new defense shield for itself.

While doing this, it will knock on Türkiye's door. Perhaps it will try a new form of relationship with Russia. Because Europe has seen the danger of fighting for Israel and losing the world. It has seen the great mistake the US has made. It has seen that Israel is now an unbearable burden. It has seen where the perversion of "forcing God into the apocalypse" can lead.

ARAB COUNTRIES, THE US WILL NOT PROTECT YOU – STOP BELIEVING THIS LIE...

The Gulf countries, the great Arab nation, are being deceived with the thesis "We are weakening Iran for you". They were deceived with the same theses during the Iraq invasion, the Gaza genocide, the Lebanon invasion. They were deceived with theses like "We will protect you. You look at the Iranian threat. And then the Turkish threat is growing."

Don't you understand at all? For thirty-five years, all wars have been on Arab lands. For thirty-five years, all wars have been fought for Israel. You pay the price.

While trillions of dollars go to the US and return as weapons to Israel, while Islamic cities are destroyed, the US and Israel have brought you and your geography to this state. Those you considered friends, those you considered protectors, have brought you to this state.

Today too, you are paying the price of Israel's war with Iran. And this is an unprecedentedly heavy price. How can you still believe that the US will protect you, that friendship with Israel will keep you alive? What kind of fear is this, what kind of irrationality is this?

TOMORROW THEY WILL STRIKE THE KAABA TOO. TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL VANISH. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO UTTER A SINGLE SENTENCE.

Al-Aqsa Mosque has been closed for weeks. What kind of silence is this? If we are going to remain silent like this, tomorrow they will strike the Kaaba too, and we won't be able to utter a single sentence. Tomorrow they will demolish Al-Aqsa, we won't be able to utter a single sentence. Tomorrow they will change your borders, seize your cities, we won't be able to utter a single sentence.

Your trillions of dollars will be frozen in the US, and you won't be able to open your mouth. What kind of captivity is this! They have purchased this silence. They have internalized that no country can do anything.

Israel is a weak state, it has a life expectancy of one week. The US is a lonely state; the limits of its power have become clear. We have a powerful weapon like geography; it can choke all empires.

We are not in the Cold War period or the subsequent thirty years. There are powerful global actors, rivals to the US. The global power space has been divided. While the world is experiencing such a power shift, the Gulf countries, precisely at this time, have to redefine everything. Otherwise, they will all destroy their own futures.

WE CAN STRANGLE ISRAEL IN GEOGRAPHY. AIRSPACES MUST BE CLOSED. SUPPLY LINES MUST BE CUT.

The entire region must go on alert against Israel. It must force Israel to be destroyed, limited, controlled, brought to its knees.

Power-oriented sanctions must be urgently implemented. Airspaces must be closed, land crossings must be stopped. The presence and movement of Israelis in Muslim countries must be restricted and controlled.

Israel's access to the world, except through the Mediterranean, must be completely shut off. You don't need to declare war. Supply routes must be closed, commercial embargo must be regionalized, its access to resources must be blocked, oil and natural gas supply lines must be struck.

There is no need for statements and condemnations. All the leaders of this humanity-crime country must be made unable to leave Israel.

CHOOSING SILENCE IS SUICIDE!

In such a period, regional countries that rush to the front for Israel must be threatened, frightened. Because there is no place to reach through persuasion.

A patient, long-term economic and political siege must be initiated. Regional countries must be brought to a state of begging. You might not do all this for Iran. But we are talking about the day after; you must do it for yourselves.

We cannot allow them to trample so much on the blood of our nations, the pride of our countries, and the honor of our homelands. When we have so much power, such effective weapons, the wisdom of our thousand-year-old cities, choosing silence is suicide.

The future of our region is not in the mercy of the US or the friendship of Israel; it is in our own hands.

NO ONE CAN COME OUT OF THIS REGIONAL STORM WITHOUT TÜRKİYE!

Stopping the war will not be achieved by begging Trump, but by clenching our fists. It will be achieved by mobilizing hundreds of thousands, millions. Trust your countries, trust your nations, lean on them. The threat is not inside; it is in Tel Aviv. Think about the next steps, think about what your own countries will face. This will happen.

The Gulf countries, the Arab countries, must form an alliance of power with Türkiye. Let it be known: there will be no way out of this regional storm without Türkiye. Trust its wisdom, its friendship, its spirit of sharing.

The US will not protect you, Israel will strike you, but only Türkiye will defend you – come to this realization now. Otherwise, you will be trapped between Israel and the UAE, unable to move.

A FEROCITY THAT WOULD SET THE WORLD ON FIRE FOR A "RED HEIFER".. SPREAD FEAR INTO ISRAEL!

Above all: all countries of the region, including Türkiye, must act to weaken Israel. From now on, in every event, this will become an even greater necessity. So, to avoid facing greater disasters, this must begin immediately.

For them, this geography, its people, its cities have no meaning at all. We are talking about a sick mindset that could strike entire cities with nuclear weapons for a piece of land, for just one "Red Heifer", to demolish Al-Aqsa.

I draw attention to what a Tribe that sees the entire human race as a threat, armed with powerful weapons, might attempt. I am talking about an enraged community that could think of destroying humanity without blinking an eye.

Taking action before the threat grows even larger is the behavior of a "reasonable person", a "reasonable country". Therefore, it is essential to activate all covert methods.

It is essential to track Netanyahu's shelter, his plane. It is essential to instill fear in him. It is essential to spread fear throughout Israel.

TÜRKİYE MUST DECLARE THE ISRAELI PRESENCE IN THE AEGEAN AND THE ISLANDS A CAUSE FOR WAR.

Türkiye must impose deterrent sanctions and pressure on Greece regarding the Israeli presence in Cyprus and the Aegean islands. Against this country that just yesterday implemented a terror map along our southern border with Syria, it must take attitudes that will concern Athens regarding such a construction in the Aegean and the islands.

If necessary, it must use threatening language. It must make the existence of armed islands a subject of debate, bring the Islands issue to the table. Türkiye must arm Palestine with all its elements and lay the foundations for structuring a new resistance line.

It must establish a very strong resistance line in Lebanon and prevent Israel from turning north. It must build organized structures in that country that will fight Israel. Ways must be sought to achieve a full power alliance with Egypt for the protection of the Sinai Peninsula.

A RESISTANCE LINE MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN LEBANON. A COVERT WAR WITH ISRAEL MUST BEGIN..

Türkiye must declare that it will consider Israel's occupation of Lebanon and the Israeli military buildup on the islands as a cause for war. Because the next front of the war after Iran has become clear. And this will definitely happen.

Great nations, great states have grown by foreseeing threats and taking precautions in advance. Power is built that way. Power has never been built by "defense". No matter which empire or which great power in history you look at, you will see this.

Homeland defense never, ever begins at the zero point of borders. Therefore, for Israel, which has now become an imminent threat within Türkiye, "covert war" methods must be initiated in every field.

IF MISSILES STRIKE TEL AVIV BEFORE ISTANBUL, YOU BECOME A GREAT POWER.

And this must be region-wide. We have the power for this, and we also have the mind. If the 21st century is to witness Türkiye's historical transformation, it is essential to diminish this threat.

Otherwise, after an Israeli missile falls on Istanbul tomorrow, the list of things to be done will shrink dramatically. If you strike Tel Aviv before they set their sights on Istanbul, you become a great power.

And let it not be forgotten: no great power has ever been built through friendship, cooperation, understanding, or patience. It has been built only by using power.

One reason for the war's prolongation is Iran's move regarding Hormuz. Hormuz has stuck in Trump's throat. There had been comments that he was considering various options, including a ground operation, to overcome this obstacle. However, no one, especially NATO, provided the expected support. Now he is saying, in effect, "We have achieved our goals. Hormuz is the responsibility of those oil fields."

So, if the Hormuz obstacle has been removed for Trump, why doesn't he end the war today? If we look at the ground… Given that Iran has not surrendered… He wants to declare his victory with a limited, targeted ground operation show that will break the perception of failure. There is also pressure from Israel. Israel needs to buy time.

NETANYAHU SAID 'I WILL NOT STOP'

This war was started by Israel. While making Trump a target, Israel is pursuing its own agenda in the background. It is reported that when a possibility of negotiation arose, Netanyahu said, "Even if you make a ceasefire, I will not stop in Lebanon." He is seeking to depopulate southern Lebanon and annex it (we had written that he wants to unite southern Lebanon and southern Syria. See: Israel seeks to seize land from two countries, March 20). However, there are significant concerns and analyses that he will not want to stop here.

WHAT IS THE NEXT TARGET?

It is now being discussed more openly that Israel's linked targets are as follows: One. The expulsion of the Palestinian population to Egypt in order to annex Gaza. This had come to the agenda before, and Sisi rejected the proposal by implying and threatening that military tension could arise. In fact, the Egyptian army had shown a presence in Sinai. With the Gaza ceasefire, this proposal turned into "voluntary exile," but Israel has not given up. It is said that Tel Aviv is willing to risk a military confrontation with Cairo to pressure the Egyptian administration (it can be argued that Egypt put forward the idea of an "Arab NATO" for this reason). Two. By applying the same policy in the West Bank, they want to expel the Palestinians there to Jordan as well. Jordan is also resisting this. It is assessed that Israel is willing to risk a military confrontation with Jordan as well. Three. We have highlighted the Lebanon-Syria line. The occupation has begun in Lebanon. Regarding Syria, Israel is seen trying to provoke an uprising in Suwayda, and within this scope, arming the Druze Hijri group (in the background, Ankara has dialogue with other Druze groups that are uncomfortable with Israel).

PAY ATTENTION TO THE INTENSIFICATION IN ERBIL

Four. The SDG was an entity that Israel invested in. However, due to the determined stance of Damascus and Ankara, integrated with the positive position of the US, a path toward integration has been entered. It is said that precisely during this process, Israel turned to separatist groups in Iran and began arming these groups four months before February 28 (we have previously written that the capacity of these groups is not strong. See: Background war notes from Iran, March 10). Due to Ankara's contacts with regional actors (Israel was also directly warned about PJAK) and the positive attitude of Barzani and Talabani, there has been no activity there yet.

Nevertheless… There are comments that Israel continues its "softening" attacks in the region west of Iran, that some separatist groups are trying to cross the border, that in the event of a possible ground operation there could also be activity in this region, that regime opponents are trying to turn Erbil into a logistics hub… That Iran has noticed this and therefore targeted Nechirvan Barzani's residence (President Erdoğan called Barzani to wish him well).

IS NATO A PAPER TIGER?

In the final analysis, these scenarios represent Israel's desire. But wanting and achieving results are different things. Israel desires it. But can it do it? The same applies to Trump's stance on NATO. Trump is very angry because he could not use NATO power in Iran. He said he is seriously considering leaving NATO.

It is no secret that Washington seeks to reduce its responsibility in NATO and share the leadership role and cost, especially with Germany, among other members. For this reason, European countries think, "Even if the US leaves NATO, let us preserve this institutional structure and ensure Europe's security against Russia and other threats through NATO." So these debates are not new. But there is another new situation.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATO WILL INCREASE

Looking with the naked eye, the Iran war has revealed an important reality: US operational capacity is dependent on its allies' logistics lines, bases, air defense-radar systems, aerial refueling capacity, and, if necessary, ground forces. Otherwise, Trump would not have sought help from his allies for Hormuz. He would have handled Iran and Hormuz on his own. But he cannot. The US President is angry because this support did not come.

Contrary to popular belief, the Iran war will increase the importance of NATO, alliances, and coalitions. I think Ankara has realized this reality. The show of force in the exercise held in recent months was a sign of this. The initiative to establish a NATO Multinational Corps Headquarters, which came to the agenda upon Ankara's request, is also related to this. Decision-makers must be thinking, "If NATO's importance is going to increase, let us shape the direction."

Despite this picture… Trump may want to give up on NATO and the infrastructure it provides. But would the US want to give it up? If it does… Good luck in the global power struggle with China.

It helps shape them.

At STRATCOM 2026 in Istanbul, this was clear. I had the opportunity to moderate a panel on strategic communication in an age of uncertainty, and one thing stood out:

Strategy is no longer optional. It is essential.

The summit, organised by Türkiye’s Directorate of Communications, brought together leadership at the highest level. Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin were all in attendance—showing how important communication has become for diplomacy, governance, and national security.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also sent a video message, highlighting the importance of communication at the highest level.

In his closing remarks, Communications Director Burhanettin Duran emphasised the importance of truth-based communication and described the summit as a platform to address global challenges together. The successful organisation of the summit reflects strong institutional capacity, with Kasim Ileri (Head of Strategic Communication and Crisis Management Department) and his team playing a key role.

On the panel I moderated, alongside Ambassador Akif Cagatay Kilic, Prof. Dr. Mehmet Emin Babacan, Nordin Abdullah, and Dr. Nancy Okail, one idea was clear:

Communication today has real strategic importance.

Information spreads very fast. But trust takes time.

In today’s world—shaped by technology, artificial intelligence, and global tensions—communication is not just about being visible. It is about being clear, consistent, and trustworthy.

STRATCOM 2026 showed that communication is now a priority for governments, states, and non-state actors—handled in a planned, strategic way, not just as a reaction to events.

Because today, communication is not just about being heard.

It is about being understood.

And in an age of uncertainty, that makes all the difference.

Because it is clear that a prolonged war or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause problems in oil supply and demand security, and therefore major economic shocks in the global economy.

This situation makes it imperative to consider alternative routes for transporting oil and natural gas resources to international markets.

Moreover, these conditions will also push for a new architecture in global energy supply and demand security.

So, if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, is there an alternative route for the oil that needs to flow from this region to the world?

ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

Currently, there is a route in Saudi Arabia that transports oil via the East‑West Pipeline to the Yanbu Port on the Red Sea, and from there to the Red Sea.

On the other hand, there is another pipeline that transports oil from the United Arab Emirates to the Fujairah Port in the Gulf of Oman.

These two lines allow global energy shipments to continue uninterrupted without using the Strait of Hormuz.

However, only 10 percent of the 20 percent of oil transferred from the region to the world via these two lines (that is, only 2 million barrels out of the daily 20 million barrels) is transported without using the Strait of Hormuz.

Thus, it is clear that the insufficient capacity of these pipelines, new security issues that may arise in the region, and possible other disruptions mean these alternatives are not strong alternatives for global oil supply.

ALTERNATIVE COUNTRY: TÜRKİYE

One of the alternative routes that has come to the fore in recent days is the Kirkuk‑Ceyhan Pipeline, long considered a lifeline for energy supply security in the region by transporting oil from Iraq. This pipeline is also known as the Iraq‑Türkiye Crude Oil Pipeline (ITP).

This pipeline is the safest, most direct, and most strategic energy route for Iraqi oil, completely bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.

On the other hand, Caspian Sea oil is also delivered to Ceyhan without passing through Russian or Iranian territory.

Therefore, for transporting Gulf countries’ oil to world markets via the Mediterranean, the Ceyhan Port stands as the most reliable route.

Türkiye’s major energy projects implemented in recent years with the goal of becoming a central country in energy, along with the energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean and Türkiye’s geographical position, serve as an important reference for the new energy architecture.

According to the Anglo-Saxon-centered approach, it was Britain and the US who settled Jews in the historical lands of Palestine and established Israel. Accordingly, thinking of Israel solely as a Jewish state is incomplete and incorrect because the resulting structure is a legacy of 19th-century colonialism. Britain and the US constructed Israel as a foothold for their imperialist ambitions. In other words, Israel is actually a small-scale colony—essentially a province—of Britain and the US. Therefore, Israel's expansionist aggression must be handled within the context of colonialism and imperialism. This applies both to the genocidal crimes against Palestinians and the attacks directed at Iran. In this framework, explaining the attacks by the US and Trump against Iran through the influence of Netanyahu and Israel is extremely misleading. Perhaps there are reasons that might justify such an approach at the state level. They may not want to come into direct confrontation with the US.

From the very first day expansionist attacks on Gaza began, the British and Americans generally assumed responsibility for this war. While one of the greatest genocides in world history took place in Gaza, "whites" in countries like Germany and France did not display a mass opposition. This is a very important detail.

Those who wish to understand the British and US attacks against Iran can look at Raif Karadağ’s book, The Oil Storm. Daniel Yergin’s work, The Prize, is also quite significant. In fact, the competition between British and US companies is handled in detail in Yergin’s book. After the discovery of Iranian oil, global companies turned toward Iran with incredible appetite. The Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean were equally important to them. These regions were also vital for us. We tried to respond to one with the Hejaz Railway and the other with the Baghdad Railway. Our goal was to reach Basra. However, the British opposed this to the death and stopped the railway in Baghdad. We could go no further. The goal at that time was to create an uninterrupted line between Basra and Berlin. Sea and land came face to face. We wanted to do a hundred years ago what China is trying to do today. The continuity between the two is astonishing.

The resistance of the Palestinians in Gaza was extraordinary. This resistance still continues. Britain and the US were entirely involved in the attacks on Gaza. In fact, they directed these attacks. They intended to subject the Palestinians to ethnic cleansing very quickly. They did not calculate that the resistance would last this long, and they became fully embroiled in Israel's genocidal crimes. They wanted to reach a conclusion in Iran in a similar way. They repeated the same mistake there. In just one school, they deliberately killed nearly 170 young girls. These crimes belong to both Britain and the US. How will they explain this to future generations?

Now, only the "war of religion" remains. They think that if they create a perception that a religious war is being fought, they can emerge by washing the dirt from their hands. This is the most important reason why the US Secretary of War calls it a war against Islam. Essentially, they are sending a message to their domestic audience. Unfortunately, the religious war propaganda also has an aspect directed at us. It is very clear that they want to start a Shia-Sunni war among us as well. If they succeed in this, they will have no trouble placing religion at the center of events and will say that mutual misfortunes occurred in a religious war. If the religious war propaganda prevails, the anger directed at the US and Israel throughout the world will fade away.

The overwhelming majority of Jews put their faith in the power of Britain and the US. The history of the Jews must be evaluated in a different context. The desire seen in them during the 19th century to assimilate into Western European culture is extremely important. They believed in them, and the monster within them emerged. This is also the reason they were caught up in imperial dreams.

At the point we have reached today, the transformation brought about by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Türkiye has become a model in many regions. We are speaking of a leadership that is discussed far beyond the borders of the National Pact, that attracts greater attention, and that has become a concrete example of hope, development, and the idea of independence for oppressed nations. Yet paradoxically, a transformation of this scale has not been the subject of sufficiently in-depth academic analysis within its own country. One of the main reasons for this is that, for many years, the Westernist and ideological circles that shaped cultural power in Türkiye preferred to exclude such leadership rather than try to understand it. On the other hand, a significant portion of conservative intellectual circles have also lacked the courage to conceptualize this great transformation.

However, what has taken place in Türkiye over the last quarter-century is not simply a story of political success. This process is a holistic narrative of the reconstruction of state capacity, the strengthening of economic infrastructure, the achievement of independence in strategic areas, particularly the defense industry, and the transition from a passive role to an active subject in foreign policy. This broad transformation, spanning infrastructure investments, the technology ecosystem, energy policies, and security strategies, is not fragmented; it is the product of a systematic process built step by step under rational leadership.

It is at this point that Erdoğan's leadership becomes distinctive. By transcending the classical understanding of bureaucratic politics, he has put forward a different model, characterized by a strong bond he established directly with the people, his charismatic leadership capacity, and his ability to make swift decisions. This model has found a powerful resonance, especially in countries experiencing political fragility, having limited institutional capacity, or being vulnerable to external intervention. Because this form of leadership involves not merely governing, but also providing direction, taking risks in times of crisis, and forging new paths when necessary.

Within this framework, Türkiye's foreign policy has also taken on a new character. Rejecting a passive position within the Western-centric international system, Türkiye has transformed into a model of a "middle power that can chart its own course," at times asserting independent and unique positions. This situation has strongly resonated, particularly in post-colonial societies such as those in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Erdoğan's critiques of imperialism and his emphasis on national sovereignty have aligned with the historical memory of these societies; thus, Türkiye has begun to exert influence not only as a state but also as an idea.

Another dimension of this influence emerges in leader diplomacy. Direct relationships established with powerful leaders on a global scale have carried Türkiye beyond classical diplomatic patterns, positioning it as an actor that fosters mutual respect, competes when necessary, but is also capable of negotiation. This has made Türkiye a strategic power that establishes balance during a period when a multipolar world order is taking shape.

Erdoğan's perception in the Islamic world, however, warrants a separate discussion. As a leader who carries his religious identity with political visibility without radicalizing it, he has been perceived by many Muslim societies as "a figure who generates representation." This has found a strong resonance, particularly in societies experiencing identity crises.

Crisis management and the capacity to take risks are also defining elements of Erdoğan's leadership. Türkiye's intervention capacity displayed across a broad geography—from Syria to Karabakh, from Libya to the Eastern Mediterranean—has transformed the country from a regional power into a game-setting actor. The defense industry developed during this process has become not only a military asset but also one of the fundamental pillars of political independence.

Furthermore, Türkiye's humanitarian diplomacy capacity cannot be overlooked. Through institutions such as TİKA, the Yunus Emre Institute, and the Maarif Foundation, the education, health, and development projects carried out have created a tangible Turkish presence in hundreds of countries. This impact, as an area where state capacity and leadership vision converge, has further strengthened the global perception of Erdoğan.

This perception taking shape across different geographies is noteworthy. In the Far East and Asia, Erdoğan is seen as a political symbol of the quest for independent development; in the Middle East, he stands out as a figure combining Islamic representation with national sovereignty. In the Caucasus, he is perceived as a strategic actor that establishes balance; in Africa, as the concrete embodiment of anti-imperialist rhetoric; in the Balkans, as an element of trust reinforced by historical ties; and in Latin America, as a symbol of resistance outside the Western sphere. Europe, meanwhile, despite its criticism of Erdoğan, cannot do without him, because the leader it faces is simultaneously a demanding and an indispensable negotiating partner.

In conclusion, Erdoğan's perception as a strong leader across different geographies cannot be reduced to a single cause. This situation is a multi-layered sphere of influence arising from the combination of charismatic leadership, independent foreign policy, anti-imperialist discourse, strategic capacity, humanitarian diplomacy, and the ability to maintain balance in a multipolar world order.

These assessments must be made more extensively. Two statements he made during the war between Israel, the US, and Iran prompted me to write this piece:

"Israel started this war; 8 billion people are suffering the consequences."

"In this senseless war, isn't the economy of our region losing blood, aren't the infrastructures destroyed by missiles, drones, and bombs also the resources of our brothers? Even if our sects and origins differ, isn't the blood flowing in our geography the blood of us all?"

The first of these two statements resonated loudly around the world, and the second within the Islamic world. This, precisely, is imperial vision and conception.

To understand Erdoğan is, in fact, to grasp a larger truth: History is not merely a text written by great powers. Sometimes, that text is rewritten by a nation that has long been kept on the margins. Türkiye's march over the last quarter-century is precisely that.

And in this march, the name of this political intellect is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

We have entered a period where the global effects of the Iran war are now becoming unavoidable. Compared to the previous 12-day period of limited conflict, today we are faced with a situation that is producing far broader and multi-dimensional consequences.

This new equation has the potential to shake global balances not only in terms of regional security, but across a wide spectrum ranging from energy markets to financial flows. This is no longer a matter of a regional crisis, but rather the possibility of a systemic breakdown.

Türkiye's Financial Resilience

From Türkiye's perspective, the first question is clear: Is our financial stability at risk? The current situation allows us to answer this question with cautious optimism: no. Unlike two years ago, when reserves had fallen to as low as -70 billion dollars, a significant buffer zone has now been established thanks to the improved reserve structure. This framework provides a critical safety net for managing sudden volatility in the foreign exchange market, meeting liquidity needs, and fulfilling short-term external obligations. The response time to exchange rate shocks has shortened, while intervention capacity has clearly increased.

Financial Security: A Domain Beyond Economics

More importantly, we have sufficient capacity to cover all short-term external payments, particularly energy imports. This holds critical importance not only for keeping the economic wheels turning, but also for the sustainability of strategic and military capabilities. This is because financial security is the foundation not only of fiscal strength, but also of political will and military maneuverability. However, the point that must be emphasized here is this: financial security is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient on its own.

Global Rupture: The Energy Supply Shock

On the global front, the main point of rupture is the shock occurring in energy supply. This shock should not be understood solely as a price increase; the issue is now transforming into a direct physical supply risk. Indeed, the formation of fuel queues in India, the declaration of a state of emergency in the energy sector in the Philippines, and the onset of serious disruptions in fuel supply across Asia show that the problem is turning into a tangible crisis, not merely a theoretical one. These developments point to a new era in the energy market, where even those with money may not be able to access the product.

Risk of Supply Chain Disruption

This disruption in energy access directly threatens global supply chains. In today’s world, where production is spread across different geographies, the lack of even a single component can bring the entire production process to a halt. During the pandemic, we witnessed the severe consequences of this across many sectors, from the semiconductor crisis to automotive manufacturing. Today, a similar risk is emerging again, this time through energy, a far more critical element. For this reason, the issue is not merely about cost increases; it is about production grinding to a halt and capacity loss.

The Stagflation Threat

At this very point, the global economy is facing the risk of stagflation, one of the most difficult types of crises to manage. In other words, we are confronted with an equation where, on one hand, growth is slowing or even stalling, while on the other, prices are rising rapidly and unemployment is increasing. Sharp increases in energy costs push production costs higher, while supply constraints drive prices up on a permanent basis; at the same time, weakening demand suppresses economic activity. This fragile balance creates a situation that also limits the effectiveness of conventional economic policies.

We Must Not Lose Production While Curbing Demand

In conclusion, although Türkiye appears relatively prepared to weather this storm in the short term thanks to its financial buffers, the deepening global energy and supply crisis represents a serious test for all economies in the medium term. The main issue in this process is not just controlling prices, but also preserving production capacity, supply continuity, and economic resilience.

Because curbing demand can be a choice, but losing production brings consequences that are far more difficult to remedy. The critical question for the coming period is clear: Can we manage the energy crisis while maintaining growth, or will the world economy be dragged into a long and painful period of stagflation?

There are claims circulating that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are preparing to take action against Iran. Iraq could attack Kuwait; Iran could attack northern Iraq.

New fronts could open overnight; many countries could be dragged into war overnight. The UAE and Saudi Arabia could be pulled into the fray. Despite Trump's claims of "deals" and "talks," the likelihood of the war spreading is very high.

In just one night, the situation could shift from the US and Israel attacking Iran into a "regional" war, a "sectarian war."

THEY TRIED IT BEFORE; IT DIDN'T WORK. BUT THIS TIME, IT WAS INITIATED WITH A REGIONAL SCHEME.

They tried a sectarian war during the Iraq invasion; it didn't work. They tried it during the Syrian war; it didn't work. Regional countries made great efforts to keep the conflict contained within narrow borders, on a national scale.

But this time, Iran is fighting an existential war and is attacking all the Gulf countries, claiming they are aiding the US and Israel. This time, it didn't start as a country-focused issue but as a regional scheme. This time, the danger is on a scale incomparable to before.

Even as we debate the "regionalization of the war," the doors to a global-scale disaster have already been opened. Russia and China are backing Iran. They are providing military technology support. The Gulf countries remain with the US, still believing that American bases can defend them.

ISRAEL WILL SABOTAGE ALL NEGOTIATIONS!

The US-Iran talks are a deception and, according to this map, may yield no results. Even if the US wants a ceasefire, Israel will sabotage it. Indeed, Netanyahu’s statement, "The US cares about peace with Iran. But we will continue to defend ourselves," has already declared that Israel will not abide by a ceasefire. Don’t look to the US; look to Israel. Look at Israel’s war strategy.

We live in an age of extremes, an age of the extraordinary, where there are no rules anymore, where the Palestinians who suffered genocide will now face genocide through executions, where babies die due to power cuts in Cuba, where even the most extreme examples of violence can be normalized. And we must be prepared for anything.

OLD ASSUMPTIONS WILL NO LONGER WORK ANYMORE. ALL OF THIS COULD HAPPEN OVERNIGHT!

Old assumptions will no longer work. No preconception will yield the right result. No good relations will provide security. Old enmities and friendships will not be lasting in this era.

In our region, the justifications that have been imposed on us for decades and marketed as reality will not suffice to understand this war.

All the Gulf countries could enter the war overnight. Pakistan could be dragged into the war a day later. Iran could invade Bahrain; it could invade northern Iraq. Iraq could attack Kuwait. The UAE and Saudi Arabia could attack Iran. The Yemen war could erupt again. A front could open against Saudi Arabia.

WHILE WE DESTROY EACH OTHER, ISRAEL WILL INVADE LEBANON AND SYRIA. THAT IS THE REAL SCHEME.

While the region is shaken by these wars, Israel will invade Lebanon. It will invade a part of Syria. It will attack the Sinai Peninsula.

While you wage a sectarian war in the East, while countries are destroying each other, Israel will comfortably implement its own agenda. In the end, there will be no stone left upon stone in the region. Cities will be ruined, nations will suffer severe wounds, countries will collapse.

While you pay these prices, Israel will have gotten what it wanted. It will become the superpower of the region. It will grow even stronger. It will become even more aggressive.

While you talk about "sects," Israel will become the master of you all. Then you will realize that the sectarian crisis was actually a weapon for Israel. And in that state, a region cannot rise again for the entirety of the 21st century. We will be forced to relive the late 19th and early 20th centuries once more.

TOMORROW, THEY WILL STRIKE THE GULF COUNTRIES TOO! AND WE WILL BE LEFT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE OCCUPATION.

I believe our region has not yet grasped the magnitude of the danger. It likens this war to previous periods of occupation and underestimates it. There are those who, thinking "let Iran get its nose rubbed in the dirt" for committing the Sunni massacre in Aleppo, Syria, view it through that lens.

This perspective means falling into the same mistakes Iran made. This perspective means setting the region’s future ablaze. This perspective, which even traps states, means making excuses for occupations directed at the region from outside.

But do not forget: this is not a power struggle within the region. For the US and Israel, there is no Shia or Sunni. Yesterday, they were committing genocide against Sunni Gazans. Today, they are striking Shia Iran.

Tomorrow, they will strike the Sunni Gulf countries. On top of all this, they have already begun to alienate Türkiye, the country least prone to a sectarian perspective.

WHO WERE THE ONES WHO ERASED THE LAST SUNNI EMPIRE FROM HISTORY?IF WE DO NOT ESTABLISH A HIGHER REASON, WE WILL LOSE THE CENTURY.

Those coming from outside the region, those initiating the occupations, want us to think this way. They market their own agendas using our weaknesses. Those who erased the last Sunni empire, the Caliphate, from history are the ones doing this. This is what is dangerous. This is the greatest threat.

Let's move beyond this. Let's look at how the regionalization of the war can be prevented. Let's look at how its globalization can be stopped.

If we cannot establish this higher reason, and if things continue this way, we may witness destructions that will cost us a century. Every country would suffer great pain and pay a heavy price.

IF THEY CAN'T CREATE A SECTARIAN WAR, THEY WILL DETONATE THE REGION WITH NUCLEAR ATTACKS.

Israel's scheme is a regional war. It is directly at war with Islam. It is at war with the Muslim world. Yesterday, the US was cooperating with Iran in Iraq to destroy Sunnis; today, it is striking Iran.

Hashd al-Shaabi previously maintained an indirect partnership with the US; now it strikes US bases. The PKK acted with the US in Syria, but the US abandoned them there.

Their calculations are different. Their agenda is different. Why do we remain stuck on this point? Israel is planning a regional devastation through sectarian wars.

If it fails to achieve this, if it fails to drag the Gulf countries into the Iranian front, it will detonate the region with nuclear attacks. Let's focus on this real target.

IF IT DOESN'T WORK WITH IRAN, IT WILL TRY THIS BY ATTACKING TÜRKİYE.

This scenario isn't new. No justification is being sought for this scenario. If they can't achieve this through the Iran war, they will try to do it by attacking Türkiye. They will attempt this; make a note of it.

Know that after Iran, they will strike Türkiye. For thirty years, we have been watching a single plan unfold piece by piece, but we have never managed to break free from these pieces and see the whole.

We don't know how the US-Iran talks will go; whether it's a new trap set for Iran. But this war is already out of control. It is no longer manageable.

No one except Israel has any idea where this is headed. They have an agenda, and even Trump lacks the power to manage it.

THIS WAR MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY!

Iran must stop its attacks on the Gulf. Gulf countries must not open a front against Iran. Israel's influence over these countries must be broken. The US’s field of play in our region must be narrowed. The fact that Israel is a common threat to the entire region must be constantly emphasized and embedded in minds.

Whatever it takes, this war must be stopped immediately. Within a very short period, it will reach a point where no country, including Türkiye, can remain outside.

Fire will engulf the entire region, from the Indian border to the Red Sea. This must never be forgotten: Everything we are discussing is Israel's scheme. This scheme must be dismantled immediately.

TÜRKİYE MAY BE FORCED TO OPEN A FRONT IN THE AEGEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN!

We can anticipate what awaits Türkiye after that. We will certainly try not to fall for these games, but sometimes patience can become impossible. If such an atmosphere is created, we might have no choice but war.

Then, fronts will open in the Aegean and the Mediterranean as well.

I believe we are facing the most dangerous regional scenario since the First World War. For us and all the countries of the region…

THE THREADS HAVE SNAPPED, IRAQ HAS OFFICIALLY ENTERED THE WAR.

THIS WAR IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL.

Iraq has officially entered the war on Iran's side, against the US and Israel.

Authorization has been given for Hashd al-Shaabi to fight the US. The Iraqi army has moved to the Kuwaiti border. Perhaps a second invasion of Kuwait will be attempted.

If this continues, it is likely that a front will also open in northern Iraq. They will push the Kurds into the Iranian front, and the Iranian and Iraqi armies will attack northern Iraq.

Currently, intense attacks are being carried out on Erbil. Kamikaze drones are attacking the village of Sari Rash, where the Barzani family resides.

Trump can no longer stop this war. It has gone beyond him.

Israel set up a game, and everyone fell into this trap.

While the entire region should be reining in Israel, it is instead being dragged towards war among themselves.

The ground is being prepared for a regional war, a Shia-Sunni war.

If this does not turn into a sectarian war and take the entire region hostage, Israel will even attempt a nuclear strike.

Netanyahu says, "Trump wants peace talks, but we decide the course of the war."

Israel will not give ceasefire talks a chance. If a decision is made, they will not abide by it.

Today or tomorrow, we may see how Israel sabotages the talks.

After this attack, which shocked the world, nearly everyone developed a fear that cell phones could also be turned into explosives using similar mechanisms. Although experts say this is technically possible, the fact that it would require physical tampering with the production lines of major brands like Apple or Samsung makes that scenario unlikely. But here’s the truly bitter reality: there’s no longer any need to physically turn phones into bombs.

It is known that during the genocide in Gaza and assassination operations in the region, Israel used both social media companies and artificial intelligence platforms as "digital guided bullets." It is no longer a secret that targeted individuals are being struck by guided missiles in their own homes, using intelligence derived from the signals emitted by the phones they carry.

What is even more horrific became evident during the recent war in Iran. US-based artificial intelligence companies were revealed to have turned into "massacre apparatuses." It has been discussed for days that Anthropic's "Claude" model played a decisive role in the attacks by the US and Israel. This skillful assistant, which millions of users use to write stories and develop scenarios—just as they do with Gemini and ChatGPT—immersed its algorithms in atrocity during the processes of identifying, evaluating, and simulating targets in Iran.

For instance, during the attack on February 28th when the war began, the two missile strikes conducted 40 minutes apart on a girls' school in Minab, where 160 children were killed, were carried out using Claude—provided to the Pentagon—to analyze satellite imagery, field reports, and data sets from signal intelligence to identify the target. Even if "human commanders" gave the order for the massacre, it was the "assistants" in our pockets that determined the coordinates of those innocent children.

For months, the international community has been debating whether artificial intelligence will take our jobs away. Yet what is happening shows that AI, setting aside career hunting, has been transformed into an "intelligence-based guillotine" that adds people directly to target lists.

It has been tragically proven that the "ethical algorithms" Silicon Valley so proudly boasts about are only activated when writing poetry, and that these technologies are, in fact, "execution devices." The "poet within us," who might lament for those children, had already long since died.

Which country, which leader, which school, or which military installation is next will be determined by the occupation policies of leaders who have "seized" the power of artificial intelligence platforms.

Because the real truth that should horrify the rest of the world is hidden in the fine print of these companies' agreements with the Pentagon.

When their military collaborations were exposed, companies like Anthropic and OpenAI (ChatGPT) faced significant backlash and threats of boycotts from users. In response, while outlining their "red lines," they guaranteed that they would "only exempt US citizens from mass surveillance." The translation of this commercial maneuver is as follows: "Every civilian outside the borders of the United States is a legitimate dataset for our algorithms. You can target them if you wish."

Simply put, we have a problem far more critical than AI making us unemployed: whether it will leave us alive.

As I mentioned in my previous article, the Melians did not accept and were subjected to a massacre.

At that time, a fragile truce was in effect between Athens and Sparta.

The architect of this truce was the Athenian General Nicias.

But Alcibiades of Athens, who wanted to break the truce, had bigger plans.

Alcibiades wanted Syracuse, the wealthy city-state in Sicily.

For Alcibiades, the conquest of Sicily and Italy was the first link in a chain of “endless wars.”

With the resources gained from conquering Sicily and Carthage, it would then be Sparta’s turn.

Alcibiades dreamed of seizing Carthage and Libya in North Africa, then expanding the Athenian Empire as far as the Persian territories in Western Asia.

Meanwhile, Egesta, the city-state hostile to Syracuse in Sicily, had sent multiple delegations to Athens to make the Sicilian expedition happen.

Ambitious and glory-seeking Alcibiades was Egesta’s strongest supporter in the Athenian assembly.

Nicias, on the other hand, argued that the resources to be allocated for an expedition provoked by Egesta should be spent for Athens itself.

According to Nicias, Athens’ resources should be spent preparing for a potential war against Sparta.

Nicias argued that if this expedition, so far from Athens, failed, it would push many city-states in Sicily, especially Syracuse, into an alliance with Sparta.

Nicias, who argued that Egesta should not be trusted, pointed out that the “neocons” would drag Athens into a dangerous adventure.

According to Nicias’ faction, the Sicilian expedition was a means of personal enrichment for Alcibiades, whose wealth was dwindling due to his lavish spending.

Nicias, who maintained that the Egestaeans should handle their own affairs, warned that if the expedition succeeded, even more troops would be needed to maintain control in Sicily.

Nicias, noting that the Egestaeans had not asked Athens for help in their earlier wars in Sicily, said: “Let us tell them to solve the problem on their own now. And from now on, let us not rush to help people who, when they are in trouble on their own behalf, will bring us no benefit even after we have assisted them.”

Alcibiades, however, said he was confident that most of the city-states in Sicily would side with Athens against Syracuse.

Alcibiades said: “The reason we ally with the Sicilians is not so that they come here and help us, but so that they protect us against our enemies there. If we do not go to war, if we listen to what Nicias says, maintaining our empire in the future will be a dream.”

Alcibiades, who said, “If we want Athenian hegemony to spread, we must go and fight,” continued as follows:

“We have two possibilities: either we establish our hegemony over all of Sicily, or at the very least we inflict serious damage on the Syracusans and thereby benefit both ourselves and our allies. Thanks to our navy, we will also decide whether to remain in Sicily. Even if all the cities of Sicily unite, sovereignty at sea will remain with us in any case.”

Alcibiades had convinced the Athenian Assembly to undertake the Sicilian expedition.

Nicias, however, took the podium once more to dissuade the Assembly, arguing that the Sicilian expedition would require far more troops and ships.

Surprisingly, the Assembly accepted Nicias’ proposals.

Moreover, Nicias was appointed by the Assembly as one of the three commanders of the expedition, alongside Alcibiades and General Lamachus.

Thucydides’ histories contain further details about the Sicilian debates in the Athenian Assembly in 415 BC.

For the main point, this much is sufficient.

Thucydides says that the fleet prepared for the Sicilian expedition was the largest Greek naval force ever assembled.

Alcibiades argued that Syracuse had no capacity to withstand the Athenian navy.

According to Thucydides’ narrative, the young Athenians who gathered here and there were experiencing such a burst of overconfidence that they were picking out territories for themselves on maps of Sicily and North Africa.

You must have noticed that the “Sicily debates” in Athens some 2,500 years ago resemble the debates concerning a U.S. attack on Iran.

You can replace “Egesta first” and “Athens first” with “Israel first” and “America first.”

I will describe in my next article how the Sicilian expedition, which the Athenian neocons launched expecting a “short” and “decisive victory,” ended up going awry.

Our primary source of knowledge about the Peloponnesian Wars is the histories written by the Athenian General Thucydides. Both Athens and Sparta had their own separate alliances. Athens' "Delian League" was originally founded on the basis of the "Persian threat." The Persians had attempted to conquer Greece in 490 and 480 BC but had failed. Over time, the Delian League became an alliance that served only Athens' interests. Equal say in decisions was eliminated, while the League's treasury was moved to Athens. The members' contributions, which turned into tribute, were then spent for Athens.

Together with their respective allies, the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens spanned a vast region stretching from Istanbul to Crete and from the western coast of Anatolia to Sicily. In modern-day great power rivalries and alliance relationships, references to Thucydides are frequently made.

Western historians and international political scientists drew on Thucydides when interpreting the great power rivalry between England and Prussia (Germany) towards the end of the 19th century. During the Cold War, Thucydides also served as a reference in the rivalry between the "USA/West" clustered around the "NATO" and "Warsaw" military pacts and the "Soviet Union." Likewise, according to some American historians, the USA was a projection of Athens, while the "Soviet Union" was a projection of Sparta. Today, a similar characterization is used for the "great power rivalry" between the USA and China.

Thucydides holds an important place in the culture of imperialist international relations in the USA. Some foreign policy elites consider Thucydides the founder of the "Realist" school (Realpolitik). Due to the nature of alliances and fundamental concepts regarding the use of armed force, Thucydides is also a favorite among military strategists. In an article I wrote in January, I compared the US intervention in Venezuela to Athens' attack on the island of Melos, which had chosen neutrality during the Peloponnesian Wars. In that same article, I also touched upon the "Sicilian Expedition" that Athens launched after Melos.

The city-state of Melos had done absolutely no harm to Athens. However, the Athenians demanded that Melos surrender unconditionally and join the Delian League. During the negotiations known as the "Melian Dialogue," the Athenians argued that justice and fairness applied only between equal powers, and that the weak Melians had no choice but to accept these terms. According to the Athenians, treating the Melians leniently would be perceived as 'weakness' in the eyes of both their allies and their enemies. This "perception of weakness" could tempt Athens' adversaries.

The Melians' arguments that Sparta would come to their aid were also deemed laughable by the Athenians. A truce agreement known as the "Peace of Nicias" had been made between Athens and Sparta in 421 BC. Moreover, Sparta did not possess a navy capable of reaching Melos quickly.

The Melians refused to surrender. In 416 BC, Athens invaded Melos, slaughtered its adult male population, enslaved its women and children, and the "Melian Affair" created a huge breach in Athens' reputation. This reputational breach, stemming from the arrogance of power, would have severe consequences in the following years.

The "Peace of Nicias" had been orchestrated by the Athenian General Nicias, a prudent conservative. General Alcibiades, who made various attempts to break this peace, was the leader of the hawkish faction advocating war against Sparta. Alcibiades, one of the architects of the decision to destroy Melos, believed that "endless wars" were necessary for Athens' imperial expansion. We can view Alcibiades as an ancient Greek representation of the "American Neocons."

Trump's decision to send additional troops and an aircraft carrier to the Gulf, as he finds himself caught in an "escalation trap" in his war with Iran, evokes a phase in Athens' Sicilian Expedition. This naval expedition, which began with lavish ceremonies, led to fierce debates between the Nicias and Alcibiades factions in Athens. Athens' initial military successes ultimately turned into a strategic failure that ended in catastrophe. In my next article, I will discuss the similarities between the "Sicily" debates in Athens approximately 2,500 years ago and the "Iran" debates in the USA today.

In the other weight classes, our team’s dominance continued. The final match was to be between the two heavyweights. Our guy stepped onto the mat with confidence, his physique imposing. However, the opposing team had no heavyweight wrestler. Just as our guy was about to be declared the winner by default, the opposing team’s coach approached the referees and said something. The referees looked at him in surprise. They conferred among themselves for a while. Finally, an announcement was made. It was declared that the opposing team’s 74-kilo wrestler—the one who had captivated everyone in his own weight class—would face our heavyweight. The stands were bewildered. But soon a pleasant excitement and curiosity took hold of everyone. That blonde wrestler, having put his singlet back on, stepped onto the mat. This would be his second match. Opposite him stood a “giant” nearly twice his weight and not tired like he was. Everyone was laughing and preparing to watch a match where they thought our guy would toy with his opponent like a cat playing with a mouse. Our “bull” would crush him and avenge our only loss. The match began. Our guy was extremely confident. He must have thought he would get a result quickly, because he started attacking from all sides. His 74-kilo opponent, however, fended off his overwhelming pressure with fast, skillful moves. He had a subtle strategy. Throughout the first two rounds, he kept stalling, wearing out his opponent. But he did it so expertly that he avoided being penalized by the referees for passive wrestling. By the final round, our guy could barely stand. His opponent had gotten what he wanted: he had successfully brought him to the desired state. Using his superior technique, he began tossing our bull around like an empty sack. In the end, he won the match. The arena applauded him wildly. Yes, overall we had won—we had won, that is. But the fans were in no state to see it. The true victor of the night was that one wrestler from the other side.

As I follow the war between the US-Israel duo and Iran, this childhood memory often comes to mind. After the Cold War ended, what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and most recently Venezuela were recorded as colossal successes on America’s record. These were easy victories. With these “victories,” the US suffered a massive ego inflation. It could no longer see anything clearly. In this intoxication, it thought it would crush Iran too, which it saw as far below its own weight class. But after two weeks, it painfully realized that this was not the case. Looking at the current situation, everyone now sees that the US has sunk into a huge quagmire in the Gulf. The fact that it increases the intensity of its attacks day by day proves exactly that. Each marginal increase in violence indicates how futile the previous attack was. These escalations reveal how inevitable it is for the US to lose this war. The same thing happened in Vietnam. We can comfortably say that this escalation cannot continue indefinitely. Yes, some might think it’s too early, but I already judge that the US has lost.

The US lost in Vietnam too. But it knew how to compensate for that defeat by activating its systemic economic power. Vietnam returned what it won on the battlefield—above all, its honor—to the US by rapidly capitalizing and integrating into the dollar system. I heard from those who visited. A giant McDonald’s has opened right across from the modest house, now a museum, of the greatest leader of the Vietnamese resistance, that heroic man who gave his name to the capital, Ho Chi Minh. Isn’t that a tragicomic situation?

The US was at least victorious on paper in Afghanistan. It entered Kabul. But it couldn’t hold on; it had to leave Afghanistan, handing it over to the Taliban. We can assess this not so much as a defeat but as a failure.

In Iran, the situation is completely different. There, it is not only losing militarily, but also destroying with its own hands the system it built with its own hands. The Gulf, which forms the backbone of the petrodollar system, is now collapsing. What caused this collapse is nothing other than the ill-considered intervention of the US, having fallen for the ploy of Israel, which is experiencing political mania. This intervention, meant to cleanse the Gulf of Iran, is sinking the Gulf. The sinking of the Gulf is the sinking of the US, which built its hegemony starting from here. Like our tired 100-kilo wrestler, it trips itself up with its own moves and collapses.

Iran’s latest statements regarding the Strait of Hormuz are very striking. They announced that they would allow the passage of oil tankers operating with the yuan. This is the most critical development in recent days.

Trump, meanwhile, is flailing more and more. He is in a tight spot. Apparently he is experiencing delusions. The US itself is experiencing great turmoil at home. The MAGA base is turning against Trump. Anti-Israel sentiment is growing rapidly in the US. The dramatic resignation of the head of the Counterterrorism Center draws attention precisely to this fracture. Those who start from the unfounded notion that “the US always wins anyway” and make their choices accordingly need to rethink their calculations a few times. Tomorrow may be too late.

THE WAR HAS ENTERED A DANGEROUS PHASE

So, how will he resolve the Hormuz crisis? Does he have any option left other than deploying US troops on the ground? Trump is likely planning to seize control of Hormuz. It’s a wild idea. But signs of it are appearing on the ground. In recent days, the US military has started striking Iranian positions in the Strait of Hormuz with bunker-buster bombs. It is targeting Iran’s deterrent capability around the strait. There is a risk that US troops traveling from Japan could become easy targets in Hormuz.

The war has entered a dangerous phase. Iran had set the war’s agenda using the Hormuz card and had put Trump in a desperate position. It had gained the psychological upper hand. The killing of Laricani turned this around. The Revolutionary Guards can still strike various targets, especially in the Gulf states, with significant force. How the war will end is impossible to predict from here. But those in Iran seeking regime change may be approaching an outcome they did not calculate: what could remain of Iran after this war is a military regime hostile to the US and Israel.

ISRAEL’S SPOILS

For Israel, the spoils would be the conflict turning into an Arab-Iranian war. Iran’s attacks on neighboring Gulf countries since the start of the war was a wrong choice. It was an effort to increase the cost by widening the war and influence US decisions through the Gulf. It viewed the Gulf as a “tool for blackmail.” The killing of Laricani, followed by Israel’s strike on gas facilities in the South Pars field, led Iran to respond harshly. It targeted reciprocal points in Gulf countries, especially Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Qatar declaring Iranian attachés persona non grata is a dangerous sign.

The attacks on Riyadh occurred while an important meeting was taking place in the capital. In our previous articles, we emphasized that a “coordination” had been established in the region against Israel’s aggressive policies, that this coordination, with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar playing leading roles, was effective in Gaza, Syria, and even the Horn of Africa, and that this partnership would again be the actor to resolve this crisis. What needed to be done was to free Trump from Netanyahu’s influence.

STRONG LANGUAGE IN THE GULF STATEMENT

At the Riyadh meeting, which also included countries neighboring Iran such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan, the agenda was not so much stopping the war but rather Iran’s attacks targeting the Gulf. The joint statement issued after the summit is entirely about Iran (criticism of Israel’s expansionist policies was added to the text through Ankara’s initiatives). The joint statement, which also bears the signature of Foreign Minister Fidan, contains clear language: Iran’s attacks on regional countries, including Turkey, were condemned. The right to self-defense was affirmed. Iran was called on to “stop its attacks.” A condition was set: “the first step for a diplomatic solution is to establish good neighborly relations.” Iran was asked to end its support for proxy forces.

The Gulf countries, caught up in the immediacy of the situation, are focusing on Iran, but the post-war order is also very important. Because Israel is focusing on new spoils. Netanyahu will be a problem that all countries in the region need to contend with after the war. In fact, there are analysts suggesting that Israel also has its eye on Egypt and Jordan. That is a distant threat for now. But the same cannot be said for what is happening in Lebanon and Syria.

THE GRAND PLAN ON THE MAP

The scope of the simultaneous ground operation Israel launched in Lebanon, under the pretext of eliminating the Hezbollah threat, goes beyond Lebanon. Maps tell us that a larger plan is being put into motion. Let me explain: In discussions on disarming Hezbollah, Israel viewed the Litani River as a line. It wanted Hezbollah to move north of this river. However, in previous discussions, there was no mention of “depopulation.” The other day, the Israeli army ordered civilians living south of the Zahrani River in Lebanon to urgently evacuate the area. This is a new development. The Zahrani River is located 20 kilometers north of the Litani River. Israel is both expanding the area it wants to control and pushing the population there northward.

The Zahrani River has a strategic feature. If you draw a straight line eastward from the river, you reach Mount Hermon in Syria. Remember… After Assad was overthrown, Israel expanded its occupation in the Golan and seized Mount Hermon, establishing a base there. In other words, it linked the Golan with Mount Hermon. In Syria-Israel talks held under US auspices, it did everything it could to avoid withdrawing from this mountain.

If Israel reaches the Zahrani River, the territories it occupies in Syria (Golan, Hermon) will be back-to-back with the new areas it will occupy in Lebanon. Israel will likely seek to annex southern Lebanon and southern Syria by connecting them (an area of 4,000 square kilometers). If it finds the opportunity, it won’t stop there either. Let our friends in the Gulf be aware.

With oil prices hovering at historic levels, even Trump’s own support base is showing strong signs of backlash. Struggling to find a political exit from the war he entered with Iran’s ‘encouragement,’ Trump is also aware of the domestic political costs generated by the Hormuz crisis. Preferring to keep conflicts limited to military and strategic objectives, Trump now faces mounting pressure from the economic toll. Iran, fully aware of the American public's sensitivity to petrol prices, is leveraging the threat of destroying regional energy infrastructure to put the squeeze on Washington. Trump’s recent message is a clear indication that this strategy is having an effect.

The Psychological Pressure of Gasoline Prices

In the United States, where private cars are the primary mode of transportation, gasoline prices have a very high visibility in people's daily lives. The country, which consumes an average of 9 million barrels of oil per day, has around 0.87 vehicles per person—one of the highest rates in the world. Households with two or more cars make up 59% of the American population. Outside of a few densely populated city centers like New York, Americans drive to work, school, the grocery store, or any other activity, meaning they constantly interact with gasoline prices. During daily travel, it's impossible to miss the fluctuations in petrol prices, advertised in large numbers by gas stations competing with one another. Since the prices of many other goods are less conspicuous, the psychological impact of gasoline prices is immense. This phenomenon, also known as the availability heuristic, leads citizens to gauge the state of the economy and the competence of politicians in managing it through the lens of petrol prices.

Global Prices, National Accountability

Having become perhaps one of the most sensitive indicators in American politics, gasoline prices—despite being tied to the international price per barrel of oil—are increasingly seen by voters as the president's responsibility. Because fluctuations in oil prices are directly linked to geopolitical crises such as the invasion of Iraq, Russia's attack on Ukraine, or war with Iran, the public holds the perception that these are problems the president should be able to solve. Just as the oil embargo of the 1970s put pressure on Carter, the Iraq invasion in the 2000s on Bush, and the Ukraine invasion in 2022 on Biden, the war with Iran has now put Trump in a difficult position.

Even though oil prices are set by international markets, the fact that political accountability for gasoline prices is demanded at the national level forces presidents to take action on the issue. Following Bush's admission that America was 'addicted to oil' and needed to break the habit, subsequent investments and the shale gas revolution transformed the U.S. into an energy-independent power and a net exporter. Despite this, America's deep economic integration into global markets means that fluctuations in oil prices continue to have a significant capacity to shape domestic politics.

When incentives for renewable energy projects aimed at reducing oil dependency, along with efforts to move away from fossil fuels due to environmental concerns, led to short-term increases in gasoline prices, it generated political costs for both the Obama and Biden administrations. Many investments made to comply with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement were condemned for their role in raising petrol prices. Trump and the Republicans fiercely opposed these initiatives and won elections by promising to lower gasoline prices. The Trump administration not only canceled numerous green projects and removed barriers to fossil fuel use but also promised that operations involving Venezuela and Iran would bring petrol prices down. When these promises failed to materialize, the American public became highly agitated as gasoline prices surged by around 23% in just a few weeks.

The Geopolitical Struggle

It's fair to say America doesn't have a serious problem with self-sufficiency in oil supply, as the ability to tap into strategic petroleum reserves and the country's high domestic production capacity stand out as significant advantages. However, the fact that global prices determine domestic market prices, and that they are decisive for the strategic positions of U.S. adversaries like China and Russia, makes it impossible for Washington to simply claim 'we are self-sufficient.' Even if the Hormuz crisis doesn't directly impact America's ability to meet its own oil needs, it directly hits the energy exports of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. The continuation of the conflict, which complicates energy purchases for Europe, China, and other Asian countries, also benefits Russia, which gets the chance to sell its oil at higher prices.

In American politics, gasoline prices are not just an economic indicator; they function as a powerful barometer shaping the perception of political leadership. Because fluctuations in global oil prices—directly affected by America's foreign policy moves—are domestically blamed on the president, Washington is compelled to shape its foreign policy actions according to the sensitivities of the public at home. As seen in the Hormuz crisis, every tension and conflict in the region produces political consequences proportionate to their impact on the wallets of the American people. For this reason, oil prices, influenced by energy supply security and geopolitical rivalry, emerge not just as a geopolitical or geoeconomic issue, but as a critical factor determining the president's ability to sustain power in domestic politics. It is clear that these political concerns are what drive Trump's desire to prevent the war from escalating into a conflict where energy infrastructure becomes a primary target.

Having lost control of the situation, Trump has fallen into the "escalation trap." Unwilling to halt the attacks for fear of appearing weak, he's now sending more troops and warships to the region, while also calling on numerous Western nations to back him up.

Israel's core strategy is to ensure no power emerges in the region that it cannot handle. Israel wants regional countries fragmented down to their smallest ethnic and sectarian components, hoping to establish a Zionist hegemony over this fractured regional structure. Of course, Israel aims to achieve this regional Zionist dominance by leveraging U.S. power as if it were its own. Trump's campaign against Iran serves this Israeli objective, much like how the Neocons convinced then-U.S. President George W. Bush to invade Iraq back in 2003. All other justifications are merely a cover.

Israel wants to drag the region, including our country, into a protracted conflict. It's well known that as soon as war begins, it turns into a fog. Within this "fog of war," many things can happen, including "false flag operations." That's why countries not involved in the conflict must be extremely cautious. Israel's track record with false flag operations is far from clean.

Zionist agents have resorted to false flag operations in many countries, especially Iraq, to encourage Jewish migration to Israel. In the early 1950s, Israeli agents were behind the arson attacks and bombings targeting Jewish sites in Baghdad. These false flag operations were designed to scare hundreds of thousands of "Mizrahi" Arab Jews into emigrating to Israel. It later became clear that some of the perpetrators were made to appear as Arab assailants.

In 1954, members of a Zionist network arrested in Cairo and Alexandria for planting bombs at American information offices were also operating under Israeli direction. The goal of this failed false flag operation was to strain the Egyptian government's relations with the U.S. and the West. It also aimed to prevent British troops from withdrawing from the Suez Canal. Among those arrested was Israeli intelligence officer Max Binnet, who was also found to be responsible for the attacks in Iraq.

Binnet committed suicide in a Cairo prison when his extradition to Iraq was being discussed. Two Jews were executed in connection with this case. Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was forced to resign. Alongside many Jewish historians, Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim, a Baghdad native, discusses these Israeli false flag operations in his book "Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew."

One of the most striking examples of a false flag operation that backfired on Israel occurred in 1967 during the Arab-Israeli War, when Israel attacked an American military vessel. The assault on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, near Egypt, aimed to drag the U.S. directly into the conflict. Israel wanted to create the impression that the attack was carried out by Egypt using a Soviet-made warplane.

When it emerged that Israel was behind the attack, which killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 others, the administration of President Lyndon Johnson swept the incident under the rug. Although Israel claimed it was a case of mistaken identity, believing the vessel to be an Egyptian ship, evidence pointed to a deliberate attack. Thanks to the influence of the "Israel Lobby," Israel managed to escape full accountability by paying compensation to the families of the deceased. The repercussions of the case are still felt today.

For Israel, all means are justified. An Israel that kills tens of thousands of children in Gaza without flinching is capable of any evil. The genocidal Netanyahu has even invoked a Torah story that he claims justifies the slaughter of people he considers enemies, along with their livestock. Compared to such atrocities, false flag operations almost seem benign. Therefore, one must account for the fact that, within the fog of war, Israel may cloak itself in various colors and identities to commit any conceivable outrage.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who covers his body with cross tattoos to show he's a Crusader knight, said at various religious events that Trump's policies are "biblical," that Trump is a "warrior," and that God has given him a special mission. Genocidal Netanyahu, in his first press conference since the war with Iran began, said: "We will endure until the Messiah returns, but that won't happen this coming Thursday." Of course, Netanyahu was referring to the Jewish Messiah.

The Jewish and Christian messiahs are diametrically opposed. The arrival of one means the annihilation of the other. Naturally, it's a matter of curiosity how Mike Huckabee, a leading figure among Christian Zionists and the US Ambassador to Israel, will sell Netanyahu's Messiah to Christians.

It's said that Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the rabbi of New York's Hasidic Jewish "Chabad-Lubavitch Synagogue" who died in 1994 and was called "the Rebbe," described Netanyahu as "the last Israeli Prime Minister before the Messiah." Members of this sect regarded Schneerson as the "King Messiah." Some believe Schneerson never died, while others think he did die but will reappear as the Messiah in this synagogue. According to both groups, Schneerson is the "Expected Messiah" who will establish the "Greater Israel Kingdom."

Rabbi Schneerson, who passed away at age 92, never once set foot in Israel. However, with very close ties to Israeli governments and the Israeli military, Schneerson was known for his extremely harsh rhetoric insisting that Israel should never withdraw from occupied territories. Advocating that Jews must attain the borders of "Greater Israel" for the Messiah to come, Schneerson is a symbolic figure for Zionist settlers in the West Bank.

Christians awaiting their own Messiah, on the other hand, view the Jewish Messiah as the "Antichrist." It's worth recalling that in the 17th century, when Jewish figure Sabbatai Zevi declared himself the "Savior Messiah," Christians labeled him the "Antichrist."

Upon complaints from established Jewish rabbis, Ottoman Sultan Mehmet IV—also known as "Mehmet the Hunter"—immediately had Sabbatai Zevi and his entourage arrested. In the end, Sabbatai Zevi saved his skin by converting to Islam. Those across Europe, especially in the Netherlands, who had sold off their properties and possessions for a pittance to follow Zevi and establish the "Greater Israel Kingdom," were left bitterly disappointed.

According to his followers, Sabbatai Zevi's supporters fabricated tales that he would seize the Turkish Sultan's crown and country in Istanbul without even drawing a sword, and that the Sultan would follow Zevi as his slave from land to land. According to these legends, all nations including Christians would submit to Sabbatai Zevi's command and regard Jews as their "masters." Because of these absurd fantasies, Sabbataists in Europe lost their goods, properties, and fortunes. Some Jews even lost their lives in clashes that erupted between Christians and Jews.

Now, similar absurd fantasies are being manufactured by Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists. Even stranger was a statement by US Secretary of Defense Hegseth arguing that US and Israeli military superiority over Iran is increasing, saying: "The only thing expanding is our advantage. We're also seeing our Gulf allies increasingly step up and move into attack positions." Netanyahu likewise said: "Together with my team, we're building new alliances in the region. We're working on relationships that seemed like a dream just a few weeks ago."

The very fact that Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists, driven by messianic delusions aimed at turning the region into a bloodbath, imagine that the peoples of Muslim countries will fight alongside the US and Israel shows just what kind of mental illness they've succumbed to.

THE VICTORY DECLARATION OPTION

Trump could declare victory by stating that the goal of the war was to destroy Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile infrastructure and that they have already accomplished this. By using such rhetoric, Trump has partially reassured markets. However, if he declares victory and withdraws, he would face the risk of Iran continuing its attacks. Already dealing with the perception that he has failed to adequately protect Gulf allies and Israel from attacks, Trump would be accused of standing by while Iran strikes the region if he claims that America's operations have defined their mission. Therefore, he needs to reach a tacit or explicit mutual ceasefire agreement with Iran.

Iran believes that seeking a deal in the diplomatic process is perceived as weakness by the US and Israel and that it must eliminate this perception. For this reason, rather than rushing into a ceasefire, Iran is demanding conditions that would prevent a potential future attack and a roadmap for the lifting of sanctions. Since it would be political suicide for Trump to concede to Iran while declaring victory, such a ceasefire could only be achieved through a secret agreement. In this case, the victory declaration option would, in a scenario where Iran is unwilling to agree to a ceasefire, effectively become a declaration of weakness for Trump.

THE OPTION OF FORCING IRAN TO SURRENDER

Knowing he would struggle to give substance to a victory declaration scenario, Trump might continue bombing until Iran surrenders. It could be said that the Iranian regime has coalesced much more tightly because of the war. Trump may have thought that a decapitation strike against Khamenei would yield a result similar to Venezuela's, but a similar scenario did not materialize in Iran. Bombing the country until the regime's new leadership is hunted down and forced into submission would be an open-ended engagement with serious costs, making it an option unlikely to be embraced by the American public.

If Congress provides financial and political support and the American public is convinced of the war's necessity, a longer-term operation might be possible. However, Iran's capacity to strike oil markets and Gulf countries would deter Trump from a prolonged war. The fact that the Iranian regime has not surrendered so far, having overcome the shock of Khamenei's killing, further weakens the likelihood of its surrender in the future. In such an equation, by setting such a high-level political goal as the regime's surrender, Trump would tie his own hands and enter a dynamic where he harms himself as the process drags on.

THE REGIME CHANGE OPTION

The regime change option would be an even longer and more complex process than the option of forcing surrender. This is a scenario where air and naval strikes would not suffice, a major ground operation would be essential, Iranian resistance would be at its peak, and it would require at least tens of thousands of American troops to enter by land. This option, where American public pressure against a new invasion would increase dramatically, could amount to political suicide for Trump. Considering the lack of a political organization capable of replacing the regime, even if American forces entered by land and captured Tehran, building a new regime would take many years and likely end in failure, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Many critical advantages present in Iraq's overthrow of Saddam (the Iraqi Kurds, extensive military operation preparations, the Saddam regime's lack of resistance) would not apply to Iran. It would require an uprising by Iranian Kurds, opening a front from Azerbaijan in the north, the US Navy being able to use the Strait of Hormuz (where traffic would be halted due to Iran's missiles), support from Gulf countries, and sending tens of thousands of American troops into a ground operation with a massive budget. Considering that even preparing for this scenario would take months, it's clear the regime change option is not very realistic. Moreover, it is evident that, unlike in Venezuela, there is no regime ready to work with America after the incapacitation of the regime's leader.

Although Trump tries in his rhetoric to project an image of keeping all three main options on the table, declaring victory stands out as the most realistic option. Even in this scenario, it should be remembered that he does not have complete control and that Iran's stance will also be a factor. Iran might set conditions like guarantees that America will not attack again and the lifting of sanctions. However, if it denies Trump an exit and tries to 'humiliate' him, America could become more aggressive and turn to the second or even third options. It is clear that no power involved in the war can achieve a true victory, but all will want to declare one. In this context, the war with Iran, for Trump, has become less of a genuine military confrontation and more a matter of political timing: deciding when and how to say "I won" and declare a ceasefire.

The US could not even protect the military bases it spread across many countries in the Middle East. US military bases, naval bases, and intelligence bases located in the aforementioned countries suffered heavy attacks.

It became clear that the US does not even have the capability to protect its own bases in such a war. All of them, including the 5th Fleet in Bahrain, including radar bases, including massive military deployments, came under attack and could not be protected.

TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED.

The US, which for decades took trillions of dollars saying "we will defend you," did nothing for these countries against Iranian missiles in just ten days, could do nothing, and it became evident it can do nothing.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain are in great shock. I am sure they are asking themselves, "So what a mistake did we make by entrusting our defense to the US?"

These countries, which until today lived in safety under US protection, if they are experiencing this while suffering Iranian attacks today, have seen that they will experience the same vulnerability in attacks by other powers tomorrow.

THEN THE US WON'T PROTECT THEM, THEY WILL 'STRIKE' THEM.

We know that Israel will not remain idle after the Israel-Iran war. We know that Israel will attack some of the countries that are currently US allies. Just as the US will not protect any of these countries then, we also know that it will support Israel and strike these countries. That is when the Arab/Gulf countries will experience the real fatal shock.

ALL THESE INVESTMENTS WERE FOR INTERNAL THREATS.

The US military presence and military bases in the regional countries were calibrated to protect these countries not against external threats, but against "internal threats." They were calibrated to protect and manage, to own the regimes, the ruling elites, the oil wealth.

I think this shock will seriously affect the future decisions of the regional countries. They found themselves completely defenseless. But the real question is this: Regional countries know that the US military presence, which protects them against possible internal threats, will not provide protection in the event of a regional external threat. So how will this gap be filled?

THEY SHOULD ESTABLISH A JOINT DEFENSE SHIELD WITH TÜRKİYE.

Considering the uncertainty to be experienced in the coming years, the volatility in our geography, and the fatal changes in the global power mathematics, it is now imperative for them to make some changes in a state of urgency.

The way to do this is for Türkiye and the regional countries to build a joint defense shield.

EUROPE EXPERIENCED THE SAME SITUATION. THE US COULDN'T DEFEND THEM EITHER.

Europe experienced the same situation that the Gulf countries have fallen into. When Russia attacked Ukraine, they suddenly realized they were defenseless, that US presence alone would not be enough to protect them, and that the US had no such intention anyway.

Now they are desperately seeking solutions and remedies for Europe's defense. They are even asking for support from Türkiye, which they excluded for decades.

Like Europe, the Gulf countries have seen that the US is not willing to protect them. The US leaving both the Gulf countries and Europe so isolated, or rather it becoming evident that it cannot defend them, is a major rupture. This will be what truly breaks the post-World War II order.

THEY USED ORGANIZATIONS AND THREW THEM AWAY. THEY USED STATES AND THREW THEM AWAY.

Organizations like the PKK, PJAK, and YPG, which for years served as proxies in the aggression of the US and Israel towards our region, were seen as "forces to be discarded once their job was done." We saw this most recently in Syria.

Now they are trying to deploy the same forces against Iran. Although they may hesitate for now, it is clear they will become willing to do so in the later stages of the war. This proxy role caused Kurdish nationalism to be perceived as a second Israel, categorizing it as a common enemy across the region.

The grave aspect is that until today, organizations were used and discarded. Like the PKK, like DAESH. Now states are being used and discarded. The states in the Gulf/Middle East region are, without exception, US allies. In fact, it's more than alliance; there is an integration.

THEY CONSTANTLY CONCOCTED "THREATS" FOR THE ARAB NATION.

But now we see that this alliance relationship has been revealed to be a kind of subcontracting, a relationship of American plunder. They always showed a threat to the Arab nation and steered them where they wanted. The Saddam threat, the Al-Qaeda threat, the Muslim Brotherhood threat, the Iran threat. Now they are working on the Turkish threat.

Regional countries, designed by this threat and intimidation, may have no tomorrow if they do not wake up immediately. The current states could be broken up into very small pieces.

It is now certain that after Iran, Israel will target Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, and will use US power for this. So, will this game, played for decades, still work? If it does, it means all nations living in this vast geography are under threat.

"REGIONAL IRAN" COLLAPSED. CAN IT COLLAPSE INTERNALLY TOO?

Iran was first ousted from Syria and weakened in Lebanon. The "Regional Iran" project collapsed. Withdrawn to its own borders, all of Iran's initiatives carried out on a geographic scale since the Iran-Iraq war turned to waste. The history that has ravaged our region since 1979, causing as much damage as US-Israeli occupations and attacks, became a lie.

The attacks we call the 12-day war began. Iran was struck from within. We saw such examples, witnessed such betrayals, that it raised questions about how such a state could survive. Iran, finished in the region, was practically rotten inside! It wasn't just attacked. It was discredited, humiliated.

Immediately after, uprisings were started inside the country. US and European intelligence, organized internally for decades, were put at the service of Israeli intelligence, and mass uprisings were initiated. Iran was being weakened from within for the second time after the 12-day war.

The uprising was brought under control. A major purge was initiated inside. Just as things were expected to calm down, Netanyahu convinced Trump, and a second attack on Iran was launched. Regime change and nuclear activities were presented as justification, but Israel's attacks on Iran were actually a blood feud.

THEY SAID "WE WEAKENED THEM, LET'S FINISH THEM." BUT THINGS DIDN'T TURN OUT THAT WAY AT ALL!

It was thought that Iran, weakened so much, would collapse with the latest attack. Netanyahu probably convinced Trump this way. But it didn't happen as they expected. Just as the Gulf countries experienced a shock when they realized the US protection shield was absent, the US was experiencing the same shock in the face of Iran's sharp and very harsh retaliations.

No one had thought Iranian missiles and drones would be this effective, that Tehran would first strike US bases in the region to free its hand. No one had calculated that Iran would strike US bases, regional countries, and Israel simultaneously.

They thought the aggression they pursued through fear would work, that Iran would accept defeat. They believed killing Khamenei would also emotionally collapse Iran.

REGIONAL COUNTRIES DID NOT FALL INTO THE ISRAELI TRAP.

The US cannot sustain this war, which it started "reluctantly" and without a plan, for long. Israel cannot sustain this war for long, despite its pressure on the US. If Iran continues to stand as firm as it has so far, if its power permits, the US may have to step back.

Because they couldn't topple Iran from within. They couldn't launch a ground attack, and they won't be able to. Consequently, their calculations didn't work out. They thought they would strike and an uprising would start from within; that didn't work. They thought they would strike and regional countries would attack Iran; that didn't work either.

ISRAEL WILL USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! THE US'S BUSINESS IN THIS REGION WILL BE FINISHED!

So what remains? I don't know about the US, but Israel will use nuclear weapons as its last card. These frenzied deviants will commit mass massacres in Iran. And this contract will remain on the US.

A nuclear attack shatters the paradigm of the entire geography. It mobilizes the entire geography against Israel. The US's entire business in this geography is finished. No power or rhetoric can guarantee the existence of US power.

BUT WHAT IF IRAN ALSO LAUNCHES A NUCLEAR ATTACK ON ISRAEL!

Currently, there is a US that is "losing the world for Israel." It appears as a rogue state that has become an enemy with all countries, attacking everywhere. Its global reputation and security are at zero point.

This is not sustainable in the long term. The dramatic loss of the Middle East for the US, which is losing the world, could happen much sooner than we expect.

Israel will use nuclear weapons against Iran. But what if Iran also has nuclear weapons! What if it also uses them against Israel? This is possible. Moreover, Israel is a place the size of the palm of your hand. It would be impossible for it to recover after such an attack. It would experience a complete collapse.

IF WE LOOK THROUGH A SECTARIAN LENS, WE WILL MAKE IRAN'S MISTAKES... EVERYONE IS BEING VERY, VERY CAREFUL RIGHT NOW!

If the Iran issue is perceived through a sectarian lens, we cannot correctly read the future of the region. We would repeat the mistake Iran has made for forty years. We need a perspective, a stance, and a preparation on a geographic scale, above sectarianism.

We know that those attacking Iran are not attacking for sectarianism. They didn't attack Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan for sectarianism.

Sunni countries must not fall into the sectarian blindness that Iran has fallen into, must not position themselves accordingly, and must not look at the future of their countries and the geography through this narrow, sterile blindness.

THE US CAN NO LONGER HOLD ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

The Gulf countries have acted with incredible composure and patience so far. This is not out of fear, as Russia claims, but because they see the "Israeli setup" aimed at regionalizing the war.

If these results have emerged in less than two weeks, it means this war will be truly devastating for the US.

A state that cannot protect even its own military bases can no longer hold on in this geography. The ground beneath its feet has shifted.

The West had been waging an economic war against Iran for over 40 years. They wore Iran down, they frayed it, but they couldn't force it to surrender. Now they've turned it into a military war.

This is actually a sign of confusion for the West. Theoretically, they were supposed to fight China militarily and Russia economically. They messed that up too.

But thanks to this confusion, Iran has, for the first time, seized an opportunity for payback in the economic war.

And it didn't miss this opportunity. It reminded a world that had long forgotten the importance of its geographical mainland, of its significance in the seas. It closed Hormuz. It was the only move it needed to make and could make. The US striking Iran's oil depots shows it saw this move and was angered by it. Despite caring deeply, it tried to prove it didn't care by hitting the depots... In any case, the overall situation is not as America tries to portray it. It is faltering, getting its wires crossed.

Now Iran has one single duty and one single way out: to keep Hormuz closed. If Iran focuses on keeping Hormuz closed, it will become clear that the rest of the world always pays the price for America's wars and Israel's filth.

For years, the US and Israel had been charging the world the cost of the instability they dragged it into. They were charging the world the cost of their absurd financial bubbles. They were charging the world the cost of their immeasurable waste. But they had established such an indirect system that no one could understand they were bearing these costs even though they had no part in them. Everyone was blaming themselves. But now, through Hormuz, for the first time, the direct impact will be understood.

Everyone will see how they've been fleecing the world. A breach will be opened in the walls of the financial system.

Let no one blame themselves. The fault lies with America, the fault lies with the West...

They are the ones responsible for the cost-of-living crisis imposed on humanity. They are the ones who steal humanity's welfare for the welfare of their own people. Not rhetoric, but economic science...

I don't know if Iran can hold out militarily. But it has shown it can hold out economically forever. It achieved this thanks to not having energy dependency. From this point on, sustaining the war economically is the only correct strategy.

But there is a problem. Iran has a critical mistake that could make it lose: not removing the threat via regional countries...

Its initial strikes on American bases in the region were seen as legitimate. Even though the host countries were on the front lines, they were aware this was not their war.

But if Iran misinterprets this situation as a sign of weakness from regional countries, it will have made a fatal error.

It must declare and guarantee that it has finished its business with the American bases and that not a single missile will be fired from it towards regional countries again.

Otherwise, it will hand victory to its enemy. Otherwise, because it hasn't made its position clear, Israel will strike these countries and claim Iran did it.

Especially if they go after desalination plants, it would be a complete Karbala.

Regional countries meet their water needs from desalination plants that remove salt from seawater. Damage to these facilities means they would be left without water. If these are attacked by Iran, or if attacks on these places are blamed on Iran, the regime's image, in terms of evil, would be no better than the Zionists'.

Iran must understand these warnings well. Because no one is looking for profit; as regional countries, we just want to avoid loss.

In short, Iran's task seems easy if it quickly develops a relationship with its neighbors based on respect and trust. America's task is also easy: if it says "this is not our war" and leaves Israel and Iran alone... If it doesn't, it will experience a rapid loss of altitude from its peak of power. Its task will become very difficult, just like Israel's.

For example, that was what happened on the road to World War II. The fictitious values that were the main reference of the times known as the Belle Époque had eroded, and humanity was dragged into the adventures of fanatics like Hitler. In the world established after World War II, known as the World Order, fictitious values were redefined.

From a political perspective, participatory democracy, respect for individual rights and freedoms, recognition of national independence, and non-interference in the internal affairs of nations, etc., were accepted as a set of fictitious values. Now new relations would be established according to these, and actions would be weighed on these scales and judged. Indeed, it is possible to debate to the end whether these values are inherently valuable. There have been those who did so. But concrete life and actions have, more or less, entered the discipline of the new order.

This picture indicates to us that values are not so much values themselves, but rather the product of a valuation. In short, 'valuation' comes before the value itself. Evaluations manifest as a function of valuation, not of value.

We can see this in the field of economics as well. For example, the history of money, which we know as a medium of exchange, shows this very clearly. Some precious metals with a long history, such as gold or silver, are essentially just metals in their concreteness. But it is humans who imbue them with valuation. From the moment this valuation receives common acceptance, gold and silver gain value in a fictitious sense and become the subject of evaluations, calculations, and transactions in economic life. Of course, the fact that gold and silver are rarer than other metals is another important criterion. In this way, their excessive multiplication and loss of value over time is prevented from the outset. For example, in Latin America, gold was so abundant that the natives did not regard it, using it at most as ornaments or children's toys. When the Spanish colonists arrived on the continent and saw children playing with marbles made of gold, their eyes nearly popped out. The Spaniards carried these riches to their homeland with insatiable greed. Then what happened? The increased abundance of gold eliminated the 'fictitious' value attributed to it. The once mighty Spanish Kingdom collapsed inward. It not only ruined itself but also the Mediterranean economies to which it was linked. These effects extended to the Italian city-states and even to the Ottoman Empire.

In the modern world, the transition to paper money created a risky paradox. Infinite money could be printed in printing presses. This risk paved the way for money barons who made money from money. Their existence resembled a group of dangerous cells within economies, prone to metastasizing at any moment. The way to stop it was to tie paper money stocks to limited gold. Bretton Woods loosened this discipline. The new hegemonic power, the USA, maintained a precarious balance between 1950 and 1970, when its economic production was very vibrant. As the dollar supply increased, production also increased, so the issue was not felt at least. The dollar-based reserve currency standard imposed by the USA on the world allowed it to siphon off the world's surplus without trouble. In this way, it could also market the American Dream as a cultural fictitious value. But when its obligation to convert dollars into gold in the payments regime began to deplete its reserves, alarm bells rang. Moreover, when the welfare society it had built through intense middle-class formation began to erode productivity and reduce production, it made a critical decision. The fictitious value shifted from metal to paper. It severed the gold discipline it had already held loosely. Now it would print dollars ruthlessly. It was inevitable that this would lead to inflation, just as the Spaniards experienced with gold. To prevent this, it did two things. First, it tied world energy trade, especially oil, to the dollar. It kept demand for the dollar alive by constructing an artificial consumption culture through a widespread debt network and flashy advertisements. By turning its military power into a threat tool, it made efforts to artificially sustain the dollar, which had practically lost so much value in the world payments regime.

In terms of energy, the Gulf was one of the heartlands of this scene. There, they created fake paradises through dollar-oil and arms trade. For a long time, the US dangled Iran's presence like a Damocles' sword over these fake paradises. This was a fictitious situation. Iran, which it had kept gasping under blockades but also given some room and gained ground in the meantime, turned to China, which had replaced the US, and to Russia, its historical rival, to overcome its predicament, and things reversed. Probably, the Gulf-Iran normalization brokered by China was the last straw. With Israel's provocation, they carried out a reckless attack whose purpose was unclear. We are in the tenth days of the war. Iran has proven tough and seized the initiative despite heavy material damage. Israel and the US are imposing a blackout on news flow. We don't know how many Israelis and Americans have died. Nor do we know what devastation Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa have suffered. The blackout suggests that the scale is greater than estimated. The Iranian people are united in a struggle for existence. They know they have nothing to lose. The most dangerous force on earth is the force of those who have nothing left to lose. Under heavy bombardment, each passing day strengthens Iran's power while further breaking the resolve of the other side. Asking who will win this war is meaningless. The US and Israel have already lost. The 'fictitious' world established in the Gulf is now irreparable. With dozens of its bases unusable, how will the US now protect the Gulf and from whom? Whom will it convince of this promise? Money, technology, and wealthy tourists are fleeing the fake paradises. Israelis are also fleeing Israel... Now a completely different Middle East is on the stage. The only danger is that these madmen might commit one more madness, throwing the Middle East into conflict, triggering a repeat of that infamous Thirty Years' War in history; the most frightening is if they reach for nuclear weapons. I don't even want to think about it.

This destructive phase, representing the latest point in the regional struggle between Israel and Iran, also seems unlikely to result in a lasting agreement in the short term. If Iran adopts a maximalist position of continuing the war unless America completely withdraws from the region, it cannot bear the cost of an open-ended, perpetual war. It also seems unlikely that Israel will achieve its goal of completely neutralizing Iran. In this equation, if Trump declares victory and ends the war, Iran will also declare victory, but in this scenario, there will be no real winner of the war. The scenario where Iran is heavily wounded, Israel fails to completely eliminate Iran as a threat, and America fails to achieve regime change stands out as the most likely scenario.

The Economic Cost

The fastest and most deterrent effect of the war with Iran has been the sharp fluctuations it created in energy markets. The large-scale halt of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz pushed the price per barrel of oil above $100 as of Monday. Trump announced that the US government would provide insurance and military protection for transit ships, but implementing this quickly doesn't seem possible. Since Trump's war preparations focused on amassing troops in the region without preparing to minimize the economic consequences, this is a major problem. Insurance companies either don't want to insure oil tankers, or the policies are prohibitively expensive. Even if insurance were available, many shipping companies don't want to risk their vessels and crew. Although some transits through the strait are currently taking place, they are either very risky or unrecorded.

Beyond oil, the security problem in the region also generates a very serious risk for liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets. Qatar halting its LNG production and exports due to Iranian drone strikes has hit European and Asian energy markets. This situation has increased demand for American LNG exports, but with America's limited capacity for expansion, it's impossible for it to fill Qatar's place. While European markets have seen increases of around 50%, price spikes reaching up to 100% in Asia have shaken energy markets. American LNG producers, the world's largest exporters, are benefiting from this situation, but the price volatility increases unpredictability and fragility in energy markets.

The fact that the war did not begin with a Congressional decision forces the Trump administration to use the existing Pentagon budget. Although there is much conflicting and speculative news about the cost of the war, we know America has already spent billions of dollars. If the Trump administration continues the war at the same pace, requesting a supplementary budget from Congress will become inevitable. This would mean Congress declaring war, and consequently, Trump losing control over determining the war's fate. At a time when his job approval rating is at historically low levels, it doesn't seem possible for Trump to convince Congress to declare war and approve billions in new budget. The fluctuations in energy markets directly hitting the budgets of the American people, the negative outlook in the stock market, and the ever-increasing economic cost of the war are pushing Trump to declare victory as soon as possible.

Who is Winning, Who is Losing?

Looking at what America has gained, it's striking that Trump cannot find support to convince the American public of the need for high energy prices and economic costs. The public is already convinced this is Israel's war, not America's, and does not want to pay any more. Even if Congress supports it in the short term under the influence of the Israel lobby, passing a long-term war decision and allocating a budget would be political suicide. Seeing that the promised scenario of a quick victory and regime change, as Israel claimed, is not happening, Trump will have to settle for the claim of destroying Iran's military nuclear and ballistic missile capacity. It was known that Trump would declare victory regardless of the outcome, but the real question was at what stage he would do so. The conflict in June 2025 lasted 12 days; this war could last longer, but Trump already saying he has won indicates that stopping operations may not be far off.

Facing America's so-called victory, it's not possible to say Iran has achieved a clear success either. It was largely clear that regime change would not be possible without a full-scale American invasion. Iran cannot be said to have succeeded in deterring America by generating significant economic and military costs. Iran, whose political leadership and military infrastructure have taken a heavy blow, has dealt a lasting blow to its relations with Gulf countries. Although it showed it could strike Israel, it made a strategic error by pushing its neighbors towards the US and Israel. By regionalizing the war, Iran has become regionally isolated, and the support it receives from Russia and China appears to be minimal. Even if it indirectly achieves US withdrawal through generating economic costs rather than military force, it's difficult to say this is a lasting gain in terms of regional power projection.

As for Israel, although it succeeded in getting America to attack Iran, Trump's 'last chance' remark indicates that the Netanyahu government has dealt a lasting blow to the US-Israel relationship. Congressional support remaining at a partisan level shows how much the traditional bipartisan American support has eroded. An equation has emerged where it will be impossible to verify whether Iran's nuclear capacity has been destroyed, as Iran's future acceptance of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections will depend on major concessions. Iran's capacity to use its ballistic missiles has been significantly set back, but repairing this capacity in the medium term is possible. Israel ensured a major blow was struck against Iran, but it cannot claim to have ended the Iranian threat.

It must also be added that regional countries—neither believing America will protect them against Iran nor trying to get along with Iran—have found what they hoped for. Looking at countries like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, it's clear that major investments in the American security umbrella, occasional rapprochement with Israel, and efforts at outreach to Iran have largely failed. Gulf countries, unable to convince either America not to enter the war or Iran not to attack them, will have to turn towards a new security understanding. The negative impact of energy market volatility on their economies will also emerge as a critical challenge in the coming period. Looking at all these dynamics, it's not difficult to predict that this war will have no winner and that a new regional security balance will need to be established.

The US and Israel couldn't have possibly thought Iran would be an easy target like Venezuela. But they're not achieving their expectations in Iran. Neither is the public reacting against the regime, nor is the Iranian state accepting their demands. Iran's strategy is to prolong the war (The new leader is Mojtaba Khamenei. The conflict has shifted from military targets to vital infrastructure like water reservoirs and oil refineries. It's said that Iran has enough ballistic missile & drone stock to sustain this war for a minimum of 5 months through target prioritization.)

If it manages this, Iran calculates that domestic and international pressure on the US will increase. At the same time, it thinks the US and Israel will face ammunition shortages. It's creating economic costs. It's trying to shake the confidence of Gulf allies in the US (I used to view the conflict spreading to regional countries as a strategic mistake that would deepen the crisis. But if the goal is to prolong the war, the objective is being achieved.) Iran will insist on prolonging the war. The US, on the other hand, wants to end it quickly.

WHERE IS THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN?

(In this context, could the US resort to tactical nuclear weapons? I've started hearing this concern frequently.) War is waged to impose your will. If Trump fails in Iran, the elections will also be in jeopardy. If this war drags on, the perception of failure increases. Anything could come to the table to break that. They might attempt different ground operations. The fact that the situation on the ground isn't going their way is making them aggressive. Trump is sending a third aircraft carrier, a very costly and critical decision. The Abraham Lincoln (aircraft carrier) is nowhere to be seen; Iran might have actually damaged it.

WATCH CYPRUS!

The war is full of uncertainties. However, some opportunities might arise for Türkiye. The place we need to watch is Cyprus. Everyone is currently bringing troops to Cyprus under some pretext or another. What is the intention behind this? We need to question it. Is it temporary, or are other things being considered? We must remain on alert (Ankara has deployed six F-16s and air defense systems to the TRNC). We also need to build closer ties with the Gulf countries. They might turn on us at the end of this process. The security of the Gulf is important for us. Those countries are our friends. That's why they're being supported. Their demands are being met (It's being discussed that the US cannot respond to the requests of some Gulf countries facing ammunition stock issues due to its own urgent needs. Note Trump's emergency-coded meeting with defense industry companies. Meanwhile, from what I hear, Gulf countries are not hiding their anger regarding Iran's attacks in the meetings. Repairing relations will be difficult in the short to medium term.)

THE US-ISRAEL PLAN POINT BY POINT

(The actors in Northern Iraq, Barzani-Talabani, are proceeding cautiously regarding US demands. Talabani's statement, "We must not be the spearhead of the war," is positive and appropriate.) They have to proceed cautiously. They don't have that kind of capacity anyway. The US-Israel plan was this: Kill Khamenei, create chaos in the state, incite an internal uprising from within. Once that started, they would deploy separatist groups. That's how they would change the regime. But neither an uprising happened, nor anything else. Iran's reaction to separatist groups has also been quite severe. I think the Revolutionary Guards will take even harsher measures in this regard.

THERE ARE THOSE TRYING TO CROSS FROM SYRIA AND IRAQ

(Trump hinted that he has given up on using separatist groups. But some groups are preparing to cross the border.) These are a few thousand people. They have no capacity. They're not organized like they were in Syria. They had expectations of getting support from organizations and structures in Syria and Iraq. There are those who want to cross from Syria and Iraq, but Iran's strikes are preventing them. That's why they're trying to do something among themselves. The expectation from Barzani and Talabani was for them to facilitate the transfer of some Kurdish groups from Syria-Iraq into Iran. But Iran's reaction was severe. If movement starts on the ground, the structures in Iraq and Syria will try to cross into Iran (A note: Barzani and Talabani currently have a serious security problem. Under Iranian attack, they are trying to say "No" to US-Israeli demands. We should strengthen their hand through methods that don't drag Türkiye into the conflict. We must not leave them alone. I see that Ankara is sensitive on this issue.)

WE NEED TO SUPPORT AZERBAIJAN

(Azerbaijan's reaction to Iran is being debated publicly.) Here's what we need to see: Azerbaijan is facing a serious danger. Russia is applying great pressure. If the Russians can somehow close the Ukraine chapter, Azerbaijan will be one of the first countries they target. Remember the message sent with the downed plane. There's tension in that regard. They have unsettled scores with Iran. Iran openly supported Armenia in the Karabakh War. Caught between these two powers, Baku is forced to stay close to the US. We must excuse Azerbaijan. They've been talked to as well. "Stay calm" advice was given. They softened afterwards. We need to give a lot of support to Azerbaijan.

Note: I was previously discussing impressions of Iran with names whose analysis, information, and experience I have greatly benefited from and who have never misled me. It turned into such a comprehensive conversation... I've put my notes in the corner. The expressions in parentheses belong to me.

The war the US and Israel have opened against Iran was a war the Neocons had dreamed of for decades. The Neocons are the incorrigible trumpeters of America's endless wars. It's impossible to separate the Neocons, who are among the components of the American Military-Industrial Complex, from Israel. Many American analysts see the Neocons as an influential network and mechanism in shaping US Middle East policy solely within the framework of Israel's interests.

One of the well-known characteristics of the Neocons is that they pretend to talk about American interests while actually advancing Israel's specific agendas. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was also about Israel's interests. The Neocons argued that the US could transform Iraq into a Western-style democracy and from there democratize the entire Middle East. It seems obvious that the claims of democracy and modern nation-building were just a facade; on the contrary, the aim was to keep the wider Middle East in a state of perpetual conflict, perpetual war, and perpetual chaos.

Funded by big arms companies, the Neocons even established institutes to identify countries' "Achilles' Heels," their weakest points. One of these studies, targeting countries that might deviate from the US path, was conducted on Iran by the "Hudson Institute." It's interesting that this study was done in the years before the 1979 Iranian people's revolution. This is because the US and Britain, who had overthrown Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing Iranian oil in 1953, had reinstalled the fugitive Shah of Iran. The Hudson Institute did not overlook the possibility that Iran might gain autonomy from the US again in the future.

The famous American economist Prof. Michael Hudson, who worked as a petroleum and economics specialist at the Hudson Institute in the 1970s, recounted how the institute's founder, Herman Kahn, took him to a secret meeting with generals. At the meeting, game theories on how Iran could be divided into five or six ethnic groups if it pursued a policy independent of the US were discussed. Listen to what Prof. Hudson said:

"I was working with Herman Kahn at the Hudson Institute, and in 1974 or 1975, he brought me to participate in a military strategy discussion of the plans being made to overthrow Iran and divide it into ethnic parts. Herman identified that the weakest point was Baluchistan on Iran's border with Pakistan. The Kurds, Tajiks, and Turkic Azeris were other elements whose ethnicities would be used against each other."

Prof. Hudson also noted that these ethnic elements played a role in shaping US policy towards both Iran and Pakistan. Prof. Hudson stated that the cooperation between the "American Military-Industrial Complex" and Israel was facilitated by Herman Kahn. Particularly emphasizing that the institute was a Zionist organization, Prof. Hudson said, "One of my colleagues was Uzi Arad. We took a series of trips together to Asia. Uzi later became an advisor to Netanyahu and the head of the Mossad. So, while the main outlines of American strategy were being drawn, I was kind of sitting right there."

Herman Kahn, who came from a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland, gained fame with his 1960 book "On Thermonuclear War." Kahn, who put forward the idea of a 'winnable' nuclear war in his book, simulated potential conflicts with war games for the "RAND Corporation," which worked for the US Government. Kahn is said to have inspired the character of the same name in Stanley Kubrick's film "Dr. Strangelove." The film, released in 1964, satirized a mad American general starting a nuclear war against the Soviet Union. In the film, Dr. Strangelove portrayed a fawning, ex-Nazi scientist who kept giving Hitler salutes.

The Iran scenario, scripted by Kahn and other Neocons decades ago, has been taken off the shelves, and filming has begun by Israel with the help of the US. But real wars are not games. A pre-written war scenario falls apart in the very first act.

Once an ideological framework was established, there was no issue with concepts varying by region. The most significant reason for the reintroduction of these same concepts while destroying Palestine completely was the continuation of the resistance. When the USA, the UK, and Israel killed Palestinians who refused to surrender, they made no distinction between infants, children, youth, and the elderly, and felt no need to even conceal the genocide. Because the Palestinians did not leave their land, they were likened to non-human entities. The deliberate killing of nearly two hundred children by the US and Israel in Iran today is also a result of this same ideological perspective.

Explaining the horrific tableau unfolding in Iran through the notion of Jewish dominance over the US and the UK is a great misfortune. When the idea of Jewish dominance is placed at the center, the formation of a religiously-based conceptual framework becomes inevitable. Indeed, after World War II, an extraordinary discourse was constructed around Jewish history and theology in imperialist centers, and the entire world submitted to this discourse. While this religion-centric discourse rendered the colonial and imperial ambitions of the US and the UK invisible, concepts derived from Jewish history and theology were poured out upon the entire world. This is precisely what is meant by intellectual supremacy. In reality, the concept of intellectual supremacy does not refer to a trivia contest. Knowing a little more or less does not achieve intellectual supremacy. The one who can impose their perspective has seized supremacy. Those who submit have lost the faculty of thought.

At the core of the discursive supremacy of the US, the UK, and Israel lies imposition. They constructed a romantic discourse and convinced the world of it. Today, it is extremely significant that only the Muslim world dares to challenge the Evangelical Zionist discursive supremacy of the US, the UK, and Israel on earth. Some might object, claiming this observation is religion-centric. Despite potential objections, the Muslim world's refusal to submit cannot be explained by religious bigotry or hostility. It is also incorrect to define the ideologies born from the resistance continuing for at least two centuries in the heartland of Islam as merely reactive. The concept of reaction indicates a bestial state expressed through terms like uncivilized, semi-civilized, primitive, and savage. Because they are said to act on instinct, the ideologies emerging from them are also considered products of instinct—that is, reactive. These definitions have also been used for the ideology of Islamism. It is very clear that they view the Iranians from the same perspective.

As the US and Israel set Iran ablaze, concepts centered on religion and sect have begun to invade and occupy our mental world at an incredible speed. This, undoubtedly, is a reflection of imperialist and colonialist aggression. They want to re-establish the intellectual supremacy shaken by religious-centric discourses. In this framework, Shia-Sunni conflict would provide them with more than the opportunity they seek. This way, they would cleanse the geography of its people and its culture. It must be said that they want to cleanse the lands where civilization could spread of the people living on them. Killing all living beings indiscriminately is a requirement of their ideology. This is what they believe. Even Karl Marx said, "they do not know how to suffer." He, too, believed in the civilizing mission. Thus, societies without history would finally enter the stage of history.

Will the Muslim resistance be broken? That is the question we need to find an answer to. My personal opinion is that whether the world is plunged into a new pagan darkness depends on the answer to this question. If the Muslim resistance is broken, they will adorn the entire earth with pagan temples. They believe in this.

First of all, this points to who owns the global financial system. There's no denying it. Israel, bombed daily and walking toward its end in its promised graveyard, hasn't seen its currency lose value, its index crash, or its companies collapse. How does that happen? Who's supporting it?

Then there's the U.S., piling new debt every day on top of its $35 trillion debt from these wars. Besides using its own resources, it won't even let Israel reach into its own pocket—it gives troops, gives ammunition, gives weapons, and still, it doesn't bat an eye.

Meanwhile, the American public comes out saying, "You can't finance Israel's war with our taxes." Yeah, right.

Yes, unfortunately, we are paying for the destruction in our region. Other countries are paying. We are even paying the taxes of Americans.

The U.S. prints money, takes on debt, and creates inflation. Then it manipulates prices and exports that inflation to the entire world. In this way, it gains global seigniorage and makes us pay for the cost of striking us.

As long as this monetary system exists, humanity will continue to have bombs it pays for itself dropped on its head.

How long will we remain this helpless?

We pay the salaries of American soldiers, we cover the CIA's expenses, we work with our flesh and bone for the prosperity of every American, and on top of that, we are humiliated and dragged through the mud.

Oh, and oil prices are going up in America? We're filling their gas tanks too.

Wait a second. When it comes to a war with Iran, they say, "the daily cost of this war is 1 billion dollars." Let no one think from what I'm saying that we are collecting 1 billion dollars among ourselves and paying it. If only it were that simple.

With long-tail inflation, God knows whether we pay that one billion as five billion or ten billion—it can't be calculated mathematically with our current capabilities.

Of course, that amount—whether five or ten—we don't pay it in cash. We borrow it. And we borrow it from the global financial architecture that supports Israel. Then we pay interest on that money. So much so that for this war's 1 billion dollar daily bill, we pay 1 billion dollars in interest alone through the system we're caught up in. I mean, if we just directly handed over the money and said, "here, go hit Iran," paying the upfront cost, we'd be much better off.

But we—I don't know what kind of people we are—they make money from us because they strike us. We feed our own executioner. In such an equation, it would only be fitting for them to strike us daily and add to their profits.

But surely, one day, the promised ones will come, and a people better than us will arrive. They will be better than us by doing just one thing: saying, "this monetary system cannot go on."

When they say that, the monetary system will collapse. When they dismantle and change the monetary system, they will also destroy the interest system and pour kerosene on the roots of the rentier class. They will spread charity. And starting from these lands, they will envision a just world.

We, on the other hand, will hang on the stage of history as pitiable, pathetic people lacking foresight—a lesson for them to look back at whenever they feel the need to reform themselves.

When this war ends, two possibilities may emerge. If Iran suffers a heavy defeat and Israel maintains its power, Gulf countries could become directly dependent on Israel, let alone establish a semi-independent security architecture.

After the 1991 Gulf War, a new order was established in the region. This order was based on a simple security formula: the Gulf monarchies would preserve their energy and financial power, while the United States would act as the region's ultimate security guarantor. However, this order was effectively dismantled by Israel's policies of pushing its own boundaries.

It may have escaped many people's notice: when did the real concern for the US and Israel begin? A few months before the October 7 attacks, an important meeting took place in China. The foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia attended that meeting.

The developing rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia could have rendered the US presence in the region meaningless. To put it ambitiously, this is one of the reasons the US has returned to the Middle East with renewed force.

Because thirty years ago, the US invaded Iraq by frightening the Gulf countries with the Saddam threat and continued to collect trillions of dollars in protection fees. From the Gulf War until today, it has maintained its hegemony by presenting Iran's presence as a threat to the region's countries.

A sharp critique from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian directed at his own administration is noteworthy:

"We thought our enemies were our neighbors. But our real enemies were the imperialists."

What happened before the Iraq invasion should also be remembered. After the Iranian Revolution, Iran and Iraq fought each other for a full eight years. During this process, the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf countries provided Iraq with approximately one trillion dollars' worth of weapons. When the war ended, Iraq, having become an arms depot, turned into a threat for the region's countries. "Uncle Sam" found a solution for this too: Iraq invaded Kuwait. Fearing this invasion, other countries formed a coalition with the US and once again financed the war waged against Iraq.

While all this was happening, Iran was pleased with the situation because the US had eliminated its rival. However, short-term calculations can turn into long-term devastation.

After Israel and the US started the war, Iran targeted this weak point. At first glance, Iran striking US bases in the Gulf while fighting two states might seem like a reckless move. But in the long term, the fact that countries for which the US acts as security guarantor are subjected to such attacks will have serious consequences.

US air defense systems in the Gulf countries have not been active enough. This reality brings back a question that has long been debated in Gulf capitals:

Can the region's security be sustained by relying on a single global power?

Gulf countries may now have to pursue a policy of balance that goes beyond the classic alliance model:

• Military cooperation with the US

• Deepening relations with China in economy and energy

• New partnerships with Türkiye in defense industry and foreign policy

• Energy cooperation with Russia and the search for new balances

Saudi Arabia is the leading country in the region. It did not adopt a submissive stance in the face of Israel's massacres in Gaza and has begun to feel more deeply what Israeli expansionism means.

Since the US position is one of compelled support when it comes to Israel, the role Saudi Arabia will play in the future of regional geopolitics is extremely important. This is inevitable, at least for its own survival.

In the Gulf's search for security, Ankara could become a significant strategic actor:

As a regional balancing power,

Through defense industry partnerships,

Through diplomatic cooperation and the protection of common interests, as seen in Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan.

Whatever the outcome of the war, the Gulf security architecture is experiencing a profound shock. Israel's attempts to carry out "false flag operations" targeting Gulf countries are also an effort to cover up the emerging security vacuum.

The best course for our region is for this war to end as soon as possible and for everyone to withdraw to their own spheres. The US, however, keeps making lengthy predictions about the war's duration in every statement. It seems the plan at home didn't match the reality on the ground.

A piece of information from Politico magazine, citing US security sources, is also noteworthy: Trump may have started a war on his own, but US institutions were not fully prepared for it.

Another interesting point is the similar situation emerging in Europe. Mainland Europe is also struggling to establish a lasting security architecture without Türkiye.

This war has turned into a major trauma for Middle Eastern states. The feeling that the security order lived under the shadow of the US has outlived its time is deeply felt.

Let's see what God brings.

Conflicting statements are also coming from the Trump administration about when the war with Iran will end. Initially, it was said the attacks would last four to five weeks at most, but Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said it could last longer. According to the latest report from CENTCOM, the attack timeline could even extend until September. These contradictory statements are a sign that the planned timeline for the war is being disrupted by dynamics on the ground.

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly said, "They don't have a goal, they don't have a strategic plan, they don't have a timeline, and what this will likely lead to is, again, a long war where many Americans will die and for which there is no justification."

The U.S. and Israel don't seem very aligned on the political goals of the war. The Trump administration is making different statements about the political objectives. One statement mentions "regime change," while another says something else. Trump said he doesn't care about the nature of the regime; the only thing he wants is an Iranian leadership aligned with the U.S. and Israel. By the time you read this, Trump might have said something else.

Israel, however, wants regime change. They want to install the deposed Shah's son as a puppet head of the new regime. If that doesn't happen, the fragmentation of Iran or prolonged chaos might be preferred. Trump had mentioned there were some names within the Iranian regime he would want to make a deal with. Later, he stated that these individuals had been killed in the bombings. By targeting these figures, Israel is undermining Trump's "quick exit" options.

During a March 3rd hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby argued that the U.S. seeks "comprehensive and reasonable objectives" in its military action against Iran and is not pursuing regime change through the use of force. When asked why the military campaign began with the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Colby replied, "I'm talking about the objectives of the American military campaign. Those are Israeli operations." This piece of information is significant in showing the lack of policy alignment between the U.S. and Israel.

As I've stated before, Netanyahu's primary goal was to get Trump into a war with Iran, by any means necessary. He was confident that once the U.S. entered the war, he could ensure it progressed solely according to Israel's objectives. Trump's contradictory statements about the war's justifications and timeline show that Netanyahu got what he wanted. Trump's statements, in turn, can be seen as attempts to escape Netanyahu's trap. But whenever Trump tries to get out, Netanyahu makes another move to keep him in.

Trump previously said, "The Iranians wanted to talk. I agreed." Later, he said, "They want to talk. I told them, 'It's too late'." Most recently, Trump stated, "There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender." Trump seems to have been convinced that Iran would fall easily and quickly, like Venezuela. That's why Trump doesn't want the war—which he tries to present as an 'operation'—to drag on. On one hand, the economic consequences of the war starting to be felt by Americans, and on the other, the backlash against Americans fighting for Israel's interests, are cornering Trump, even if he doesn't show it much.

Besides American public opinion turning against Israel, a significant portion of Trump's most loyal political base is angry that Trump is making Americans fight Netanyahu's war. This faction sees Trump, who came to power with promises of "America First" and ending "endless wars," continuing with an "Israel First" policy as a betrayal of the "Make America Great Again (MAGA)" movement. Trump, however, says, "I am MAGA; they are not MAGA." As the November midterm elections approach, the MAGA supporters are also at a crossroads with Trump.

Again, experts are speaking with bated breath when interpreting this new form of warfare. We have seen with every new Western attack and invasion that since the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been no such rule as the "laws of war." Imperialists, with technology on their side, don't start wars on the frontlines. The first strike is against the "leader." After October 7th, Israel eliminated Hezbollah and Iranian leaders as if they knew exactly where to find them. Hamas Political Bureau Chief Ismail Haniyeh, who was in Tehran, was also martyred in a similar assassination. Two months ago, America did worse than killing Venezuelan President Maduro by kidnapping him from his home and treating him as a prisoner.

THE ELIMINATION OF LEADERS AND THE COLLAPSE OF STATES

Because when leaders are eliminated, the decision-making mechanism of states is also collapsed. Consequently, a dissolution begins in the society that is expected to resist. Ultimately, simultaneous with external intervention, a "process of internal disintegration" is triggered.

If we recall...

The invasion of Iraq and the process of Saddam Hussein's overthrow progressed like this. First, the image of a "dictator" was legitimized in international public opinion, led by CNN and BBC, then the military landing came. What was the result? Saddam was executed live on television one Eid al-Adha morning (2006). The state collapsed, sectarian fault lines were activated, and the country was effectively divided into three. Iraq, despite 20 years having passed, still hasn't recovered.

A similar course was followed in the operation against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Triggered by the Arab Spring, the country's leader was lynched and killed by rebels in 2011. Libya was left in absolute chaos. Not only could a strong state structure not be built, but Türkiye's efforts to stabilize things were also sabotaged. For years, Libya has struggled to exist as a country open to intervention by warring militias and external actors.

In Syria, a different method was tried. The revolution was prevented for years. Assad, who served interests, was protected and supported in Damascus for years. Meanwhile, the country was divided into ethnic fragments. A different structure was pursued in the north, a different equation in the east, a different calculation in the south. Until the revolution in December 2024, Syria lost its power as a state for years and became a burden on other countries.

THE BALANCE-DISRUPTING ACTOR: TÜRKİYE

What is the common point of these examples? The "very top" of states was targeted, and societal will was weakened. The recent attacks on Iran are not independent of this context. Targeting senior military commanders and religious leadership carries an element of psychological warfare alongside the physical war. However, it is understood that the target is not only Iran. It is obvious that America and Israel are aiming for regime change. A potential new regime in Iran would mean Israel "pressing against our borders."

Analyses have begun to emerge in US and Israeli-based think tanks and media, pointing to Türkiye. The steps Türkiye has taken, especially in the last fifteen years, its effort to reduce foreign dependency in the defense industry, taking initiative in Syria and Libya, its support for Azerbaijan during the Karabakh process, its determination in the Eastern Mediterranean, and its clear stance on the Palestine issue, disturb not only our enemies but also those we consider "friends."

In those analyses, our country is referred to not just as a regional actor but as a "balance-disrupting actor" for them. We cannot ignore the systematic statements from circles that seem marginal but have a strong sphere of influence, saying, "After Iran, the next should be Türkiye." These threatening discourses may be circulating on social media for now, but as we have seen in the very recent past, we know that interventions are first discussed as ideas.

FORTIFYING THE DOMESTIC FRONT AGAINST THE PROMISED LAND

There is also the "Promised Land" debate, brought back to the agenda by the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, just before the Iran attacks. Let us now accept that this reference is the most fundamental motivation of the Zionists. Because borders in our geography are being designed based on Israel's psychopathic belief system. In this equation, according to theorists who feed Zionism, Türkiye is seen as the "toughest obstacle to overcome."

What is written, drawn, and said is not "crazy talk." It is obvious that our country is the next target. There are those who say, "America won't attack Türkiye." Can such a "guarantee" be spoken of during the Trump era? Question mark. What about after?

A strong state is built by a strong army, a strong economy, and "strong leadership." But there is a power above all these: that is "the will of the people." What happened on the night of July 15th showed us this: The state's reflex was completed when the nation took to the streets. What defeated the coup plotters was the "presence of Erdoğan," whom they tried to assassinate, and the people, emboldened by him, going to the squares. The retaking of the Atatürk Airport they had seized by citizens was a turning point, for example.

"GREAT TÜRKİYE RALLIES"

Today, we need to display a similar and much clearer determination. We must fortify the domestic front with composure. Tightening the ranks means not letting "traitors" in between. We must put forth a broad declaration of civil will against all kinds of threats to Türkiye's sovereignty, its state, and its elected leader. As a people, we must take "roll call" and rally around the powerful leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

At this point, I see the idea of "Great Türkiye Rallies" as a strategic move. These rallies should not be a party organization, and they should never carry the atmosphere of an election campaign. Massive gatherings should be organized where every segment can participate, political differences are set aside, and a common national stance is displayed.

These rallies should convey the following messages to the outside world:

-Türkiye cannot be dissolved from within!

-Its leader cannot be weakened by being targeted from outside!

-The people cannot be intimidated by psychological warfare methods, including social media!

These rallies also provide moral superiority. The people demonstrate their awareness. What is being staged in Iran provides an opportunity for social observation. Societal unity and cohesion around the leader have strategic importance equal to military capacity. We have seen with astonishment how a segment of society adopts a separatist attitude when leadership is targeted.

HOW READY WILL WE BE THAT DAY?

Türkiye, as a society, has lessons to draw from this process. We have understood that defense systems alone are not enough to remain strong in this region.

We must ask ourselves these questions:

-Is the target really only Iran?

-While our geography is being redesigned once again, will we merely be spectators?

-Or will we put forth a declaration of will now, against the possibility of Türkiye being a target?

-How ready will we be that day?

THE RESISTANCE STRATEGY

America and Israel's seizure of air superiority over Iranian skies in the last few days, along with the intense operations they have carried out, indicates that Iran's capacity to target Israel and regional countries has significantly diminished. Interpreting the decrease in Iran's ballistic missile attacks as a tactical choice does not seem plausible, as there is no strong evidence that they are able to manage the war within a chain of command. The salvos in the first few days, which showed that Iran could threaten the entire region with its navy, air force, and ballistic missiles, appeared in the following days to be largely reduced to the use of its ballistic missile capacity scattered across the country's vast geography. America and Israel's domination of Iranian airspace and their substantial neutralization of its already limited navy resulted in the regime being confined to using its ballistic missile capacity.

All of this suggests that American military power can gradually assert its superiority, but it is not possible to think this will be easy or quick. War is a process full of surprises, and the possibility that Iran might occasionally turn these dynamics to its own advantage always exists. However, the lack of a political and strategic mind to conduct the war, or its inability to organize itself to use its military capacity most effectively even if such a mind exists, stands out as Iran's biggest handicap. For example, by choosing to target American bases and some civilian targets in a way that would alienate Gulf countries in the first two days, it might have been more effective for Iran to expend all its energy on striking Israel. There may be logic in trying to deter America by hitting its military targets, but alienating the Gulf and other Arab countries in the process stands out as a critical mistake. Trying to deter America by attempting to give the message 'I will burn the entire region' upon entering an existential struggle does not appear to be a very rational strategy.

PRESSURE FROM AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION AND CONGRESS

Around 60% of the American public expresses opposition to a war with Iran. Despite this, a bill attempting to limit Trump's military intervention against Iran was rejected in the Senate vote concluded on Thursday evening. The vote, in which both parties lost only one member each, showed that Republicans are not willing to stand up to Trump. The gap between the American people and American politics was starkly evident during the genocide in Gaza, and the latest Iran vote indicates this chasm is deepening. The fact that even MAGA figures, who most vocally defend Trump in the media, are clearly against the war, yet Congressional Republicans adopt this stance, shows both their support for the President and the continued influence of the pro-Israel lobby. Although entering a potentially prolonged war with Iran poses a risk of losing voter support for Trump, who came to power by winning votes with anti-war rhetoric, it is clear he has the backing of the pro-Israel influence in Congress.

Scenarios such as the war with Iran dragging on, regime change not occurring, being forced to send in ground troops, and oil prices rising further would drive Trump's approval ratings even lower. However, even in that case, the effectiveness of the Israel lobby in Congressional dynamics could ensure that Washington politics remains on Trump's side. The political cost of this would be losing one or both chambers of Congress in the November elections. Trump, wanting to conclude military operations within the next month or two, is trying to formulate a way to declare a political victory. The most important condition for this would be Iran no longer being able to launch ballistic missile attacks. The longer Iran can delay reaching that stage, the more public pressure on Trump will increase. However, it is certain that this will not be enough for America to end the war, as Israel will continue to use all its influence over Congress. Even if he were to lose one chamber of Congress, assuming that Trump, who ultimately does not have reelection concerns, wants to end the war as soon as possible would be a miscalculation.

Iran appears to have no deterrent option left beyond increasing the cost of the war for America and Israel. The US Congress, despite public opinion, has signaled its willingness to bear this cost. Despite America's difficulty in defining its military objective and its ambiguous stance on regime change, it has the capacity to break Iran's power of resistance. However, neutralizing the navy, establishing air superiority, and diminishing ballistic missile capabilities will not be enough to topple the regime. For that, the Iranian people would need to mobilize, but the American side does not seem to have given much thought to the political preparation for this. If it attempts to overthrow the regime by mobilizing the PJAK and fomenting ethnic and sectarian conflict, the specter of civil war looms; if it puts American boots on the ground, scenarios similar to what happened in Iraq come to the fore. This indicates that while America and Israel can establish military superiority by bearing a high cost, achieving political change would be far more difficult.

There are the decades of costs paid because of Israel, countries reduced to rubble, hundreds of thousands who have lost their lives. Across the region, the common consciousness operates on a scale of: "Whoever it is, as long as they hit Israel," and "Anything that pushes the US out of the region is right." This mindset is very difficult to break.

SO, WHAT COMES NEXT? THE APPEARANCE OF JOINING THE WAR ON ISRAEL'S SIDE IS DETRIMENTAL…

However, the answer to the question of what comes after Iran strikes all the regional countries, inflicting heavy losses on them, is unknown. And this is where a terrible anxiety lies. At a regional level, it's an anxiety shared even by those applauding the missiles hitting Tel Aviv.

The pain and anger of a country whose religious leader has been assassinated is understandable. Retaliation from a country that hosts US bases on its soil, used to strike Iran, is understandable. But this is only so for a while. Afterwards, it could turn into something else. Afterwards, it could turn into the comprehensive plot of those who made the first move.

All countries in the region are under Iranian attack. They all acted patiently, not responding. They know very well that any response would be seen as "joining the war on Israel's side," and that even their own populations would not be happy with that.

DID THEY ORCHESTRATE AN ARAB-PERSIAN WAR, A SHIA-SUNNI WAR?

Israel and the US have left all countries with no choice like this. This has become a lethal danger. The striking of US military units, bases, diplomatic and intelligence assets is a "retaliation." All of these bases are also used by Israel. But striking the economies, resources, and infrastructure of the countries in question, alongside military targets, takes the matter "beyond retaliation."

If this continues, an Arab-Persian war, a Shia-Sunni war could become regionalized. This is exactly what Israel wants. This is perhaps what it planned together with the US. And right now, things are rapidly hurtling towards that point.

IF I'M SINKING, YOU WILL SINK TOO. AFTER ME, THE DELUGE!

We are witnessing historic events. Over the last forty years, we have seen terrible wars, massacres, and disasters on a grand regional scale. But none have shown the character of a "regional war" like today's.

They remained confined to countries. This time, we are witnessing an uncontrollable escalation. The magnitude of the danger lies here.

It's impossible for Iran to fight this many countries alone. Where they intend to go is quite unclear. They have largely broken the mold, upended everyone's plans.

It's obvious this is not just anger, but a decision, yet no one knows what comes after this decision. It's as if they are saying, "If I'm going down, you're going down too," "Iran's disaster will be your disaster too."

THE US COULDN'T EVEN PROTECT ITS OWN BASES. HOW WILL IT PROTECT ARAB COUNTRIES?

Israel has put the US in a disastrous situation. The US, trusting the delusions of a genocidal schizophrenic like Netanyahu, is suffering a historic loss of prestige as all its bases in the region are struck.

Forget allied countries in the region, it couldn't even protect its own bases. It couldn't protect its own embassies, naval bases, intelligence centers, or electronic warfare units.

Won't the regional countries ask this question? "On what issues will the US, which cannot protect us, does not protect us, and only prioritizes Israel's interests and security, leave us alone from now on?"

The decades-long trade of "oil money for security" has collapsed. This trade no longer offers a secure future for Arab administrations or ruling elites.

THE GATHERING AROUND CYPRUS – WHO ARE YOU AT WAR WITH?

But if the regional countries cannot prepare an alternative to this, if they continue to trust the US without taking any precautions, if they resort to the easy option of "going along with the US," then tomorrow, when an Israeli conspiracy targets Saudi Arabia or Egypt, they will be left completely exposed.

One single Israel has dragged all Middle Eastern countries into war at once. It has taken all Western countries hostage, condemning them to a war of its own design.

France and some European countries have started moving navies around Cyprus. Statements like "We are at war" have begun to emerge, one after another. Against whom? They are already attacking Iran, who else? What future is Europe positioning itself against in the Mediterranean?

CIA, MOSSAD ARE BAFFLED; HOW ARE THEY FINDING US? HOW ARE THE MISSILES SO ACCURATE!

Iran's target selection and the accuracy of its missiles are very serious this time. Such precise missiles, such incredibly detailed target determination, success far beyond predictions – this isn't just about Iran's military capabilities.

They know which floor of which hotel CIA and Mossad agents are on, and they strike there. No matter which country.

They are finding and striking all of the US and Israel's covert intelligence and military assets in the region. They know the exact addresses of intelligence and security installations in Israel, and they strike there.

CHINA IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IN IRAN! THE US AND ISRAEL COULD SUFFER MUCH GREATER LOSSES…

In the 12-day war, the accuracy rate of Iranian missiles was very low. Now, they hardly miss a target. No country can develop this much military capability in such a short time.

It's clear the answer lies in the days-long shipments from China and Russia just before the attacks. It is estimated that China is somehow involved in this war, that they are identifying US targets in Arab countries, that they are providing the electronic intelligence.

If so, it means the US and Israel are going to suffer even greater losses. If the electronic intelligence is this powerful, it means Iran will strike many more targets. Although it appears surprisingly passive, it means China is in this war.

AFTER IRAN, THEY WILL STRIKE PAKISTAN. THE PLAN TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE CHINESE BORDER.

They are waging a tremendous war against the US through Iran. If so, an "eastern front" or a "Taiwan front" could also be opened. Losing Iran could result, as a second step, in Pakistan being removed from the equation as well.

As the next target, Israel, the US, and all of Europe will be manipulated into striking Pakistan. India is already in the US-Israel axis. Then the front would have reached the Chinese border.

IN THIS STATE, THE WAR HAS GLOBALIZED! THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF ADEN, THE SUEZ CANAL.

The war, "regionalized" by Iran targeting regional countries and striking US and Israeli assets, has, I believe, become "globalized" with this intervention by China.

If so, this is not just about Iran; a much more comprehensive, much wider global crisis has erupted. In this case, every country, including Türkiye, must make their calculations by looking beyond Iran.

The Persian Gulf and the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden will be the biggest fronts of this new war. A Suez Crisis could also erupt right at this time. The intense concentration of European countries around Cyprus hints at this possibility as much as it does Iran.

A major reckoning will occur over global resource/energy corridors. Crisis maps scaled to individual countries will no longer be sufficient.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE REGIME WITH THE PKK! THE NEW MAP SET TO STRIKE TÜRKİYE…

The US cannot change the regime in Iran with just Kurdish groups. It cannot incite a popular uprising. The anger and reaction of the Iranian people towards terrorist organizations like PJAK, Iran's PKK, is clear.

No one acts on the word of a terrorist organization. On the contrary, there is serious popular support for the Iranian army's operations against these groups.

The US and Israel are trying in Iran the same kind of disturbance they cause for Türkiye in Syria. They are moving PJAK and other groups from Türkiye's eastern border to Iran's western border. They will create a Terror Corridor here. They will draw a map. This map will not only strike Iran, it will also strike Türkiye.

SHOULD THE PKK AND ISRAEL SETTLE ON OUR EASTERN BORDER?!

They will establish a buffer zone between Türkiye and Iranian Azerbaijan. They will close the door to Central Asia for us. And they will settle Israel there.

There will be the PKK and Israel on our eastern border. What's that? In such a situation, Türkiye is supposed to join the front against Iran for Israel's delusions?! This is complete nonsense. Türkiye must, above all else, take steps to trash this plan.

WHAT IF THE REGIME CHANGES IN BAHRAIN!

While the US and Israel try to change the regime in Iran and hope for a popular uprising, the regime will change in Bahrain, an uprising will start there. In Bahrain, where the overwhelming majority of the population is Shia, the headquarters of the "Fifth Fleet" is located.

The heaviest attacks are happening here. Explosions at the naval base, albeit limited, are being reported to the world. The Fleet, through which the US controls the entire region, can currently do nothing.

The US and Israel cannot manage the current crisis. They launched this action because they saw Iran as an easy target, the regime as very weak. But they are bewildered. They don't know what to do.

WHAT IF IRAN LAUNCHES A NUCLEAR RETALIATION!

In such a case, Trump will surrender even more to Israel. Because it's not his plan, it's Israel's. And that is a nuclear attack.

My concern is that Israel is creating the atmosphere for a nuclear attack. But what if a nuclear attack is met with a nuclear attack?

That's the moment Israel itself could be wiped off the map.

It's a small country.

Iran, subjected to a merciless assault, is perhaps fighting its "final war." Those who predicted Tehran would capitulate were wrong. It did the opposite; with a reaction the U.S. and Israel never expected, it dragged all of America's allies into the war.

THE HARSHEST TRAUMA FOR THE IRANIAN PEOPLE. THE ASSASSINATION OF SUPREME LEADER KHAMENEI. THE HORROR OF THE BETRAYAL WITHIN…

February 28, 2026, will go down as one of the greatest traumas in Iranian history. The killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by Israel and the U.S. in the heart of Iran is not something a nation can easily overcome.

Previously, President Ibrahim Raisi had died in a helicopter attack upon his return from Azerbaijan, an incident disguised as an "accident." Iran's inability to protect its own leaders, commanders, and even its Supreme Leader reveals a terrible internal weakness from the outside.

However, the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which had been studying Iran, organizing within it, and penetrating deep into the nervous system of its regime since the 1979 revolution, had finally reached the days it had waited decades for and was activated. Those cells are now working for Israel.

Just like the FETÖ structure in Türkiye, which embedded itself in the nervous systems of all state institutions for fifty years, an intelligence network was organized within Iran, activated years later for Israel. This is precisely the kind of structure Israel is now using.

The assassination of Khamenei was an act of monstrous treachery. Without an internal structure or cells working for U.S.-Israeli intelligence, such an assassination would not have been possible. Attributing this more to internal betrayal than military success would be more accurate here.

WHO LEAKED INFORMATION ABOUT SATURDAY'S MEETING? WHO IS THE IRANIAN TRAITOR WITHIN?

In the previous 12-day war, all of Iran's key individuals and institutions were struck, intelligence assets inside opened the doors, and Iran was effectively collapsed from within. Both the betrayal and the vulnerability became evident in that war. Iran acted, but it was too late. Israel and the U.S., however, wanted to move before Iran could complete its internal purge. And that's exactly what they did.

Internal intelligence assets reported that Khamenei would hold a high-level meeting on Saturday. The U.S. and Israel, who had been amassing forces in the region for days, launched their operation at nine in the morning, striking that meeting.

They then waited until evening for confirmation of Khamenei's death. Even the news of his death was provided by U.S./Israeli intelligence assets inside Iran.

The February 28 attacks weren't about Iran's nuclear program. They weren't about regime change. There was no intention for a prolonged war with Iran. It was a direct strike on Khamenei and his inner circle. And the objective was achieved.

IRAN'S FURY HAS SET THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST ABLAZE! UNBELIEVABLE THINGS ARE HAPPENING…

The Iranian administration crossed a turning point yesterday, one not seen since the 1979 revolution. They no longer have the option to rule the country with Shia rhetoric and ideological identity. Instead, they will be forced to activate more rational, realistic dynamics. In this sense, the era of the current regime in Iran is over; a new period has begun.

If they cannot manage this transformation, the fragmentation of Iran is likely. Yes, the regime may not be easily toppled from the outside, but Iranian society could experience a horrific internal schism. This could potentially lead to Iran's disintegration.

Driven by the fury over Khamenei's death, Iran began attacking all regional countries hosting U.S. bases. Iran's anger is burning the entire region; extraordinary, unpredictable events were unfolding.

It was practically a suicide attack. The UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and even the Greek Cypriot Administration were hit with missiles. Tel Aviv was subjected to very heavy missile barrages. And it continues. Fourteen countries became targets of Iranian missiles.

THE DUBAI MYTH IS OVER. THE MISSILES ARE HIGHLY ACCURATE. THE TARGETS WERE CHOSEN INTELLIGENTLY.

This was unprecedented in the Middle East. Iran declaring the entire region a war zone and launching attacks had never happened before. This time, targets were chosen and struck quite successfully; the accuracy rate of Iranian missiles appeared remarkably high.

Dubai, Israel's closest ally in particular, suffered very heavy attacks. Dubai, the world's capital of finance and money laundering, was pounded by missiles, and the Dubai myth came to an end.

The UAE, serving as a headquarters for Israeli intelligence, was probably one of the main perpetrators of the Khamenei assassination. And Iran was taking, and would take, its revenge.

Iran is a resilient state. Even as it sets the entire region ablaze, it knows what it might face next. It knows the world is run by power. And it seems prepared to risk a great deal.

While striking all regional capitals, it was clear it was taking immense risks. It knew the U.S., not bringing in ground troops, couldn't risk an invasion, and that regional countries wouldn't openly go to war with Iran. It knew Arab administrations couldn't break from the U.S. axis and were incapable of entering a war on their own.

REGIONAL COUNTRIES COULD FALL INTO THE TRAP OF FIGHTING FOR ISRAEL

The U.S. and Israel hadn't just killed Khamenei; they had opened the gates to a disaster that could plunge the entire region into civil war. Any Arab administration moving against Iran's attacks would, in effect, be fighting for Israel.

If the war spreads across the region, the U.S. and Israel would watch with pleasure as the geography is destroyed by a blood feud lasting years, while Israel grows even stronger.

At a time when nuclear negotiations were progressing and Iran had abandoned uranium enrichment, Israel upended all the tables and started the war.

It used U.S. military power to ignite the fuse of an "endless war." Iran had no choice but fury and heavy retaliation. The alternative was to capitulate.

ISRAELI MAPS TARGETING EASTERN TÜRKIYE CANNOT BE TOLERATED.

From Lebanon to Yemen, from Syria to Iraq, Iran's regional influence had already been destroyed. It had shifted to defending its homeland, refraining from resisting in those areas because it saw the danger. Now they are striking it at home, too.

The aim is not nuclear; it is a personal blood feud between Israel and Iran. It is clear and obvious: there was no justification, no reason for the attack on Iran on February 28th.

Iran's defeat, collapse, or fragmentation would reset all calculations in the Middle East. Especially in eastern Türkiye, new Israeli-aligned maps would be drawn, and new powers would emerge.

This would have dire consequences for Türkiye. The terrorist corridor north of Syria would then be drawn along our eastern border, Israel would settle there, and the Türkiye-Central Asia link would be severed. This can never be allowed.

NETANYAHU MUST BE KILLED! HE MUST BE ELIMINATED FOR HUMANITY'S SAKE…

The assassination of Khamenei in this manner has opened the door to a horrifying future. No country, no leader, no significant figure is safe anymore.

Therefore, grounds have been established for the immediate killing of Netanyahu, for his plane to be shot down, for him to be hunted in his own home, or for him to be eliminated along with his family. And Israel itself has created these grounds.

There may come a time when even civilian aircraft can become military targets. They have set such an example. There may come a time when, driven by personal fury, a country can strike another country's capital for no reason at all.

It can set ablaze any place its missiles can reach. A reason for war is no longer sought; the hysterical fears and beliefs of sick individuals like Netanyahu, schizophrenics, are sufficient.

WE MUST FREE OURSELVES FROM THE GLOBAL NETWORK HOLDING HUMANITY HOSTAGE…

All of humanity must become aware of where Israel, its leaders, and even its society are dragging the human race and the world, and must act immediately. The world cannot be handed over to those who celebrated the genocide of children and infants in Gaza, to the pedophiles flocking to Epstein Island.

We can no longer speak the language of international relations, political discourse, or diplomacy. The course of relations between powers can no longer be described with such terms.

We can no longer act as captives of this global minority, this network that has afflicted humanity.

Humanity must awaken and take action. Because we will face far worse examples. It is impossible to predict the damage that the Israeli racists, who are even now planning nuclear attacks, could inflict on the human race.

Let us state it clearly: the current Israeli administration will definitely use nuclear weapons; all their efforts are aimed at creating the conditions for it.

THIS TRIBE-STATE MUST BE ELIMINATED.

There is no state here. There is a Jewish Tribe. And until this tribe is removed from this geography, until it is driven into the Mediterranean, until it is purged from all regional countries, until Israel is stripped of its statehood and right to a map, until it is disarmed, until this tribe is brought to its knees, wars will not end.

They have already begun threatening Türkiye. They have already declared war on Türkiye, pointing to the example of Iran. This Tribe must now be taught its place. All asymmetric and covert attacks must now begin. All threats of weapons and force, including the nuclear threat, must now be deployed against Israel.

THE TURKISH-ISRAELI WAR HAS ALREADY BEGUN.

It is unbearable to see an army of cowards, who cannot even put on their uniforms without the U.S., dictating terms to the entire region, all nations, and all countries. The means to end this humiliation must be activated immediately.

Türkiye and Israel have, in fact, been at war for a long time. We fought them in northern Syria, in the Euphrates Shield zone. The PKK and DAESH were their armed forces. We fought them in Libya. We are fighting them in Sudan.

We are fighting them in the Eastern Mediterranean. They have established a front in the Aegean, where a covert war is being waged. Now, we will be in a state of war with them in Iran and in the Greek Cypriot Administration.

JEWS ARE AN INTERNAL THREAT IN EVERY COUNTRY.

As long as Israel continues this way, this war will grow and spread. As long as Israel does not kneel before Türkiye, this war will continue. We will know how to take revenge on a state that has built all its regional alliances against Türkiye. We will know how to bring it to heel.

We will be there again. We will be in Jerusalem again. Those who mistake this for rhetoric or grandiosity should look at examples of history's vengeful return.

There are dozens of lessons for all countries to learn from the example of Iran. The most important is that Jews are an internal threat in every country they inhabit.

This is true for the U.S. and for European countries. A state called Israel would cause the same problems on any continent. Therefore, Jews cannot have a state; they have no right to statehood.

TÜRKIYE MUST ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. EVERY FORM OF ATTACK ON ISRAEL IS LEGITIMATE. DO NOT STRENGTHEN ISRAEL'S HAND.

Israel relies on its nuclear weapons. Therefore, all means of threat, including the nuclear threat, must be deployed against this country. Countries like Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Egypt must urgently acquire nuclear weapons and declare it. A nuclear partnership, especially between Türkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, is essential.

All of Iran's attacks on Israel are legitimate, an act of self-defense. We certainly do not forget the terrible mistakes and evils Iran has perpetrated in our region for decades under the guise of sectarianism. But we see using these as a tool to legitimize Israel's attack on Iran as a mental eclipse.

If we look at it from that perspective, we will continue making the same mistakes, and that will only serve to strengthen Israel's hand. All nations living in this geography, regardless of their ethnic or sectarian identity, are obligated to fight against Israel. Because this is a historical reckoning, a requirement of patriotism. Anyone who cares about their country must take their place on this axis.

TODAY IRAN, TOMORROW ANOTHER COUNTRY. IF YOU SLEEP, THIS WILL NEVER STOP.

Iran is under attack now. Then Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and many other countries will be threatened in the same way.

Knowing all this, seeking fault in the countries under attack, parroting Israel's talking points, would not be a constructive mindset for us. If you believe the language of Israeli propaganda is true, then justification for attacking all countries will be created. This mental blindness has become the most horrific weapon devastating our region for decades.

We share no common ground on a human level with the genocidal maniacs who just yesterday went on baby-hunting sprees in Gaza!

Headlines move fast.

Timelines move faster.

Opinions move fastest.

Facts take time.

When tensions rise — whether it’s Iran, Israel, the US, or anywhere else — information becomes a battlefield of its own.

That’s when journalism matters most.

Not to shout.

Not to speculate.

Not to dramatize.

To verify.

To slow things down when everyone else is speeding up.

Real journalism is discipline.

It’s making the extra call.

It’s checking the second source.

It’s holding a story until it’s solid.

On days like this, accuracy is not a luxury.

It’s responsibility.

The public doesn’t need more noise.

It needs clarity.

Context.

Proportion.

Most of the work isn’t visible.

It happens off camera.

In calls, in edits, in quiet debates inside the newsroom.

It’s not dramatic.

It’s deliberate.

Because history is being written in real time.

And someone has to make sure the record is right.

Days like this are why we do the work.

The day before the attack, Oman's Foreign Minister, Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi, who plays a mediator role in negotiations between the US and Iran, had argued on a program on CBS News that the talks were going very well and that an agreement was within reach. Many analysts had commented, saying, "It looks like this time Trump and Iran might actually reach a deal." On the other hand, no country would want to find itself in the diminished position that Oman, as a mediator, has been placed in.

The start of the attacks on Iran revealed that the negotiations were nothing but a trick and a deception. After the US completed its preparations, it blew up the negotiating table and started bombing those who would have signed an agreement had one been reached. The same thing had happened in June 2025. Trump is giving a maximum timeline of four weeks for the attack, but will the war's own dynamics allow for that? The war has already started to spread across the region.

The Venezuelan government had also announced that it could reach an agreement with the US. Trump's Special Envoy for Venezuela, Richard Grenell, had even conducted extensive talks with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Grenell seemed quite hopeful that a deal would be made. However, Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State and a Venezuela and Cuba hawk, was not pleased with Grenell's initiatives. Naturally, the Neocons supporting Rubio also practically declared war on Grenell. Eventually, Grenell quietly withdrew from the scene, and we saw what happened next.

The US only wants "surrender" from countries it deems weak. I had compared what the US did to Venezuela to the treatment inflicted upon the small island of Melos by the Athenian Maritime Empire some 2,500 years ago. In his famous book recounting the "Peloponnesian War," the Athenian general Thucydides, a witness to the events, included a dialogue presumed to have taken place between the Athenian and Melian delegations. In this dialogue, known as the "Melian Dialogue," the most famous phrase expressed by the Athenian envoys to the Melians was: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." According to the Athenians, justice, law, and diplomacy could only apply between equal powers.

Although the Melians remained neutral in the war between the Athenian forces and the Spartan forces, they were massacred for refusing to join the "Delian League." Even though Melos posed no threat to Athens and lacked any wealth to plunder, its male population was slaughtered, and its women and children were enslaved, simply to serve as a lesson to other city-states. However, the "Melian Doctrine" pushed many city-states to Sparta's side, which ultimately brought about Athens's downfall.

This extremely cruel, lawless, and immoral display of brute force that Athens inflicted upon the Melians became the motto of the Neocons. What happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and Iran are projections of Melos. Trump, having fallen into the trap of the very Neocon policies he supposedly vehemently opposed, chose to turn Netanyahu's war into America's war.

In his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 20th, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who was supported with a standing ovation by European liberals, had included Thucydides's "Strong-Weak" dilemma. Carney criticized the fact that the sentence reported by Thucydides, meaning "the strong are right," had become the world's new reality through Trump. Carney had even proposed solidarity among "middle powers."

Not even forty days have passed. The same Carney made a statement supporting the US and Israeli attack on Iran, reminiscent of the 'Melian Doctrine'. The leaders of three leading countries of so-called "values-based" Liberal Europe were not far behind. Like beads on a string, they lined up around Trump and the Genocidal Netanyahu. Remember these same countries' reactions to Russia over the Ukraine issue. These two diametrically opposed approaches reveal what they truly are. They have no connection whatsoever to values. The only thing they think about is their interests. After Gaza, their hypocrisy has been registered once again.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ FOR ENERGY

The Strait of Hormuz represents the most critical link in energy supply security.

This is because the Strait of Hormuz is located at a vital transit point for oil and gas producers in the region and for consumer countries in Asia and Europe.

Approximately 20-30% of the world's crude oil trade and 20% of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz is the only gateway for major gas producers like Qatar to reach world markets, and it is an irreplaceable route for the oil exports of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The importance of this route is further amplified by the fact that over 80% of the oil passing through the Strait goes to Asian markets, and the energy transported via the Strait serves as an alternative source for Europe's energy supply security.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A CLOSURE OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

It is clear that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz would pose a serious threat to the energy supply security of major economies such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India, and consequently to the global economy.

For these reasons, and due to the limited availability of alternative shipping routes to the Strait of Hormuz, such an event could lead to price shocks and supply chain disruptions in global markets.

Potential threats to energy supply security would not only affect consumer countries but would also have a profound impact on the economies of many regional countries that are dependent on energy revenues.

Therefore, any potential increase in energy prices caused by restrictions in energy supply security would not be limited to the region; this issue has the potential to trigger a dangerous process on a global scale.

THE GLOBAL ENERGY EQUATION IS BEING RESHAPED

The United States increasing its control over the energy resources in Venezuela, the country with the world's largest proven oil reserves, combined with the struggle for dominance in the Strait of Hormuz—the vital artery of global oil shipments—is expected to fundamentally change the global energy equation.