President Erdoğan will be paying a visit to President Trump in the U.S on November 13. After rising diplomatic tensions between two countries during Operation Peace Spring, this visit will be important in determining the future of Turkish-American relations. This face-to-face meeting will be a chance to solve problems that emerged between the two countries in recent years.

President Erdogan has stated that the top item on the agenda with President Trump will be the fight against the FETO terror group. The extradition of Fetullah Gulen, the FETO leader, to Turkey has been a long standing source of tension between Turkey and the US, and prioritizing this issue indicates a clear intention to make progress towards developing a more collaborative relationship to address security threats.

The Syrian crisis and Operation Peace Spring will also be at the top of the agenda. During Turkey’s military operation in Syria, Turkish-US relations deteriorated due to a conflict of interests and misunderstandings between the two countries on the Syrian issue. Obviously, the biggest issue of conflict is the YPG’s presence in Northern Syria. While Turkey sees it as a threat to its national security, the US sees them as useful to prevent the rise of Daesh in the region. Tensions between the two nations escalated and de-escalated several times during the operation and as a result, this visit will be important to repair relations between Turkey and the US.

President Erdoğan almost certainly be bringing the Turkish-American agreement on the safe zone to the table. President Erdoğan recently said “We know that there are still terrorists in the planned safe zone. These areas have not been cleared of terrorists yet”. Since the agreement requires the withdrawal of YPG members 30 kilometers away from Turkey’s border, President Erdoğan will most likely discuss why the agreement has not been fulfilled yet.

When it comes to the American side, it appears that while President Trump sees the visit as a chance to discuss the Syrian border, terrorism and the YPG,  the American side is much more pessimistic about the visit, and it is likely that US officials will continue to take a firm stand on the YPG’s presence outside of the safe zone. It has also been said that while the two leaders may solve the existing problems, they also have to convince the Washington bureaucracy which is still angry about the agreement and Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.

The future of 3.6 million refugees living in Turkey. As was previously stated by Turkey, one of the main aims of the establishment of a safe zone is the resettlement of approximately 1.5-2 million Syrian refugees within the safe zone. In his UN speech, President Erdoğan underlined that Turkey could not maintain hosting 3.6 million refugees and it was urgent to establish the safe zone and resettle refugees in that area.

Another prominent issue for the Erdoğan-Trump meeting will be the sanctions against Turkey and the resolution passed by the House of Representatives to commemorate “the Armenian Genocide”. It is a well-known fact that both decisions were taken by the US to force Turkey to halt Operation Peace Spring. President Erdoğan stated that he discussed the decision of the House of Representatives with President Trump on the phone and that Trump decided to examine this issue.

Other issues such as the Halkbank case, the future of the YPG in Syria will all be handled during the visit. Some of these issues have been in negotiation with the US for a long time and the outcome of this visit on these issues will be of interest.

It seems that even if the two leaders are eager to solve the existing problems between two countries, there is the obstacle of a resistant Washington bureaucracy. The ongoing impeachment investigation against Trump and the media’s aggressive stance against Turkey has forced him to take a confrontational stance against Turkey. Nevertheless, good relations between the two leaders helped in finding solutions for deep-rooted problems in the past, and ongoing intractable issues may be solved at the table once again.

With the national emergency declaration signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on 16 May, 2019, and the decision that followed to assign telecommunication firms, especially those that are actively working in the field of 5G, for instance Huawei, the status of “posing national security risks,” the first concrete step has been taken on the technology front of the long expected U.S.-china economic war.

The only U.S. companies among the top 10 firms that work on 5G technology, which has been described as sinister technology by Trump, and have patents and standards in this field are, Qualcomm and Intel. Chinese firms, especially Huawei, have a very significant presence in this field.

But why is possessing 5G so important?

Technologies such as drones, UAVs and UCAVs are military technologies that require an internet connection. Internet of Things (IoT) technologies are among the most talked-about projects today and will continue to be so in the near future. States that control the flow of data stemming from these new technologies will have the most important power of the new world that they will help build. On this subject, China is far ahead of the U.S. The greatest proof of this is the recent technological developments made by Chinese firms.

Recently, technology firms such as Huawei, ZTE, Xiaomi, and Oppo have not only shaken the first-place status of Apple – the largest manufacturer and seller of smartphones in the U.S. – but have also made their market advantage in East Asia exceedingly felt in Europe and the U.S. By surpassing Apple in the second quarter of 2018, Huawei now shares the status of being the world’s largest smartphone selling firm along with Samsung.

States that control the flow of data stemming from these new technologies will have the most important power of the new world that they will help build. On this subject, China is far ahead of the U.S. The greatest proof of this is the recent technological developments made by Chinese firms.

In light of this information, it can be stated that the U.S. has fallen behind in the first round of the technology war.

As a result of pressure imposed by Trump, who considers Huawei to be a threat, U.S. firms have taken a series of rapid actions against Huawei. Google has announced that its open source operating system Android will no longer be available for Huawei devices and that these devices will no longer have access to Google services such as Gmail, Google Play and YouTube.

Intel has stopped its motherboard sales. Foundations that control the administration of technologies such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and SD Cards have also announced that they have ended their agreements with Huawei.

The IEEE society, which is the architect of many scientific standards, has announced that Huawei will no longer have access to its scientific studies as a company. This is occurring despite the fact that Huawei is one of the biggest contributors to the society. Following this, many IEEE members resigned from their positions, openly stating that they are against the involvement of politics in science.

Following the aforementioned developments, Huawei announced as an action plan that it will publish its own operating system, which is in the phase of development, in 2010. It is expected that China will retaliate by announcing a large black list that includes companies such as Apple and Google. Considering that Apple sources 30% of its profit from China, and that Google and Facebook are banned from these Chinese markets despite having been working to gain access to China for years, it will not be wrong to claim that Trump has scored a goal against his own team.

Considering that Apple sources 30% of its profit from China, and that Google and Facebook are banned from these Chinese markets despite having been working to gain access to China for years, it will not be wrong to claim that Trump has scored a goal against his own team.

The U.S. will have a hard time developing 5G technologies. On the other hand, China has incredible capabilities on the subject of telecommunication and the development of new technological products. Chinese firms are rapidly increasing their presence in European markets and are enjoying a high demand. More, Apple’s largest manufacturing plant Foxconn is in China. Due to these reasons, it is not hard to see that China possesses a significant advantage against the U.S. at this stage.

Research shows that we are trusting beings. It also shows that unlike traditional media, new media does not follow the journalistic ethics and verification rules. If you put these together, you reach an understanding of the Goebbels Law of the Big Lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The fascistic mind behind this Law is problematic at best and catastrophic at the end, and the entire praxis is related to the state apparatus, yet the basic tenets in the contemporary forms of communication are the same. As Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, it is rather difficult to find a criminal mind as Goebbel’s to explain why and how the modern governmental and non-governmental organizations engage so arduously to deceive their or international societies of trusting human beings.

Paul Joseph Goebbels was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest and most devoted associates and was known for his skills in public speaking (and public deceiving). Hitler was the most preeminent and distinguished person who deceived not only his people but the world leaders as the U.S. presidents and UK prime ministers, U.S. and UK parliaments and most of the people in North and South America, Western Europe, Mid- and Far-Easts. Since modern communication and public-opinion leaders are not as forthcoming as that murderous Joseph Goebbels, we could be excused for looking into his theories when we need to learn and explain public-deceiving techniques.

Goebbels’ recommendation to Hitler was to use all the State power to repress dissent, “for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Please replace the word “State” with any name of a presidential administration or parliamentarian government which engages in deception.

How to shield a public, any public as small as the clientele of certain brand your company produces, or as large as the whole wide world, (“www”: get it?) from the truth? Herr Goebbels continues to teach behind the Hell fire:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

Donald Trump lies 19 times per day

So, Mr. Trump’s lies are confined to a handful of subjects and a close scrutiny shows us that he repeats them over and over again. Take for instance the claim that the U.S. taxpayers are footing the defense bill of Europe. Yes, the military expenditure of the U.S. government is much larger than any other country, and by extension it is spending more money for its military positioned in Europe. If the U.S. stops spending that money, then its military expenditure will not be exceeding others. Who needs the nuclear arsenal the U.S. positions and maintains in Europe? Europeans? Definitely not. Who benefits from the protective umbrella the U.S. Patriot air defense systems the U.S. governments made the EU purchase and sustain? The working-class people in yellow vests in France? Of course not.

Who needs the nuclear arsenal the U.S. positions and maintains in Europe? Europeans? Definitely not. 

Why does President Macron crash the bones of protesters and poison them with his tear-gas? Goebbels and the Nazis thought of intellectualism as free thought, something that required the truth as its fuel, which, as we have quoted him above, is the mortal enemy of the governmental lie. Just like Macron, Trump wants everyone to be obedient to the government line; basically, they do not want people to think at all (A side note: Goebbels is also said to have suffered Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), a pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings).

It is not only Trump’s 10 thousand untrue things he said in office, but the false information and fake news stories people fabricate to suppress intellectual activities in the world (Some counts more, some less lies Mr. Trump had said. Nevertheless, even one false statement coming from the “leader of the free world” should be considered too much, in theory). Trump’s first contribution to the science of communication was no different than that of Goebbels. While he may not have exactly coined the word, he has popularized the term “fake news.” He may have been the first person using it as a proper noun for the famous dailies such as the New York Times and Washington Post. He calls them “fake news” whenever he has a keyboard attached to twitter or a microphone attacked to voice recorder. In addition to the prophesy of their remaining longevity (which is not very long), President Trump tried to reduce their circulations, too.

Just like Macron, Trump wants everyone to be obedient to the government line; basically, they do not want people to think at all.

As the pot calling the kettle black, Trump’s calling some media outlets “fake news promoters” only brings his lies and fabricated “facts” on the new media to mind. According to Media Matters for America (MMFA), a Web-based, non-profit research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting” fake news, all the big American media outlets fail to rebut President Trump’s misinformation 65 percent of the time in their tweets about his false or misleading comments.”

Not only that, MMFA also calculated that major U.S. media outlets amplified Trump’s lies and disinformation over 400 times during the three-week study period, or 19 times per day, without identifying in the same moment that the information is “just total bullshit and shouldn’t be taken as truth.”  The major media outlets have passively misinformed the public by passing along misinformation from Trump administration, their study found. Here are some points from MMFA research:

• 92 percent of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when he was speaking at a press gaggle or pool spray.
• 49 percent of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when outlets were responding to comments he made during formal speeches.
• @TheHill was the worst offender and sent more than 40 percent of the tweets that pushed Trump’s misinformation without disputing it

Who lies on the Internet?

But not only the politicians and the traditional media lie on the Internet; the ordinary people, you and I also tend to lie on these platforms. According to the Psychology Today magazine, people directly lie about their lives to make themselves look more desirable or positive. In a study examining 80 online daters, Hancock, Toma, & Ellison found that two thirds of participants lied about their weight by 5 pounds or more. In a large sample of over 2000 people in England conducted by Custard.com, 43 percent of men admitted to making up facts about themselves and their lives that were not true online.

Trump’s first contribution to the science of communication was no different than that of Goebbels. While Trump may not have coined the word, he exactly has popularized the term “fake news.”

Why do you, I and Donald lie on the Internet? Because we know fellow humans are naturally social creatures—we crave relationships and social interaction. Before Hitler and Goebbels started abusing communication, Alfred Adler, world renowned philosopher and psychiatrist, informed us that our strong urge for social interaction and feeling a sense of belonging to a community push us to be a little like Trump: to fulfill our need for admiration. Yet Adlerian psychotherapy doesn’t treat everyone as natural liars of course. We do exaggerate a little. But to lie to the general public 10 thousand times in 24 months you or your loved ones have to have “something to gain or lose,” like some really good real estate in Jerusalem, West Bank of the Sharia River or on the Gazza Strip, where, like Manhattan, the land is not increasing but the people are!

In short, the advance of fake news and information is not a new phenomenon but the media by which it is being exercised now is making it all the more effective and harmful.

Joseph Goebbels once said, “Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character.” Now, he would have been proud of himself.

Judaism has a holy day named Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), which is spent with ceremonies of redemption for the sins of the Israelites. During the early periods of Judaism, high priest Aaron would perform religious ceremonies for the atonement of the community and made people pray on this holy day. Then, he drew lots from a lottery box over two goats. One was selected to sacrifice for the sins of the people, while he leaned his hands on the second goat and confessed the sins of the entire people of Israel, thus making it the scapegoat. After that, the scapegoat was taken out of the sanctuary and cast into the desert. According to the Jewish faith, the sins were cleansed as the scapegoat lurked out of sight.

Today, the word scapegoat is used in almost every language, including Turkish, to define one that bears the blame for others. In that sense, the U.S. President Donald Trump has become a global scapegoat. Since his inauguration, his discharge is constantly on the agenda in U.S. domestic politics, while the international community is fed up with him. The most criticized thing about him is his “crude and obnoxious” tone. But as a matter of fact, he perfectly represents U.S. policies, especially U.S. foreign policy, with this very tone. That is why many international audience supported Trump against Hillary Clinton during the presidential race. It was obvious that Clinton would sugarcoat U.S. foreign policy’s atrocious practices and their consequences much better than Trump since Trump accentuates the vulgar side of U.S. policies.

To illustrate, let me remind the reader of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which led to a series of conflicts in the region. The U.S. Senator from Arizona, John McCain, who recently passed away and was eulogized by the U.S. press and even by his rivals, was noted as one of the leading hawkish names paving the way for the invasion of Iraq. Shortly before his death, McCain wrote in his memoir that the invasion “can’t be judged as anything other than a mistake, a very serious one, and I have to accept my share of the blame for it.” But no matter whether he regretted it, more than 600.000 Iraqi civilians were killed in Iraq over the past decade while the U.S. troops suffered 4.500 losses. Plus, millions of Iraqis were displaced and lost their homes.

A former deputy from the Republican People’s Party (CHP) likened the Gulenist Terror Group (FETO) to a barnacle, saying that a barnacle cannot survive unless it feeds on a whale’s skin and how FETO flourished in Turkey. So, it can be said that Israel is a barnacle living on the U.S. ever since it was founded. The U.S. is also content with supporting the country’s tyranny. Innumerable examples portraying this relation can be given but let me remind you of the latest one. The law that recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city passed in 1995 in the U.S. Congress. Although all U.S. presidents in office as of that date kept the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv by using their authority in foreign politics, this law has been in force since then. Trump only exercised it, making the U.S.’ Israel policy even more obvious, and urged moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Another example can be given from Turkey. FETO of course did not appear during Trump’s term in office, as the terror group has been revealed to have almost 40 years of past. When FETO attempted to stage a military coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016, Barack Obama was in the White House. Both Obama and his successor Trump issued statements siding with Turkey on the subject, but this cannot change what happened. FETO leader Fetullah Gulen, who moved to Pennsylvania in 1999, with the help of former CIA vice-chair Graham Fuller, is still living there without facing any restriction since then.

European leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, criticize Trump for being compliant with authoritarian regimes and having problems with Washington’s allies. But endless examples can be listed showing that France, Germany, and the U.S. have not only complied with authoritarian regimes and even dictatorships, but have also laid the groundworks for these regimes in most cases. The second new situation for Germany and France is Washington’s relations with its allies since Trump’s inauguration. But Trump does not represent the entire U.S. on this matter. As the German Foreign Minister put it, the U.S. is bigger than the White House and Trump cannot change that no matter how much he tweets.

Nevertheless, the rest of the world can hardly contend that Trump is not suitable for the U.S. Presidency.

A 50-year-old evangelical pastor of the Izmir Resurrection Church has been living in Turkey since 1993. He has now become a source of controversy in the bilateral relationship between Turkey and the U.S. after Trump announced his plans to impose sanctions against Turkey. The U.S. President Donald Trump used a different tone when he tweeted about Turkey, sending a message that the sanctions against Turkey are on the table if Andrew Craig Brunson, an American citizen, is not released.

Before the criminal trial, the Turkish Ministry of Internal Affairs reviewed the status of Brunson in Turkey soon after the coup attempt on July 15. Brunson was informed that he was a “national security risk” with the decision of the Ministry of Interior’s Directorate General of Migration Management. Apart from a judiciary process, the Ministry went through another administrative process for Brunson.

In March 2018, the indictment charge against Brunson was released. According to this indictment, Brunson was allegedly responsible for “forming organized groups with the intention of committing a crime” and “political or military espionage.” The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses and authenticated evidence collected from the phone of Brunson. For instance, in relation to the aftermath of the coup attempt, Brunson said: “we were waiting for some events to shake the Turks […], the coup attempt was a shock, many Turks trusted the military as they did in the past […] We will eventually win.” A secret witness, DUA stated that Bekir Baz, a.k.a. Ramazan, a senior member of FETO, met with Brunson, advising him to establish an association to circumvent the restrictions in relation to the establishment of new churches. There have been three hearings in the trial process, and Brunson was released from prison and is now under house arrest.

“We were waiting for some events to shake the Turks […], the coup attempt was a shock, many Turks trusted the military as they did in the past […] We will eventually win”

While the criminal process took place in İzmir, Turkey, the threats coming from President Trump added another layer to the bilateral relations between the two countries. The question arises as to how the President will potentially give economic harm to the Turkish economy. Imposing sanctions is not new, and the Congress has raised the adoption of several laws to compel the administration to implement the sanctions. For instance, the National Defense Authorization Act, as in the final stage of the legislative process, will prevent the administration from delivering the F-35 aircraft to Turkey. The letter written by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who was not in favor of introducing such a sanction, had revealed that the administration was not interested in imposing this sanction. However, the recent tweets appear to change this attitude, undermining the interest of the countries participating in the F-35 program.

Another example is the Turkey International Financial Institutions Act, which was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the draft of this legislation, Congress will oblige the Secretary of Treasury to instruct the U.S. executive directors of well-known international financial institutions to vote against extending any “loan or financial or technical assistance” to Turkey. The increasingly aggressive attitude of the president will lead his administration to sign this law once it has passed Congress and to implement the obligation to instruct officials in the international financial institutions.

As to an existing law, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) obliges the administration to impose sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. However, the administration can introduce a waiver, deciding to exclude Turkey from punitive measures based on a determination that the sanctions would run against the “vital national security interests” of the U.S. Despite this authority, the recent tweets of Trump show that the administration is no longer interested in issuing such a waiver to protect the relationship between the two countries.

Turkey’s official Anadolu News Agency reported that Brunson, 50, an evangelical Christian pastor originally from North Carolina, was let out of jail to serve home detention because of “health problems” which were not further specified.

Brunson was charged with spying for the PKK, a designated terrorist group in the U.S. and Turkey, and the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) which orchestrated the defeated coup attempt on July 15, 2016.

The cleric denies the charges.

The Izmir 2nd High Criminal Court said Brunson would be electronically monitored and barred from leaving his house. The cleric left prison with a police escort after completing certain procedures.

Brunson, who has lived in Turkey for 23 years serving as the pastor of Izmir Resurrection Church, is also prohibited from leaving Turkey.

The court decided to allow Brunson to live at his home address in Izmir, and as his trial continues his “abandonment of residence” is prohibited and he is also banned from leaving the country.

If convicted, he will face up to 15 years in prison for “committing crimes on behalf of terror groups without being a member” and another 20 years if he is found guilty of espionage.

The pastor’s detention has strained ties between Ankara and Washington. The two NATO Allies are already at loggerheads for some time.

Citing Brunson’s case and Turkey’s plan to buy the S-400 missile system from Russia, U.S. senators are pushing to delay Turkey’s acquisition of American-made F-35 fighter jets.

President Trump and Vice President Pence’s Twitter bluster

On Twitter, U.S. President Trump threatened to impose sanctions on Turkey if Ankara continues to refuse to free Brunson.

“The United States will impose large sanctions on Turkey for their long time detainment of Pastor Andrew Brunson,” Trump tweeted. “He is suffering greatly. This innocent man of faith should be released immediately!”

Trump called Brunson “a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being.”

Previous to this tweet, again on Twitter, Trump tweeted that the detention is a “total disgrace.” “He has done nothing wrong, and his family needs him!” Trump tweeted.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence speaking in Washington D.C., at a conference on religious freedom hosted by the U.S. State Department, made a similar threat of “significant sanctions” against Ankara over the imprisoned pastor.

Pence, threatened President Erdogan and the Turkish government via Twitter to “be prepared to face consequences if Pastor Andrew Brunson is not released immediately.

Evangelical support for Pastor Brunson

The reason why Brunson’s detention has received so much attention is due to the evangelical Christian lobby in the U.S. – as they are among the president’s most reliable supporters. The White House has been pressured by these groups to take steps in order to ensure Brunson’s release.

On Wednesday Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also expressed his opinion about the decision of the Turkish court to place Brunson under house arrest.

“We welcome long overdue news that Pastor [Andrew Craig] Brunson has been moved from prison to house arrest in Turkey,” Pompeo said in a tweet.

Pompeo, described the court’s decision as “not enough” while he added that there is “no credible evidence” against Brunson.

Turkey’s response

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also responded to the statements of the White House on Twitter, saying, “We will never tolerate threats from anybody.”

Turkey’s Foreign Ministry insisted that the Brunson Case is under Turkey’s jurisdiction as a sovereign state, and told the Anadolu Agency that the White House’s rhetoric was “unacceptable.”

“With regard to the Brunson case, necessary information has been provided to our U.S. counterparts on various occasions and it has been clearly expressed that this issue is totally within the competence of the independent Turkish judiciary,” the ministry added.

After the threats of Trump and Pence via Twitter, Ankara’s Ambassador to Washington, Serdar Kilic, said that the United States should not resort to threats against Turkey.

“My message was crystal clear; No one should expect Turkey to give in to threats and that as an Ally US should not resort to threats against us,” the Ambassador said in a post on his Twitter account, adding his disappointment that U.S. authorities had failed to take his explicit advice at all levels into consideration.

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan

Upon the request from Iran, on July 6, 2018, the remaining parties of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gathered to discuss the future of the agreement at the Joint Commission. The officials and leaders of Iran, China, Russia, the U.K., France, Germany, and European Union leaders had initiated bilateral talks in order to underline their commitments to the agreement. However, the remaining countries of the agreement have held this multilateral meeting for the first time since President Trump announced to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear deal. Chaired by the EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, foreign ministers from the countries that remained in the JCPOA attended the meeting to discuss the ability to export gas and oil from Iran.

The diplomatic language in the statement released after the meeting appears to be promising for the future of the agreement.  As stated in the bilateral meetings, attendants of this meeting were not reluctant to mention that they “reconfirmed their commitment to the full and effective implementation” of the agreement. The remaining JCPOA countries intend to keep themselves motivated when considering the list of objectives attached in the statement. According to the list, parties aim to, among others, increase the economic and sectorial cooperation. Most importantly, they added the objective of protecting “companies from the exterritorial effects of U.S. sanctions,” which has been the most severe legal impediment to implement the JCPOA effectively. In other words, the extraterritoriality of the upcoming sanctions imposed by the U.S. authorities will hamper the ability of the remaining parties to comply with the obligations arising from the nuclear deal.

In regards to the withdrawal of the U.S., the remaining parties began to formulate several means to tackle with the U.S. sanctions against Iran. As included in the statement, one of these means includes the adoption of the “Blocking Statute” which aims to protect European companies operating in Iran against the U.S. sanctions by preventing a judgment of a court located outside the EU to be enforced.

The question arises as to what extent the EU will effectively address this by adopting a blocking statute, regarding the fact that several European companies have already decided to terminate their business in Iran. This was worrisome when considering the lengthy legislative process and the structural changes in the EU. It was unlikely that the immediate reaction coming from EU leaders in the political arena or at the bilateral level did facilitate the complexities in the language of the legislation drafted in 1996. Since 1996, the EU has passed tremendous changes, adopted three main treaties that have altered the primary structure of the EU. These changes include the ones in the realm of EU financial institutions, which are mainly “reliant on access to U.S. markets and the U.S. dollar.”

In the meeting on July 6, 2018, the participants shortly noted that the blocking regulations were now in the process of updating. This procedure could be summarized as follows:  On May 16, 2018, the President of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, along with the High Representative Mogherini, presented the proposal to update the blocking statute. The proposal includes four comprehensive measures to be taken. First, the list of U.S. sanctions on Iran will be updated in order to determine the scope of secondary sanctions that could potentially be imposed against European companies. Second, the proposal will aim to eliminate the impediments for the European Investment Bank by guaranteeing financial activities in Iran. However, it was also noted that by adopting this proposal, the EIB was not intended actually to support projects in Iran. Third, the proposal will focus on sectorial cooperation with Iran, especially in the energy sector. Fourth, the EU Commission will encourage Member States of the EU to find out the options of one-off bank transfers to the Central Bank of Iran in order to transfer oil-related revenues.

Last month, on June 6, 2018, the EU Commission adopted the proposal, and it will enter into force in 2 months unless other institutions, namely the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union object to the proposal. Recently, on July 4, an attempt to object to this proposal was made by the far-right political group EFDD but it failed with only 93 votes for, 573 against and 11 abstentions. As to the Council of the EU, formed by the ministers from the Members States, can, in principle, raise their objections but they are expected to follow their leaders who agreed to stand with the proposal. It is likely that the EU will adopt the blocking statutes in order to cope with U.S. secondary sanctions, albeit the capacity to cope with the U.S. sanctions remains unclear.

In addition to the legislation procedure in the realm of the EU, the meeting held on July 6 gives several significant indications for the future of the Iran deal. Most importantly, as experts argue, the statement released after the meeting does not specify “any concrete means” to achieve the abovementioned goals. This two-page statement with ten clauses does not declare a clear roadmap for Iran and other remaining countries in the deal as expected.

While the EU’s grand effort to keep the JCPOA alive seems to fail in the future, unlike the U.S., the participant countries have shown that they still maintain the channel of communication with the government of Iran. In order to maintain peace in the region, states that remain in the agreement took a more difficult challenge than just withdrawing.

Behaviors of U.S. President Donald Trump occupied the 44^th G7 summit held in Canada this year, which had a distinct atmosphere compared to previous summits held every year. Trump’s uncompromising attitude and his announcement regarding U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, which he made during the summit in Italy last year, have led some to argue that the G7 is effectively becoming a G6.

One should note that several decisions made by President Trump, such as withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Paris Climate Agreement and the nuclear agreement with Iran (JCPOA), opening NAFTA for renegotiation, putting negotiations regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on hold and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has led to deep differences of opinion between the U.S. and other G7 countries. In addition, his recent statement regarding the fact that his policy of imposing a 25% tariff rate on imported steel and 10% tariff on imported aluminum would include the European Union, Canada and Mexico by June 1, 2018, has been met with great reaction and anxiety among the Western allies of the U.S. Following this decision, which would affect the current balance of international trade, the rest of the G7 countries tried to persuade the U.S. administration to abandon this policy in order to avoid disrupting the liberal economic order.

As a reaction to Trump’s policies, 29 ambassadors from the EU sent an open letter to the president on the first day of the summit. The letter stated that the trade and investment relationships between the U.S. and the EU have been a win-win for both parties for years; the U.S. has benefited from its trade with the EU more than anyone else. Furthermore, the letter suggested to cooperate against China. Prior to the G7 leaders’ summit, the finance ministers of the six-member countries also repeated the call to withdraw tariffs. Thus, the main subject during the G7 summit was the heavy tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum by the U.S. President.

During the summit, Canada, the biggest trade partner of the U.S., made several attempts to resolve the situation to no avail. With close inspection, one can see that Canada exports an important amount of steel and by itself provides over 50% of U.S. aluminum imports. Attempts to open negotiations made by the Canadian Prime Minister led to heated exchanges between the U.S. and Canada. After Trump’s accusation of “backstabbing,” several high-ranking U.S. bureaucrats also targeted Trudeau with heavy accusations and criticisms. Trudeau, accused of being unfair by Trump, stressed the fact that Canadian workers, just like American workers, needed to be protected, and reminded Trump that he ought to be a fair-trade partner. Following his press conference with Trump, Trudeau stated that Canada will also impose new tariffs on July 1 in retaliation to the U.S., signaling that the protectionist policies of the Trump administration will not go without response.

Western allies, who had hoped to persuade Trump during this year’s summit, failed to achieve any progress and the summit revealed the fractured state of the western bloc. The fact that the other six countries of the G7 cooperated against the U.S. and made joint announcement signifies that the trade war sparked by Trump will not be one-sided. While such a trade war in a situation where countries compete against each other will not have any winners, it has the potential to cause a global recession and to negatively impact the prosperity of the world.

When we take a look at the statistics of trade between the G7 countries, an interesting picture emerges. More than one third of the U.S. $568 billion trade deficit as of 2017 was due to its trade with G7 countries. The fact that the U.S. is running trade deficits with all G7 member countries except from the United Kingdom provides important context for the merchant attitude displayed by Trump during the summit.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO): A new organization versus a divided G7

The protectionist policies adopted by Trump are hurting Asian countries as much as they are western countries. Following the election, the Trump administration focused on competition with China and forced the Western world to act in cooperation. Stating that allies who do not act in accordance of this particular vision should not count on the U.S. for further support, Trump has illustrated that the U.S. is aiming for a bilateral competition with China, and that the U.S. no longer wants to finance the liberal world. Trump’s “Russia should’ve been here” statement during the G7and his tweets following his early departure were highlights of the event. Some even claimed that Trump’s behavior is aimed at destroying the Western alliance.

The fact that on the same day of the G7 summit another summit was being held on the other side of the Atlantic by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization supports this theory. With messages promoting cooperation and unity at a time when Western allies are bickering among themselves for economic gain, the SCO – which claims to be an alternative bloc to the West – signaled to the world that a new center of power now exists. Putin’s emphasis on the rising economic power of the SCO especially drew attention. In reference to the SCO’s combined economic power – over $15 trillion – which totals to 20% of the world economy, the Russian President claimed that the SCO is stronger than the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity. One can appreciate how bright the future of the SCO compared to the G7 by noting that China and India – the two fastest growing economies in the world – will account for 40% of the global GDP growth in the next 10 years. While undoubtedly, this organization should not be expected to succeed in the immediate future, its claim of being an alternative to the Western alliance should not be underestimated. In opposition to the West, which is experiencing clashes of economic interest, the internal harmony displayed by the SCO illustrates that it is a new focus of power.

Deepening divisions among the West and the Rise of Asia

The G7 summit ended tensely after heavy criticisms directed to Canada by the U.S. President and his decision not to sign the joint statement at the end of the summit. The disagreements on trade not only failed to be resolved during the summit, but even grew tenser. President Trump and his advisors, following neo-mercantilist policies, state at every given opportunity that they will put their national interests first, disregarding international norms and thus following protectionist and one-sided approaches. Similarly, the Trump administration does not hesitate to repeatedly declare that they do not want to finance the liberal global order. Therefore, the grounds that justify the superiority of the U.S. in the current global order are now being debated more than ever. Trade wars seem inevitable in a global atmosphere such as this, where political balances are shifting profoundly. If other countries were to react in cooperation to Trump’s continued protectionist policies, this would be met with great anxiety in the global economy and the implementation of such reactionary policies may cause trade wars on a global scale.

On the other hand, the U.S., while adopting more aggressive policies after the incredible economic rise of China, is also shifting its military presence to the Asia Pacific, and is adopting protectionist policies in order to maintain its economic superiority in the global arena. Trump is acting destructively in his economic and political relations with the West. However, he is more constructive and cooperative when it comes to relationships with Asia. Within this framework, it’s important to note that Trump left the G7 summit early to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. So, Trump, in his attempt to undermine China’s hegemony in the Asia Pacific, is harming the Western alliance. The policies that the two leading global actors such as the U.S. and China – who have become referred to as the G2 – will implement against each other, can trigger multifaceted trade wars.

The Middle East has undergone a massive transformation since the Arab uprising erupted in 2011. The Arab uprising initially rooted from people’s search for democracy, equality, and justice, noting that none of them have ever been at the core of politics since the Western intervention in the region took place. However, the nature of the Arab uprising dramatically transformed itself towards pervasive insecurities and chaos in the Middle East, especially after the spread of radicalization — particularly in the case of Daesh, the conflict-spillover effects of the Syrian Civil War, and the fall of democracy in the Arab world.

Today, from Libya to Yemen, the main characteristic of the new disorder in the Middle East is the proliferation of violent non-state armed groups, the deterioration of state structure, the rise of radical extremism, and the deepening geopolitical antagonism among states, ethnic, and religious groups. This new phenomenon resulted in state insecurity, regime insecurity, societal insecurity, and most importantly, in human insecurity across the region. Each of these outcomes indicate that the very nature of the Middle East order has been undermined by internal, regional and international actors. The new stage highlights that we are at a point where the Middle East is gradually falling into a new wave of crisis, especially after Trump’s accession to power in the U.S.

Trump and his so-called comrades in the Middle East are destroying the region that we know. This is the rise of a new geopolitical era in the Middle East political landscape that has been undergoing a transitional period of a new regional order without principles, rules, and norms. The new order in the Middle East is a product of reckless diplomacy of the Trumpian narrative of international politics. At the very heart of this Trumpian diplomacy lies diplomacy working without diplomats and law functioning without the international norms assembled around the United Nations after World War II.

The Palestinian case is an excellent textbook example to see how Trumpian diplomacy works without diplomats and law without paying respect to international norms in the Middle East. Trump’s decision to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Al-Quds and the recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the so-called Jewish State signifies the very nature of Trumpian diplomacy. Additionally, the presence of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Kushner, and her husband, Jared Kushner, at the opening ceremony of the U.S. embassy manifested how U.S. diplomacy is withdrawing itself from the scene and giving its place to Trumpian diplomacy without diplomats.

As it is mostly believed, Trump’s Israel policy is not a construction of the U.S.’s realpolitik interests in the Middle East; it is a product of the global civilizational conflict perception in which the Christian right, evangelical/fundamentalist Christians and the Orthodox Jewish community in the U.S. are at the center of. The evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress’s invocation at the opening ceremony showed how the judgment above portrays the very nature of this perception. Many people can easily recall Jeffress addressing Muslims as “heretics” in several of his speeches. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine how Trump disregards international law and norms, since Trumpian diplomacy does not consult international norms.

The way in which Trumpian diplomacy destroys the Middle East is not limited to Trump’s messianic decision about Al-Quds. The U.S. secession from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran Deal, sealed by the international community, in which the U.S. was an integral part, are other outrageous examples that demonstrate how Trumpian diplomacy undermine  international norms. The Iran deal was a diplomatic success in 2015. Now it invokes a diplomatic ignorance caused by U.S. policy in the Middle East. However, this time round, diplomatic ignorance is not only caused by Trump himself – it is also the consequence of an intra-regional antagonism implemented by Israel to undermine the existing intra-regional balance against itself. For sure, Iran is not the champion of regional stability, but the termination of the Iran Deal is not the best realistic way to contain Iran’s destabilizing role in the Middle East. Calling off the Iran nuclear deal also attempts to undermine Iranian people. It accelerates Iranian politics towards a more radical line.

Another example to see how Trumpian diplomacy destroys the Middle East is the commitment to protect the PKK-YPG’s (which is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. itself) interests in northeastern Syria. This commitment indicates the Trump administration’s way of doing diplomacy without diplomats, as well. While the role of military disagreements in Turkish-American relations, particularly the case of the U.S.-PKK connection, shows the decline of diplomacy, it also demonstrates how a tactical concern can become a guideline for overall diplomatic strategy. In addition to that, the increasing rapprochement between the U.S. and the PKK proves the cliché of international politics that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

These three examples clearly demonstrate that Trump is demolishing the Middle East that we know by undermining the nature of diplomacy firstly, and secondly, by triggering the regional antagonism among the countries in the region. While destroying the historical status of Al-Quds makes the region more conflictual, demonizing Iran generates more instability for Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, undermining Turkey’s national security by supporting a terrorist organization endangers U.S. interests in Syria and Iraq. Trump’s diplomacy is the new reality for the Middle East, which has perhaps struck the region via a new wave of crisis. Trump and his team are against international law, norms and diplomacy. The people who serve Trumpian diplomacy are ultra-radical, neocon and pro-interventionists. This is very dangerous for the Middle East. When the other ultra-radical leaders in the region are taken into consideration, the region’s future does not appear to be bright.

The United States President Donald Trump recently announced that Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear deal that was signed between Iran and the international community. The announcement did not cause a serious reaction in Tehran. The main reason behind this unresponsive attitude is the fact that Iranian decision makers have been well experienced to the similar political decisions of the United States. This decision has also allowed Iranian political elites to instrumentalize their strategy of “U.S. antagonism” on which Tehran has based its policies towards the U.S. The U.S.’s decision also led Iranian people, who had to endure U.S. sanctions for years, to grow a deep sense of insecurity towards Washington.

Civil and political actors in Iran have accepted the fact that they have to accustom themselves to the international sanctions against their country, which have been applied since 1979. Because of these sanctions, Iran has limited integration to the international economic system. As a result, sanctions have been accepted as part of daily life and politics in Iran. For this reason, Iranians who have endured U.S. sanctions for many years do not have much concern about the new sanctions that can be applied in the near future.

This is the impression I have observed during my one-week long visit to Iran last week. Throughout the years, Iranians have obviously adapted themselves to life with international sanctions. This is observed from the fact that despite heavy sanctions for years, Iran has a vibrant economic, cultural and social life. The country is perceived as an outsider to the global system, but in reality, it perfectly functions without international connectivity. From municipal services to infrastructure, from cultural life to economic activities, Iran is drawing a more successful picture than most countries in its neighborhood. The vibrant economic life, human mobility and the presence of a dynamic population in all big cities of the country, ensure that Iran is self-reliant despite the years-long sanctions.

On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Iran is far below its capacity due to the sanctions imposed by the United States and the international community. With its great potential in natural resources such as oil and gas, Iran would have been a regional power if the country had not faced international sanctions for many years. Therefore, it can be argued that the main reason for the U.S.’s insistence on the sanctions imposed on Iran was to keep Tehran at a limited capacity in regional and global politics.

A crucial question here is how Iran’s integration to the international system would transform the country and regional politics. It is obvious that if Iran achieves to integrate itself into the international community, the country would become the key actor in regional politics. Iran’s exclusion from sanctions and achievement of economic growth would allow Tehran to increase its influence in its neighborhood. Despite the sanctions, Iran has followed a strategy of regional expansionism successfully. Without sanctions, Tehran would follow a more aggressive strategy of regional expansionism. In such a scenario, countries like Turkey, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia would feel the pressure that may be caused from Iran’s expansionist policies. On the other hand, Iran’s increasing economic and military capacities would become a source of concern for regional actors such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Therefore, it’s of great importance for these countries that Iran is kept at a limited level both economically and militarily.

On the other hand, international actors such as the U.S. and Russia object to Iran’s transformation into a regional power. Together with other major Western players, these countries have contributed to keep Tehran’s capacities at a limited level. The main aim of these actors was to prevent Iran from becoming a stronger actor that can influence the policies of the global powers towards the Middle East. These global actors have also taken into consideration the interests of their regional allies such as Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Due to the demands from these countries, the U.S. has continued its sanctions on Iran.

It can be said that the sanctions imposed on Iran by Western countries have aimed to prevent Tehran from becoming a more powerful regional player. In addition to that, these sanctions protected both the interests of the West and their allies in the region. They also functioned as an instrument for the U.S. to secure the loyalty of its regional allies. Finally, it can be stated that despite the sanctions, Iran will continue to be one of the most important countries of the Middle East with its dynamic and vibrant population as well as significant energy resources.

President Trump is widely expected to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal by refusing to issue a sanctions waiver this week. One of Trump’s central attacks on the Obama administration has been the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) itself on grounds that it gave Iran billions of dollars that failed to prevent Iran from going down the nuclear path. Undoing the most important foreign policy piece of the Obama legacy is obviously irresistible for President Trump, who has had to begrudgingly certify that Iran was in compliance with the agreement. The President’s strong critique of the nuclear deal is now coupled with the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “intelligence coup” last week that seems to give Trump further political cover, though it is doubtful he really needed it. Should the President pull the U.S. out of the nuclear deal, it is unclear what will replace it, and perhaps more importantly, what U.S. policy towards Iran will be.

Candidate Obama had made the headlines when he suggested he would talk to Iran without preconditions in the 2008 presidential campaign. He sought a nuclear agreement with Iran that would ultimately lead to a historic rapprochement with the U.S. Obama suggested that Iran had a rightful place in the region and would need to “share” the region with Saudi Arabia among others, signaling the regional accommodation of Iran.

Although the Obama administration constantly argued that they were focused only on the nuclear deal, it was clear to everyone that it would have broader strategic and political implications. Nevertheless, Obama insisted on the narrow focus of the nuclear deal in an effort to avoid confronting Iran in the region, which could ultimately jeopardize the deal. The regional accommodation in return for the nuke deal policy has been partly responsible for the expansion of Iran’s strategic influence in the region. At the same time, the deal arguably prevented a potential military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which could have led to a regional confrontation.

President Trump has repeatedly attacked the Iran deal as an “insane” one and suggested its renegotiation but the outlines of a new approach are missing. The Obama administration had spent months to bring Europeans, Russia and China on board for imposing sanctions on Iran but the Trump administration has so far contended itself with strong rhetorical attacks on the deal without providing a roadmap or explaining its goals. Trump has indicated he might be open to a “better deal” under pressure from European allies but there is no serious diplomatic effort to build a front against Iran. Undermining the deal seems to be the sole focus at the moment. Ripping up the nuclear deal may not lead to an immediate military confrontation given President Trump’s non-interventionist streak despite his harsh rhetoric and threats.

The U.S. pullout of the nuclear deal will certainly introduce tensions into a region that is already a sea of uncertainty and unpredictability. Trump’s domestic agenda’s nationalist and isolationist tendency would probably preclude a regime change policy toward Iran. Trump is unlikely to seek regime change and will be unwilling to push back against the Iran militarily to avoid yet another costly war in the region. The president may contend himself with undoing the nuclear deal without replacing it with another deal or another comprehensive Iran policy.

A new Iran policy would need to have a theory of the case addressing Iran’s regional role and its relations with the U.S. Obama’s Iran policy saw a legitimate role for Iran in the region and used the nuke deal for a future normalization of ties. It is not clear if Trump has such a theory of the case and whether he wants to devise a new Iran policy beyond undoing the nuclear deal. Reversing the deal may well result in catastrophe but it will more likely lead to a tit-for-tat in the region where the administration will be able to claim that it is rolling back Iran. That may prove to be the new status quo.

Recently a scandal emerged pulling to the surface the fact that the data of over 87 million Facebook users have been used for President Trump’s 2016 election campaign. Beside Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, “the firm that worked for Trump’s campaign” has been accused of stealing and benefiting from individual opinions.

Cambridge Analytica was established in London in 2013. The firm serves its customers who want to analyze and change the behavior of their consumers – or voters. The data obtained from these individuals were not only mis-used to analyze political tendencies, but it has also become clear that they were used for political manipulation.

This incident is very important for two reasons. First, while Trump’s success in the 2016 elections had originally been questioned due to Russian meddling, the picture has now also changed with this scandal. Second, the importance of data science has shown itself and displayed its power. The issue has now become the power of manipulating individual political choices and the future of a country’s governance.

Using and benefiting from personal data is not a new phenomenon. Our browsers direct us to commercial advertisements every day and even manipulate us to make us buy objects or think about issues we usually may not.

Although data about our personal tendencies are used by several companies that work in different fields, the offence committed here is that this data was derived from Facebook users.

Zuckerberg’s testimony

Even though Facebook announced that it will not work with the company anymore, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was demanded to testify before the U.S. Senate and Congress about the incident. On 11 and 12 April, 2018, he testified to Congress – this took over 2 days and 10 hours. Questions asked by the senators gave particular emphasis to the individual privacy of individuals.

Zuckerberg’s testimony is important for two reasons: First, Mark Zuckerberg is the first CEO of a tech company who ever testified to Congress. The second is that the hearing became an opportunity for Facebook to amend its public appearance.

New age: social engineering

Social engineering refers to taking advantage of the behavior of individuals and manipulating them by collecting confidential information. The methods and aims of this vary. Criminals may try to trick people in order to obtain financial information, or may try to hack computers. In this case, social engineering was processed to obtain the political tendencies of voters.

So what does Cambridge Analytica do exactly? One thing the company does is “data mining.” In this case, they’ve omitted this to over 50 million people. By doing so, the company searches for personal data through Facebook accounts and creates a data bank. With this, the company becomes able to map the psychological conditions and tendencies of users in order to give advice to their customers – such as political parties.

It was only in January when former Secretary of State Tillerson announced a Syria policy with several goals (ensuring no return of Daesh, countering Iran, and the return of refugees) but with no clear strategy to achieve them. President Trump made his views known at least partially by removing Tillerson not long afterward. Following the Pompoe and Bolton appointments, President Trump just announced last week that the U.S. would pull out of Syria “very soon.” Tillerson’s policy announcement had suggested an open-ended U.S. military commitment in Syria but Trump’s statement refers back to his campaign rhetoric that promised overwhelming firepower against Daesh yet saw Syria as somebody else’s problem.

Ironically, the Obama administration had refused to intervene in Syria early in the conflict until the emergence of Daesh, to which it responded with a policy of supporting “local partners” such as the YPG in northern Syria. Trump continued this policy because he wanted to declare victory against Daesh but has not created a major initiative to resolve the Syrian crisis. Trump did not seem to mind that Russia and other regional powers like Turkey took the lead in the diplomatic track. While U.S. military leaders and diplomats criticized Turkey’s most recent Afrin operation, President Trump himself avoided any public comments on the issue. Clearly, this policy disconnect between the White House, Pentagon and the State Department is partially responsible for these differences but it is also because Trump is not committed to Syria for the long haul.

If he follows through with his promise despite grumblings from U.S. military leaders on the ground about the lack of strategy and an early withdrawal, President Trump will actually be more in line with the public opinion that does not see the Syrian civil war as America’s problem but is willing to tolerate a campaign against Daesh without a long-term commitment. Many foreign policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of withdrawing from Iraq prematurely and not intervening in Syria early in the conflict. However, it seems that the somewhat conflicted American public opinion that sees a need in fighting Daesh but is against serious military commitments in the Middle East wins the day for both Presidents Obama and Trump.

Of course, geopolitics and strategic interests have a way of undermining the weight of public opinion and presidents often prioritize national interests, which they sometimes have the luxury of defining. Both Obama and Trump defined defeating Daesh as national interest but Syria’s stability was not a core U.S. interest. During the campaign, Trump had benefited immensely from his tough talk on Daesh while criticizing the Iraq war (albeit belatedly). His latest announcement about getting out of Syria is reminiscent of his predecessor’s approach as well as a reflection of the American public’s non-interventionist inclination.

It remains to be seen whether, when and how Trump may be able to end U.S. military presence in Syria. For this to happen, the Trump administration would have to define what the primary U.S. national interest in the region is. For the new comers to his administration, the answer is Iran and they may argue that being in Syria is essential to countering Iran among other goals. On Iran, Trump will likely pull the U.S. out of the nuclear deal but it is not clear whether the administration will seek to create a comprehensive policy to counter or contain Iran. It may just be that Trump orders U.S. troops out of Syria without a larger Syria policy. Similarly, he might pull the U.S. out of the nuclear deal without an Iran policy in place. This would mean more uncertainty for the region. This would also mean the continuation of the weakening U.S. leadership in the Middle East trend but it may just be what Trump would label as “America First.” And perhaps, that’s what many Americans want.

On March 13, 2018, Rex Tillerson was fired from his post as Secretary of State. There is a rumor that Tillerson also found out from President Trump’s tweet. Mike Pompeo, who has been the Director of the CIA since February 9, 2017, will become the new Secretary of State and the current deputy director of the CIA will take over his job.

Who is Mike Pompeo?

In 1986, Mike Pompeo graduated top of his class at the U.S. Military Academy at the West Point. Following his graduation, he served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain in the U.S. army until 1991.

In 1991, Pompeo concluded his career in the military and enrolled into Harvard Law School, which he completed in 1994. After his graduation, he started his career in business.

Before Pompeo began to serve as Director of the CIA, he was serving his fourth term in the House of Representatives, as a Republican, Tea Party representative. He was first elected in 2010. He was a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Energy and Commerce panel.

Pompeo was also appointed to the House Select Benghazi Committee to investigate the tragic events in Benghazi, Libya.

Speaking about why he ran for government, Pompeo told the Washington Post, “I have run two small businesses in Kansas, and I have seen how government can crush entrepreneurism. That’s why I ran for Congress.”

After Trump was elected as president on November 8, 2016, he nominated Pompeo as director of the CIA on November 18. The Senate confirmed this nomination on January 23 and Pompeo was sworn in as the director of the CIA on that night.

Pompeo is well known for his royalty to President Trump, as he opposed the nuclear talks with Iran and was also against shutting down Guantanamo Bay. As a Tea Party politician, Pompeo portrays a conservative character who opposes high taxation.

Pompeo and Turkey

Pompeo’s name was first heard within the Turkish media and public when he tweeted about the country – a tweet that was later deleted. In this tweet, Pompeo likens Turkey to Iran.

After becoming the director of the CIA, Pompeo paid his first visit to Turkey on February 9, 2017. He met with Hakan Fidan, head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization and then attended a meeting with President Erdogan. On February 10, Pompeo met with Prime Minister Binali Yildirim at Cankaya. The main topics of the meetings were on Syria, the struggle against Daesh and FETO.

Pompeo’s Islamophobic discourse is not unknown to the world. In a speech when he made while being a member of congress, Pompeo stated, “threat to America is from people who deeply believe that Islam is the way and light and the only answer.”

Pompeo is known for having an evangelical Christian character, which can also be linked to a factor contributing to his loyalty to President Trump.

Knowing that Trump has conservative and evangelical politicians who are in important positions in terms of foreign policy, a question comes to mind. Will there be a reset in relations between Turkey and the U.S., which was worrying in the last years of the Obama administration, or will the Turkish government face more of a “Hawk Politics” instead of a compromising U.S.? Time will show.

President Trump’s dismissal of Rex Tillerson via a Twitter message together with the appointment of Mike Pompeo to head of the State Department has raised many questions about the future course of U.S. foreign policy. So far, the Trump administration has not exactly put its stamp on foreign policy and continued the Obama administration’s policies, perhaps with less micromanagement and more authority to the “generals.” Between his campaign promises and disdain for Obama’s foreign policy, Trump is not ready to settle for approaches favored by the “adults” in his administration. Tillerson for him was not the right man for the job of devising a Trumpian foreign policy.

In the anti-Daesh coalition efforts, the administration allowed CENTCOM to take the lead and continued the policy of allying with “local partners” (YPG) to defeat Daesh, resulting in tensions with NATO ally Turkey. Trump felt forced to continue the Iran deal, which has irritated him deeply as “ripping apart” the deal was a pronounced campaign promise. On North Korea, Trump sought to apply unprecedented pressure to force Kim Jong Un to come to the table through sanctions and with China’s help. These policies were not significantly different when compared with Obama’s, which is seen as having been bothering the president. It seemed like the Tillerson-Mattis duo was “watering down” Trump’s campaign promises and the maximalist positions he favored. Both on North Korea and Iran, Tillerson looked like he was charting a different path that did not exactly reflect the “Trump Doctrine.”

When Trump answered the journalists’ questions on Tillerson’s firing, he particularly emphasized that their differences on Iran was a major reason. Trump has long been unhappy with the nuclear deal as it signifies a major foreign policy accomplishment of Obama’s legacy. Tillerson, along with Secretary of State James Mattis, has opposed the U.S. pulling out of the agreement and Pompeo seems like the right choice to accomplish a renegotiation (which is unlikely) or simply, the U.S. pullout of the deal. Pompeo has been vocal about his critique of the deal and Trump said they shared the same “mindset” when it comes to Iran. Given their long-standing shared criticism of the deal, it has become very likely that the U.S. would end up pulling out of the deal all together.

When it comes to Syria, Pompeo appears to see it as an arena to confront Iran’s influence, yet similarly shows his concerns regarding the Russian support for the Assad regime either. He shares the same belief as Turkey in that the Assad regime is a source of instability and that U.S. interests will not be served as long as he remains in power. Trump in the past has sought to punish Assad for chemical attacks but refused to pursue a regime change in Syria. It is not entirely clear if Pompeo will try to convince Trump about the need to weaken the Assad regime as a way to reduce Iranian and Russian influence in Syria.

Tillerson certainly seemed to understand Turkey’s concerns about the YPG and established a strategic dialogue mechanism to resolve the differences between the U.S. and Turkey. When asked about the issue in an American Enterprise Institute speech, Pompeo referred to the Pentagon’s commendable work in northern Syria but avoided addressing the “complications.” At the same time, there is no reason for Pompeo to prevent the strategic conversation from going forward. All indications are that he would share Tillerson’s willingness to work with Turkey and continue the discussions on the Manbij issue. Unless, of course, the Trumpian “unilateralism” renders forging a common approach with Turkey impossible.

We will most likely see the continuation of several policies particularly in Syria. However, U.S. foreign policy might become more Trumpian with the arrival of Pompeo. Although Pompeo may help bring a more aggressive posture, the American public’s low tolerance for large-scale military interventions might temper this tendency. Trump promised a heavy-handed approach against Daesh but he also championed non-interventionism by attacking the decision to invade Iraq. Trump most probably perceived Pompeo to be the right man to create and implement the Trump doctrine.

In the past weeks, President Donald Trump was reported to be considering recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

However according to the White House President Trump postponed the announcement of the embassy and will –  while he signs a waiver to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months – announce Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – a move long awaited by Israel.

Jerusalem is claimed by Israel as its seat of government. But since the international community sees it as an issue to be settled as part of a broader peace agreement, no foreign embassies are located in Jerusalem.

The announcement which was expected to be made this week followed the debates that started with first statements after Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the presidential elections, and grew particularly intense in recent days.

A move by Trump to recognize Jerusalem will not only anger Palestinians but the broader Muslim world as well.

It is likely to completely halter the effort to restart long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, while pleasing Israel and satisfying the pro-Israel base that supported him on his way to presidency.

Palestine’s Response

Amid the recent reports of Trump’s consideration, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas met with a delegation from the Democracy Front for Equality and Peace in Ramallah.

President Abbas warned the US that such a move would jeopardize the future of political process in the region and is unacceptable for Palestine as well as other Arab countries.

“Any step that the US takes to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would endanger the future of the political process,” he said during the meeting.

Hamas’ political chief Ismail Haniyeh also called for the unity among Palestinian groups against US’ move that was described as “very risky”.

Palestine’s official news agency WAFA reported on Sunday that the Palestinian leader has also spoken to many world leaders and sent statements to the African Union, the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation as well as the UN, the US, Russia, and the EU about the prevention of US’ plan to relocate its embassy in Israel which would “ax the peace process.”

Trump’s campaign pledge on Jerusalem last year

Trump had first pledged to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” once he was elected, after his private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just before his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.

“Trump acknowledged that Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years, and that the US, under a Trump administration, will finally accept the long-standing congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the state of Israel,” his campaign office said in a statement.

With no reference to the pledge by Trump, a statement released by Netanyahu’s office read: “Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed with Mr. Trump issues relating to Israel’s security and its efforts to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East.”

When Israel captured the Arab eastern half of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed it in 1980, it declared all of Jerusalem Israel’s unified capital.

Israel’s move was not recognized internationally – by states such as the United States and most other United Nations member countries.

Therefore, Jerusalem’s final status continues to be a key issue to be resolved in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1995, the US Congress passed a law calling for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the authorization of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

But no US president, Democrat or Republican, has implemented the law – insisting that it is a matter that must be decided in peace negotiations between the countries.

Instead, since 1998 every president has signed a waiver every six months in the name of national security upon seeing the complexity of the situation; so did Trump back in June.

Outcomes of a possible decision

Trump seems to have understood why his predecessors have signed waivers every six months instead of making the radical step of relocating the US embassy, a controversial step since the eastern part of the city is Palestinian territory being illegally occupied by Israel.

Jerusalem has remained at the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades, as Palestinians want Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state and Israel’s claim on all of the city is not recognized by the international community.

However, even the decision to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without ordering an embassy move, is expected to spark an international uproar especially in the Muslim world.

The president is surely aware of the damage to US relations with Muslim countries after a possible declaration.

The opposition against such a move has been loudest among the Arab leaders; some accusing the US President of “playing with fire” and Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit saying it will fuel “extremism.”

According to Reuters news agency, Jordan has begun consultations on convening an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation before the US President’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Jordan is expected to invite members of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to “discuss ways of dealing with the consequences of such a decision that raised alarm and concern.”

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan. 

Ahead of the 72^nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Erdogan, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Deputy Prime Minister Recep Akdag and Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Hulusi Akar have begun their visits in New York.

Rohingya

In spite of crimes that are taking place in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, Turkey has led the effort in humanitarian aid. With delivering aid through the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), assisted by First Lady Emine Erdogan, Turkey has delivered 1.000 ton of aid to the Rohingya Muslims.

While official figures are unknown, it has been reported that over 400,000 Rohingya have crossed the border to Bangladesh. While the de facto leader of Myanmar, a former Noble Peace recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi announced that she will miss the UN General Assembly as criticism on her handling of the Rohingya crisis grows, President Erdogan is expected to deliver a speech highlighting the attempt of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, urging the international community to get to action.

Erdogan: UN in need of structural reform

During the groundbreaking ceremony for the building of new Turkevi (Turkish House) center in New York, President Erdogan highlighted in his speech that the UN needs “structural reform” in order to make it more inclusive and ensure that it is able to fulfill its mission towards world peace.

“Despite all it shortcomings, the UN remains the sole global umbrella organization where everyone can make their voices heard and seek solutions to their problems,” the President said. “However, the world is not the world during which the UN was founded.” Erdogan stated that the structure of what is arguably the most impactful UN organ, the Security Council, is unjust, resulting in a global organization that is unable to perform its duties as a vanguard of world peace.

“The UN needs to be reformed so that it can adapt to a changing world,” Erdogan said. “Today, reforming the UN is on the agenda. However, that reform is not what we understand from the word ‘reform.’”

His speech at Turkevi was referring to a reform-themed meeting on Monday at the onset of the UN General Assembly attended by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, who had promised UN reform as one of the goals of his four year tenure said during the meeting that the organization suffered from “bureaucracy and mismanagement.”

Erdogan has on numerous occasions said “the world is bigger than five”, a reference to the five permanent Security Council members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

P5 countries have abused their veto power to defend national interests, rendering the UN dysfunctional in face of global crisis. The most recent example has been the Syrian war, which has continued for 7 years, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions.

 

Gulf states have been at the center of the world’s attention since the May 20 Riyadh Summit, where President Trump addressed Arab and Muslim leaders from more than 50 countries. The gathering of Arab and Muslim leaders in an already tense political atmosphere meant a lot to the observers of the Middle East, but the real story was Trump’s choice of Saudi Arabia for his first official visit as the US president. The world was discussing why Trump decided to first visit this Muslim state in the Middle East, despite his speeches and ideas on Islam. But the Trump effect in the Middle East and the implications for policy-making of his strategic visit lasted a short time, and the world found itself in a new a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Trump and his Saudi partners announced the opening of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, which aims to fight against radicalism and terror in the region, in addition to a $110 billion military and arms deal. Trump was not the only partner to the Saudis – the UAE and Saudi Arabia also decided to support Ivanka Trump’s promotion of the World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Fund with $100 million in financial aid. Hence, Trump was quite right when saying “That was a tremendous day. Tremendous investments in the United States… Hundreds of billions of dollars of investments into the United States and jobs, jobs, jobs”.

On May 23, Qatar faced a cyber-attack on the Qatar National News Agency (QNA) and news soon broke on a pro-Iran and pro-Israel speech by Emir Tamim, which was not welcomed in the Arab world. Although QNA was hacked and the released data was yet to be verified, the UAE and Saudi Arabia reacted harshly, as if the information was reflecting the reality. Qatari media, including Al Jazeera, was blocked in these two countries, sparking the current crisis.

By June 5, following the blockage of Qatari media outlets, the tension was visible but not overwhelming until recently. Saudi Arabia urged “all brotherly countries and companies to do the same” for Qatar. Thereafter Bahrain, the UAE, Yemen, the Maldives, Egypt, and the interim government of Libya suspended diplomatic relations and withdrew ambassadors. Qatar is familiar with this situation, because Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia withdraw their ambassadors from Doha in 2014 as well, after declaring their intolerance of Qatar’s relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

However, this time things have changed.  Not only have diplomatic relations been suspended, but also the Qatari border is closed by land, and sea and air routes have been cut between the countries as well. Qatar has its only land border with Saudi Arabia, which means the Saudis will not let anything into Qatar, including food, and air traffic from other sources is the only option left. This could be disastrous for a country like Qatar, which does not even have enough food storage for one week. After this diplomatic crisis, Qatari citizens are also expected to leave those countries that have cut ties within two weeks.

This anti-Qatar coalition claims that Doha has connections with terrorist organizations and harbors “a multitude of terrorist and sectarian groups that aim to create instability in the region.” Qatar’s alleged relationship with terrorist groups was also emphasized by Trump in his tweet on June 6, which gives a clue to the US role behind the crisis. Trump tweeted “During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!”.

How have Qatar and its supporters reacted?

Kuwait and Pakistan have not supported the anti-Qatar block, and Oman’s Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah visited Qatar. Although Omani officials state that the visit was a private one, and planned for before the latest developments, Oman has chosen to stand with Qatar rather than add to the tension.

When the tension first arose, eyes were on Turkey. However, the official explanation from Turkey given by Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu indicated Turkey’s role of mediator would be downplayed. Meanwhile, the Turkish public supported Qatar on social media with the hashtag #TurkeywithQatar and recalled the country’s support since the beginning of the Arab Spring. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan got involved in the case on June 5, and spoke on the phone with Qatari, Russian, Kuwaiti and Saudi leaders in an attempt at reducing tension. Increasing his tone the following day, Erdoğan commented that the move against Qatar is a grave mistake and also risky for the stability of the volatile region in the near future.

When it comes to the Qatari reaction, its diplomacy is, so far, a mix of caution and a harsh attitude. Qatari foreign policy has been representing a unique stance in the Middle East as a small state with its mediating role and active policy making in regional disputes. Qatar has recently been more visible in the political scene of the Middle East with its military and political involvement in the Arab Spring in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen.

However, a vigorous state power construction started in 1995 with Sheikh Hamad’s accession to power, followed by Emir Tamim’s role. Although the Arab Spring sparked political differences among Qatar’s GCC partners, Doha’s domestic and external policies have been challenged due to its support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and its diplomatic relations with Iran and Israel. Thus, we can say that Qatar is familiar with being unwelcome by the other regional states. However, June 5 has brought about a tangible crisis with surprising speed and intensity with the Saudi-led block consisting of Bahrain, the UAE, Yemen, the Maldives, Egypt, and the interim government of Libya.

Foreign Minister Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani’s statement on Al-Jazeera shows the shocking effect of the events in Qatar: “Regarding the reasons for this escalation, honestly, we don’t know if there were real reasons for this crisis,” he said. The minister also added that what is happening in the Gulf towards Qatar is unjustified and not based on facts. Experts working on the Gulf are describing the stand-off between Qatar and Saudi Arabia as an effort to re-shape the regime and political power in Qatar to resemble Bahrain, which is a close ally of Saudi Arabia. The statement by Foreign Minister Al Thani also refers to that, saying the imposition of “guardianship” over Qatar is “in itself is a violation of its sovereignty as a state which is categorically rejected.”

This picture has currently been circulating in social media, which is combination of Emir Tamim’s and Sheikh Hamad’s faces. It refers to the unity of Qatari society against any foreign threat with hashtag of #كلنا_تميم, meaning “We are all Tamim”.

Especially after the announcement of the closure of borders, a general panic occurred in Qatar; however, according to my personal observation in Qatar, it was mostly the expat communities who were shocked and went to supermarkets to buy food, rather than locals who are able to reach local food resources and view the crisis more cautiously. However, officials released a statement assuring that food products will be available, and any shortages avoided by using air transportation, saying this border crisis will not affect the daily lives of citizens and of Qatar. Countries like Turkey can support Qatar especially in food security in this month of Ramadan.

Can the GCC stay united against Qatar, or side with it?

Initial reactions to the cyber-attack by the UAE and Saudi Arabia showed that it was only a beginning, and it has already escalated embedded disagreements among GCC states after the Arab Spring. Especially after hackers have released emails belonging to the UAE’s ambassador to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba. Since 2014, the UAE’s anti-Qatar lobbying in the USA has become obvious. Hacked e-mails of al-Otaiba, a central figure in US security networks, released by Global Leaks indicated the UAE has been conducting a close relationship with a pro-Israel, neoconservative think-tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) as a part of its backchannel policy.

Qatar airways license has been suspended in Saudi Arabia, which forces the airline to change their routes and use only Iranian air space. Social media and news outlets in these states have blocked feeds from Qatar as another tool in this self-made cold war in the Gulf. This tension is multi-dimensional and does not seem like it will be reduced unless Qatar agrees to the Saudi approach in regional politics and strikes a compromise. David Hearst, the Editor in Chief of the Middle East Eye, has defined this crisis as a planned operation rather than a reaction to the hacking of the QNA.

As pointed out by Dr. Mahjoob Zweiri of Qatar University in an interview with Al Jazeera, in addition to the short term influence of this crisis, it could have long term effects, like those that arose from the isolation of Hamas in 2006, which pushed the organization towards Iran. This is crucial because Iran already officially supported Qatar in the disagreement on cutting diplomatic relations but not solving problems through dialogue.

Kuwait and Oman supported their partners and did not back the Saudi-led campaign; however, if shuttle diplomacy between sides is not conducted via a committed regional power or regional coalition, Qatar could face more difficulties in tackling the crisis. It is important to mention that Qatar has strongly supported a variety of regional states and non-state actors in the last 20 years and its positive approach to the states’ sovereignty is already well-known. Hence, I assume that countries who have good relations with both sides have started conducting diplomacy behind the scenes. The opposite is not possible because we are discussing here substantial elements of the Middle East and global politics.