The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Tuesday to condemn President Trump’s racist tweets against 4 Democratic congresswomen.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib have been critical of Trump’s harsh immigration policies. Trump tweeted on Sunday that the four congresswomen should “go back” to where they came from.

Before the vote, Representative John Lewis, a democrat and civil rights leader, who marched with Martin Luther King Jr in the 60s, called on members of Congress to do “the right thing” and condemn the president’s words.

“The world is watching. They are shocked and dismayed because it seems we have lost our way as a proud and dignified people,” 79-year-old Lewis said.

“I know racism when I see it. I know racism when I feel it. And it has no place in the highest levels of our government,” Lewis added.

The measure, the first House rebuke of a president in more than 100 years, passed by 240 to 187, after one of the most polarizing disputes the floor has witnessed in recent times.

Raucous crowds chanted “Send her back!” as Trump held his first campaign rally since announcing his 2020 re-election bid.

“I am where I belong, at the people’s house and you’re just gonna have to deal!” Ilhan Omar tweeted, alongside a photo of her presiding over the House chamber.

The US representative was welcomed by a crowd of people at the airport with cheers and support as she returns to Minnesota on Thursday.

“We’ve heard it before throughout our history, but it has no place in America in 2019,” former Vice-President Joe Biden tweeted. “It’s clear that Donald Trump is trying to divide us by race and gender. It’s immortal.”

He praised immigrants as an example of “what makes America great,” while adding: “Donald Trump thinks our nation’s great diversity makes us weak – because he has no idea what makes us great.”

In response to the increasing criticism, Trump tweeted, “Those tweets were NOT racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body! The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game. Republicans should not show ‘weakness’ and fall into their trap.”

In response to this tweet, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: “You’re right, Mr. President – you don’t have a racist bone in your body. You have a racist mind in your head and a racist heart in your chest.”

“Sadly, this is not first nor will it be the last time we hear disgusting, bigoted language from the president,” Tlaib said on Monday.

Both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar – who are both Muslims – have received death threats since they have been elected as congresswomen.

Increase of hate crime since Trump’s election

Hate crime in the U.S. has been on the rise since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a prominent U.S. civil rights group said it has identified 900 incidents of harassment following Trump’s election to the presidency. SPLC outlines that Trump’s rhetoric and actions have affected U.S. society.

The number recorded hate crime incidents was around 6,200 in 2016 – a 5% jump from 2015. According to an FBI report on the issue, this figure increased by 17% in 2017.

According to the report, 59.6% of incidents were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity, or ancestry. Crimes motivated by a victim’s religion constituted 20.6% of attacks, and crimes against a person’s sexual orientation made up 15.8%

*Written by Fadıl Hancı

If we are to see the ‘special relationship’ between the U.S. and the UK at face value – very much a myth at the best of times wheeled out and dusted down and used on rare occasions by both sides like an old piece of machinery which still has its uses – then, the debacle which we have witnessed with the British ambassador can and should be seen in a similar light.

When the leaked cables of Sir Kim Darroch became public leaked to a British tabloid, many pundits drew breath and saw the pernicious comments about Trump as potentially very damaging, given the timing of a new Tory leader entering office and Brexit being such a herculean topic which the new PM needs to tackle.

The common belief is that Trump’s relationship with a new PM, likely to be Boris who is his preferred candidate, will be paramount to helping Britain ride the storm of a hard Brexit. If only the premise of that assumption – the UK and the U.S. could pull off a new trade deal quickly – were even remotely true, then perhaps there could be some gravitus in this notion. 

But we’re talking about Trump here managing to get through a month, let alone a couple of years, with Boris Johnson without a clash and falling out and for both sides to have common ground on what that trade deal could look like. It’s not just that Boris is so weak (as he proved when he failed to throw his weight behind the U.S. ambassador’s resignation), but more that he will have to pull off two minor miracles to secure such a deal with the Trump administration; one, he will have to play an absurdly submissive role to Trump personally; and two, he will have to face Trump head on, on two nuggets of the deal which Trump has already signaled he is eyeing.

The thing about Trump is that he’s a lousy negotiator and only wants talks to start with America being dominant, dictating terms and then allowing the other side to decide how they are going to get out of the mess they’re in. Trump is also not interested in the nuts and bolts of a trade deal with the UK but the sweeteners which come, when the screws are turned. In Britain, this would mean allowing U.S. companies to clean up with a part privatization of the health service and to fill British supermarkets with U.S. foods pumped with hormones. I have long argued since Trump’s first visit to the UK, that he wants a hard Brexit – but not because he believes, like his biggest British sycophant Nigel Farage that a no-deal Brexit will put the UK in a stronger position to negotiate a better trade deal with the EU, but rather because he and his cronies want to clean up by buying up firms for a song in a post Brexit Britain.

The common belief is that Trump’s relationship with a new British PM, likely to be Boris who is his preferred candidate, will be paramount to helping Britain ride the storm of a hard Brexit.

We need to wise up about Trump. And this is really the question now with Boris after Sir Kim’s resignation. What will Boris learn from the triumph of insecurity which Trump’s tweets revealed? We would hope that he will learn that Trump’s idea of a special relationship is one where Boris lies on his back and Trump violates him. And we should also dismiss this idea of honor amongst thieves and that Boris and Trump are both cut from the same cloth, so will probably get along and this can only be in the UK’s interests, with regards to a quick trade deal and using Washington to soften up Brussels. If Boris has learnt nothing from being Foreign Secretary and observing Trump, he should have noted how Trump doesn’t respond even in the slightest to sycophancy.

Theresa May is still licking her wounds after he pushed the knife into her when she supported Sir Kim. But May bent over backwards and did everything to help Trump, moving heaven and earth to get him to come to the UK on two occasions – the second one with his entire family which will no doubt help his re-election. She spoke up for him at every possible opportunity. No matter. Trump only takes and gives nothing back and is sure to betray even his supporters at some point – which is part of the identity of a failed businessman who has lost most of his family fortune and has to have a book published which promotes a fantasy that he is a great negotiator and a formidable businessman. To break the blade in Theresa May’s back, probably his greatest friend in Europe and one who was most able to promote him there, was pure Trump. Rank stupidity only matched by gross treachery on a whole new level.

What we are likely to see with Trump and Boris is a lot of tantrums and misunderstandings. And for this reason alone, he may well take the wise decision to give Nigel Farage the job of U.S. ambassador in Washington, for no other reason than Farage is going to be the one who becomes the mediator in these clashes anyway, so why not send him to Washington where can serve Trump well, after the U.S. president made Farage so wealthy by arranging his Fox contract there. 

If Boris has learnt nothing from being Foreign Secretary and observing Trump, he should have noted how Trump doesn’t respond even in the slightest to sycophancy.

The problem for Boris is that the very thing he needs – power and leverage – to work with Trump, is lacking, unless he turns to yet another myth about the special relationship, which is that UK, at one point in history, did America’s diplomacy around the world and cleared the path for the Washington machine to engage with countries that normally were off limits. Trump only respects those who have power over him, like Kim, Xi and Putin. He’s an absolutely hopeless negotiator and understands nothing about international politics or trade, which is partly why he is about to start a new ‘war’ with Turkey over the S-400 deal with Moscow.

For this reason, Johnson’s choice of foreign minister – and we could argue also its ambassador to replace Sir Kim – are both critical. The leverage that UK could offer is to take a bigger role in resolving Iran (which Trump badly needs to do), a more dynamic role in the Middle East (which the UK could easily do as it knows the ground) and even helping with the peace process with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

But it might be too late. What we know now is that Trump withdrew from the Iran deal simply for personal, petulant reasons as he wanted to spoil Obama’s one main foreign policy decision. This is the real take-way from the Sir Kim cables. His earlier comments about Trump’s administration being “inept” seems opaque and insignificant almost like an American tourist complaining about British weather, compared to Boris’s previous insults about Trump, when he was foreign minister.

The real question for the ‘special relationship’ now and how the Boris-Donald relationship going to pan out will be more based on Trump’s craven style of exploitation in everything he does. It may well be that post October 31, when Boris is negotiating with the EU for a better Brexit deal and the pressure reaches fever pitch, he may well find Trump pretending to offer help to him. But at a very high price.

The resignation of Sir Kim is irrelevant as Trump is a big fan of the new world order of diplomacy being dead and diplomats having almost no real role in negotiating anything or resolving disputes. The fiasco also shows how journalism is also almost dead as not so long ago newspaper editors stood by their own signatures on the UK’s ‘official secrets act’ and would not publish the leaked cables anyway. If the British public has the right to read them, then surely is also has the right to know who leaked them in these polarised political times.

What Trump has done by the Sir Kim move is show quite clearly what it expects from the UK and what he is prepared to do to get Boris to play the role of servile ally. The chances of a UK-U.S. trade deal coming even in Trump’s second term are even more unlikely than Boris pulling off a hard Brexit as Britain struggles to define itself in the world and Trump continues to blunder and stumble on the foreign policy circuit. Trump may well like Boris as he sees his pathological lying and lack of political dynamism as qualities he warms to, but in reality we should not expect anything other than drama, misunderstandings and more childish outbursts.

In early May, Iran announced a 60-day deadline after which the country would start enriching uranium of higher levels than currently allowed under the JCPOA unless some sanctions relief were provided. The U.S. had already withdrawn from the agreement and European allies have been trying to keep the deal alive. Under the pressure of increasing sanctions against oil as well as non-oil exports, the question of how long Iran would continue to honor the deal has been a pressing one. Iranian President Rouhani’s announcement of a partial departure from the agreement is a sign that the JCPOA might just crumble this summer. If that happens, tensions between the U.S. and Iran will keep rising, coming dangerously close to a military confrontation.

President Trump does not seem to want an actual war with Iran. After all, he was elected on a platform that heavily criticized America’s foreign military interventions and promised an “America First” agenda. It is likely that Trump wants to get a JCPOA 2.0 on his own terms, which may resemble Obama’s agreement in content but it will nevertheless be Trump’s deal. For Trump to “get a deal” with Iran, however, it is almost certain that it would have to wait for his potential second term. Trump has been quite an anti-Obama president, as he has sought to reverse Obama’s policies while trying to rebrand any perceived achievements as his own. This might just end up being the case with Iran, where a second term Trump get a deal and claim victory no matter how much it might resemble the original JCPOA. This is pretty much what happened with the renegotiation of NAFTA that ended up creating a NAFTA 2.0 in the form of the USMCA.

It is likely that Trump wants to get a JCPOA 2.0 on his own terms, which may resemble Obama’s agreement in content but it will nevertheless be Trump’s deal.

Trump appears all too happy using strong (and sometimes extreme) rhetoric against countries like Mexico, China, North Korea and Iran. So far, his rhetoric turned out to be a simple tactic of “raising the hand” to get a better deal. It has arguably worked with Mexico and, to some extent, with China but it remains to be seen whether it would work with North Korea and Iran. North Korea has been content with reaping the benefits of international diplomatic recognition without a full commitment to denuclearization. Trump seems interested in a deal with Iran despite his “maximum pressure” campaign. He reportedly tried to meet with Iranian President Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York but reverted to the full pressure campaign once the meeting did not materialize. This indicates that the road ahead with Iran may not be as clear.

For one thing, Iran has resisted U.S. pressure campaigns before and despite domestic opposition in addition to the devastating impact of sanctions. Granted that the difference this time is that the Trump administration seems determined to apply an all-out economic pressure campaign as long as necessary. It also cooperates with the Gulf nations plus Israel to push back against Iran’s regional influence. Hawks within the Trump administration are accused of pushing for war although Trump himself said he was only interested in ensuring a no nuclear Iran, which shows he would like a deal of his own with Iran eventually.

Trump appears all too happy using strong rhetoric against countries like Mexico, China, North Korea and Iran. So far, this has turned out to be a simple tactic of “raising the hand”.

The question, of course, is whether a period of mutual escalation may prove uncontrollable and a conflict becomes unavoidable. In the most recent round of escalation, Trump used the danger of Iran to sell Saudi Arabia more weapons systems despite Congress’ opposition. Gaining an economic benefit out of this escalation may have been his main preoccupation to begin with. News reports indicated that Trump authorized the deployment of 1,500 American soldiers to the region although the hawks in the administration and generals on the ground expected more troops. Again, this is another indication that Trump is happy with a “controlled escalation” with Iran that allows him to look tough and brand any inch given by Iran (if at all) as his own achievement.

A military conflict is always a distinct possibility as escalation can certainly get out of control. However, neither side has much to gain from a military conflict. Thus, Trump will likely continue the pressure campaign until Iran gets to the table ready to make serious concessions, which is not very likely any time soon ahead of the 2020 U.S. presidential elections. Until then, the region will have to contend with increased tensions and escalatory moves. How long this state of affairs can be kept under wraps without provoking a military conflict is anyone’s guess. In the short and medium term, the interplay between Trump’s need for a deal on his own terms and Iran’s capacity to sustain the economic and political fallout from the U.S. maximum pressure campaign will determine the nature of the standoff. 

Last week, U.S. First Lady Melania Trump, who is a Slovene-born American former fashion model, took the stage in a rally held in Florida International University to introduce her husband, the U.S. President Donald Trump. She said: “Many of you in the room know what it feels like to be blessed with freedom after living under the oppression of socialism and communism. In Venezuela, the people are on the brink of reclaiming their own liberty. There is hope, we are free, and we pray together loudly and proudly that soon the people of Venezuela will be free as well.  My husband is here today because he cares deeply about the current suffering in Venezuela.”

During the event in Florida, which has a high population of Venezuelan-Americans, the U.S. President took stage after his wife’s introduction. He told the Venezuelan military to support Juan Guaidó assigned by Trump himself and unseat the elected president Nicolás Maduro. A few days later, his daughter Ivanka Trump tweeted: “The US stands with the brave people of Venezuela as they seek freedom from tyranny & the restitution of democracy. God bless you.”

U.S. President Trump has been striving to overthrow Maduro since last year. Speaking to New York Times, a senior officer who has worked in the Venezuelan military confessed that they negotiated with the Trump administration on a plan to stage a coup and overthrow Maduro. However, it was emphasized that the military officer who negotiated to overthrow Maduro could not dare supporting the attempt since he was on the “sanction” list of the U.S. This year, Trump clearly articulated that they have several options for Venezuela, including the military option.

Speaking to New York Times, a senior officer who has worked in the Venezuelan military confessed that they negotiated with the Trump administration on a plan to stage a coup and overthrow Maduro.

Three options are currently on the table regarding Venezuela, which has two presidents along with the one assigned by the U.S. on January 25, two parliaments, and also the richest oil reserves of the world. The options include a military coup, a war, or a U.S. intervention. But all these developments are represented as plausible. For instance, the French Le Monde approaches the issue with this question: “Why does the Trump administration persist on Maduro’s leave while it avoids creating problems and tolerates the Saudi Arabian and Russian regimes?” Let alone any criticisms or condemnations towards the U.S., eight European countries have recognized Guaidó as the President of Venezuela, including the French President Emmanuel Macron.

Of course, using coups as a manipulative tool in foreign politics is not the Trump administration’s invention. And why wouldn’t Trump use this card since the U.S. has always been resorting to this method? The only difference in the latest situation is; the old way of employing this method was more sophisticated and subtle. After 30 or 40 years, the facts were either leaked or directly announced by the CIA. For instance, in a speech he made in Egypt in 2009, Barack Obama, the first black president of the U.S., admitted the U.S. role in the coup staged against Mohammad Mosaddegh.

After four years, in 2013, the CIA officially announced its active role in the coup by presenting details. What happened in Iran in 1953? Appointed as the Prime Minister of Iran by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1951, Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 upon the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s (later British Petroleum and BP) operations in Iran. After the military coup, General Fazlollah Zahedi succeeded Mosaddegh as the CIA’s choice.

Today, the U.S. wants to see Guaidó instead of Maduro in the presidential seat. It is that simple! Under the Eisenhower administration, the CIA did not overthrow Mosaddegh in Iran only with a single move. As they admitted, they bribed the media, organized left-wing mass demonstrations and instilled fear in religious circles of Iran that Mosaddegh would bring an atheist and socialist regime. Chaos was fomented in society, and every corner of society was provoked, just as they did to Salvador Allende in Chile, the country with one of the longest standing democracy experience in Latin America.

Using coups as a manipulative tool in foreign politics is not the Trump administration’s invention. The only difference between past and present is that the old way was more sophisticated and subtle.

The comprehensive nationalization policies marked by Allende especially in the copper mines as part of a socialist and pro-independence approach incensed the U.S. Then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the following after Allende’s election: “The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves. I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.” Soon after, the CIA intervened upon the order of then U.S. President Richard Nixon. According to the CIA’s confessions that came years later, they organized a nationwide truck strike through the Confederation of Truck Owners by paying 10 million dollars and stopping the activities of 70 thousand trucks. The transport of goods within the country was hampered this way, so the threat of hunger formed the backbone of the coup.

Winning the 1970 election and reelected in 1973 despite all the plots against his government, Allende was found dead in the presidential residence during the military coup staged the same year. He was succeeded by dictator Pinochet, who tyrannized the country for 17 years.

Four years after Obama admitted the U.S. responsibility in the Mosaddegh coup, a U.S.-backed coup was staged in Egypt. The ruling Freedom and Justice Party and President Mohamed Morsi, being the first democratically elected party and president in the first free elections in the country’s history, were overthrown by a military coup. Obama was the U.S. President at the time and upon a question on the issue, a White House spokesperson said that stating whether there is a coup or not in Egypt does not serve U.S. interests. Also, then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called the coup as the restoration of democracy since U.S. laws prohibit providing economic aid to coup regimes. So, they needed support for their suitable nominee General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi after the overthrow of Morsi. Following arbitrary imprisonment of innumerable people, nine young people were executed on Sisi’s order while 50 others still wait to be executed. Of course, neither the U.S. nor Europe raised their voices against all these inhumane practices since jungle laws apply on our planet.

Last week, it was the 22nd anniversary of the “postmodern coup” staged in Turkey on 28 February 1997, which was the continuation of the three military coups in the Republican history. As the coup could not be effective for a thousand years unlike they presumed, they attempted to stage another coup on 15 July, 2016. There is a saying in Turkish that can be translated as: “Dog orders another dog and it orders its tail.” The tail got stuck on July 15 and hopefully will be so from now on.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is planning to attend the G-20 Summit next week in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This will be a moment of ‘truth’ and ‘dare’ for world leaders, as Salman was initially accepted by international media outlets as the person behind the brutal murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

The U.S., U.K. and France have maintained their arms sales to Riyadh regardless of the situation in Yemen where 85,000 children under the age of 5 have died due to hunger or disease since the war began in 2014. Even after the international reaction to the murder of Khashoggi, none of these powers considered re-visiting their arms deals.

The U.S., U.K. and France have maintained their arms sales to Riyadh regardless of the situation in Yemen while Denmark and German decided to take a step back from their relations with the Saudi administration.

In opposition to this, Denmark and German decided to take a step back from their relations with the Saudi administration. Germany has imposed European travel bans on 18 Saudi nationals suspected of being involved in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and have confirmed an arms embargo against Riyadh. Denmark became the second European country, after Germany, to halt future arms exports to Saudi Arabia on Thursday.

While the majority of world leaders are silent on ‘the Salman question,’ U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed his strong support for the Saudi Arabia administration. In an extraordinary public statement against reported U.S. intelligence assessments of the Khashoggi killing, Trump claimed that “King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning or execution of the murder of Mr. Khashoggi.” Trump further argued in the same written statement that “Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t! That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region. It is our paramount goal to fully eliminate the threat of terrorism throughout the world!”

Having said that, Trump leaves the door open for further investigations as long as these investigations do not hurt American interests: “I understand there are members of Congress who, for political or other reasons, would like to go in a different direction – and they are free to do so. I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America.”

It seems that Trump intends to play his cards according to future developments and according to the position of Turkey, as Turkish authorities have not yet revealed all the information they have on the Khashoggi case.

Earlier this week, Ibrahim Karagul – editor of Yenisafak daily newspaper who is close to state authorities in Turkey – claimed that if the full transcripts of the audio of the Khashoggi murder was to be leaked, this will be the ‘end of Salman.’ Serdar Turgut, another experienced journalist reporting from Washington claimed that U.S. authorities have already made this leak and have showed Saudis their ‘Trump card,’ and achieved their goal by holding evidence against Salman in order to have full control over Riyadh. He further argued that Turkish authorities should do the same and should hold their ‘Trump card’ until the ‘right’ moment in order not to lose their pivoting role on the Khashoggi affair.

On Wednesday, AK Party Member of Parliament for Istanbul Numan Kurtulus accused  Trump of trying to turn a blind eye to the murder of Khashoggi, and dismissed his comments on the issue as “comic.”

While not directly accusing the Saudi Crown Prince, Turkey has repeatedly insisted that the order to murder Khashoggi came from the “highest levels” of the Saudi government. As expected, this has been strongly denied by the administration in Riyadh.

The Argentinian government confirmed that Crown Prince Salman is on the list of attendees at the G-20 Leaders’ Summit. Since President Erdogan will also be attending the Summit, it’s natural for one to expect for the Turkish President to use this platform to demand accountability for the Khashoggi murder. However, if Salman attends the summit, Erdoğan and other world leaders would probably have a meeting with him to let their future moves about the Crown Prince’s future and his reaction to these moves. Indeed, the chess game for the future of Middle East will continue to be played in the G20 summit at the end of the month in Buenos Aires.

Crown Prince MbS is still yet to confirm whether he will attend the Summit or not.

The international arena is experiencing a turbulent period in which the effects of political, economic, and commercial decisions taken by President Donald Trump are clearly being felt. During his election campaign, Trump influenced the agenda with his statements on the actions he will take on issues closely related to the global political and economic system. Using the motto “America First,” the U.S. President made it clear to the whole world that his ultimate goal is to protect the interests of the American nation. Thus, he first decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, which he believed was in contradiction with the country’s interests. Then, again arguing to protect the interests of the American people, he began to implement trade sanctions on many actors such as China, Russia, the EU, and Turkey. However, these sanctions not only affected the targeted states but also hit global trade.

Lastly, on May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which is also known as the Iran nuclear deal, although the other signatories of the deal, P5+1 countries, strictly opposed the decision. He charged the Tehran regime with supporting terrorist actions and organizations widening the chaos in the Middle East, producing ballistic missiles, and continuing its nuclear program despite the JCPOA. The withdrawal of the country followed Trump’s announcement on the re-implementation of the sanctions that had been suspended after the nuclear deal. In order to increase the pressure of sanctions and to further isolate Iran, Trump also threatened other states and corporations: “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States!”

Trump’s “America First” motto and his withdrawal from the JCPOA has not only affected targeted states, but has also hit global trade.

The new round of U.S. sanctions

The first round of the two-phase sanctions began to be imposed on August 6, and from that time on, Iran has been unilaterally blocked to have or access the U.S. dollar and precious metals like gold and silver, and so on. The automotive and aviation industries are also being isolated from the international system. The second round targeting Iran’s petroleum, the largest income source of the government revenues, and shipping industries and port operators to diminish the country’s petroleum and petrochemical products exports to zero began to be re-imposed on November 5. On the same day Washington granted temporary waivers to 8 states – China, India, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Italy, Greece and Turkey. The U.S. administration claims that it is trying to cut off Iranian oil exports since the Tehran regime uses the revenues obtained from the petroleum industry to fund terrorist organizations and conduct terrorism in different parts of the world.

Leading by the remaining P5+1 countries, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany, the EU and Turkey have expressed their opposition to Trump’s decision many times and intend to maintain their trade relations with Iran. Especially the position of China and India is crucial for Iran as these two countries are its largest crude oil importers. They all have searched for new types of payment systems to avoid U.S. interruption while doing business with Iran. The EU has begun to implement “blocking statute” to enable EU companies to continue their commercial relations with Iran and compensate the damages that may arise from the sanctions. Later on, the EU, China and Russia also agreed on founding a special purpose vehicle that could channel new payment mechanisms alternative to using U.S. dollars. The two biggest buyers of Iranian crude, China and India, reached a deal with the Tehran regime on using their national currencies. Turkey has been evaluating whether to use Turkish Lira and/or establishing a barter system that could facilitate exporting its goods and services to Iran in response to its crude oil imports.

The two biggest buyers of Iranian crude, China and Iran, have reached a deal with the Tehran regime on using their national currencies during business. Now, Turkey is evaluating whether to do the same.

What are the effects of sanctions on Turkey-Iran energy relations?

Turkey, as a growing economy, imports approximately 90 percent of its oil and 95% gas and Iran has been one of its primary suppliers. In 2017, the country imported about 45 percent of crude oil and 17 percent of natural gas it consumed from Iran. In other words, Iran was the largest crude oil and the second largest natural gas supplier of Turkey.

As the new round of sanctions does not cover Iran’s natural gas sector, contrary to the previous ones, it’s expected that Turkey’s natural gas supply from Iran will not be affected and the country will not be subjected to U.S. sanctions. However, the amount of Iranian crude oil in total crude oil imports of Turkey has begun to decline as Trump decided to re-impose the Iran sanctions on May 2018. Turkey’s biggest crude oil importer TUPRAS began to gradually reduce the amount of oil supplied from Iran in order to balance the internal market. According to Turkey’s Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK), in April 2018, the amount of Iranian crude oil was 67 percent of the total crude oil imports, which decreased to 51% in May. A sharp drop was experienced in June as it fell to 15 percent. However, the amount increased in July and August, reaching respectively to 38 and 31 percent.

At that point, it should be highlighted that Turkey did not stop importing crude oil from Iran even during the internationalized sanctions throughout 2010-2015. This signals that Turkey will continue to import Iranian oil during the unilaterally imposed U.S. sanctions. In addition, Iran’s 38 percent share in total crude oil imports of January 2018 is also remarkable. This could be interpreted as a sign that import amounts may vary from time to time. Moreover, Iran has been one of the two countries where Turkey imports most of its crude oil since 2011. Accordingly, TUPRAS, supporting President Erdogan’s statements, has announced that Turkey will continue to import crude oil from Iran.

Following the Trump administration’s sanctions on Iran, growing economies that are highly dependent on imported energy resources are in need of tight cooperation more than ever.

What’s next for the waivers?

As the exception granted by the Trump administration will last for only 180 days, the 8 waivers, including Turkey, now need to plan how to manage their relations with Washington and Tehran. Japan and South Korea are expected to cut their Iranian crude imports completely while China, India and Turkey seem decisive to pursue their imports. However, as the shares of Greece, Italy and Taiwan are rather low and, contrary to other waivers, they did not make a clear statement on unilaterally imposed sanctions, their future positions are unclear. Besides, since the waiver is limited to 1.1 million barrels of Iranian oil per day, the waivers also need to collaborate on how to allocate this amount.

It is expected that during the 180-day exception period, China, India and Turkey will investigate alternative ways and conduct intensive diplomatic efforts engaging at political and financial levels to maintain their oil trade with Iran. It would also be beneficial for both the three-waivers and Russia and the EU to create a counter-block to convince the Trump administration to reconsider its unilaterally imposed sanctions. Growing economies that are highly dependent on imported energy resources are in need of tight cooperation more than ever.

In the first year of President Trump’s tenure, Turkish-American relations went through what we can call a period of “sizing up,” as hopes for a new beginning were somewhat moderated by strategic challenges. The Trump administration had inherited the Obama policy of supporting “local forces” (read YPG) against Daesh with no U.S. boots on the ground save for the “military advisors.” Turkey was patient in Trump’s first year to allow the administration some time to re-evaluate the mission and start working with Turkey instead of the PKK’s Syrian branch. When it became clear that the Trump administration would settle on the same policy, Turkey launched a military operation in Afrin to ensure the YPG forces would not go west of the Euphrates river.

The serious divergence on the ground in northern Syria has continued, but efforts to put the U.S.-Turkey relationship back on track also continued, as outstanding legal cases (Brunson and Zarrab cases) were compartmentalized away from broader policy questions. However, the pressure from the Evangelical base of the Trump administration led to an ill-timed ultimatum by President Trump and Vice President Pence, resulting in yet another bilateral crisis.

As a result of the pressure, the U.S. imposed sanctions against Turkish ministers and additional steel and aluminum tariffs, a first against a NATO ally. These measures appeared to be largely symbolic, but they had a serious impact on the Turkish Lira’s devaluation against the U.S. dollar. As Turkey refused to bow down to such economic pressures, the relationship came to the brink of total breakdown. Clearly, the Brunson case was a major catalyzer in this process, but the underlying strategic disagreements and the already existing mutual distrust has created a fertile ground for a major crisis.

With the Turkish courts deciding to release Pastor Brunson last week, however, an important new phase might just be starting in the bilateral relationship. Brunson’s return to the U.S. and President Trump’s hosting of the pastor in the oval office with high level administration officials sends a strong message to the Evangelical base ahead of the midterm elections in November.

Not that Trump risked losing the support of the Evangelicals, but Brunson’s return gives his standing with Evangelical supporters a big boost. Turkish leadership has maintained the legal process played itself out and both sides insisted there was no specific deal. We should note that there does not need to be a deal for this development to have a positive impact on the U.S.-Turkey relationship.

The fact that a legal case derailed the relationship between two NATO allies should give everyone a pause. It underscores the complexity of the strategic environment in Turkey’s immediate neighborhood and heightened security concerns Turkey feels as a result of U.S. policies in the region. President Trump’s positive remarks about Turkey reflect his concern over his standing with the Evangelical voters, but this will not be enough for a broader strategic conversation between the U.S. and Turkey.

The recent changes in the U.S. Syria policy have given at least a limited amount of reassurances to Turkey that its interests would be taken into consideration more carefully. The U.S. rhetorical support for Turkey against an imminent military operation against Idlib was a welcome development in this sense. Yet, without a more comprehensive policy coordination between two sides, the mutual skepticism will continue, especially as the U.S. continues to support the YPG.

The upside for the relationship is that the “sizing up” period may be over and both sides are much clearer about their positions. The ambiguities regarding northern Syria as well as the uncertain fate of the Brunson case are no longer excuses for the lack of an honest dialogue. The regional crises will almost certainly create new challenges and the U.S.-Turkey ties will be tried. The lesson from the Brunson case is that Turkey will not bow to threats and pressures, and that the U.S. will need to pursue diplomatic options instead. Going forward, a talk-first-shoot-later approach will have to win for a healthier U.S.-Turkey relationship.

The most striking feature of the Brunson case is that the U.S. has resisted to understand Turkey’s new foreign policy, and this led to a crisis between the two countries. Just to remind the reader, American Pastor Andrew C. Brunson has been kept under arrest for almost two years with the accusation of aiding terrorist groups such as the PKK. He was put on trial, found guilty and was condemned to a three year plus imprisonment by the Turkish courts.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence claimed earlier that he had been innocent and expressed that he had to be released immediately. The language adopted in those statements bore a degree of threat and was disrespectful to the Turkish judicial system. That’s why Turkish officials have criticized President Trump and Vice President Pence for not showing patience and being disrespectful to the judicial process after the release of the pastor. They underlined that Turkey is a country where the rule of law is shown due respect. In fact, the issue was more than being about the rule of law, it is more of respecting Turkey’s sovereignty and recognizing its new international status.

The Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s probable murder in the Saudi Arabia Consulate in Istanbul also points to the same problem. It is clear that the Saudi crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman ordered the killing of Mr. Khashoggi on account of his critical stance towards the Saudi regime. Regarding the very close and special relations between Prince Salman and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior envoy to the Middle East Jared Kushner, it is not hard to guess that the U.S. was closely following the issue and was informed that Mr. Khashoggi was ordered to be killed. Choosing Istanbul as the location for this outrageous act, which directly defies the norms of international politics, does not seem to be random. It has been rightly put forward by some analysts that the purpose of this unfortunate act of killing was not just to get rid of an opponent of the Saudi regime but to get Turkey involved into this unfortunate incident and to violate its sovereignty.

Combining these two recent incidents with the Trump administration’s supply of heavy weapons and diplomatic protection to the Syrian branch of PKK (YPG) and its unabashed and militant foreign policy towards Palestine and Jerusalem, one can conclude that the U.S. shows no respect to Turkey’s security concerns and sovereign rights. More to the point, the Trump administration fails to understand Turkey’s new foreign policy doctrine. Turkey has been following a revisionist foreign policy for a couple of years. It has been seeking adjustments in the existing distribution of power in its region and in the international system in general.

Turkey’s current Syrian policy and its call for reforming international institutions such as the UN Security Council on the basis of new international realities can be given as examples to this revisionist turn in Turkish foreign policy. Despite that these are defensive policies, since they were put into action after Turkey came under attack by terrorist groups and its long-term allies, they manifest the desire for change in international politics.

The U.S.’s uncompromising posture pushes Turkey towards more activism in its foreign policy. President Erdogan has just vowed to eliminate all the YPG militants in Manbij and cleanse off the region from the terrorist elements located in the east of the Euphrates river. This would be a punch in the face to the YPG (and also to the U.S.) who has already suffered a terrible loss in the Operation Oil Branch in Afrin. After that done Turkey would secure the control of all its southern border with Syria and become a more powerful actor in Syrian politics and in the region in general.

As long as the U.S. clings to its current policy of disrespecting Turkey’s sovereignty and supporting its enemies, this will get Turkey to feel more insecure and as a result it will accelerate its policy of defensive expansion in its vicinity. The Trump administration has to find a better policy to be able to contain Turkey. Supporting the YPG, giving unconditional support to Israel, disrespecting Turkey’s sovereignty and opening an economic war have so far backfired. Turkey has grown more powerful.

Ten years has passed since the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. This was the tipping point in which the American mortgage meltdown turned into a global economic catastrophe. The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) hit the world economy sorely. Economic growth slowed down drastically, unemployment rates and income inequality increased, which paved the way for the rise of far-right politics, the purchasing power of ordinary people decreased significantly, and any trust left in institutions collapsed.

Four major global central banks – the FED, European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan – injected around $13 trillion in order to revive economic activity since the GFC. Economic growth figures have improved in the last couple of years. However, it is questionable as to whether the real economy and the banking system will stand on their own feet, and whether this growth performance is sustainable at a time when the FED is increasing interest rates and the ECB is going to end quantitative easing (QE) soon. The money pumped into the global economy has not been channeled into productive areas such as R&D, education, or infrastructure, but rather has been used mostly for bailouts and stock buybacks. Quantitative easing programs of central banks inflated asset prices artificially, leading to a big stock market bubble, which is expected to burst soon. Banks preferred sitting on a lot of cash, driven by the QE, instead of providing credit to ordinary individuals and small and medium-sized firms. While the U.S. was late in implementing counter-cyclical fiscal policies, some EU countries took austerity measures. All these policy mistakes caused an increase in income inequality and made economic growth performances fragile.

The unemployment rate in the U.S. declined to 3.7 percent in September 2018 – the lowest rate since 2000. While many economists and analysts interpret this figure as the reflection of a strong American economy, the reality is that the job market is not in a perfect position, as is suggested by many. The real wages of the middle-class have stagnated for decades. The quality of jobs has decreased. People cannot find full-time jobs that they desire, and have to work in more than one part-time job in order to balance their budget. On the other hand, some people get tired of looking for jobs so desperately and leave the labor market, which means that they are not officially considered unemployed.

Many structural reforms related to the financial industry, promised by the G20 leaders, have not been implemented yet. Too-big-to-fail banks have even added to their growth in 10 years. U.S. President Donald Trump is now trying to dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act, a comprehensive financial markets regulation to control systemic risks. The oligopolistic structure of international credit rating agencies has still not been changed. Some European banks still suffer from band loans problems. The IMF’s capacity to combat a fully-fledged global crisis is questionable, even after some belated reforms that were implemented after the GFC.

Global debt ballooned almost 50% after the GFC, climbing to $247 trillion in total. As interest rates are rising on a global scale, concerns about the repayment of this debt are also increasing. The total debt of the non-financial sector has skyrocketed since the GFC, especially in developing countries. This situation has been reducing the risk appetite of foreign investors towards developing countries, which in turn increases the volatility of their currencies and reduces their economic growth rates.

Global imbalances, especially savings-investment imbalances in the U.S. and China continue to pose some threats to the stability of the global economy. Thanks to its newly rising middle-class, China has been diverting its growth model from an export-led to demand-led one in the past years. However, China still provides a huge amount of trade surplus, and it will take years to balance its domestic demand and national savings. The U.S. on the other hand, has both a public and trade deficit. While Trump’s tax reform is likely to increase the public deficit, his trade war plan will not work to reduce the trade deficit.

The trade war, fired up by the Trump administration, puts global trade and global value chains at risk, causing a decline in global economic growth forecasts. Trade disputes will not provide any benefit, but will only hurt global economic activity. Although there are many unfair issues in multilateral trade agreements and the WTO rules, international trade has increased global economic growth, has reduced global inflation, and has lifted millions of people out of poverty. Global leaders, bureaucrats, and intellectuals should focus on making the rules of the trade game fair, not on bringing the system down in ruins.

In the end, we cannot draw a rosy picture about the future of the global economy. As economists, we do not have a crystal ball that allows us to foresee the future more clearly. However, all these risks and fault lines indicate that the global economy may experience a shocking turbulence, or even a recession, in 2020 or 2021.

Beside this, as Trump said in his UN speech last month: “We reject the ideology of globalism and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.” The world is switching from pure globalism to one in which countries will try to protect their own industries as much as they can in order to increase value added growth, create more jobs in their territories, and balance their current account. Trump assumes that implementing new protectionist actions will bring giant factories back to the U.S. and provide some competitive edge against developing countries such as China, which have the potential to reduce the share of the U.S. in the global economy. This can be a topic of a different article, but we can shortly mention that such protectionist periods offer more opportunities for developing countries, which use smart industrial policies to produce technological products themselves and give them the opportunity to catch up with developed countries. The East Asian miracle is a good example of this. Countries that prepare themselves for this new period in advance by taking precautionary measures and implement appropriate policies in line with the spirit of time will increase their weights in the global economy.

On Wednesday, the highest court of the United Nations ordered for the U.S. to lift some of its sanctions that might hurt the import of humanitarian goods or services or adversely affect the safety of civil aviation on Iran.

In the Hague, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Iran, ordering for the U.S. to “remove by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” the re-imposition of sanctions on medicine and medical devices, food and agricultural commodities, and spare parts, equipment, and associated services needed for the safety of civil aviation.

While the ruling is legally binding on the U.S., the Trump administration has increasingly publicly questioned the authority of such international institutions. Therefore, there is no clear distinction as to whether the U.S. will follow the ruling.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif hailed the court ruling.

He tweeted, “Another failure for sanctions-addicted USG and victory for rule of law. Imperative for int’l community to collectively counter malign US unilateralism.”

In May this year, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal reached with Iran and the permanent members of the UN Security Council during the Obama era.

Following this withdrawal, he reinstated U.S. sanctions on Tehran, which had initially been lifted under the terms of agreement in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Many countries, including leaders of the European Union (Germany and France) and other countries such as Turkey have criticized the U.S. insistence on sanctions on Iran.

While Trump insists on his sanctions on Iran, he has also imposed high-levy tariffs on China and Turkey, which have given birth to new global trade wars.