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

In recent days, the world has been on the verge of a potential war between Iran and the U.S. over the shooting down of an American drone by Iranian air-defense units. The Trump administration stopped the military response and considered the planned strike inappropriate for the downing of an unmanned air vehicle. The current escalation in the Basra Bay may have seemingly calmed down, but will the downing of the U.S. drone have real-life implications for Iran in Syria. Or more, what are the U.S. abilities and weaknesses in responding within the Syrian theatre?

Over the years, the U.S. sidelined itself in Syria by abandoning the Syrian opposition and solely focusing on the fight against Daesh. The U.S. made it a pre-condition not to fight against the Assad regime in order to obtain U.S. support, supplies and training to fight against Daesh. Most Free Syrian Army factions rejected to end their fight against the regime and were not co-opted by the U.S. As a result of this policy and other factors, the U.S. partnered with the Syrian branch of the PKK and formed the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), ergo not an enemy of Iran.

The SDF is not capable and is unwilling to confront Iran.

If the U.S. wants to take bold steps to undermine Iranian presence in Syria, its partners on the ground are an alliance of forces who did not come together to fight against Iran, and lack the motivation to do so. The SDF is not capable and is unwilling to confront Iran. Therefore, the U.S. seems limited in its ambitions to cut the Tehran-Damascus land route via Albu Kamal in southeast Syria. To go offensive on the ground against Iran seems unlikely. Only an over-extended air support might overdo the unwillingness of the SDF to cut the land route. However, this may open other fronts of weaknesses for the U.S. and risk the demobilization of some SDF units, including its biggest Arab component, the Shanadid Forces.

Another possibility for the U.S. to confront Iran in Syria might be through Israel. Israeli air forces have conducted several airstrikes against Iranian targets in Syria, but the extent of the Israeli air campaign is limited by Russia’s behavior to look the other way when Israeli air forces enter Syrian air space, and by the regime’s air-defense capabilities. Nevertheless, the Israelis might function as an important asset for the U.S. to strike Iranian positions in Syria as its own air force would need to challenge the Russian air-superiority in western Syria.

The U.S. could also use sanctions as a vehicle to undermine the Iranian role in Syria by targeting the Iranian regime and businessmen, and Iranian economical transactions as well as Iranian assets to gain money from Syria via business agreements. The U.S. can make life hard for Iran, but the effect of such actions would not be decisive.

In the U.S-Iran feud, the U.S. has limited options in Syria and has no real effective way of dealing with Iran in Syria.

As an exceptional way to limit Iran, the proposal made by the United Arab Emirates can come to mind as well. The UAE re-engaged with the Assad regime, arguing to limit Iran and Turkey by offering the regime an alternative. However, this option is the product of mindless politics. The regime will not abandon Iran, which saved the regime when everyone abandoned it, and especially not when all Iranian militias are in Syria. Lastly, the U.S. could target Iran by empowering the Syrian opposition, a natural enemy of Iran in Syria, but this would mean to re-evaluate U.S. policies in Syria again.

All in all, in the U.S-Iran feud, the U.S. has limited options in Syria and has no real effective way of dealing with Iran in Syria. This is because the U.S.’ policy on Syria is constructed in a way in which the fight against Iran was not and could not be a part of it. In order to challenge Iran in Syria, the U.S. needs to re-start its Syrian policy.

Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. has put enormous effort to contain Iran in both political and economic terms. During his election campaign, Trump pledged to tear the nuclear deal (JCPOA) and his anti-Iran tone was pretty harsh. After his election, he started to realize his election promises one-by-one. His attitude towards international acts and agreements was uncompromising. The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and UNESCO in 2017. JCPOA, which was formalized in 2015 by P5+1 countries and which began to be implemented in early 2016, was a target too. JCPOA was also binding in terms of international law since it was ratified as a UN Security Council resolution.

Trump’s general policy choice reflects a radical rupture from the priorities of the Obama era, and this is not an exception in the case of the Middle East. The president’s Middle East policy centers around various crucial themes. The most significant of them is containing Iran. For Trump, Iran has expanded its regional influenced during the Obama era thanks to the “worst deal ever made,” also known as the nuclear deal. According to Trump, by giving Iran lifeline support, JCPOA has paved the way for Iran’s “terrorist activities” along the region. Therefore, this should be stopped.

With the Trump administration, the U.S. government has launched a regime change discourse against Iran. The president has employed numerous anti-Iran figures in his team such as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and others.

The U.S. President’s policy is a pillar for other policies related to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and other anti-Iran Gulf countries desperately seek Trump’s support in their endeavor to confront Iran. In this direction, the U.S. makes billion dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia and supports every action against Iran in the region. Saudi Arabia’s Qatar move, which was directly against Iran and Turkey, also received U.S. support. The coordinated efforts of Israel and the U.S. function to undermine Iran’s political and economic power. Accordingly, I argue that Trump’s Iran policy has two dimensions – both politic and economic.

The nuclear deal and economic war against Iran

On May 8, Donald Trump announced that the United States has pulled out of the nuclear deal. He also announced that sanctions will be re-imposed by the U.S. soon. The first round of U.S. sanctions came into effect on July 7. These sanctions were primarily targeting Iran’s trade with precious metals, its import of auto parts, and commercial passenger aircrafts. But the most striking sanctions were imposed on November 5. The aim of these sanctions was to cut all oil exports from Iran and devastate the country’s economy. In addition to that, 700 individuals and companies were put on the sanctions list. In order to avoid serious backlash, the U.S. granted waivers to 8 countries, including Turkey. However, these countries will also be expected to cut their oil trade with Iran in a short period of time.

Trump was not alone in his campaign against Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, also fully supported his decision of exiting the JCPOA. More, prior to Trump’s decision, he tried to persuade the international community that “Iran has lied” about its nuclear activities and that it “cheated.” Netanyahu, in his televised public performance a week before Trump’s announcement of U.S. withdrawal from the deal, claimed that Iran had lied when it said that it never chased after a nuclear weapon. He added that, “Even after the deal was made, Iran continued to preserve and expand its nuclear know-how for use at a later date.” His claim was based on an alleged secret operation conducted by MOSSAD to acquire “atomic archive documents” in a secret warehouse in Tehran. Netanyahu’s efforts were not limited to this performance. Again in September, when he stepped to address the UN General Assembly, he claimed that Israel had discovered another secret nuclear facility in Tehran and that he had proof of it. According to Netanyahu, Iran had equipment for developing a nuclear bomb in this facility.

Regime change discourse, Arab NATO, and the Warsaw Summit

With the Trump administration, the U.S. government has launched a regime change discourse against Iran. The president has employed numerous anti-Iran figures in his team, such as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, and others. The State Department’s and Secretary Pompeo’s Twitter accounts work vigorously to disseminate regime change discourse among Iranians, be it diaspora or those living in the homeland. In addition to that, in 2011, the U.S. had launched its first Farsi language Twitter account in order to address Farsi-speaking Iranians directly. Pompeo and his team began to use this account to promulgate their position against Iran. All these efforts are signs of a public relation campaign to create a dominant discourse, which would produce an intended change in the Iranian government’s behavior.

Iranian women took off their hijabs and hang them on a stick during their protests in Tehran. Some Iranian diaspora, however, questioned the authenticity of these protests and the integrity of Masih Alinejad for having ties with U.S. neo-cons.

In this endeavor, the U.S. government takes any opportunity it can. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Masih Alinejad, a famous Iranian-American social media activist. Alinejad runs the #whitewednesday campaign, which encourages women to take off their hijabs in Iran on Wednesdays and record it with a camera. Women share these videos on social media and Alinejad also promotes them on her own Twitter account. These videos go viral and show how Iranian women resist imposed dress codes. During the protests in January 2018, the Iranian women that took off their hijabs and hang them on a stick began to be called the “daughters of Revolution Street,” since their protests occurred on the revolution street of Tehran. However, some of the Iranian diaspora have questioned the authenticity of these protests and the integrity of Masih Alinejad for having ties with U.S. neo-cons. Pompeo’s meeting with Alinejad empowered the arguments of their critics. This move apparently shows how Alinejad’s campaign functions in a certain way in the regime change rhetoric of the U.S. administration.

Another policy that the Trump administration has adopted is trying to pull other countries on their sides against Iran. In that vein, the U.S. and Israel organized an anti-Iran summit in Warsaw on February 14. 60 countries were represented at the Summit. However, EU states sent their low-level diplomats and it disrupted the summit’s intended anti-Iran character. Robert Giuliani, former New York Mayor and one of Trump’s lawyers, said that he was representing Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) at the summit. MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran. It was once listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1997, but was then de-listed in 2012. In the recent years, Trump’s team has been coordinating with MEK members and their presence was so visible in so many occasions, including during the Warsaw Summit.

Robert Giuliani, former New York Mayor and one of Trump’s lawyers, said that he was representing Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) at the anti-Iran summit in February in Warsaw. MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by Iran.

One of the functions of the Warsaw Summit was to create a base for a new regional security alliance against Iran. This has been articulated as the “Arab NATO” by some U.S. officials. Officially known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA), this planned organization would contain Iran militarily through six Gulf countries plus Egypt and Jordan. Netanyahu especially took the chance to bolster his anti-Iran position and convince other Arab countries “to advance the common interest of the war with Iran.” According to Mike Pence, along with Netanyahu, they “broke bread with leaders from Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.” Given the diplomatic gap between Israel and other Arab countries (it only has formal diplomatic ties with Egypt and Jordan), Netanyahu’s efforts were reflecting a significant re-orientation towards Arab countries in order to confront Iran.

Turkey’s stance

Turkey’s approach to the U.S. policy on Iran has not been changed from the very beginning. President Erdogan repetitively emphasized that Turkey needs Iranian oil and gas and that there are no alternatives for Turkey. Erdogan also condemned the re-imposed sanctions on the ground that they are against international law. The president’s remarks have been reiterated by a number of senior figures in the government. Despite the fact that the U.S. and Israel will increase their pressure on Iran, Turkey is likely to preserve its position.

Once again, Turkey-U.S. relations are signaling of going through another turmoil. This time it is about Turkey’s purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Russia. Charlie Summers, head of the American forces in Europe and NATO’s top military officer stated, “If Turkey takes the S-400, there would be grave consequences in terms of our military relationship, and the Patriots and the F-35s.” It is yet to be known how binding or how backed this statement is given the complexities and ambiguities in the American state apparatus in recent years. Nevertheless, it is serious in its tone. The statement is not the first of its kind but is unprecedentedly tough. The statement also brings in some retaliatory measures, such as pulling out of the Patriot missiles purchase and denying the transfer of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

Despite this pressure from the U.S. side, Turkey seems solid in its deal over purchasing S-400s. During a TV interview last week, President Erdogan said that it was a “done deal,” “as we conclude the S-400 issue, signed a deal with the Russians, and will start co-production.” He even stated that after this deal is finalized, Turkey and Russia may work on a possible S-500 deal. Erdogan is well-known for his firm stance against pressure, whether coming from domestic or international parties. This is more than a simple choice though. This is a strategic choice that might re-shape Turkey’s overall position in international politics. Turkey is known as a loyal ally to the U.S. since the Cold War, but it seems like some factors have pushed Turkey to question this role.

Turkey’s purchase of S-400s from Russia is more than a simple choice. It’s a strategic choice that might re-shape Turkey’s overall position in international politics. 

In fact, it is quite a simple equation. Turkey has very concrete and longstanding worries with regard to its national security. Two of them are paramount. Two organizations, the PKK and FETO, have caused many casualties for the country. Yet both organizations have found safe havens under U.S. support. The U.S. hosts FETO leader Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish citizen, and has not complied with Turkey’s extradition request. Many other FETO members and FETO institutions still remain active in the U.S. Last week, First Lady Melanie Trump even visited one of the organization’s schools in Oklahoma.

The U.S. support for the PKK is even more threatening. This is because they are operating right across Turkey’s Syrian border. The U.S. is providing weapons, training, and active surveillance for the PKK’s Syrian branch, the PYD. This is the organization that sends suicide bombers into Turkey from Syria. Amongst the 11 such attacks documented prior to Turkey’s operation against the PYD in Syria, one was quite significant. In December 2016, the PYD conducted a terrorist attack in Besiktas, Istanbul, and caused 46 deaths, including 39 police officers and 7 civilians. The attack occurred right after a football game and the suicide bomber blew herself when she was noticed by the policeman surveilling for the game. The militant who carried out the suicide bomb received training and instructions in the PYD-ruled Kobani (Ayn-al Arab) and crossed the Turkish border illegally.

As the U.S. keeps pushing Turkey away, Turkey will now have to seek for alternative partnerships and alliances.

This is one of many examples where the PYD directly targeted Turkey, which later caused the Turkish government to conduct an operation against the PYD in Afrin. The only power that keeps this organization alive today in Syria is the U.S. It would be ridiculous to expect a blind loyalty from Turkey while the U.S. backs this group, which poses a serious threat to its national security. Naturally, Turkey is seeking security partnerships with other regional and global actors – the ones that do not support terrorist organizations that target Turkey.

This is the recent story of Turkey’s shift away from the U.S. As the U.S. keeps pushing Turkey away, Turkey will now have to seek for alternative partnerships and alliances. The bad news for relations between Turkey and the U.S. is that Turkey has never felt more threatened from any other power than it feels today about the U.S. support for terrorist organizations attacking Turkey. The S-400 deal might create grave consequences, but Turkey seems to be okay with this as it feels that it has no other choice. If the U.S. genuinely wants to re-build relations with Turkey, it is as simple as stopping the support provided for the PKK and FETO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-9qws51mlY 

There are numerous indications on Iraq’s horizon that point to an impending popular rising in Iraq, similar to that took place in Basra and southern Iraq in 2018. This is due partially to the procrastination in completing Adil Abdul Mahdi’s government formation and the slow pace of promised reforms. U.S. President Donald Trump, whose foreign policy is driven by his own rhetoric to “make America great again,” is keen on confronting Iran’s hegemonic policies in the region. Being constrained by Russia in Syria and inconclusive war in Yemen led by the U.S.’s inefficient and crisis-ridden ally, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, Trump seems to have decided that Iraq is the right theatre to deliver Iran a lesson.

The slow process of reform has already forced Muqtada Sadr, the leader of the powerful Sairun bloc, to issue Abdul Mahdi a warning that he has only 6 months left to form an efficient government, free of corrupt politicians and to implement the reforms promised. Sadr has the will and means to lead a powerful Iraq-wide street protest against Abdul Mahdi. Hussain Abdul Hussain, an Iraqi analyst and a visiting fellow at Chatham House wrote, “Change usually is the result of a shift in the political culture, reflecting a swing in the popular mood. Had Abdul-Mahdi made it to the premiership at the head of a reform movement, change might conceivably be on the cards. But it is unlikely that a prime minister who owes his job to the same groups that have been accused of corrupting the state will be able to fix the country.”

Trump seems to have decided that Iraq is the right theatre to deliver Iran a lesson.

What has complicated Abdul Mahdi’s insurmountable tasks is Trump’s recent pronouncements on Iraq, which have been considered by many as affront to Iraq’s sovereignty. His unexpected New Year visit to U.S. troops at the Ain Asad force base in western Iraq, in which he broke the tradition of informing Iraqis or meeting officials in Baghdad, had brought fire on the government from friends and opponents of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

During the visit, Trump mentioned the necessity of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for a long time to come. A similar statement was made by him to CNBC on 3 February, 2019, in which he stated that the U.S. has “spent a fortune” on building an “incredible” military base in Iraq. “We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran, because Iran is a real problem,” he said. These added more fuel to the fire and forced most politicians from all political spectrums in Iraq to denounce these comments.

Even the pro-American Iraqi President Barham Salih issued a statement, saying that the U.S. “should not burden Iraq with its own policy priorities… U.S. troops in Iraq are there as part of an agreement between the two countries with a specific mission of combating terrorism.” The deputy speaker of the Iraqi Parliament pledged to pass a law “terminating the security agreement with America, in addition to ending the presence of American military trainers and advisors and foreigners on Iraqi soil.”

Some Iraqi lawmakers have pledged to draft a bill calling for the expulsion of U.S. forces altogether, while others have called for a revision of the agreement to increase the number of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. The proposed bill has not yet been formally put in parliament’s official agenda for deliberations, but it has strong backing from Shiite political leaders and some Sunni groups. Sadr has already met with Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the powerful bloc of Fatah, and they have agreed to support a bill for the U.S. to leave the country. This forced Abdul Mahdi to make an announcement on 4 February, 2019, stating, “There are no U.S. military bases in Iraq. There are only U.S. civilian and military advisors that are there only as a part of an international coalition against terrorism. We disagree with President Trump’s statement of using Iraq as a base against any country.”

Some Iraqi lawmakers have pledged to draft a bill calling for the expulsion of U.S. forces altogether, while others have called for a revision of the agreement to increase the number of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil.

Besides, Trump insists that Iraqi officials wean off Iraq from the growing dependency on Iranian economic support, especially in the field of energy, where over half of Iraq’s electric power supply comes from. As the embargo begins to bite harder, Iran is left with a few options and depends more on Iraq in order to break its isolation. Iran has already taken a forward posture in this regard. Its oil and trade ministers have already visited Iraq and discussed numerous bilateral commercial deals. On 14 January, 2019, Iran’s Foreign Minister, Muhammed Zaref, accompanied by a large delegation of Iranian businessmen had also paid a visit to Iraq and signed numerous economic deals. He announced that President Hasan Rouhani will soon visit Iraq. In addition, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Muhammed al-Hakeem announced that Iraq is not bound with the U.S. embargo on Iran and that Iraq’s trade with Tehran accounted to $12 billion last year.

Should the U.S. continue to tighten the trade embargo on Iran, leaders of the latter have already stated that they would fight back with all means at their disposal. Iraq seems to be the weak spot of U.S. presence in the Middle East. The pro-Iranian al-Fateh bloc has already been drafting a new law in the Iraqi parliament, which desires to expel all U.S. troops from the country. If this bill passes, the U.S. will be in a very precarious condition and will probably ask its supporters to withdraw from the government. This will lead to the fall of the government and the withdrawal of U.S. troops to the north of Iraq, where the Kurdish administration will welcome U.S. troops. If this scenario happens, then the Iraqi people will no longer tolerate anarchy and a popular uprising will not be a remote possibility. Iraq will sink into a new and high intense civil war, very similar to what is happening in Yemen. Besides, many pro-Iranian Shiite militia leaders have already threatened to force U.S. troops out of Iraq. 

If the bad scenario happens, then Iraq will sink into a new and high intense civil war, very similar to what is happening in Yemen.

On 9 February, 2019, the London-based Arabic daily al-Quds wrote, “The recent developments in Iraq indicate that the U.S. and Iranian clash is inevitable due to Trump’s stand on Iran.” According to the paper, U.S. troops found a missile in a site managed by the pro-Iranian Shiites, ready to attack the U.S. base where Trump visited. The U.S. will not take such measures lightly and will certainly hit back severely. On 30 January, 2019, al-Auqaz, the Saudi daily, reported that both the U.S. and Israel have recently sent clear warnings to the Iraqi government and that they are planning attacks on hostile Shiite militias in Iraq.

For these reasons, the U.S. administration has only two options for its policy on Iraq: either to back track Trump’s harsh rhetoric on Iran and Iraq and accept to continue the previous U.S. administration’s policy of tacit agreement with Iran to keep Iraq out of their confrontation, or to continue the current escalation, which will lead to an inevitable clash in Iraq with a serious destabilizing spill-over for other countries in the region, including Turkey. The latter should advise Iraq to keep out of the ongoing escalation between Iran and the U.S.

Speaking at the award ceremony of The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA) at the Nation Congress and Culture Center at Bestepe, Ankara, President Erdogan made some important comments after celebrating the work and effort of all scientists who had been awarded.

Highlighting the importance of the ‘national treasure’ that will carry Turkey stronger to the future, Erdogan said: “For a long time, we did not open the cover of this ‘treasure’ and benefit from it. For the past two centuries, not just as a country, but also as the Muslim world, we did not reach the success in intellectual studies, production, industry, scientific research, culture and arts. As a result of this, there is a huge impact of the attacks of imperialism on our country and the Muslim world.”

In addition to the sphere of intellectual production, Erdogan added that the Muslim world, which has a population of 1.7 billion, does not even have a permanent member at the United Nation’s Security Council.

“This is why I say ‘The world is bigger than 5.’ This is not far, not in terms of continents, religions, or ethnicities. An answer that comes out of their [permanent members] mouths finalizes everything. There are 194 members; 5 permanent members and they added 15 temporary members along just to raise and drop their hands. There is no meaning. The institution [UN] has been established to bring justice to the world, but this has not been the case. Do not expect or look for any justice from both the Security Council and the UN in general. There is no such thing.”

The Turkish president also added that during the past 16 years, the AK Party administration has managed to dismantle the ‘dependency suit’ that has been forced upon Turkey and its surrounding civilizations for centuries. He added that Turkey has made major improvements in terms of the economy, technology, industry, trade, transportation, democracy, and freedom. With these steps taken, the President underlined that the Turkish nation has increased its faith and self-esteem.

In addition to President Erdogan, during a press conference in Ankara yesterday, leader of the MHP, Devlet Bahceli, also made important remarks and answered questions.

Responding to a question regarding the expected Turkish military operation in the east of the Euphrates, Bahceli stated that Turkey has a keen and determined attitude to wiping out terrorism, which was manifested with its two military operations – Operation Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield – and their successful results.

“The Turkish nation is aspiring the expected military operation in the east of the Euphrates. We also believe that this will take place. With regard to the fight against terrorism, we [MHP] continue to give our full support to the presidential system.”

In his answer to a question on whether it was necessary to start a dialogue with the Assad regime in order to maintain Syria’s geographical integrity and to limit the influence of the YPG/PKK, Bahceli answered, “I’m against any type of dialogue with the Assad regime as a thought. Turkey has walked a long way in the name of fighting terrorism and has paid high costs in this regard. At this point, it would be a shame and a loss for Turkey to give up on this process to the will and choice of Assad.”

Bahceli underlined that saving Syria from the Assad regime had to be done through democracy and that the policies that began in Sochi and continued in Tehran ought to be followed in order to reach a result.

Commenting on the phone call between President Erdogan and U.S. President Trump on December 14, which occurred just before Trump announced his decision to withdraw troops from Syria, Bahceli said that “Turkey has already ripped its shell” and is imposing its strong state tradition to different domains.

*Written by Selahattin Emre Celebi 

It is obvious that lawmakers in the U.S. have to compromise in order to pass the appropriations bill (one part of a larger U.S. budget) for the upcoming year. Otherwise, the related legal requirements foresee the continuation of a so-called “government shutdown,” i.e. the stop of funding of government operations and agencies. In such a situation, which has increasingly been occurring since the 1990s, U.S. government operations and agencies are not able to receive funds and most government services are literally frozen. Thus, circa 40% of the government workforce is furloughed without payment.

In the most recent case, President Trump, who had promised to build a wall along the Mexican border during his election campaign in 2016, had been under pressure from his voters. By this, it is no secret that the 2020 elections are also in focus. Trump insisted on his promise to build the wall across the country’s southern border, for which he needs an approximate 5 billion dollars. This needs to be approved by Congress. If this does not occur, President Trump stated that he was “totally prepared for a very long shutdown.” Even before the disagreement, it was not possible to solve the problem between the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Due to the fact that no deal was reached and tensions increased to the extent that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York literally shouted “You will not get your wall”), and a new government shutdown occurred.

Nevertheless, in a most likely scenario, American lawmakers and the president in the White House will ultimately find a deal perhaps subsequent to Christmas or even in the new year. However, in the first stage, the shutdown will continue during the Christmas holidays, most probably until 27 December or even longer. In the past, for instance, one of the longest shutdowns occurred during the administration of Democrat President Bill Clinton. This process caused damage worth billions of dollars. A government shutdown also causes disruption to government services and increases the costs of the government due to so-called lost labor.

The longest government shutdown occurred under President Bill Clinton and this cost the government billions of dollars. A government shutdown disrupts government services and increases its costs due to lost labor. 

In this sense, as a comparison and unique development, Turkish lawmakers tried to overcome similar potential problems while establishing Turkey’s new presidential system in 2016. The new system was approved through a referendum on 16 April, 2017, and came into full force on 24 June, 2018. The interesting and striking budget issue in the Turkish context – which is not the same as the U.S. – has been been described by Serdar Gulener and Nebi Mis as followed (p. 24):

“However, it is the second paragraph of the amendment that makes a unique noteworthy contribution to the proposed presidential system. The proposed paragraph reads,

“If the budget bill cannot be carried into effect within due time, a temporary budget bill is passed. If the temporary budget bill cannot be passed, the budget for the previous year is put into effect, after an adjustment is made to its figures based on a revaluation (for inflationary adjustments), until the new budget law is adopted.”

The adoption of the particular aforementioned budget bill procedure offers an effective solution to the issue of probable deadlocks between executive and legislative bodies threatening shutdown of government operations due to absence/delay of budgetary approval. One should keep in mind that discussions to find solutions to such potential deadlocks between the president and the legislature continue in many countries including the U.S.”

Thus, what can we learn from both examples? The answer should be elaborated with comparative sensitivity. But before that, it has to be mentioned that even though it was not addressed in depth on (Turkish) TVs due to Turkey’s currently busy foreign policy agenda, Turkey’s first parliament under the presidential system ratified the country’s 2019 budget in the general assembly on 22 December, while at the same time American government institutions faced a government shutdown.

The Turkish presidential system has a mechanism that activates the budget of the previous year if no agreement is formed in parliament. This avoids government shutdowns that occur, for instance, in the U.S. 

First of all, the American presidency is just one effective example of various models of presidentialism. Different kind of countries have their own domestic dynamics, which are a result of a political, historical, and legal experiences.

Second, Turkey’s new presidential system took all democratic components of a universal presidential system into account while putting an emphasis on realistic scenarios and problem-solving mechanisms. It’s not a big surprise that people rightly point out to the separation of powers importance in the U.S. system, while disregarding the presidents’ dominance over his party, as is the case regarding the current Congress and the Republicans. Thus, one should rather focus on the deal between not only the lawmakers (within Congress) but also the President’s dominance himself during this process – who is eventually and de facto the main actor of the system – whether one wishes it or not; that’s reality.

Third, Turkey’s presidential system has an actual advantage compared to the most favored (and democratically functioning) presidential system in the world. That is to say, it’s not possible that Turkish lawmakers, who have not the majority in Turkey’s unicameral Parliament, put pressure on the government even in a partly blackmailing way in order to cause a government shutdown.

The new system of government has a so-called mechanism that activates the previous years’ budget automatically as was addressed above. Consequently, there won’t be huge losses in a range of billions of Turkish Liras – at the expense of Turkey’s citizens.

The trial against Bajan Rafakan and Ekim Alptekin is set to begin in the U.S. on 11 February, 2019, which is directly related to the extradition of Fetullah Gulen – the leader of the Fetullah Terrorist Organization, which staged the failed coup attempt in Turkey on July 15, 2016.

Bajan Rafakan, the ex-business partner of Michael Flynn – former U.S. national security advisor – pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to charges against him that he secretly lobbied for Turkey to extradite Gulen, who is currently residing in the U.S.

Rafakan, who was the former director of U.S. Export-Import Bank and Ekim Alptekin – a Turkish businessman – were accused of ‘secret’ lobbying and ‘lying’ about their work. Rafakan pleaded not guilty in a federal court in Virginia and is set to defend the charges against him at a trial starting on February 11, 2019. Alptekin, who denied the charges made against him on Monday via a spokesman, is not expected to attend the trial as he is not currently in the U.S.

The accusations made against Rafakan and Alptekin are working with Turkish government officials on a so-called secret plan to return Gulen, who is currently living in exile in Pennsylvania, to Turkey.

Fetullah Gulen was the mastermind of the failed coup attempt in Turkey, and while the Turkish government has made called for his extradition, the U.S. administration has rejected this plea on the claim of ‘lack of evidence.’

Rafakan, who is a co-founder of the consultancy firm, Flynn Intel Group, is accused of a rarely enforced law, which requires lobbyists to disclose their work when working with foreign actors. Prosecutors accuse both Rafakan and Alptekin for providing false statements to the Justice Department about their work.

The case against Rafakan and Alptekin was built mostly on information provided by Flynn, who admitted that he lied about his role in lobbying activities and has been cooperating with the Justice Department in the case.

On Tuesday, the White House stated that U.S. President Trump told Turkish President Erdogan that his administration will ‘take a look’ at the possibility of extraditing Gulen, but added that Trump made no commitment in this regard.

The extradition of Gulen has remained one of the most troubled issues between Turkey and the U.S. among others, such as the U.S. support for the YPG in northeast Syria that has now taken a different direction as to please the Turkish government.

*Written by Selahattin Emre Celebi

The G20 Summit organized in Buenos Aires, Argentina, appeared on the agenda with debates revolving around the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, or known as MbS, who was found culpable by the global media for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. MbS was the media’s focus of attention with his appearance at the Summit despite the accusations against him. His attitude during his meeting with Putin and his expression during his encounter with U.S. President Trump were especially noteworthy. Various comments made on MbS underlined that he had been aspiring to restore his battered image. The Crown Prince undoubtedly kicked off works to clear his image after the world starting pointing at him in regards to the Khashoggi murder. So, his appearance at the G20 Summit must be read as a continuation of this process. In a retrospective consideration, it can be seen that MbS has been exerting efforts for perception management in the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder.

MbS on the front page of Washington Post

The evidence presented by the investigation pursued by Turkey presented to the public that names that were closely allied with the Crown Prince were part of the murder team in regards to the Jamal Khashoggi case. Another allegation published by the New York Times on November 14 revealed the links that directly connected MbS to the murder. According to the news report, shortly after Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on October 2, a member of the hit team instructed a supervisor over the phone “tell your boss,” – this boss is believed to be MbS and that his operatives carried out their mission. Also, the Washington Post, a paper that Khashoggi was a columnist of, printed a full-page photo of MbS on its front page with the caption “Demand the Truth,” in address to the U.S. Secretary of State who was heading to Saudi Arabia at the time. This demonstrated that he was held accountable by the global media. Similar claims have also been made by various politicians and journalists from different countries. Consequently, a general agreement can be observed with regard to the Crown Prince’s link to the murder.

Oxygen tube from Trump to the Crown Prince

Even U.S. President Trump, who is one of the closest allies of the Crown Prince, has tried to justify his continuing support to MbS to the world public by listing his financial excuses. With this attitude, he hinted that although he has been defending him, Trump could blackmail MbS whenever necessary. For Trump, the most important point is the payments that are to be made to the U.S. and MbS thinks that he can buy anything. These two approaches complement each other. Due to this attitude of President Trump, the world public was expected to forget the atrocious murder. However, it didn’t really work that way.

Trump’s remarks on the Khashoggi murder, such as that it was the worst cover-up effort he had seen in history and that the Prince may or may have not been a part of the murder, indicates that Trump actually knows the truth but is using it in line with his own interests. Such statements that occupy the global agenda and distract the media work to the detriment of the Crown Prince. It can be contended that the “controlled” statements of Trump function as an oxygen tube for MbS. Thus, MbS, who is aware that an escape corridor has been opened for him thanks to Trump’s s support and Russia’s affirmative gestures, is endeavoring to regain his popularity and restore his tarnished image after the murder. But the methods employed for this goal are quite predictable and familiar. Among them, three methods particularly stand out.

Million dollars and free tickets by MbS for lobbying companies

The first method is to continue funneling money to U.S.-based lobbying companies and to prevent any activity that will keep the murder on the agenda by transferring money to U.S.-based think tanks. In this sense, the comments of Human Rights Watch Deputy Program Director Tom Porteous are worth attention. Porteous stated that Washington-based think tanks abstain from criticizing Saudi Arabia despite the country’s long-standing human rights violations since they receive funds from Riyadh. His statements consolidate the doubts revolving around the continuation of such processes. Previously established relationships based on mutual interests can be said to be behind the strong claims suggesting that Prince Salman kicked off works to adopt a new image through the arms deals and the funds given to global PR companies. Porteous ended his statement by stating that think tanks always agree with Washington on U.S. foreign policy, which alludes to the Trump administration’s ambivalent attitude on MbS.

A PR method used by MbS is to continue funneling money to U.S.-based lobbying companies and to prevent any activity that will keep the murder on the agenda by transferring money to U.S.-based think tanks.

An article titled “Inside the Saudis’ Washington influence machine: How the Kingdom gained power through fierce lobbying and charm offensives,” which was published by Washington Post on October 23, explained how the Saudi administration uses its financial power for PR works and how this situation persisted in the aftermath of the Khashoggi murder. According to this article, 27 million dollars was spent on lobbying activities in 2017. It was also emphasized that MbS used his financial power to develop close relations with influential politicians and business people in Washington, especially Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Within this scope, the Saudi Embassy in Washington is said to be hosting occasional galas and U.S. congress members attend these events via lobbying companies.

MbS used his financial power to develop close relations with influential politicians and business people in Washington, the Saudi Embassy there is said to be hosting occasional galas and U.S. congress members attend these events via lobbying companies.

The article went on to claim that Saudi officials offered Super Bowl tickets and chartered flights to the event. It would be no exaggeration to state that this is linked to the fact that there was not considerable public reaction to the Khashoggi murder aside from the U.S. media outlets that fell out with Trump. An analysis titled “US lobbyists continue working with Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi killing,” published by TRT World on November 21, also covers some detail showing that the previously signed deals between the two countries have not been cancelled. The analysis points out that there are 36 U.S. firms that are actively lobbying for Saudi Arabia in the U.S. and that these companies are spending millions of dollars in order to impress political actors.

There are 36 U.S. firms that are actively lobbying for Saudi Arabia in the U.S. and that these companies are spending millions of dollars in order to impress political actors.

Putin’s carte blanche to MbS

The second method is to consolidate alliances and initiate large-scale operations that will change the global agenda. The Gaza attacks of Israel, which is the strongest regional ally of Saudi Arabia, are generally evaluated in this context. Decreasing the pressure on the Crown Prince by distracting the attention of the global public stands out as the leading cause. An argument supporting this approach was covered in a news report published by New York Times on December 8. Stating that MbS and Kushner were on a first-name basis, calling each other Jared and Mohammed, the report reads that the two names talked to each other many times after the murder via text message and phone calls. The report titled “The Wooing of Jared Kushner: How the Saudis Got a Friend in the White House,” also states that Kushner is the leading White House figure that favors the Prince after the murder. So, it can be seen that Kushner has a major part in the PR works of MbS.

On the other hand, the acceleration of the operations in Yemen by Saudi Arabia coalition can also be interpreted as another distraction attempt by the Prince. The Prince seems to be in search of compensating the public pressure on him with a victory that could be obtained in Yemen. Besides, the efforts to consolidate the alliance formed during Trump’s Saudi Arabia visit are also notable. In this sense, MbS probably tried to create a positive impression by paying visits to UAE, Egypt, Bahrain and Tunisia before heading to the G20 Summit.

Thirdly, as already mentioned above, the Crown Prince regarded the Summit in Argentina as a component of his PR works. It is obvious that the positive statements on MbS issued by both Trump and Putin ahead of the Summit encouraged him while providing him with a ground for legitimacy.

In his meetings with both leaders, MbS behaved in a way to respond to their gestures. While the leaders were taking their seats after the shooting of the family photo, Putin and Prince Salman greeted each other quite candidly and exchanged a high-five. Although the sincerity between them has different meanings for Putin, it was very valuable for the image works of MbS under the present circumstances. A similar case also occurred during the MbS-Trump encounter. Although they did not seem particularly close, the two names gave the impression that they approve each other, which was another crucial acquisition for MbS from the Summit.

Turkey’s conscientious stance regarding the Khashoggi murder

Apparently, the two superpowers did not pay so much attention to the cold-blooded murder of Khashoggi in the Consulate building by a murder team including names from the Crown Prince’s close circle. Both countries seem to be approaching the issue in line with their own interests rather than questioning the names behind the murder. It is clear that MbS is using this opportunity served on a silver platter by the two superpowers to the fullest. Considering the interests of the two superpowers and the other counter-propaganda and lobbying activities undertaken by the Saudi administration, it can be argued that the G20 Summit has been one of the platforms where the Crown Prince continued his PR works.

The investments made in the lobbying works will not be enough to save the Crown Prince. They can  save a little time, but the evidence presented by Turkey to the world public will make MbS confront the truth he is trying to escape.

Still, many cases show that such image restoring efforts will remain insufficient against the bare truth. In this sense, the questions asked by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the Khashoggi killing in Argentina, such as the location of the body, the identities of local abettors and the real orchestrators of the murder constitute the greatest impediment to MbS’s efforts for a new image. The image aspired to be created by spending multi-million dollars is backlashing in the face of the naked truth addressed with these questions. Therefore, the investments made in the lobbying works and the two superpowers will not be enough to save the Crown Prince. The efforts will surely save a little time, but the strong evidence presented by Turkey to the world public has the potential to make MbS confront the truth he is trying to escape.

The developments surrounding the murder of Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which took place in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, are all pointing to the same direction: the murderer!

After receiving a CIA brief on the matter, on Tuesday, U.S. senators said that they were more than certain that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, was responsible for the killing of Khashoggi.

After the press release of U.S. senators, UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet said on Wednesday that an international investigation was needed to determine who was responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Following the statement of Bachelet, news agencies released another striking headline: ‘Bipartisan group of senators introduces measure saying Saudi crown prince is ‘complicit’ in the killing of journalist.’

6 top U.S. senators from cross-party lines have introduced a scathing resolution to hold the Saudi Crown Prince accountable for the killing of Khashoggi. The proposal states that the Senate “has a high level of confidence” that MBS “was complicit in the murder.”

If approved by the Senate, it would officially condemn MBS for the killing of Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch – a New York based international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights – called Turkey to submit a formal request to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to conduct an independent international probe into the killing of Khashoggi.

And finally, a Nordic country, following Germany, Denmark suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia for the Kingdom’s role in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the foreign ministry said on Thursday.

*Written by Selahattin Emre Celebi

The U.S. emerged out of the ruins of World War II as the world’s hegemonic power. Although the world had divided in political terms back then as the “democratic world” backed by the U.S., and “communist world” backed by the USSR, the U.S. apparently was the “sole” hegemon of the world in terms of economic power and financial outreach. The extent of the economic and financial power of the U.S. was so great that no empire or state the world had seen before could be compared to it. Therefore, we can easily conclude that the most powerful state the world has ever seen by now is certainly the U.S.

As a direct result of this rather unique situation in world history, the U.S. almost singlehandedly shaped the economic and financial system of the world in the immediate aftermath of the Bretton Woods meetings. Although several countries other than the U.S. participated in these meetings, their effect on the final outcome and “agreement” was rather limited. To add insult to injury, the unique and central place of the U.S. dollar in the emergent Bretton Woods system was “never” discussed in the meetings and added to the final agreement by the U.S. itself singlehandedly as if it was a second thought. Yes, because the U.S. was the hegemonic power of the world, its national currency, dollar, became the international reserve currency without any discussion. Other countries had no other option other than to sign this final “agreement.” In the final analysis, it is the U.S. itself who was ruling the roost.

Back then, the unique and central place of the U.S. dollar in the emergent Bretton Woods system was “never” discussed because the U.S. was the hegemonic power of the world.

However, we are not living in such a polarized world in terms of economic/political power. The extremely polarized economic world between 1940s and 1970s gave way to an increasingly multi-polar world and the economic center of the world shifting towards Asia rapidly. That said, the U.S. is still the most powerful country in the world. However, this is not enough to dominate the whole world in economic and financial terms.

The relative power of the U.S. has decreased tremendously since the 1970s and particularly since 1990s. And this has been what had to happen. The world needs to get “flat.” You cannot sustain a world in which some countries have the upper hand indefinitely. Sooner or later things have to change. And we are in this transition right now. It will be very slow to human eyes, but very rapid from the perspective of history.

The share of the U.S. in the world economy was a staggering 40 percent in 1950 according to market prices. It is 24 percent right now. On the other hand, the share of the U.S. economy according to purchasing power parity (PPP) has declined from 27 percent to 15 percent. So, according to both market prices and PPP, the economic power of the U.S. diminished dramatically.

I can assert that we are living in a watershed period, which will shape the future trajectory of the world.

Actually, China has surpassed the U.S. in 2013 and became the biggest economy in the world according to PPP, and it will be so in terms of market prices in the very near future. So, I can easily assert that we are living in a watershed period, which will shape the future trajectory of the world.

This general framework signals that the unique role of the U.S. dollar will cease to exist in the foreseeable future. This will not happen anytime soon, but it will happen. In a world in which several countries are competing with each other in economic, political and financial terms, a single country could not impose its will as easily as it was the case in the 1940s, where the U.S. was dominating so thoroughly. More to the point, with a diminished relative power, the U.S. cannot afford its national currency to play an international role. Yes, this was the case up until now, but the U.S. will find it increasingly harder and troublesome as its relative economic power dwindles.

We attested that in the last years the U.S. has been using the dollar and U.S.-controlled payment system, as a weapon to promote its political goals. Financial attacks against the Turkish Lira, sanctions against China, Russia and Iran can benefit the U.S. politically or look so to an extent in the short/est term. However, this inconveniently hawkish and shortsightedly bold standing is a colossal mistake for the U.S., which will only expedite the transition from the existing financial/commercial system to another one waiting to emerge.

Using the US Dollar and US-controlled payment system is inconveniently hawkish and shortsightedly bold standing as well as a colossal mistake for the US.

The “rise” of the currency swap agreements between countries around the world is just first steps on the way to a new global economic/financial order. China, Russia, India, Japan and other countries are signing billions of dollars’ worth swap agreements in an effort to use national currencies more in bilateral trade. This is de-dollarization in action. And it will continue to morph into a much broader and bolder multilateral trade agreements in the long run. I now shall answer the question I asked on the title: The future of the U.S. dollar is to revert to a national currency role without a unique place in the global economy/finance.

China, Russia, India, Japan and other countries are signing billions of dollars’ worth swap agreements in an effort to use national currencies more in bilateral trade. This is de-dollarization in action.

This is inevitable.

Then, what will replace the U.S. dollar? Another national currency? Not necessarily. A multi-polar world cannot afford a national currency acting an international currency. This holds for the U.S. dollar and also for… the Chinese yuan. In a multi-polar world, international trade will most probably be conducted via regional clearing unions, which could eventually give way to the international clearing union. And these regional clearing unions will have union-specific supranational currencies such as Bancor, which could eventually coalesce into the international “abstract” currency of the world.

On November 20, U.S. President Donald Trump released a statement regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. In this statement, Trump defended the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) amid increasing evidences of his direct involvement in the murder. To an extent, it was so obvious that Senator Bob Corker commented on it by saying he never thought he’d “see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.”

Moreover, Trump carried some of the Saudi official claims against Khashoggi. “Representatives of Saudi Arabia say that Jamal Khashoggi was an enemy of the state and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” the U.S. President said. Adding “but my decision is in no way based on that.” Trump tried to cast doubt on the Crown Prince’s role in Khashoggi’s murder by saying “maybe he did –know- and maybe he didn’t!”

In order to justify his position, the U.S. President diluted his blunt defense of MbS by referring to the vast economic and strategic interests tying his country to Saudi Arabia. However, as usual, Trump stuffed his statement with inaccurate information and false facts about Saudi Arabia to support his stance. Here are four myths he presented in his statement.

Trump has gone so far in protecting Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman that Senator Bob Corker stated he never thought he’d “see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.”

Myth No. 1:

“The Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money…..Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment.”

This is probably Trump’s favorite myth on Saudi Arabia. The U.S. President keeps repeating it every time when the wisdom of his policies towards Saudi Arabia is questioned. Despite previously referring to it many times, no one knows where the number $450 billion has emerged from. It was not officially mentioned neither during Trump’s visit to the Kingdom in May 2017, nor during MbS’s visit to the U.S. in March 2018.

There were previous mentions for opportunities worth $400 billion, but those were only verbal promises over a long period of time. These promises are not expected to be materialized anytime soon if at all. In fact, according to official numbers cited by the U.S. State Department in October 2018, out of the $110 billion Trump always boost in military purchases, Saudis only spent $14.5 billion on defense contracts with US since Trump took office.

Assuming that they will continue on this rate, which is almost impossible, Saudis need at least one and half decade to fulfill their $110 billion promise to Trump. In line with this, Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, a researcher at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the $110 billion was fake news then and it’s still fake news today.

President Trump keeps quoting a $450 billion Saudi investment in the U.S. when there’s no such thing. Why does he always use the same figure when lying? 

Myth No. 2:

“It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States.” 

No, the promised numbers are not going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. even if we assumed that they will be materialized anytime soon, which is impossible anyway. Last October, Trump claimed the – “non-existing”- $450 billion deals with Saudi Arabia will generate over a million jobs in the U.S.! He also boosted that the $110 billion military package will generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Last month, Reuters published a report which refutes this claim thoroughly. The report concludes that the “500,000 jobs Trump keeps bringing up is at least three to five times higher than what one could expect from the Saudi deal, given the estimates from the companies themselves, plus the most generous use of the indirect multiplier.”

Moreover, another report published by the Center for International Policy, a Washington think tank, says Saudi arms sales account for fewer than 20,000 U.S. jobs a year—less than one-twentieth of the employment boost Trump has claimed.

Myth No. 3:

“If we foolishly cancel these –defense- contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries – and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!”

No, this isn’t true either. When it comes to its military strength, advanced weapons, and weapon systems, Riyadh heavily dependent on Washington. The vast majority of the Saudi military hardware comes from the U.S., the rest comes from EU and a tiny fraction from China and maybe from Russia.

In this sense, even if we hypothetically assume that Saudis will drop all their military deals with the U.S., China and Russia can’t be an alternative especially when it comes to the most advanced weapons. Ignoring this fact again, depending on Russia and China means that Saudis will have to transform their military in order to be able to acquire and employ military hardware from these countries. 

Such a process is time consuming and probably beyond even the Kingdom’s financial capacity, it will take more than a decade of time at least, and will cost them a fortune. Even if they managed to do so, which I highly doubt, the results will not be impressive at all. Saudis will be weaker, their military strength will be reduced, and they will be much more vulnerable without a global guarantor for their security. In other words, you can sanction them and they will still come to you because they have no other options. 

If the U.S. cancel their defense contracts with Saudi Arabia this will not benefit Russia and China. It’ll just reduce the Kingdom’s military capacity. 

Myth No. 4:

“Saudi Arabia is a great ally in our very important fight against Iran.”

The Iranian regime is not invincible, however making use of others’ mistakes and employing their wrong policies to its benefit have been one of its best features during the last decades. In this sense, if there is one reason why Iran is regionally expanding and increasing its influence, it is because of the Saudi incompetence and Riyadh’s conflicting and chaotic polices to counter Iran. Such Saudi policies increased notably since the rise of Muhammad bin Salam to power in the Kingdom.

In order to effectively counter Iran in the region, you need to achieve a few basic things: Cutting it off from the regional public support which usually boosts its stance; depriving its regional role from the needed legitimacy by standing for everything the public represents such as the Palestinian issue, Syria etc., and finally countering its economic and military activities by making sure that collective regional efforts are contributing to this aim.

However, while stressing the need to counter Iran, MbS undermined every single aspect of any useful regional strategy to fight against Tehran. Working with the advice of his mentor, the de facto ruler of UAE, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed (MBZ), MbS prioritized an absurd war with the so called political Islam, imposed a blockade on Qatar, antagonized Turkey, initiated political and diplomatic crisis with traditional allies such as the Lebanese Prime Minister, King of Jordan, the Palestinian President, the Yemeni President. His reckless, dangerous policies further destabilized the region and boosted Iran’s regional position in an unprecedented way.

Moreover, by creating a deep rift in the GCC bloc, Arab bloc, and between some Arab countries and Turkey, the Saudi Crown Prince made any regional collective efforts to counter Iran almost impossible and provided Tehran with precious cards not only to unlock its regional isolation but also to be in a better position to utilize the regional contradictions to its benefit.

There is no strategic value in such a partner in the fight against Iran. On contrary, the Crown Prince used the issue as an excuse to consolidate his powers internally and externally. Taking all this into consideration, Saudi Arabia under MbS became nothing but a heavy burden on the U.S. and the allies especially in the fight against Iran.

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.

Last week, the Washington administration authorized up to $12 million of rewards for information leading to the identification or location of three senior members of the PKK terror group. Accordingly, Washington approved up to $5 million for information on Murat Karayilan, $4 million for Cemil Bayik and $3 million for Duran Kalkan. The U.S. listed the PKK as a terrorist organization 21 years ago, and handed the PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan over to Turkey in 1999.

The three senior members of the PKK are now sought as part of the U.S. Department of State’s Reward for Justice program. To quote the program’s exact words, the “goal is to bring international terrorists to justice and prevent acts of international terrorism against U.S. persons or property.”  It is stated that while the law governing the program is aimed at terrorism directed against Americans, the U.S. also shares information with other nations whose citizens are at risk.

The program describes the three PKK members as follows: “Karayılan, Bayık and Kalkan are senior leaders of the PKK. The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), also known as Kongra-Gel is a regionally active terrorist organization and a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).” It goes on to list some of the deadly attacks of the PKK over the past three years that killed 1200 people: “The PKK has targeted Turkish government officials, police and security forces and indiscriminately injured and killed civilians. In 2015 and 2016, the PKK expanded attacks across Turkey, metropolitan centers, and tourist destinations on Turkey’s Aegean and Mediterranean coast. In August 2016, the group claimed a car bomb attack against Sirnak police headquarters, killing 11 and wounding more than 70. In June 2017, the PKK attacked a military convoy in southeastern Turkey, killing over 20 soldiers. Since 2015, the group has been responsible for the deaths of over 1,200 Turkish security officials and civilians.”

Since the program primarily targets the terrorists posing a direct threat to the U.S., the reward announcement for the three PKK militants is justified as follows: “In 1993 the PKK kidnapped 19 Western tourists including an American and in 1995 two Americans were injured in a PKK bombing.” The methods the PKK uses are also explicated: “PKK uses its network and criminal activities across Europe to obtain weapons and materials. The PKK has used suicide bombers, vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), and other indiscriminate terror tactics. The PKK also recruits and indoctrinates youths, sometimes by abduction, and employs them as militants.”

It is no secret that the life expectancy of someone in the PKK is no longer than 7 or 8 years after joining the terrorist organization.

However, the criminal careers of these three PKK operatives and the PKK’s relations with the U.S., Russia, and various European countries are no secret, as it is already known that these countries overtly or covertly provide support to the PKK. The PKK’s relations in the Middle East and the fact that it forcibly recruits children in its guerrilla forces beginning from 12-years-old are also known. The terror group gives a “commander” title to 15-year-olds and makes them organize suicide attacks. It is also no secret that the life expectancy of someone in the PKK is around 7-8 years after entering the organization. Plus, the PKK engages in drug and arms trafficking and might be responsible for the murder of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, which has remained unsolved up to now.

Forcibly recruiting children in its guerrilla forces beginning from 12-years-old and giving a “commander” title to 15-year-olds as well as pushing them commit suicide attacks are among well know practices of the PKK.

Who murdered Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister?

When the PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was tried following his extradition to Turkey by the U.S. in 1999, he confessed all these to a great extent during his plea. For instance, upon the chief judge’s question whether the article that urged killing Olof Palme published in the PKK’s media outlets affected his murder, Ocalan answered: “No. Huseyin Yıldırım is the one writing these articles. He is responsible for the foreign affairs of the organization. In his article, he threatens Olof Palme and says that he will see what would happen to him. I have received information that Palme was killed by PKK Rejini, which generally operates in Europe.”

Moreover, when Ocalan was asked about the PKK’s involvement in drug or arms trafficking, he said: “Arms trafficking was a vital need for our organization. I directed and approved it. But I am against drug trafficking, I urged [the militants] to racketeer those engaging in this. […] But despite my objections, some incidents happened out of my control. It is very hard for me to control every segment of the organization.”

The PKK does not deny its suicide attacks, mass murders, and involvement in arms and drug trafficking. They try to justify their criminal activities on the pretext that they are all done as part of their fight for freedom, democracy, humanity etc. Yet, reminiscent of the times when the U.S. extradited the PKK leader, the reward offered for the three senior PKK members seems to have caused a great surprise and indignation within the organization. However, they objected to only one item in the list of the PKK’s criminal activities. An article in the PKK’s newspaper “Yeni Özgür Politika,” which is published in Germany and circulates across Europe, reads: “Some 25 or 30 years ago, several tourists were kidnapped in violent conditions of warfare. But were they taken hostages; was any ransom asked for; or were they subjected to any kind of ill treatment?” I suppose this means to ask how come the U.S. gave up on backing the PKK.

The last season of the much-acclaimed House of Cards features the story of the first woman American president Claire Underwood (Hale). The storyline is quite a bit of a commentary on the current debates in U.S. politics, women’s participation in politics, relations with Russia, impeachment of a president or even a Supreme Court judge among others. In the first two years of Trump’s presidency, many controversies have dominated the political debate but the president has not been seriously threatened despite much political ruckus. With Democrats in the House majority now, more political turmoil awaits the U.S. public as a number of investigations may be conducted in the coming months. Not to mention the Mueller probe that may have fatal consequences for President Trump. The midterms created a split in Congress, which promises major political showdowns between the President and House Democrats. As further infighting appears to be on the horizon, Trump may turn to foreign policy to project an image of strength despite his domestically inclined America first agenda.

Democrats will have to play their “cards” carefully as they will not want to be seen as “obstructionists” who are only interested in going after President Trump personally instead of serving the interests of the American people. The Democratic Party leadership has signaled that they want irrefutable evidence out of the Mueller probe and broad Republican support before considering impeachment. No matter what comes out of the Mueller probe, however, it will come down to a political decision and a judgment call by Democrats. Given the high likelihood that President Trump will continue to enjoy strong support by Republicans, Democrats dead set on impeachment will probably be disappointed. However, this does not mean that the administration will not face serious pressure from Congress in all fronts, both in terms of congressional investigations and public policy.

Trump’s removal of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his replacement of Matthew Whitaker instead of Rod Rosenstein is instructive as the president wants the Mueller investigation to be neutralized, denying ammunition to the House Democrats. Democrats have been threatening to investigate Sessions’ replacement with Whitaker but it is not clear if they can prevent him from overseeing the Mueller probe in a way aligned with his public statements against the investigation. Clearly, this investigation has the potential to determine the relationship between the president and the House Democrats in the next two years. In all likelihood, the drawn-out process will make legislation extremely difficult, if not impossible. In that case, Trump may simply turn to foreign policy to win points in the eyes of the American public heading to the 2020 presidential election.

One obvious place will be the Middle East, particularly Iran. The administration already pulled out of the JCPOA and snapped back sanctions, issuing 6-month waivers to 8 countries including Turkey. Squeezing Iran and bringing them to the table on the administration’s terms seems to be the ultimate goal here, as is clear from the Secretary of State Pompeo’s article in Foreign Affairs. Iran will likely wait to see the results of the 2020 elections before committing to negotiations despite the harsh sanctions. In that case, Trump may try to exert more pressure on Iran with additional sanctions, perhaps refusing to extend further waivers to countries trading with Iran. Pushing against pro-Iranian forces in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen is another strategy the administration could pursue but so far Trump has not devised a comprehensive regional strategy against Iran. House Democrats have promised to investigate Trump’s relationship with the Saudis as well, which may limit his ability to increase pressure against Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Another foreign policy issue candidate to display strength and whip up domestic support would be North Korea. However, President Trump’s rhetoric on this one reached such heights in the past that a repeat of it would come dangerously close to war. Both Iran and North Korea issues carry the risk of escalation and miscalculations but Trump’s deeply anti-war agenda was part of how he won the presidency in the first place. If he comes too close to or engages in yet another war, he will lose domestic support even from his constituency. So far, President Trump has been able to shape or at least change the public debate whenever he wanted to a large extent. As he might seek to bolster his image abroad, the alliances and institutions he has attacked so far may not be there to help him. In that case, the unilateral action may be his only choice. The U.S. presidents have leaned on foreign policy issues when they felt trapped at home but that can have costly consequences at home as well.

President Trump has enjoyed Republican support in both houses of Congress until now, succeeding in cutting taxes, deregulation and Supreme Court appointments among others. In the next two years, he will be faced with a House intent on preventing his agenda and investigating his administration. As major legislation will be close to impossible to pass through Congress, he may choose to play his foreign policy card in the lead up to 2020. It is not clear if it will be enough, however, and he will have to play his hand just as well as the House Democrats.

Since the beginning of this month, the U.S. has taken many positive steps toward Turkey. The first was the joint patrols with Turkey in Manbij. The U.S. also declared that Turkey would be exempt from the sanctions on Iran. The U.S., on the very same day, also lifted the sanctions against Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul and Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu with regard to the ban on their entry to the U.S. and their possible financial affairs in the U.S. Turkey quickly responded in the same way by removing its own sanctions against the counterparts in the U.S.

A new one was added to these steps last Tuesday. On November 6, the State Department listed the PKK’s three top executives in its ‘reward for justice ’program. ‘Reward for Justice’ is a reward program developed by the U.S. Department of State for counter-terrorism. The program lists the names and information of the most wanted terrorists and promises a reward if information provided is useful for the capture of these persons. The list includes 11 categories covering rewards ranging from 250 thousand dollars up to 25 million dollars. The names of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and Daesh leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are on the top of the list. The PKK leaders included in the list are Murat Karayilan ($5 million), Cemil Bayik ($4 million) and Duran Kalkan ($3 million). Three other familiar names are also in the list but none of them are new in the list. Musa Asoglu, Seher Demir Sen, Zerrin Sari, all from the revolutionary socialist DHKP-C organization, had already been in the category of 3 million dollars before last Tuesday.

Along with Murat Karayilan, Cemil Bayik, and Duran Kalkan, there are three other familiar names in the list of ‘Reward for Justice’ who are Musa Asoglu, Seher Demir Sen and Zerrin Sari, all from the revolutionary socialist DHKP-C organization.

One major aspect of this matter is about the significance of these positive steps, if they really are. Frankly speaking, there is not much going on here no matter how many steps the U.S. took toward Turkey. To start with, Turkey’s exemption from the Iran sanctions is not only for Turkey but also for seven other Asian countries, and is only temporary. And the main motive in this exemption is not about giving Turkey a relief but about controlling global oil prices. The removal of sanctions against two Turkish ministers is also no big deal. There was no real harm anyway, it was a sanction only on paper. The joint patrols in Manbij is good news but it came too late, much later than expected. Further, Turkey is still expecting the promises to be kept in its entirety, such as the removal of the PYD units from the city of Manbij.

The US bounty on the PKK’s top leadership is one thing. But Turkey-U.S. relations have much deeper issues to resolve ranging from the Halkbank Case to the ongoing American hospitality to coup plotter Fetullah Gulen and to the American support for the PYD.

If we go back to the bounty issue for the PKK’s top leadership, that’s another good sign, but just a sign, nothing more. It’s not as if the U.S. captured these three people and handed them to Turkey. It is still a mystery to many in Turkey whether the U.S. will use the expected information in favor of Turkey or not. Relations between Turkey and the U.S. have much deeper issues to resolve ranging from the famous Halkbank Case to the ongoing American hospitality to coup plotter Fetullah Gulen.

And perhaps at the deepest level, there lies the American support and shield for the PYD. Unless the U.S. shows a sign, a genuine sign, that it understands and respects Turkey’s concerns on these matters, other steps taken will be nothing more than noise. This should not be understood in the way that all these steps mean nothing for Turkey. They mean a lot if this is the first stage of a new path. But it does not really mean much, if at all, if this is the entire package.

The Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal signed between Iran and the P5+ countries last May, as well as its simultaneous announcement that it will be re-imposing sanctions in two stages in August and November, has carried tensions stemming from Tehran’s nuclear activities back to the top of the international agenda. While there are some technical details regarding the nuclear deal among Trump’s objections, “normalization requirements” announced later by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo show that the U.S. actually intends to achieve a new and extensive deal regarding all of Iran’s regional policies.

Trump is a “deal breaker.” The Trump administration has withdrawn from old agreements not only with countries traditionally regarded as rivals, such as China and Russia, but also with countries such as Germany and Canada, long-time close allies of the U.S.

The fact that on the global stage the Trump administration has withdrawn from old agreements and abolished old practices not only with countries traditionally regarded as rivals, such as China and Russia, but also with countries such as Germany and Canada, which the U.S. previously had maintained very close political relations with, illustrates the fact that Trump’s “deal breaker” attitude and tendencies to make attempts towards “changing the rules of the game” are not exclusive to the Iran nuclear deal. Moreover, according to many observers, these “rules of the new era” are not simply due to Trump. The state apparatus in the U.S. as a whole wants to shape the grounds on which a global system that will last until the second half of the 21st century will be built before it is too late.

Trump Administration’s actions and their consequences

An important portion of the sanctions Trump described as “toughest ever” were imposed in August and concern topics such as oil trade, insurance processes, and the use of sea ports. The more severe sanctions had been left to November to give any third-party countries with important trade relations with Iran time to adapt. The fact that the sanctions will be imposed on the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Iran Hostage Crisis, where supporters of the Iranian Revolution took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, reminds us of the saying “actions have their consequences.”

With the warning that sanctions will take place in November, countries such as South Korea, Japan, and France stopped importing oil from Iran by September and even countries opposed to single-sided sanctions on principle, such as India and Turkey, have significantly reduced the volume of their trade with Iran. As the severe sanctions take effect it is seen as a certainty that Iran’s oil exports will fall from their level of 2.5 million barrels per day in May to below 1 million barrels. Due to this reason, the Iranian Rial has lost 65% of its value versus the dollar in a few months with labor strikes and other forms of protest already becoming commonplace in the country.

As the severe sanctions take effect, Iran’s oil exports will fall from their level of 2.5 million barrels per day in May to below 1 million barrels. Considering that the Iranian Rial has already lost 65% of its value versus the dollar in a few months, a serious economic breakdown is not unlikely.

Iran does not have many options to resist against the policy of severe economic sanctions the Trump administration has inherited from the Obama administration and continued in a harsher manner. Even though many countries support Iran politically on this matter, with some EU members even trying to build alternative payment methods to bypass threats of sanction violation penalties from the U.S., it will not be easy for any such action and measure to help Iran access the global financial system.

Especially considering U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton’s announcement that if the sanctions of November do not have the expected effect unspecified measures may be employed, means that the Trump administration wants to resolve the Iranian matter as quickly as possible. Thus, Iran – as the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Zarif has expressed – keeps employing backdoor diplomacy channels in the hope of reaching to a point of agreement with the U.S., despite its persistent tough public stance. On the other hand, the Rouhani government has been implementing monetary transparency laws and measures such as FATF despite the internal opposition to render the excuses of the U.S. ineffective.

Iran sanctions and regional policies

Moreover, the heavy economic sanctions aiming to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero are not the only tool that can put pressure on Iran. On September 22, an Iranian military parade held in the city of Ahvaz, which has an Arab majority and is rich in petrol reserves, was attacked and two different organizations claimed responsibility for the attack. Prior to this event, there were heavy clashes along the Iraqi border between separatist Kurdish organizations and Iranian security forces.

The fact that influential people close to the Trump administration are often actively participating in meetings of organizations such as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran shows that the siege on Iran may continue via different manners. Similarly, we must take note of the proliferation of organizations opposed to the Iranian regime founded abroad as well as international news stations being broadcast in Persian and aimed at the Iranian public, along with the efforts to make Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last Shah of Iran, a more prominent public figure.

It can be seen that the U.S., while officially telling Iran that it has no plans of regime change, intends to signal that it has a limit to its patience and in case that Tehran does not comply with an important portion of the demands put forward then regime change will not be off the table. Hassan Rouhani pointed out this fact in a speech held on October 13, the beginning of the academic year, at Tehran University, and stated that the ultimate goal of the U.S. in Iran is regime change and it will not succeed in this goal.

It will not be wrong to claim that in terms of regional policies some of the U.S.’ regional allies have found courage due to the Trump administration’s policies. Especially Saudi Arabia and Israel seem to want to resolve the Iranian threat for good during Trump’s tenure. It also seems possible that Trump, just like with the NAFTA deal that he previously called “very bad” and then renewed, might be open to sign a new agreement that does not entirely exclude Iran from the regional equation with the intention to use it during the U.S. elections. So, not disregarding the possibility that the KSA-Israel-UAE triangle may cause provocations with the hopes of escalating military tensions between Iran and the U.S., the Tehran administration refrains from making any moves that may cause unrest in the region in practice despite its high-pitched threats.

This is why despite Tehran’s threats after the Ahvaz attack, it did not take any action against Saudi Arabia or the UAE, and in contrast to its response to the evacuation of Aleppo in 2016, it did not object to the agreement between Turkey and Russia regarding Idlib and stated that it will respect the agreement despite not being part of it. Similarly, in its meetings with European countries, Iran signals that it is ready to stop the conflict in Yemen and use its influence on Houthis in case a mechanism that will ease the pressure of sanctions and allow the continuation of international trade is put into place.

Again, Iran’s support for the creation of the Iraqi government with names that are more in line with the U.S. and the West rather than names under its control such as Maliki and Amiri is another important point. All these moves indicate that Iran intends to ease regional tensions in the short term and focus on the ongoing economic crisis in the country.

Iran’s intentions to ease regional tensions and get along with its neighbors will reflect positively on Ankara-Tehran relations despite being due to external pressure.

Iran’s intentions to ease regional tensions and get along with its neighbors will reflect positively on Ankara-Tehran relations despite being due to external pressure. Especially the reduction of disputes regarding Iraq and Syria, as well as a potential economic role Ankara might play in a time when economic sanctions weigh heavy on Tehran, along with the rising price of maintaining a relationship of cooperation with Saudi Arabia, which has proved itself as an unpredictable actor first due to its blockade on Qatar and later an even bigger scandal despite Turkey’s patient show of good will, will lead to a relative improvement in Turkey-Iran relations even though relations have historically been constrained to a narrow trend with little change.

Negative scenarios regarding Iran sanctions

Possible consequences of the sanctions imposed are not all positive scenarios for regional politics. If private talks between the U.S. and Iran do not yield any results and the hopes of a political resolution are ditched and/or European countries, in the announcement they are expected to make in the following days regarding the new financial mechanism, fail to satisfy Tehran’s expectations, tension in the region can continue to rise. In this case, as discussed above, the countries that constitute the regional leg of Trump’s strategy regarding Tehran can make unexpected moves to provoke Iran.

The possibility that Tehran might give up hope of a political resolution for reasons such as the crippling economy due to sanctions, increasing pressure from regional rivals and internal opposition provoking street protests, may cause U.S.-Iran tensions to rise to their highest level of the last 40 years.

Tensions with Iran can be directly caused by the U.S. intervention. For example, the military operation the U.S. is expected to conduct against Al-Hashd Al-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilization Units – PMU) in Iraq, which was postponed due to Iraq being in the process of forming a government can begin. Israel, which claims that Iran has begun to move missiles to Iraq like Syria, can conduct direct operations against Tehran’s proxies in Iraq like it does in Syria. This situation can result in a severe and bloody period in Iraq similar to that of 2005-2007. In this case, Iran and its allies can take concrete action against U.S. troops stationed on the east of Euphrates, which is an issue Iran has been extremely vocal about.

The possibility that Tehran might give up hope of a political resolution for reasons such as the crippling economy due to sanctions, increasing pressure from regional rivals and internal opposition provoking street protests, may cause U.S.-Iran tensions to rise to their highest level of the last 40 years, and this situation would have severe consequences for the entire region, including Turkey.

Turkey and the U.S. started joint patrols in the northern Syrian city of Manbij on Thursday, November 1 based on a long waited deal between the two countries. Since the days of Turkey’s Euphrates Shield Operation (Aug 24, 2016 – Mar 29, 2017) in the Jarabslus-Al Bab-Mare triangle, Turkey had been waiting for a role in the future of Manbij. Turkey cleaned this area from Daesh forces with the operation but did not enter Manbij. This decision was taken as a response to the guarantees Turkey received from the U.S. regarding the future of the city, which included that the PYD would not rule the city, and further, withdraw its forces out of the city. The deal was brokered between Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on June 4 but was delayed by the U.S. side until this moment. Despite this delay, the two countries finally came to the next stage of carrying out joint patrols on top of two other significant developments in bilateral relations.

First, based on Pompeo’s remarks, Turkey will be granted a waiver from the U.S. oil sanctions against Iran, which is essential as Iran is a major energy source for Turkey. The news came out on Friday, just three days before the second phase of sanctions were set to go into effect on November 5. The second big news also came out on the very same day as the U.S Treasury Department stated that the blacklisting of two Turkish ministers, Abdulhamit Gul and Suleyman Soylu, had been lifted. Turkey corresponded in the same way by lifting its own bans towards the American counterparts. The bans were placed initially by the U.S. to put pressure on Turkey over the Brunson affair. The softening also followed the release of Andrew Brunson.

All the three developments (joint patrols in Manbij, waiver from the Iran sanctions, and mutual removal of bans over ministers) are good news for the future of the troubled relations between the two countries. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of reasons to worry about the future of relations between Turkey and the U.S. First, Turkey still perceives a great deal of threat originating from U.S. actions. Two such perceptions have quite solid bases as the U.S. still hosts Fetullah Gulen, the criminal cult leader of FETO, which carried out a failed coup attempt on July 15, 2016, in which the organization sent a squad to assassinate President Erdogan, bombed the Turkish parliament, and murdered 250 Turkish citizens. Further, the U.S. still supports the PKK’s Syrian offshoot, the PYD, in Northern Syria. Until these two matters are resolved, relations cannot go back to normal. Given that Turkey is also pressuring the PYD in the east of Euphrates nowadays, Turkey-U.S. relations are still fragile and have not passed the test of time in Syria. These are all the crisis points between the two used-to-be allies.

These crises cost Turkey a lot, not only in terms of the economy as the Turkish Lira lost quite a deal of its value vis-a-vis the USD as the tension rose in the late summer. Turkey’s even bigger cost was its sense of security as the U.S. is still the primary reason why Turkey cannot eliminate FETO and the PYD completely. Despite these, Turkey had one major gain from these crises. Ankara has learnt how to survive, not only without American support, but also despite the American efforts to hurt the country politically and economically. Turkey has learnt how to carry out cross-border military operations in a country where U.S. forces are settled in favor of Turkey’s adversaries.

Turkey has also learnt how to negotiate for its interests rather than prioritizing the possible American reactions. Turkey has learnt how to coordinate its actions with other global powers such as Russia based on mutual respect and understanding. Further, Turkey has learnt how to set a negotiation table where the future of Syria is discussed without the U.S. Perhaps the right way to interpret the recent warming in the bilateral relations is about the American recognition of Turkey as a rational and effective international actor whether the U.S. supports or tries to undermine this effective role. This recognition, if supported with a genuine respect toward Turkey’s security needs, can save the exhausted bilateral relation.

The past week in Turkey’s foreign affairs agenda was quite busy. The disappearance of Washington Post opinion columnist Jamal Khashoggi topped this. After entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, the Saudi journalist mysteriously disappeared. The Turkish authorities showed the footage of his entrance to the consulate but he simply did not come out, at least, in the way he was expected to. The Saudi side claims that Khashoggi left the consular building but they cannot provide evidence because their cameras were not recording that day according to their statement.

The Turkish side on the other hand shows the footage of Khashoggi’s entry as well as a well documented story of a 15-man team of Saudi officers (including special forces and intelligence officers) who flew in Istanbul with two private jets and left hours after, allegedly, after “handling” the Khashoggi case. As the Saudi squad left the consular building, Khashoggi’s fiancée was still waiting for him outside the consulate.

The second matter with respect to Turkey’s foreign affairs agenda came a week after Khashoggi’s disappearance. Andrew Brunson, an American pastor living in Turkey and on trial for alleged espionage with links to the Gulenist terror network, was released by the Turkish court on Friday, 12 October. His arrest for almost 2 years and following house arrest for the following 2 months was a major issue deepening the crisis between Turkey and the U.S. (Here is an earlier assessment of the matter).

The third major event with regard to Turkey’s foreign affairs agenda came out from President Erdogan’s statements regarding a possible incursion into the Northern Syrian city of Manbij. During his speech in Isparta on Friday, 12 October, Erdogan touched upon the recent news on the trenches being dug by the PYD/SDF in Manbij against a possible Turkish offensive. Erdogan gave a clear message in his speech and said that “we will enter there too.”

While an offensive does not seem imminent, it is well-known that Erdogan is pretty straightforward when it comes to Turkish military incursions. We saw similar remarks by Erdogan before Turkey’s offensives in Jarablus and Afrin and also before Turkey’s establishment of observatory posts in Idlib, all in Syria. Turkey’s ground incursion into the PKK-controlled territories in Iraq also came after similar remarks by Erdogan. In all these cases, the President gave the orders after making his warnings in public. Hence, it is natural to question whether we will see new developments in Manbij.

Looking at the three events of the past week, one can see the parameters are about to change in the Saudi Arabia-Syria-U.S. triangle of Turkish foreign politics. The Saudi case is likely to make the already tense relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia even tenser. Turkey has leaked strong evidence against the Saudis on Khashoggi’s disappearance but for now is keeping itself back from a more aggressive strategy against the Saudis. Perhaps the country wants to keep escalation under control and avoids escalating the tension to a no-turn level given that the economic relations with the Saudis still matter.

Or, Turkey may be willing to play the Khashoggi case against the Saudis to the fullest degree but does not rush for it to make the full impact at the right moment. Further, Turkey’s evidences have already hurt the Saudis in a number of ways. A number of U.S. senators have already discussed invoking the Global Magnitsky Act on Saudi Arabia. Further, a long list of global media sponsors have already dropped out of the Saudi conference, The Future Investment Initiative (popularly marketed as Davos in desert). While these are the first tangible effects of the Khashoggi case, the biggest strike was about the well-funded and well-crafted “reformist leader Muhammad Bin Salman” propaganda.

In the eyes of many in the Middle East, Europe, or North America, Saudi Arabia is now nothing more than a brutal tribe-state. It is too hard for Muhammad Bin Salman to fix this damage to his PR campaign. That being said, a real blow can only become possible if Trump turns his back to Bin Salman, which is not likely at the moment.

While Turkey seems to be committed to pressure Saudi Arabia on the unfortunate disappearance and probable murder of Khashoggi, it also has other plans in its Middle East strategy. It seems like Turkey will keep Saudi off the loop in its affairs with the U.S. with regard to Syria. Given the Saudi vulnerability vis-à-vis Turkey (after all, they are accused of murdering a journalist in Turkey in the most brutal, and silly way), Saudis may also not risk a further escalation with Turkey on the question of Syria.

As Turkey released Brunson and hopes a significant improvement in its relations with the U.S. (despite all the other problems between the two), it can also be more demanding with respect to the future of Manbij. While the power game in Syria continues in its fullest sensitivity, the fates of individuals from the tragedy of Khashoggi to the release of Brunson will have reflections in Turkey’s complex and interdependent foreign affairs calculations.

After two years of stormy relations with Turkey, Haider al-Abadi, the former Prime Minister of Iraq, managed to establish workable relations with Turkey. Had he won the election, he would have continued to work with Turkey on several strategically important issues such as the establishment of a second pipeline for oil export from Iraq to Turkey, and joint efforts in order to eradicate the PKK presence in the Qandil mountains. Both countries were also planning to expand the size of commercial trade.

Adel Abdul Mahdi has been chosen as Iraq’s new prime minister-designate, and Barham Salih as the new president. Now, Turkey needs to be prepared for a post-Abadi era. This piece is about the intensified rivalry taking place between pro-Iranian and pro-American Iraqi political groups, which both seek to form a government, and reflect on how the probable result of this rivalry will affect Turkey-Iraq relations.

U.S. and Iran scramble for the cake

All these depend on the larger scene: What will be Trump’s forthcoming strategy to contain Iran’s expansionist policy in the Middle East? If Trump’s policy is to make Iraq the theater for the first attempt to restrain Iran, as some policy analysts have suggested, then confrontation will be more probable. It is clear that the U.S. and Russia have reached a tacit agreement, agreeing that Syria is in the interest of Russia, and thus leaving the job of containing Iran’s influence in the country to both Tel Aviv and Moscow.

During the last two months, both Brett McGurk, the U.S. Special Envoy on War against Daesh, and Qasim Soleimani, the commander of the Quds revolutionary guard and the person in charge of Iraq’s file, made numerous visits to Baghdad and Erbil to rally support for the groups that they have influence on in order to form the “biggest election bloc” – the largest political alliance in parliament. The U.S. supports the bloc of al-Islah (Reform) headed by Abadi, and Iran favors the bloc of al-Bina (Reconstruction) founded by Nouri-al Maliki. The later has an edge and it has managed to elect Mohammed Halbusi, who is a pro-Iranian Sunni leader, as speaker of Parliament.

Why did Abadi lose his bid for power?

Towards the end of September, many of Abadi’s allies began to desert his camp, and this seriously weakened his chance to be re-elected. Abadi proved too tactless and has been alienated by many in his own camp. On the other hand, al-Maliki has exhibited considerable diplomatic skills and made compromises with both the Sunni Arabs and Kurds. According to unconfirmed reports, he conceded to the Kurds and the right of the Kurdish peshmerga to return to the disputed territories. Abadi has apparently refused to do what forced Masoud Barzani to side with al-Maliki.

In addition, al-Maliki has made deals with Sunni leaders to withdraw popular mobilization forces (Hashd al-Shaabi) from their cities. This irritated Abadi who considered these actions as illegal and being done without his prior knowledge – behind his back. Consequently, he sacked Falih Fayyad, his National Security Advisor, whom he accused of betrayal and inefficiency. The loss of Fayyad, a prominent Dawa leader and the son of a powerful Shiite tribal leader, accompanied by the use of excessive force against demonstrators in Basra, put Abadi’s statesmanship into serious question.

It was probably this state of affairs that convinced Muqtada Sadr, the powerful cleric and leader of the winning Sairoon bloc, to desert Abadi and reconcile with Hadi Ameri, the head of the powerful Badr militia. More, Abadi’s hasty and not so well-calculated statement to implement U.S. sanctions against Iran, has delivered a serious blow to his ability to present himself as a leader of Iraq. A statement in the pro-government daily Erem in Tehran on August 16, 2018, described Abadi as a “governor of Iraq who has been appointed by an Iranian general and who will face the same fate as Saddam.”

However, the final blow to Abad’s bid for a second term came with the statement of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in the country, banning those who have been in office before to take the post again.

Turkey’s stand in Iraqi politics

Turkey should take the existing tension between Iran and the U.S. into consideration as it will not diminish and may even end in direct confrontation in Abdul Mehdi’s era. Turkey should also be prepared for a possible inter-Shiite military confrontation in a proxy war. The burning of the Iranian consulate in Basra, and subsequent unknown missile launches on U.S. interests again in Basra and the Green zone in Baghdad, are clear indications that the U.S.-Iranian confrontation in Iraq has entered an alarming stage.

The Iraqi government accused ex-Baathist elements as being behind the events in Basra, and pro-Iranian groups in Iraq attributed the events to the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region. It can be argued that the events were in general spontaneous and triggered by Iran’s decision to cut off power to Basra due to the economic crisis in Iran. The people in Basra have repeatedly taken to the streets in recent weeks to protest against the lack of government services, and water contamination that left thousands in hospitals.

Besides, both Soleimani and Ameri have already threatened to attack U.S. interests in Iraq if they were excluded from forming a government. Qais Al-Khazali, the leader of the powerful Asaeb al-Haq militia, made similar threats.

In case of a diplomatic rupture between Iraq and Turkey, Turkey’s national interest and security might be jeopardized. First of all, the PKK can avail itself from the chaos by extending its influence on the KRG. There is a boiling situation in the unsettled province of Kirkuk. The rapture may cause a clash there and the Turkmen may suffer in consequence. Besides, Turkey’s 11 billion worth of trade with Iraq can be seriously affected. Therefore, Turkey needs to develop and put in place contingent plans for such eventuality. Thus, Ankara cannot afford to be a bystander as things take a confrontational posture in the relations between Iran and the U.S. in Iraq.

Since the new prime minister is, to a large extent, a man of compromise between the U.S. and Iran, if he manages to form the government he will most probably try to pursue Abadi’s foreign policy objectives. Although he has stated that he wants a full mandate to form the government, he cannot afford to ignore Muqtada Sadr’s (his main patron) pressure with regard to further distancing Iraq from both Iran and the U.S.

Aware of his close ties with the Kurdish leadership in Iraq, he will probably try to open up to the KRG and come to close terms with them in regards to the sale of oil through the existing oil pipeline in the KRG. This means that he will try to please Barzani and most probably ignore or postpone the second pipeline that Abadi and the Turkish government agreed upon – an agreement to the displeasure of KRG leaders.

Being an economist and supporter of the market economy, Abdul Mehdi will try to expand commercial ties with Turkey and will try to avoid any political tension with Ankara. However, his foreign policy towards Turkey will not be free from Iranian and the U.S. influence. Abdul Mehdi’s anticipated foreign policy will in general be a continuation of the Abadi era, and Turkey-Iraq ties will continue on its current course of commercial growth and normalization.

In a bid to pressure a close ally over rising oil prices, US President Donald Trump cautioned Saudi Arabia hinting that it would be improbable for Saudi Arabia to endure two weeks without military support from the Trump Administration.

President Trump was quoted: “We protect Saudi Arabia. Would you say they’re rich? And I love the king, King Salman. But I said, ‘King, we’re protecting you. You might not be there for two weeks without us. You have to pay for your military. You have to pay.”

While the president didn’t indicate the timing of his remarks and the White House indicated that the call focused on “issues of regional concern”, it is highly possible that they were made during his call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud over the weekend.

SPA, Saudi Press Agency, run by the state indicated that the two leaders discussed “efforts to maintain supplies to ensure the stability of the oil market and ensure the growth of the global economy.”

Trump has been making remarks akin to these about other close allies such as Germany, Japan and South Korea to shoulder more of the responsibility by taking “more of the financial burden of their defense.” These statements have alerted many international observers and concerned other US allies like the pro-Israel lobby over the reliability of the commitment and support of US towards its allies.

Trump’s confrontational statements about a country US deems a close ally were made during a campaign rally on Tuesday in Mississippi which drew a standing ovation from his supporters.

Crude oil prices have rocketed to a four-year high and in retaliation Trump is pressuring OPEC to lower the costs which has peaked to over $80 per barrel for Brent in the last month. Saudi Arabia, the world’s top oil exporter and the de facto leader of OPEC, plays a critical role in the oil cartel.

“OPEC nations are, as usual, ripping off the rest of the world and I don’t like it,” President Trump said, angered. “Nobody should like it. We defend many of these nations for nothing, and then they take advantage of us by giving us high oil prices. Not good. We want them to stop raising prices. We want them to start lowering prices and they must contribute substantially to military protection from now on.”

While it is too early to tell whether this spat will snowball into a major crisis, King Salman’s silence on the matter is keeping the fog in the air.

There has been a lot of debate about the current U.S. unwillingness to lead the liberal international order it created after World War II. The Obama administration already displayed signs of war weariness, which often translated into no action in conflicts like Syria. On issues that he cared about the most, the Iran nuclear issue and climate change, President Obama worked hard to build international consensus through multilateral institutions in the international system. However, the U.S. was already hesitant to provide leadership on a whole host of issues, particularly in matters of war and peace.

Having run on the theme of “America First,” the Trump administration has transformed this hesitation to what many would call hostility against internationalism and the global institutions themselves. From NATO to NAFTA, military and economic multilateral institutions and agreements have been targeted by President Trump. Traditional allies have been threatened with tariffs and economic pressure unless they agree to deals that would no longer “take advantage” of the U.S. It would be misleading to label this attitude isolationism per se. The Trump administration has been insisting that these international institutions and agreements be made to serve U.S. interests even if it is at the expense of international liberal order.

Just as we saw in the case of the Obama administration’s reluctance to lead, we are now witnessing the Trump administration’s resentment against the international system and that the U.S. is reconsidering its global role. Clearly, both administrations provided no comprehensive answers to the leadership question and both of their approaches have been subject to heavy contestation from both the left and the right domestically. Furthermore, more often than not, the Trump administration’s admonishment of the international system has subsided with rather superficial adjustments (NATO members’ promise to increase their national defense budget to 2%) or renegotiated trade deals (U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement instead of NAFTA). The lesson here is that neither the Obama nor Trump administration has addressed the global leadership question in a comprehensive manner.

The message to the world has been that the U.S. has been rethinking its global role in a rather confused and haphazard manner. At times, the somewhat ideological assertion of national sovereignty seems to take priority whereas, at other times, satisfying some domestic constituency seems to suffice. The response of both the allies (the EU and others) as well as potential rivals (China) have been an interesting one. Nobody seems willing to sit and wait for the U.S. to “come to its senses.”

Allies are thinking of ways to live without the U.S. leadership, recognizing that they may even have to confront the U.S. along the way. The rebuff President Trump received from the UN Security Council a special session on Iran, which was instructive in this sense. Potential competitors like China, on the other hand, are working hard to minimize the economic impact of the impending trade wars by strengthening their regional relationships. In many ways, the world is not waiting for the U.S.

Turkey, as a traditional ally, has had to adjust to the regional realities with minimal or no serious U.S. leadership on a variety of issues including the Syrian crisis. In order to protect its national security and economic interests in the region by minimizing the detrimental impact of the Syrian conflict, Turkey has worked with Russia and Iran on the diplomatic and strategic fronts, the EU on the humanitarian front, and the U.S. on the political front.

The days of alignment with a clearly identified bloc of nations are long gone. Creating a strategy based on the realities on the ground and one that accommodates some of the priorities of the regional powers has become a routine part of policymaking. The most recent rapprochement with Germany can be given as an example of an effort to “bring Europe in” in the absence of robust U.S. leadership.

In the years ahead, if it decides to return, U.S. global leadership will find itself in an environment that has fundamentally changed. The emergence of regional cooperation mechanisms and mini-alliances based on a variety of issues will create realities that will not be easy to replace.

Providing a global framework for action will be ever more difficult since many countries, both allies and rivals, will have pivoted away on a whole host of strategic and economic issues. The U.S. will continue to enjoy great capacity to shape world events, alliances and institutions for the foreseeable future but it will find it increasingly challenging to lead given the legacy of these intervening years with minimal serious U.S. role.

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi made his fifth appearance at the United Nations General Assembly. He has become the first Egyptian president to participate in the UN General Assembly for five consecutive years. In his speech he made during the General Assembly, Sisi focused on the changes in the Arab world and the human rights issues.

Despite Egypt’s well-known record on human rights infringements, Sisi absurdly stated, “Egypt has a solid constitutional foundation for the protection of human rights.” The fact that an individual who toppled a democratically elected President through a military coup and who has an extensive record on human rights abuses was lecturing about human rights at the UNGA was shocking for many. This was an additional insult for the many Egyptians who have and who still currently suffer from the Sisi state’s repression.

Despite his autocratic rule, Sisi has been regarded as a legitimate political leader. Western actors, who have supported Sisi without bringing any criticism to his human rights violations, can be blamed for the suffering of the Egyptian people at the hands of a brutal regime. Countries such as the U.K, U.S., Germany, France, and Italy have behaved as if a military coup never took place in Egypt, as if thousands of civilians were not taken into prison for years and as if opposition activists have not suddenly disappeared. This attitude has been a major factor that has encouraged Sisi to turning into a more authoritarian regime. In opposition to this, Turkey has been the only democratic government that has criticized the Sisi regime on every occasion.

The meetings Sisi conducted during the UNGA also attract attention. One of these meetings was with U.S. President Donald Trump. Since the start of Trump’s presidency in January 2017, this has been the fifth meeting between the two. The frequency of bilateral meetings also reflect the sign of strong cooperation between the two governments. This is also understood from the statements made by Trump during the meetings. While praising Sisi’s efforts in combating terrorism and instability in Egypt, Trump labelled his relations with Sisi as the “strongest” ever in the history of relations between the U.S. and Egypt. Trump also added that he would continue to work with Sisi on different fields such as military, trade, and fight against terrorism.

Trump has attributed special importance to Sisi for two main reasons. The first is that Egypt plays a major role in Israel’s security, and second, Egypt has a vital place in the Middle East policies of the U.S. These two issues are in essence closely related to each other. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Washington’s main objective in the Middle East is to ensure the security of Israel. Trump’s close relations with Egypt can be considered in the light of this dynamic. With a regional alliance centered on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Trump aims to control the leading countries of the Arab world, thus preventing possible threats to Israel.

Sisi’s second note-worthy meeting was with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During this two-hour meeting, the two leaders exchanged views on recent developments in Palestine and exchanged views on Middle East politics. This was the third meeting held between the two leaders since September 2017. Sisi and Netanyahu held their first public meeting at the UN General Assembly last year.

In May 2018, Netanyahu organized a secret trip to Egypt, where he met with Sisi as part of the ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. Netanyahu’s visit to Cairo took place after the U.S. moved its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During the days of the visit, Israeli police were busy attacking Palestinian protesters who opposed Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy. It is also important to note that Sisi was in total silence in the face of the Palestinians that were killed during the clashes with Israeli police forces.

Sisi’s frequent meetings with Trump and Netanyahu reveal that Egypt is under the full control of the U.S. and Israel, particularly with regards to their policies in the Middle East. It is fair to argue that the Egyptian regime does not represent the will and consent of the public but that it functions under the guidance of Washington and Tel-Aviv. This is not a new phenomenon. This began with the rule of Hosni Mubarak and continued for three decades until the revolution of 2011. The Morsi period was in contrast with this political landscape, as the Morsi government tried to follow an independent foreign policy in line with the direction of Egypt’s public opinion. However, this period was short-lived and the military coup on July 3, 2013, paved the way for Egypt to re-enter into U.S. and Israeli guidance.

President Trump was quoted as claiming: “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade,” while chairing a UN Security Council session. “We don’t want them to meddle or interfere in our upcoming election” he said.

After having waged several trade wars spanning the globe with several skirmishes including China, Canada, Iran, Mexico, the EU & Turkey several of which were devised to score points at home and play into his voter’s expectations -such as fulfilling the demands of his evangelist supporters who were influential in the tariffs imposed to Turkey over Pastor Brunson’s detainment in Turkey- Trump hasn’t been able to loot what he was expecting locally but instead his ill-advised decisions are taking a toll on US economy.

Trump had started a trade war with China in 2017 over a trade deficit with Beijing which was $375.6 Bn at the time where he blamed China with gearing its reciprocal tariffs to target a crucial artery of his voter base, farmers. The newest impact is expected to strike at the start of next week as the new 10 percent tariffs imposed on over $200 billion of imports from China are scheduled to go into effect.

Several surveys indicate that US consumers are becoming apprehensive regarding the hike in prices across all products which are expected to manifest more clearly this fall. Walmart and other leading retailers warn of price increases for manufactured goods in all categories. Many smaller businesses have started to voice their concerns over impending massive blows to their exports.

China has retaliated firmly rejecting the claim in remarks to the Security Council. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi said “We do not and will not interfere in any countries’ domestic affairs. We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China, and we call upon other countries to also observe the purposes of the UN charter and not to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.”

While the potential of China interfering in US midterms haunts Trump, it also sheds a different light, right from the source, to claims over Russian meddling of presidential elections in 2016. Will two close allies, Russia & China puppeteer the President of the country deemed as the de facto single superpower, into and out of office?

Some regional and global actors have recently targeted Iran. The United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the leading countries that see Iran as a major threat to stability in the Middle East. This tripartite coalition has recently increased their dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime. There are a number of signs as to how these three countries have intensified their criticism in a synchronized manner against Iran over the last few months. In order to observe the traces of this initiative more clearly, it is necessary to mention some recent developments.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are regarded as two major actors who are in constant competition in the Middle East. The tensions have initially arisen due to different interpretations of schools of Islam. While Saudi Arabia embraced a Wahhabi worldview, Iran has traditionally been a power-base of Shiism. The differences between the two countries deepened with the start of the Arab revolutions in 2011. This situation became especially evident in the Syrian and Yemeni policies. While Iran supported the Assad administration at any cost, Saudi Arabia transferred great amount of weapons and equipment to anti-Assad forces.

The second front of this confrontation was Yemen. While Iranian backed Houthis was quite successful in their campaign for power in the country, Saudi Arabia supported the internationally recognized government of Yemen led by Mansour Hadi. During the past three years, the main aim of Saudi Arabia was to prevent Iranian expansion into Yemen and other countries in the region such as Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. An Iranian influence in Yemen would have direct consequences for Saudi Arabia so the Riyadh administration was very keen on keeping Iran out of Yemen.

Saudi Arabia’s policy towards Iran became tougher with Trump’s election as president of the U.S. With the strong support from the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia increased its tone of its criticism against Tehran. This support became more visible when Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman visited the U.S. for a three-week journey. Iran was at the top of the agenda during the meeting between bin Salman and Trump. Bin Selman supported Trump’s comments in which he stated that the U.S. would withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran. In an interview with the U.S. media, bin Salman threatened the Iranian leadership and made a comparison between Ayatollah Khamenei and Adolf Hitler.

Another country that increased its criticism against Iran is the U.S. This was expected when the new U.S. President Donald Trump came to power in early 2017. Trump announced that he would take a sharper position than Barack Obama on Iran. Following his inauguration, Trump suggested that the U.S. must withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the nuclear deal with Iran was unacceptable. Trump stated that Iran did not fulfill its obligations and that the U.S. has the opportunity to return from the mistake of the Obama administration.

Another factor in the hardening U.S. position against Iran is Israel. Trump also considered Iran as a direct threat to its most strategic ally in the region, Israel. Trump showed their strategic partnership with Israel when he announced that Washington recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He also suggested that the U.S. embassy in the country should be transferred to Jerusalem. The two strategic partners, U.S. President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made two phone calls on the policies to be implemented against Iran in April 2018, while the two leaders emphasized that Tehran would act jointly to end its activities in the region.

One of the most important players of this global alliance against Iran is Israel. Despite its discomfort with Iran’s policies, Israel was cautious about directly engaging with Iran in any conflict area. Israel has conducted its campaign against Iran indirectly. Tel-Aviv has recently intensified its criticism against Iran, particularly since February 2018. Israel’s policy against Iran changed dramatically when an Iranian drone entered Israeli airspace. Following the incident, Israeli forces targeted Iranian-backed bases in Syria. In one of the most recent cases, Israeli planes bombed military bases near Hama and Aleppo and killed 26 Iranian fighters.

As the tension between the two countries increased, the Israeli government held an extraordinary cabinet meeting at least twice, taking the possible scenarios against Iran onto the agenda. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the Munich Security Conference in February, argued that Iran is “the greatest threat to the world.” In a recent press release Netanyahu himself claimed that despite the nuclear deal, Tehran lied to the world and continued to work for obtaining nuclear weapons. Finally, Israel has two strong supporters, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, in its campaign against Iran.

On the Iranian side, Tehran has been increasingly feeling the social and economic effects of the support in Syria and Yemen. Therefore, Iranians are not ready for a confrontation with such an alliance that includes regional and global players. Given that the regional conjuncture is at a time when it has never before been possible, it can be expected that these countries will intensify their policies against Tehran. However, such an action would directly affect regional actors such as Turkey and Russia. Therefore, Ankara and Moscow have the responsibility to work for a calmer solution of the rising tensions between the mentioned parties.

On March 22, 2018, the Chinese embassy in Washington stated, “China would fight to the end to defend its own legitimate interests with all necessary measures. China is not afraid of and will not recoil from a trade war.”

On April 3, 2018, the Trump administration published a list of 1,300 Chinese products exported to the U.S., which will be subject to tariffs worth 50 billion.

It is important to understand what a trade war is. A trade war, by definition of economists, begins when a second round of reciprocal tariff imposes occur.

This second round now signals more powerful. As a retaliation to the U.S., Beijing has announced that it will impose 25% tariffs on 120 U.S. exports, which is worth around 3 billion U.S. dollars. Following this, President Trump once again signaled further tariffs on Chinese goods that will be worth “100” billion U.S. dollars.

The history of trade wars

As the upcoming U.S.-China trade war gets closer, knowing what happened during previous trade wars is important. One of the tariffs that the U.S. imposed in 1930 was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

This Act raised the tariffs on 20,000 imported goods in order to protect U.S. businesses and farmers. Of course, other countries retaliated these tariffs and this Act was believed to have exacerbated the Great Depression. Remember what followed the trade war and great depression… the Second World War.

Another example of this were the Reagan tariffs imposed on Japan in the 1980s. During his presidency, Reagan viewed Japan as a big problem. Once he was elected president, his administration restricted auto imports from Japan and imposed punitive tariffs. Even though Reagan was partly successful, it would be ambitious to compare Japan to China.

Reasons behind US moves

The U.S. has been the economic and political hegemon of world politics since the bipolar world order and was the hegemon power of the West during the Cold War. However, China has increasingly been challenging this hegemony in economics. Thus, one reason behind these tariffs is to protect the U.S. position in global economics, slow down the rise of China and strengthen domestic producers.

Another reason could be China’s behavior. China is growing rapidly by imitating and free-riding the liberal economic world. What President Trump emphasized and targeted are these features of the Chinese economy. More, it is obvious that the Trump administration no longer wants the U.S. to take a so-called “costly role” in world politics and economics.

While what is going on is clear protectionism, it may be a little early to call it a trade war. Though the primary goal is not to pick a trade war, this mutual display of strength raises the fear and possibility of one.

Last week, the rebel-held Douma city in Syria experienced apparent chemical weapon attacks. There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is consistent with the past behaviors of the Syrian regime. This development was not the first in Syria’s history. Since 2013, there have been dozens of chemical attacks carried out by the Syrian government itself. The regime has repeatedly employed chemical weapons towards the areas under opposition control, as documented by international bodies such as the United Nations and other nonpartisan international organizations. Chemical attacks fit within the broader policies of the Syrian regime and were used against civilians in the past. Particularly during the Syrian uprising, chemical attacks were used as part of a broader strategy of the regime in rebel-held areas. Leaving Assad’s chemical brutality against civilian targets aside, what made the attacks possible, among other things, is more important than the chemical attacks themselves. First and foremost, it was the lack of sufficient legal, diplomatic and military deterrence displayed by the international society.

For instance, following the Syrian regime chemical attack against the civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in August 2017, the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were limited to a Syrian base in Homs. Trump’s tactic of military engagement into the Syrian crisis after the chemical attack was part of the U.S.’ global “face-saving” strategy. Actually, the use of chemical weapons was not against Syrian civilians per se, but it was an attempt that undermined the normative nature of the universal values of humanity, which are perceived as an integral part of the western-centric liberal international order. Therefore, with a very limited and single target selection strike, Trump’s first intervention caused no concentrate loss for the Syrian regime. Trump’s first intervention against the Syrian regime also lacked a follow-up strategy to ensure lasting damage.

This time, the reaction of western powers was the same. The use of chemical weapons against civilians was not treated because many civilians were killed by the Syrian regime; rather it was framed as an integral part of the Assad’s “animalism” as expressed in a tweet shared by Trump. The Syrian regime’s use of barrel bombs since the beginning of the Syrian crisis has never been associated with this kind of concept, even though using barrel bombs is also against international humanitarian law. Now the U.S. and the countries which support a strong and joint reaction against the Syrian regime worry about the overall “Syrian strategy.” However, the situation appears very different in Syria in the eyes of the Trump administration, and this time, the president seems to change his policy in general. This is interesting since the president announced the U.S. military withdrawal from Syria last week.

There are two broader objectives of the U.S. in Syria when it comes to expected military interventions. Firstly, the Trump administration wants to effectively deter the use of all chemical weapons in Syria held by the regime. Secondly, without any doubt, the U.S. security establishment seeks to push back on the Russian/Iranian influence in Syria. This objective became a priority following the Russian involvement in the Skripal spy game in the U.K., and the increasing criticism against Putin in the U.S., as well. Trump himself is now against Putin as following the chemical attack he tweeted: “Get ready, Russia, because they (missiles) will be coming.”

To achieve these two broader objectives, the nature of military strikes in eliminating the Syrian regime’s chemical weapon capacity and the Russian/Iranian influence in the country should be evaluated critically. Even though Trump has no coherent strategy in Syria, the type of military intervention may change something on the ground. If Trump chooses the “purely punitive strikes” method to make the international community feel better about the retaliation against the brutality of the Syrian regime, then this will be the recurrence of the last missile strike that caused no considerable strategic costs for Assad. If Trump chooses the “minimum strike” option by targeting more than one place including aircraft bases, ammunition stores and command centers of the regime, then the price will be quite high for Assad, and probably for Russia, as well. However, this option also reserves some risks and opportunities for the U.S.

It is risky because a direct military confrontation with Russia is of high probability. It is an opportunity for the U.S. because the Syrian regime would feel more insecure and lose a good percentage of military capacity. If the president chooses the “extended strike” method this will serve the broader purpose of undermining the regime’s military capabilities. This type of military intervention needs to take the duration variable into consideration, which means that the strikes would continue for more than one day. This option may provide more opportunities for the rebel groups in Syria while generating costs for the Syrian regime. However, the collapse of the Syrian government may also bring more chaos to the entire country at this stage. The second risk of a direct military confrontation with Russia is also valid for this option.

If the objectives of the proposed action cannot be linked to a coherent strategy, Trump’s new Syrian game will not be effective in deterring the Syrian regime’s brutality and in undermining its military capacity. Therefore, it is possible to argue that military action far from the “reality” of the geopolitics of the Syrian crisis would not otherwise matter.

Middle Eastern politics is boiling once again. The rumor is that France will replace U.S. troops in Syria. While there are some signs of this, these are ambiguous at best. U.S. President Trump said in a speech in Ohio that the U.S. will be getting out of Syria “very soon.” On the other side of the Atlantic, French President Macron met with a delegation of the Syrian Democratic Forces (the late brand of the PYD) and declared his support for the organization. Pro-PKK sources even claimed that in the meeting Macron promised to send troops to prevent a further Turkish “aggression” against the SDF. Of course, many questions regarding this replacement scenario remain unanswered. Did Trump really mean what he said? Can he really pull troops out of Syria given CENTCOM’s years-long investment in the PYD/SDF? Can Macron really send troops to Syria? Even if he does, would they be just symbolic forces or can France really take the risk of a military encounter with other forces on the ground, particularly with Russia, given the recently heated relations between Russia and NATO? Hence, such a replacement in the near future is not probable, but possible. Anything is possible in the contingent world of politics anyway. Nevertheless, from Turkey’s point of view, such scenarios are worth attention but no more. Even if it happens, which is still not and may never be on the horizon, it is not a game changer for Turkey.

Regardless of which country arms and protects the PKK’s offshoot in Syria, Turkey seems to be decisive in its struggle to counter the PKK threat beyond its borders. Turkey’s Afrin offensive has resulted in the quick demise of the PKK’s Afrin project. Nevertheless, Afrin is just the first step of a more comprehensive offensive against the terrorist organization. For Turkey, the PKK has to be cleaned off from the areas it currently holds in Iraq and Syria. Turkey’s western allies might have difficulty to understand the country’s rationale, but to put it simply, Ankara does not want the PKK to send suicide bombers across the border from Iraq or Syria. The organization has cost thousands of lives in Turkey and it is time to terminate the group once and for all. If the PKK is terminated, that’s not going to happen in Turkey. The terrorist organization does not have any arms depots, school or training camps in Turkey. The PKK’s 40 year-long bloodshed did not suffice it to take a single village in Turkey. Conversely, the organization entirely resides on territories in Iraq and Syria.

The PKK’s headquarters, training camps and arms depots all are in Iraq and Syria. All the territories that the organization controls are beyond Turkish borders, whether it be Qandil, Sinjar, Manbij, or Haseke. The organization trains its recruits in camps in Iraq and Syria and sends them to Turkey through the territories that it controls. The PKK even runs schools in these places where it teaches children the “heroic” act of killing Turks. With the fall of Afrin, the organization will no longer be able to teach children in the city to be “heroes” by joining the PKK. Elementary schools in Afrin will no longer have the pictures of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan on its walls or in school textbooks. The city will no longer hold ceremonies for the PKK’s suicide bombers who both killed and died in Turkey. Afrin was just one of the PKK’s recruitment and training centers. Turkey is persistent to handling the rest of these arms depots, recruitment and training centers, and its entire organizational network and military capacity one way or another. Turkey is more dedicated than ever to counter the PKK wherever it seeks shelter, whatever name it makes up to call its offshoots, and whichever country it receives support from. The question is not whether it will, but when and where. Turkey’s “allies” that arm, train, and protect the PKK may keep the group safe in some zones for some time, but this was not enough to stop Turkey in Afrin and may not be enough in the next battleground.

The protectionist economic policies pursued by the Trump administration are now signaling a global trade war. In the early days of March 2018, new tariffs were taken into action by the U.S. government.

On March 1, 2018, Trump announced that his administration will impose 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports in order to promote struggling American industries. He announced the tariff move during a meeting with steel and aluminum executives at the White House.

The tariffs President Trump signed on March 9 did not apply to Canada and Mexico, which are NAFTA countries.

In his justification Trump said: “…You like the tariffs where they won’t be dumping on our country. What they do is they dump massive amounts of product on our country, and it just kills — it destroys our companies and our jobs. And it’s been happening for so many years, and we are not the beneficiary.”

Many countries reacted to the new tariffs imposed by Trump. Chancellor Angela Merkel called for the European Union to be excluded from such schemes. European Commission President Juncker made it clear that the EU trade bloc would not sit “idly” if Trump goes ahead with these planned tariffs. Trump’s new tariff threat on European cars against the possibility of bloc’s retaliation on US tariffs increased the tension more.

Besides reactions from other states, there is a strong opposition from some Republicans who are traditionally free trade advocates.

On March 22 the U.S. imposed new tariffs on China. These are estimated to be at a worth of 50 billion U.S. dollars. The Trump administration strongly claims that China is committing intellectual property theft crime and is causing the U.S. its largest trade deficit of all times – a 375$ billion trade deficit with China.

“This is the first of many. This is the number one but this is the first of many,” President Trump said just before signing the tariffs on China.

Is China the target?

Earlier in March 2018, the EU’s trade commissioner stated that the bloc would “stand up to the bullies.” Due to reactions and critics, the Trump administration announced exemptions that cover the EU and six other countries including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and South Korea. Below we can see that out of the top 5 steel exporters to the U.S., 4 of them – except China – are exempted.

                                                  Source: Wood Mackenzie

China is going to impose reciprocal tariffs on the U.S., which are worth 3 billion dollars. The Chinese Commerce Ministry stated that this imposition is a response to the steel and aluminum tariffs imposed on China by the U.S. The Chinese government could hit the U.S. with tariffs on agriculture and vehicles meaning that U.S. soybeans, airplanes, cars and cotton could be targeted.

“China cannot be seen to be weak,” Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist Stiglitz said in an interview.

Now that Trump has expanded his list of exempted countries from new tariffs, this brings into mind two questions: Is this protectionism only rhetoric? Is China the target?

Both sides leave ways to negotiation open. President Trump emphasized that if any country imposes tariffs, the U.S. will do the same. In the upcoming days, we will see whether the two biggest economies of the world will find a common way.

Turkey has legitimate security concerns over insurgency inside its borders, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said Sunday, according to U.S. media reports.

“Turkey is a NATO ally. It’s the only NATO country with an active insurgency inside its borders. And Turkey has legitimate security concerns,” Mattis told reporters in a plane headed for Asia.

His remarks came amid Turkey’s ongoing military operation against terror groups in the Afrin region.

Noting that the overall success against Daesh “does not remove many of Turkey’s concerns,” Mattis said it is “easy to understand” why Ankara is worried that the conflict will extend beyond the Syrian border.

”Turkey was candid,“ Mattis told reporters. “They warned us before they launched the aircraft that they were going to do it. We are very alert to it. Our top levels are engaged and we’re working through it.”

Turkey’s operation was carried out against the PKK/KCK/PYD-YPG and Daesh terrorist groups under the framework of Turkey’s rights based on international law, the UN Security Council’s decisions and self-defense rights under the UN charter.

The Palestine issue is almost as old as the history of the current international order beginning with the establishment of the League of Nations to the creation of the United Nations. Throughout this turbulent century, no other event put to test the legitimacy and integrity of the international legal order more than the Palestinian issue. Due to making decisions contradicting their fundamental principles, by failing to implement decisions made, and on many occasions due to their ineffective stance on the issue, both the League of Nations and the U.N. witnessed the poisoning of the grounds their legitimacy was built upon. A look through history reveals that the U.K. and the U.S. have been the most influential actors that contributed to this process. Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is the latest development within this historical chain of events.

Elaborating first upon some points regarding the history of Jerusalem and the occupied territories and then Trump’s decision will help clear the picture before us. By the end of World War I, by refusing the “right of conquest,” allied powers found themselves foreseeing a future global order built upon the principles of self-determination and non-annexation, which led to the League of Nations Mandates – the temporary administrators of territories entrusted to them through the League of Nations. While these mandates were not the sovereign rulers of their respective territories, their responsibility was to oversee the development of the nations they governed so that they could come to the stage of “self-determination.” The integral logic of this system was rendered contradictory on day one through the decision to add the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations mandate for Palestine. The “self-determination” principle was built on the axiom that the inhabitants of any region were the rightful owners of their own sovereignty. However, in that case, wouldn’t moving people en masse to a country, without the consent of its inhabitants, infringe their right of self-determination? The report published by the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine, which was founded during the time when the end of the Palestine Mandate was being discussed in the U.N. in 1947, rightfully highlights this contradiction.

The contradictions proved to be endless. Until we even come to the current situation, the barrage of unimplemented U.N. decisions on Palestine and Jerusalem have eroded the legitimacy of the organization. The borders drawn by law have been retracted periodically according to the “reality” of the power balance in the region. The current framework for this discussion is the U.N. Security Council resolution, which demands Israel to stop its occupation in all territories captured during the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem. After the Palestinian National Council accepted resolution 242 and a two-state solution on 15 November, 1988, this resolution has been the reference point of Palestine-Israel peace talks for the past 20 years.

This process was also eroded due to the production of “new realities” in the field. On all the important points that Israel predicted would be discussed during the Oslo process, Israel first sought to build its position and later ensured its legal ground. The wall that runs through the occupied territories and the ever-increasing number of settlers fortify Israel’s demand on the borders that it insists on.

Thus, Israel’s decision to declare Jerusalem as its capital brought resolution 478 of the U.N. Security Council from 1980 into its list of “targets of erosion:”

“… all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

…Those States that have established diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;”

Israel however did not comply with this resolution but rather sought courses of action intended to strengthen its position via changing the demographics of Jerusalem by using illegal settlers and seeking international backers. During the first act of the Oslo process, the U.S. Congress passed the now famous “Jerusalem Embassy Act.” The following day, during a speech made in Washington, former-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said: “In Israel, we all agree on one issue: the wholeness of Jerusalem, the continuation of its existence as the capital of the State of Israel. There are no two Jerusalems. There is only one Jerusalem. For us, Jerusalem is not subject to compromise, and there is no peace without Jerusalem.”

Ten days after this speech Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish student who found the former prime minister’s policies to be too concessive. Nevertheless, following Bill Clinton’s refusal to sign the Jerusalem Embassy Act, its application was continuously postponed by U.S. presidents who used the power of a waiver. This was the case until Trump’s decision, which resulted in one of the biggest losses of prestige in the diplomatic history of the U.S.

Widespread support for Israel among Christians in the U.S.

It is possible to analyze Trump’s decision through two main related viewpoints. We can observe how the Palestine-Israel conflict is viewed in the U.S. by analyzing how the deeply-rooted historical beliefs and sociological dynamics there intersect with the current struggle for power in Washington. “Christian Zionism,” which has under its effect a wide proportion of the conservative American Protestant population, provides a natural supporting ground and electoral base for the pro-Israel U.S. politicians who support Israel’s stance on Jerusalem and the occupied territories. Christian Zionism is built upon a particular interpretation of verses in the Bible which are concerned with the end of the world. This interpretation stands in direct opposition to another Christian viewpoint that has been accepted for many centuries and which views the exile of the Jewish people from Jerusalem as “divine retribution,” and refuses their right to return. Christian Zionists however believe that before the second coming of Christ, Jewish people will gather in Jerusalem. According to them, this process will trigger a war that will involve the whole world and by the end of this war Jesus Christ will return to Earth and build the “Kingdom of God,” which will last for 1000 years – then, the world will come to an end.

Research conducted by PEW in 2016 contains indicators that will help us quantify the effects of such beliefs in American politics. According to a questionnaire conducted, 40% of American Jews support the statement that “Israel is given to Jews by God,” while the same statement is supported by 82% of American Evangelical Christians. According to the same source, White Evangelicals compose 26% of the U.S. electorate and 81% of them voted for Trump in the latest presidential elections.

The statement made by John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, following Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem concludes this picture:

“…I told him that God measures everything in modules of 50 years,”

“I said, ‘If you look at 1917, it was a Jubilee Year, and the Balfour Amendment came, and then in 50 years, it was 1967, and Jerusalem was reconnected to Israel,'”

“‘And you add 50 to 1967, and you’re in 2017.’ I said, ‘This is the year to move the embassy and make that declaration because it is a biblical timing of absolute precision,'”

“Thank God, he’s going to do exactly that.”

The effect of the Israeli lobby

Another important part of the equation is the famous Israeli lobby. As illustrated in the book called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which is published in 2008 and written by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, this power-structure is everything but a conspiracy and is as powerful as commentators suggest. We know that Trump promised Sheldon G. Adelson – an important donor of the GOP – that the U.S. embassy in Israel would eventually be moved to Jerusalem. Morton A. Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America, was aware of this promise. Trump is currently going through a critical period in regards to the future of his presidency due to the allegations of collusion between his campaign team and Russia during the election. The U.S. Congress is one of the places in which the Israeli lobby is the most powerful, and would undoubtedly play a critical role during a possible impeachment process.

When assessing the Jerusalem decision from a second viewpoint, we find indications of new alliances formed in the Middle East. It is a well-known fact that countries that consider Iran’s advancements along the regional belt of uncertainty as direct national security threats – mainly Israel and Saudi Arabia – are getting closer to each other. This new climate in the region may have raised hopes for some that the political reflexes regarding the Jerusalem issue may have been getting weaker, or that some direct negotiations may have been made. However, the extraordinary summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called by Turkey gave Arab leaders a clear opportunity to re-consider the consequences of failing to take action. How will the vote made in the U.N. General Assembly, which has always lumped the U.S. together with Israel whenever the latter would be considered, affect the plans and preparations for the region’s future? We can be certain that the answer to this question will raise the most curiosity in the Middle East for the following period.

The Turkish government charges on the United States on many issues related to national security, including the extradition of Fetullah Gulen, the leader of the FETO criminal cult, which carried out the July 15 coup attempt, support for YPG/PKK and recently Turkish-Iranian businessman Reza Zarrab episode. Zarrab was detained in the US last year for violating the US sanctions against Iran, the US government has begun to play its cards.

When Reza Zarrab was exonerated last week from facing trail by the US District Judge Richard Berman, it was interpreted as a positive response from the US government. However, soon it was realized that Zarrab had turned into the US government’s foreign policy tool to counter Turkish demands of Gulen’s extradition and halting support for the YPG.

Zarrab decided to “cooperate with the US authorities” and to testify in the case of Mehmet Hakan Atilla, a former deputy CEO of Turkey’s Halkbank – also accused in the same case. However, Zarrab claimed that he bribed former Turkish economy minister Zafer Caglayan in 2012 as part of a billion-dollar scheme to smuggle gold for oil, thus violating the United States sanctions on Iran. He even directly attacked the Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan, claiming to have heard from Caglayan that the then Prime Minister ordered banks to participate in the scheme. While Zarrab’s mention of Erdogan was second hand information and with no evidence at all, neither the judge nor the jury raised this issue.

However, the fact that the US sanctions are not binding on Turkey because they are not sanctions agreed on by the UN, is clearly ignored in this matter.

As shocking as these claims are against the Turkish government, which has been for a year trying to aid Zarrab in this case by repeatedly appealing to the US government for his acquittal, his surprising turn itself draws suspicion.

Already in Turkey the sentiments are high against the US for its support to the YPG and FETO, and its lukewarm response to last year’s coup attempt that killed more than 250 people and left thousands injured. The current Zarrab episode must be seen in this backdrop across Turkey.

In a column in Hurriyet Daily newspaper journalist Cansu Camlibel, who attended the week-long testimony of the 34-year-old Reza Zarrab at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in Atilla’s case, wrote about the drama of Zarrab’s claims. Cansu points out his unusual confidence and preparedness that he could have most probably drawn from his collaboration with the FBI and prosecutors after he decided to cooperate with the US government.

https://thenewturkey.org/what-is-really-behind-the-iran-sanctions-case/

“How flawlessly he drew two separate diagrams on a white board in the courtroom to describe the steps used to withdraw Iran’s oil and gas money from Halkbank, and use that money to make international payments on behalf of Tehran, indicating that he had rehearsed this little act for many weeks with the prosecutors,” wrote Cansu.

There is much to indicate that Zarrab, just like Gulen, has become a new tool for some circles of the US government to take on the Turkish government. The mass majority of US media – most importantly the New York Times, which has been covering every development of the Zarrab case – has turned Zarrab into a “hero” now for the simple fact that he is ready to throw mud at the Turkish government.

What is to be seen is to what extent the Turkish government can respond to Zarrab’s claims. His assets have already been seized in Turkey and 17 people who have been working with him, including three suspects, Sinem A., Regaip A., and Mustafa H., have been arrested. They are accused of sending documents to the US concerning his legal proceedings there.

*Written by Waseem Ahad. 

A simplistic view of the Syria war from distance would explain that the war is all about overthrowing the evil called Daesh from the worn torn country. Every contending power – the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran – including their regional allies have the same claim. But under the barrage of daily media reports, which advance the same view as that of the contending powers, the inside story is ever more intricate to an extent incomprehensible to the distant gaze.

The most remarkable has been the role of the US in the war. The US particularly ventured into the war to eliminate the terrorist organization Daesh, and seldom did it acknowledge that its objectives were determined by the presence of its global rival, Russia, and the regional felon, Iran.

Recent revelations by the former spokesperson of Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Talal Silo, who last month defected from the amalgam, will have consequences beyond Syria and most importantly Turkey. In an exclusive interview with the Anadolu Agency on Friday, the former high-ranking commander of SDF, Silo gives a detailed account of the Syrian war that helps us to see what is happening behind the scene.

Someone trying to draw the mental picture of the Syrian war must, first of all, dismiss Daesh as a mere media object that covers up the superpower proxy. That is to say, one must directly and simply focus on role the US is playing in the war to counter its rival’s increasing regional influence.

The real motive behind the US intervention in Syria never was to fight Daesh. Rather the US intends to secure its interests, that too by aligning with the SDF, much against the wishes and security of the regional ally, Turkey.

SDF is an amalgam of different ethnic and religious groups but dominated by PKK supporters. The armed group receives its weaponry, vehicles and military support from the US to apparently fight Daesh in different regions of Syria – most recent Raqqa and oil-rich Deir Al-Zor provinces – where the US wants to be ahead of Russian backed groups.

According to Silo’s revelations, the US along under the name of its allies SDF and YPG targeted to reach Bukamal and Mayadin districts before the rapidly advancing Syrian regime forces.

More interesting part of the war is the oil trade by the PKK which it sold over Daesh areas and also to the regime through an officer of the regime, al-Katirji, who is the general responsible for taking oil from the PKK. Moreover, the money transactions in oil trade was carried out through banks from Lebanon and Europe through accounts belonging to PKK members.

He even revealed that an American intelligence officer wanted them to advance towards Deir Al-Zor and that the US will give the “necessary support to provide a post towards the sea to the SDF and the Syrian Democratic Parliament.” The logic the intelligence officer gave that SDF and PKK wing YPG can only maintain a viable structure only if they have an “access to the sea” – (called Mediterranean corridor).

By giving an example of Kurdistan and Erbil, which do not have any access point to the sea, hence always needs to convince the other parties to export oil, the US promised the “Mediterranean corridor” but failure in the Deir Al-Zor operation dashed the hopes.

On the question of the US protecting weapon depositories for the YPG, Talal Silo’s revelations go in line with Turkish claims. It was Americans not only providing weapons to YPG but also protecting them by keeping them in their own bases which Turkey could not target.

If it were the US supporting the SDF and YPG in Deir Al-Zor, in Afrin the story was different. When the US denied to support them in Afrin they approached the Syrian regime through Assad’s cousin, Hussein Assad.

“He told me to establish a line between the SDF and the Russians positioned at Khmeimim base,” said Talal Silo.

More than the outcome of these proxy dealings among Americans, Russians, the Syrian regime and Iran, the mere act of these dealings is significant. They tell multiple stories: that the world powers only act for their own interests – to distribute the ruins of Syrian war at the cost of Syrian peoples’ lives. Second, by collaborating with the SDF and YPG, Turkish security concerns were thrown into disguise. Despite the long insistence of Turkey that the armed groups are closely allied to the PKK terrorist organization, which is involved in a decades-long war against Turkish state, all the sides involved in the Syrian war have been providing support to these groups to exploit them for their own interests.

*Written by Waseem Ahad. 

The US is a Joke was the title of the travel book Enis Batur wrote many years ago. In a chapter of his book, he signified that even those who have never been to the US knew the country very well. It was a well-known place. A country that everyone has something to say about. It’s a dream for some, it’s the power behind everything for others. The social, cultural and economic impact it created affects everyone in certain ways. This is why the US is well known by almost everyone. For this reason, there have been different expectations from the US.

Recently however, this imagined US began to confuse us. While failing to live up to the expectations, the country became increasingly ambiguous. Those trying to understand the US were shocked at every milestone. We began to face a mechanism which we knew little about. There were peculiar developments in its foreign and security policies. Regression of the US was always analyzed over education, infrastructure and the growth of its rivals. However, unexpected developments surpassing all of these started to occur. The November elections revealed another face of the US, never-ending gossips about Russia showed the system’s inability, and the disparity between cabinet members and the president witnessed by the public demonstrated the dysfunctional nature of basic mechanisms.

Improvidence of the super power

For some, all of these were explainable as they were able to rationalize these situations and issues. Yet, the matter was the fact that this wasn’t expected from a country that is deemed a super power. Many expressed that they never knew this side of the US. In reality, the US has been facing such events for the most of its existence. It’s a mechanism that is full with pitfalls created by its own defense policies, that has power struggles between different institutions that eclipse state policies and which love to ask questions like “who lost Iran?” or “why don’t they like us?” after foreign policy crises. Despite all of its natural resources, world-renowned universities, innovative engine and attractiveness, it’s a power suffering from improvidence in terms of foreign policy and security.

We’re talking about a country that has launched Facebook and Firefox, found rocks that indicated Mars had water in the past through NASA and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, all in the same year.

While Steve Jobs was revolutionizing the technology industry in 2001 with the first iPod, the US was betraying its own norms establishing the Guantanamo Camp with the proposal of several security experts. While 8 out of 9 Nobel prizes were given to scientists employed by its universities in 2003, following the ideas of a group of ideologues the US invaded Iraq, leading to one of the greatest fiascos of its history. We’re talking about a country that has launched Facebook and Firefox, found rocks that indicated Mars had water in the past through NASA and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, all in the same year. This asymmetry and contradiction in different fields sometimes seems like a bad joke. Just like what Enis Batur asserted. Sometimes it’s really confusing.

The US turns all into conspiracy theorists

The meaning we ascribe to the policies of the US turns us all into so-called conspiracy theorists. In fact, all of us are right to a certain extent. We’re facing a situation in which a former vice president has won a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie on global warming, while the current president has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement; a situation in which Obama was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishment, while he was indifferent to the greatest tragedy since World War II. It seems normal to have certain challenges in understanding and ascribing meanings.

The issue is that no one expects such clumsy security and foreign policy strategies from a very qualified group of people. We’re peculiarly hopeful that all strategies are implemented taking long-term goals and various factors into consideration. We try to explain false methods of relations more than it deserves.

Turkey has been doing this for the last three or four years. It’s trying to make sense out of the US policies in bilateral relations and attempting to correct certain mistakes. Since the US began to provide military support to the YPG three years ago, Turkey has been trying to explain that the YPG and the PKK are of the same essence. Moreover, Turkey has been trying to explain why military support to the YPG is a security risk for the country and why eradicating a terrorist organization with another is problematic. In reality, most US officials are aware of the situation. This plan of not having an exit strategy, upsetting the ethnic balance in the region and deteriorating relations with Turkey are all troublesome. However, this policy is still on the go with a despair that is assumed not fitting of the US officials.

Most US officials are aware of the situation. This plan of not having an exit strategy, upsetting the ethnic balance in the region and deteriorating relations with Turkey are all troublesome.

The US pawns its YPG strategy asserting that it doesn’t have any other partners other than the terrorist organization. A country that has been shaping diplomacy and international relations along with determining paradigms and discourses is breaking its half-century-long alliances over the battle plans of several careerist officials against Daesh. Similarly, the US doesn’t want to empathize with Turkey regarding the trauma caused by the July 15 coup attempt or the threat that FETO is posing to the country. Moreover, the US seems unaware that its indifference towards Turkey’s demands is harming the trust relations between the two countries. Despite all, the US expects Turkey to act normal, as if nothing has happened. Seemingly, the US doesn’t care about the erosion of trust caused by not maintaining the alliance and security relations expected from an ally.

A country that has been shaping diplomacy and international relations along with determining paradigms and discourses is breaking its half-century-long alliances over the battle plans of several careerist officials against Daesh.

Nowadays, Turkey approaches any positive development with cautious optimism. Turkey expected the US to say yes to a safe zone in Syria in order to save civilian lives, considering that the US previously carried out the operation in Kosovo – just like Turkey expected the US to adhere to the international norms it advocates and its own “red line” after the chemical attacks in Syria. Or just like the US was expected to condemn the coup in Egypt, as the US had stated that it wants to be on “the right side of history” a couple of years prior.

Turkey – from confusion to resentment

The initial confusion of Turkey was replaced with resentment. However, it seemed like it was out of control for the US administration. As if to prove the long present conspiracy theories, US officials began to post photos together with PKK militants. US soldiers with the YPG blazon is an image that won’t be forgotten for many years in Turkey. While we were thinking that it couldn’t get any worse, the visa process to Turkish citizens were announced to be halted by the US embassy. At this point, the reason is irrelevant. The US has implemented a policy to Turkey and Turkish citizens that hasn’t been implemented to Russia – despite investigations about Russian interference in the US elections and ongoing intelligence wars – or any other NATO ally. This spiced up the present resentment and distrust towards the US over the issues of PKK and the Gulenist criminal cult (FETO).

The US has implemented a policy to Turkey and Turkish citizens that hasn’t been implemented to Russia – despite investigations about Russian interference in the US elections and ongoing intelligence wars – or any other NATO ally.

We’re not sure what those who proposed and implemented this visa suspension want to achieve, as we were unable to understand what the US wants in previous instances. I believe it’s not hard to assert that the US has emotionally fractured its bilateral relations with Turkey. The US merely added another to its list of public catastrophes. The political dimension of this decision could be managed through bilateral meetings and communications. However, it should be admitted that it has created a negative attitude towards the US in various circles of Turkish society. This will pressure foreign policy makers in the long-term.

If this continues to be the case and the US’s reactions continue to be confusing, queries about the US alliance reliability will be replaced with queries about the reliability of the US. The unpredictable and coarse approach of the US towards its allies will affect its future alliances. The confusion and resentment towards the US policies won’t be understood just as a bad joke anymore. People will begin to ask the question The US is a Joke, Dear Frank, But How Much Can We Laugh at It – as the full title of Batur’s book. The regression of the US will speed up when this happens and when the US constrains itself with the means to punish its allies and when it begins to be deemed as a distrusted super power.

It all began in April 2013 with a letter written by an effective group of members in the US House of Representatives to former US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew. The letter, which mostly bared the signatures of the opposing republicans, stated that Turkey had violated sanctions the US had imposed on Iran. Approximately seven months later, when police officers linked to the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) initiated a “judicial coup” attempt on December 17 to overthrow the Turkish government, there was a US management that followed the case closely behind the scenes. The authorities from the US, who wanted to be kept anonymous at the time, stated that they had warned Turkey about the Iranian businessman Reza Zarrab. One of them had stated the following during an exclusive interview to a well-known newspaper:

“If cargo planes are carrying tons of gold, this cannot go unnoticed by customs officials or the state. We had clear evidence that the embargo imposed on Iran was infiltrated through this trade. We had informed both Halkbank and the Financial Crimes Investigation Board.”

This was how the operation that resulted in the request for a warrant issue to the former minister of economy Zafer Caglayan in the US started. This operation was not only used to interfere with the internal affairs of Turkey, but also as a means to defame Turkey internationally. So how did we come to this stage and what do these accusations in the case against the Turkish people by the US mean? To answer these questions, we have to go back a bit. According to the December 17 summary, the police probe based on “corruption” led by Gulenist criminal cult members at the time, started in 2012. Currently, it is not possible to determine whether FETO informed the US on the Zarrab case, or whether the US warned the police, who constantly gave briefings at the Ankara Embassy. But what we do know for sure is that the US was aware and very uncomfortable that Turkey paid Iran for the natural gas trade in gold.

While the sanctions imposed on Iran are merely a product of the US legal system, US hegemony in international finance allows the country to bring others under its own judicial judgements. The main reason for this notion is the authority the US Congress has granted the US president and its judiciary for the last 30 years. On December 11, 2011, the US congress allowed the government to apply sanctions to any persons, banks, or organizations that have a financial relation with Iran for natural gas and petroleum with the clauses in the Budget Control Act. Other laws and presidential decrees implemented in 2012 and 2013 increased these authorities. As a result, a list of all the banks, companies and organizations in Iran were published in order to ban trade relations with the country. It is important to note that this ban has no basis in international law and has not been approved by the UN Security Council.

A new accusation against Caglayan

Zafer Caglayan’s name was first added to the Reza Zarrab case, which has been continuing since last March, on September 6. Caglayan’s statement regarding continuing trade with Iran was also included in the abovementioned letter written by the US Congress. This means that Zafer Caglayan had been in the radar for some time. This year in March, the deputy general manager of Halkbank Mehmet Hakan Atilla was arrested in the airport while leaving the US, which he had visited on many occasions in the past.

Firstly, it is important to emphasize that the Reza Zarrab case is based on the violation of a law enforced by the US to the rest of the world. The issue here is not corruption, in fact the US does not take that issue into account. The prevailing opinion of those that are following the case in the US is that the US government was aware of Halkbank’s defiance of the sanctions and have been monitoring them ever since. It is possible that FETO members have provided the FBI and former Southern District of New York Prosecutor Preet Bharara with all the documents and information after December 17, 2013. What we understand from the aftermath of the judicial process of the Zarrab accusation, which was confirmed by the Grand Jury in December 2011, is that the December 17 case is one of the essential elements in Bharara’s investigation. In fact, Bharara presented the recordings and statements in this document as corroborating evidence to the court during the trials. It was his former boss and Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer who referred Bhrara for this position. Schumer, is known for receiving millions of dollars from FETO-linked institutions and persons. He is also a popular figure in FETO’s umbrella organization in Washington, the Turkish American Association. Currently Schumer has taken over one of the most important political positions by being the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

If we are to analyze from this framework, then we have to point out Richard Berman, who is the judge looking at the case. Berman had criticized the discontinuation of the December 17 operation whilst participating in an international conference organized by FETO-linked law firm Yuksel-Karkin-Kucuk. During the symposium he gave an interview to the FETO-linked media agency Cihan News agency and blamed the current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was prime minister at the time, for not respecting the constitution. He also stated that the Turkish government’s intervention was “changing the rules of a game while it is being played.”  This judge who has been making partial accusations since 2014, has been looking at the Zarrab and Caglayan case from the beginning. We have yet to understand why a recusal has not been made to the judge who stated that Zarrab’s defense group went to Istanbul in the first session.

What does the prosecution office say?

Zarrab’s team has constantly been emphasizing that this trade relation has nothing to do with the US. Zarrab is not a US citizen and the money transfers have not been taking place in the US. Thus, the argument that this has nothing to do with US is put forward. The FBI and prosecution office, which have both investigated claims in the December 17 case in their own means, refuse these claims put forth by the defendant. The prosecution office, which has been stating that they have several evidence of money transfers, have finally included some of them in the new accusation that includes Caglayan. According to the prosecution office, Zarrab and his team use the money they gain from the gold export in the US financial system to make payments to the state of Iran. The prosecution also alleges that acquisitions for basic Iranian needs, which are not part of the US sanctions, are used to cover up the actual money transfers, suggesting that money was transferred to Iran by providing access to the international financial system through fraudulent documents.

The main problem here is that Zarrab used the US banks as informants during these transfers and most of these transfers were intervened because of suspicion. Hence, the Turkish-Iranian businessman is not only accused of going against the sanctions by continuing his trade deals with Iran despite the warnings, but also money laundering and deceiving the US banking system. The accusation states that these took place within the knowledge of “high-ranking Turkish officials” and Zafer Caglayan. Therefore, the trade between the Republic of Turkey and Iran is considered a crime.

Of course, in this accusation Zarrab is only a means and is part of the many other financial transactions that do not have anything to do with trade between Turkey and Iran. This is why the prosecution office refuse the argument made by Zarrab and his lawyers that this is “not the US’s business,” since they believe that they have evidence proving that Zarrab and his team used the US financial system and banks in order to make business transactions with Iran with dollars. What is more, they also claim that the complex financial movements that took place during these transactions were methods to deceive the US banking system.

What will happen?

Despite Turkey’s objections the case will continue in the US. It is not surprising to see that Zarrab has changed his statements in November when the jury trials start. This is normal since there is the possibility that Zarrab and other detainees could be sentenced to prison for a long period of time and thus, would try to negotiate with the prosecutors. Sources state that the prosecution office had previously sent an arrest warrant to the EU for more than 150 people. Although, the exact number is uncertain, most of them are the same names that FETO placed in the December 17 files.

It is unlikely that Turkey will manage to terminate this case, which they consider as interference to their sovereignty, by pressuring the Trump management since they are already struggling with their own affairs including the Department of Justice investigation and the harsh media criticism that limit their area of work. It is almost impossible for Trump to interfere with an ongoing case. However, he does have the authority to forgive those who have been charged once the case ends. Another way out can be through mutual agreement. But this is also unlikely given the state of relationship between the two countries.

The Pentagon responded today to the questions asked at the press conference yesterday to spokesman Colonel Rob Manning.

To the question whether the weapons once distributed to the PKK/PYD will be taken back again, Col. Rob Manning responded in a written statement.

“It is our intent to regain large vehicles and heavy or crew-served weapons once specific threats have been defeated,” he said.

“Make no mistake: a lot of fighting is still necessary to defeat the remaining pockets of ISIS [Daesh], and substantial work remains to ensure ISIS’s lasting defeat in the region, particularly as the group reshapes itself into more of an insurgency,” he added.

According to Anadoly Agency’s report, Manning also claimed that US advisors would monitor the weapons and supplies and their use, ensuring they are only used against Daesh.

In the statement it has been argued that the US-backed forces have agreed to comply with the Geneva Convention and the Law of Armed Conflict, as a precondition of US support.

To the question as to whether the SDG (PKK/PYD) were given arms to support the Geneva talks, defense minister Jim Mattis responded that Pentagon officials said the fight with Deash continues and the Coalition would continue to support its PKK/PYD partners as they provide security that enables stabilization assistance to liberated areas.

In the Geneva II Conference on Syria, a UN-backed international peace conference on the future of Syria, the declared aim is to end the Syrian Civil War by bringing together the Syrian government and the opposition to discuss clear steps towards a transitional government.

Thirty-six members of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee are expected to attend peace talks in Geneva this week.

It was stated that while the details of the support were not shared, the support given to the PKK/PYD was taken into consideration.

Despite its well-documented ties to the PKK, which was recognized as a terrorist group by the US, EU, and Turkey, the US has treated the PKK/PYD/YPG as allies in its anti-Daesh efforts.

In the PKK’s over three-decade terror campaign against Turkey, more than 40,000 people including security force personnel and civilians, have lost their lives.

PKK/PYD’s ethnic cleansing ‘unacceptable’

Meanwhile Turkey’s National Security Council met under President Erdogan’s leadership in Ankara. A written statement was released just after the meeting.

“PKK/PYD/YPG terrorist organization’s efforts to carry out a covert ethnic cleansing by changing the demographic structure of Syria is against international law and human rights, and, therefore, it is unacceptable,” the statement said.

The council emphasized that Turkey will continue to take all necessary measures at the Turkey-Syria border area in order to ensure its own security.

According to the statement the Turkish Armed Forces are successfully continuing its “observer mission” in Syria’s Idlib de-escalation zone.

“It is observed that peace and security will literally be achieved when this mission is carried out near western Aleppo and Afrin,” it added.

NATO drill incident

The recent incident during a NATO drill in Norway involving a civilian Norwegian official who depicted the Turkish president Erdogan and Turkey’s founding leader Ataturk as an “enemy collaborator” was also mentioned in the statement, adding that such hostile attitudes and expressions were “unacceptable.”

It was stated that such events harm the solidarity principle of NATO, which is the basis of this alliance and that developments linked to the incident would be followed closely.

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan. 

Turkey has not stopped forcing its demands on the US. Ahead of his visit to the UK, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirm said on Sunday that the US must “immediately” stop supporting the PKK/PYD terrorist group. Yildirim recalled the US President Donald Trump’s pledge to stop providing weapons to the terrorist group that has complicated security issues for Turkey.

“Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the US to partner with PKK’s cousin PYD/YPG in the fight against Daesh terrorist group,” he said.

Insisting that the US must return to its “real allies,” Yirdirm said, “Our friend and ally [US] told us every time that it was not an option rather an obligation. Since Daesh is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared.”

Of late the US began to support the PYD in the Syrian war, claiming to defeat Daesh, but Turkey expressed grave concerns against the move. For Turkey, which is bearing the brunt of many aspects of the Syrian war, including hosting nearly three million refugees, fending off terrorist attacks from Daesh, PKK and FETO, the PYD as a sister wing of the PKK is just another terrorist group bent to fight against the Turkish state. Turkey is yet to come out of its decades-old fight against the PKK, and thus the creation and support for the PYD is supposed to be a great security threat for the country.

On his two-day visit to the UK, Yildirim is expected to discuss different matters regarding Syria and Iraq with his UK counterpart. He will also be meeting members of the business community and media representatives during his visit. The meeting is significant as it takes place in the aftermath of the Sochi congress held last week.

Meanwhile, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu also slammed the US for supplying arms to the PKK/PYD terrorist organization. He reminded the US president on Saturday to keep his promise regarding the issue.

“It is Turkey’s natural right to expect Trump to stick to his word not to give the PKK/PYD terror group weapons anymore,” Cavusoglu told reporters in Antalya.

On Friday, according to Cavusoglu, Trump called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on phone and promised that “weapons will not be given to the YPG anymore and said that essentially this nonsense should have been ended before.”

Turkey will not tolerate terrorism

In a synchronized statement Turkish National Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli said on Sunday that Turkey will never tolerate terrorist threats. During the meeting of defense ministers of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) in Saudi capital Riyadh, he asserted that Turkey will take all the necessary measures against the PKK/PYD/YPG terrorist group.

*Written by Waseem Ahad. 

According to information gathered by a source from Syria’s Haseke province, close to the Anadolu Agency, the US army has apparently delivered combat and mine resistant vehicles via the Semalka border crossing at the Iraq-Syria border.

It is reported that the source added that the terrorist organization plans to dispatch the vehicles and hundreds of militants to the Afrin district in Aleppo province, near the Turkish border.

The PKK/PYD needs to use the Aleppo corridor controlled by the Bashar al-Assad regime and Iran-backed groups for delivering the vehicles.

The PYD and its military wing YPG, are Syrian branches of the PKK, which has waged a war against Turkey for more than 30 years.

Since the PKK launched its terror campaign in Turkey in 1984, tens of thousands of people – including security personnel, women and children – have been killed, including more than 1,200 since July 2015 alone.

The US and the coalition has since ignored the link between the PYD and PKK – which the US, EU and Turkey list as a terrorist group.

Turkey cites the PYD’s deep ties with the PKK in opposing the US cooperation with the PKK/PYD.

While the US accepts the PKK as a terrorist organization, it claims that the PKK’s Syrian offshoot, the PYD, us a “reliable partner” against Daesh.

On Monday the BBC reported that a deal which allowed 350 Daesh fighters and more than 4,000 of their family members to leave Raqqa was made between Daesh and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a US-backed force largely comprised of PKK/PYD terrorists.

The US media has remained largely silent on the occasions even after the BBC’s report.

“This was a local solution to a local issue, and it demonstrated the importance and power of local governance,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The central priority here was the protection of civilian lives and the arrangement was reached by our partners and their local affiliates.”

“Part of the by/with/through approach is that we might not fully agree with our partners at all times, but we have to respect their solutions to their own issues,” it added.

Turkey has always been a critic of the relationship between the US and PYD, the Syrian branch of the PKK, which has waged a terror campaign against Turkey for 33 years causing the death of more than 40,000 people.

“With respect to all of that, we continue to encourage all parties to seek political solutions and we continue to work with the SDF because our focus is to defeat ISIS [Daesh]” Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana White said at a press briefing on Turkey’s criticism of the US stance on the deal.

BBC reported that according to many of those involved in the evacuation a huge convoy consisting of around 50 trucks, 13 buses and more than 100 Daesh vehicles left Raqqa for Daesh-controlled territory to the southeast, adding that Daesh also withdrew at least 10 vehicles loaded with arms and ammunition and the fighters included foreigners alongside Iraqis and Syrians.

Turkey did not hesitate to respond; describing the agreement as “a grave mistake,” Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag criticized the attitude displayed by the US.

More, on Thursday, Bozdag emphasized that the terrorist groups could not have possibly made such an agreement without the knowledge of the US.

On Tuesday the Pentagon defended the deal, which allowed hundreds of Deash terrorists to escape from Raqqa describing it as a “local solution to a local issue,” namely the siege of Deash’s de facto capital in Syria.

Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon claimed it aimed to provide civilians and families “an opportunity to leave the city and to allow the tribal leaders an opportunity to reconcile and reintegrate Syrian men who had been under ISIS [Daesh] control during its brutal three-year regime.”

Although they were “present at the discussions,” Pahon denied any role of the US-led coalition against Daesh representatives in the withdrawal negotiations.

As to the question whether Secretary of Defense James Mattis had been informed about the deal, White answered that she did not want to speak on that.

During the briefing, a question was also asked about the total number of US troops abroad. Joint Staff Director Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie informed that there are 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan, 5,262 in Iraq and 500 in Syria.

Earlier this month Army Maj. Gen. James Jarrard initially put the number of US troops on the ground in Syria at 4,000 – a figure far exceeding the official count. When asked to affirm the 4,000 figure, Jarrard appeared to be caught off guard and claimed he “misspoke.”

US media silent on US support of PKK/PYD-Daesh deal

While the deal has not made headlines in the US media, according to a report by the Anadolu Agency, Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook corrected his statement that the US is delivering arms to the PKK/PYD to “the arms went only to the Syrian Arab Coalition and not to the PKK/PYD,” as it was perceived problematic to US discourse with its NATO ally, Turkey.

Last month PKK/PYD hung posters of Abdullah Ocalan dedicating the seizure of Raqqa to the convicted PKK terrorist leader who has been jailed in Turkey since 1999.

*This report was written by Suna Nur Sarıhan.

Speaking before the parliament’s plenary and budget committee on Thursday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu slammed the US for “continuing its mistake” of backing terrorist organizations such as the PKK/PYD.

Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu stated that “the US is continuing its mistake.”

Claiming that the US backed the PKK/PYD for tactical purposes, the foreign minister said “we told them (US) that we cannot accept this.”

“We will continue expressing the danger of cooperation with terrorist organizations.”

The statement came following comments made on Tuesday by the US-led anti-Daesh coalition spokesman Colonel Ryan Dilon, who underlined that they would only support the PYD if they were fighting Daesh.

On Monday the BBC had reported a deal which had been struck between Daesh and the SDF – a force comprised largely of PKK/PYD terrorists, which are supported by the US.

While the US commented on this deal between the two terrorist groups as a “local solution to a local problem,” Foreign Minister Cavusoglu called for more cooperation with Syrians instead of terrorist organizations in Syria.

http://thenewturkey.org/pyds-new-shadow-leaders-shahoz-hasan-and-aisha-heso/

Turkish government officials expressed their shock as the US openly defends PKK/PYD’s deal that allowed hundreds of Daesh fighters to flee the besieged city of Raqqa.

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim slammed the statement issued by the Pentagon as “shocking.”

“Siding with a terrorist organization for demolishing another terrorist organization is not the kind of work which should be done by states.”

“Local solution to a local issue,” is how Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon defended the agreement to allow around 250 fighters and 3,500 of their family members to flee their de facto capital of Raqqa on November 12.

Pahon said that the “central priority here was the protection of civilian lives and the arrangement was reached by our partners and their local affiliates.”

The US did not elaborate on how the deal was going to save civilians, but Turkish Prime Minister responded to the unprecedented revelation by pointing to its dangers.

“Those Daesh members, who were freed with their weapons, will be able to cause the killing of innocent people, notably in Turkey, Europe and America,” he said.

The deal not only saved one terrorist organization, Daesh, but it opened the gate for another terrorist organization, PKK/YPG, to move in. The prime minister highlighted the multifaceted risks this deal has raised.

According to reports, the deal was struck between Daesh and the SDF, a US-backed force that consists largely of PKK/PYD terrorists. 50 trucks, 13 buses and more than 100 of the group’s own vehicles enabled Daesh’s flight from Raqqa.

The revelation raised serious questions across the world over the role of the US in countries where it has been involved militarily, including Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. In a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan, former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai accused the US for collaborating with Daesh in order to maintain its presence in the war-torn country for a long term.

For the first time Turkish government has openly reflected on why the current prolonged tension continue to disturb the two longtime allies: Turkey and the US. Of all the issues, the lack of response on behalf of the US administration in regards to calls from Turkey to extradite the criminal cult leader, Fetullah Gulen, stands as the most sensitive.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s prominent host, Fareed Zakaria, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said despite providing “enormous documentary evidence” on the involvement of FETO in last year’s deadly coup attempt in Turkey, since one and a half years no significant response has come from the US government on this issue.

Responding to the US government’s suspicion that the evidence provided by Turkey on Gulen was scarce, Prime Minister bluntly said, “When 9/11 attacks happened in the US, Bush said al-Qaeda did it and we did not ask for evidence. Nobody asked. Turkey was the first country to offer help and send our army to Afghanistan.”

Referring to the former US national security advisor, Michael Flynn’s public call for support to “our ally Turkey” last year, Yildirim said even Flynn did not provide any assurance to Turkey about Gulen’s extradition.

The prime minister insisted that the propaganda against Turkey on weakening democracy, civil liberties, freedom of press, weak protection for press and opposition was mere “perception rather than reality.”

On the operation against the so-called “independent” journalists and experts who are fleeing the country, Yildirim said this was mostly related to FETO, as the criminal cult had inserted its people into Turkey’s judicial system, bureaucracy, army, civil society and business community to remove the government and rule the country undemocratically.

Since last year’s failed coup attempt in Turkey, the relations between Turkey and US have witnessed a steep downfall after one issue followed the other. As Turkey described the coup attempt, which was resisted massively by Turkish citizens — sacrificing more than 250 lives and hundreds injured — its own 9/11, it found a lukewarm response and “inadequate condemnation” from the lifelong Western allies, the US most importantly. Things changed for the worst as the US unexpectedly saw rightwing leader Donald Trump win elections.

When Turkey called for the extradition of the US-based criminal cult leader Fetullah Gulen, who was behind the coup attempt, unsurprisingly the demand was not met. Under the motive of fighting against DAESH, very recently the US government has provided weapons to the YPG/PYD, the sister wings of the PKK – a serious security threat for the country. The move was another blow to the relations. Lastly, Turkey’s arrest of a Turkish staffer at the US embassy, who had links to FETO, has triggered a visa row between the two countries. Turkish Prime Minister’s recent visit to the US is expected to bring a long needed pause in the downfall of the relations.

During his visit to the US, before his meeting with Vice President Mike Pence, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim visited the Diyanet Center of America (DCA), also known as the Turkish-American Community Center and Mosque Complex in Lanham, Maryland.

During his speech at the venue, the prime minister warned attendees about the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO), which staged the coup attempt last year.

Emphasizing that there is no difference between Daesh and FETO, the prime minister added that both groups flout the sacred values of Islam, threatening peace in Muslim countries across the world.

The PM denounced FETO leader Fetullah Gulen, who is still living in the US, stating that he has corrupted and fooled many Muslims by presenting himself as a so-called “moderate Muslim.”

“The leader of the Fetullah Terrorist Organization is no cleric, he is a bloody terrorist.”

In regards to the failed coup attempt, which Fetullah Gulen took lead in orchestrating, the prime minister said that “FETO’s main goal was to infiltrate the Turkish state and put it under his [Gulen’s] control.”

He warned Muslims living in the US to “stay away from schools and cultural centers affiliated with FETO.”

While the Gulenist criminal cult will maintain its position on the prime minister’s agenda, as Turkey will renew its request for the extradition of the organization’s leader, Binali Yildirim also informed attendees of the fight Turkey is giving back home.

Since the July 15 coup attempt, the Turkish government has continued to “decipher the secret structures of this bloody terrorist organization within the bounds of law,” the prime minister said.

He stressed that the members of this organization “should pay the price for every single act of evil they did to Turkey.”

“Citizens in our country know about the misinformation games played by FETO terrorists. I also know that our citizens living abroad aren’t fooled by these games either,” he added.

US support fight against PKK

While the prime minister has terrorism on his agenda, Secretary of State Jim Mattis met with his Turkish counterpart, Nurettin Canikli at the NATO meeting of defense ministers in Brussels.

Pentagon chief spokesperson Dana W. White said in a statement that the two ministers met in order to “reaffirm the longstanding defense relationship between the United States and its NATO ally, Turkey.”

Recalling a previous meeting between the two ministers on August 23 in Ankara, White stated that “the secretary thanked the minister for Turkey’s continued, critical contributions to global security and the fight to defeat ISIS [Daesh].”

White also added that “Secretary Mattis acknowledged the threats posed to Turkey, and reiterated that the US will continue to stand with Turkey in its fight against the PKK and all terrorist therats.”

Mattis and Canikli also agreed to continue with their full range bilateral defense activities and consultations, and agreed to look for further ways to strengthen defense cooperation.

While the PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, Turkey and the European Union, the US administration denies the organic links between the YPG/PYD and PKK – which Turkey recognizes as a terrorist organization.

On Tuesday US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said that they had positive conversations with Turkey in regards to the visa issue and that this is a “step in the right direction.”

Speaking to reporters at a press briefing in Washington, Nauert stated: “We’re only able to do this on a limited basis right now, but we are prioritizing medical, humanitarian, and also student visas in those cases. We’ve had a series of what I would describe as fairly positive conversations with the government of Turkey. This is certainly a step in the right direction. It’s a positive step.”

Turkish premier in US

In addition, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim also arrived in the US on Tuesday to start his trip amid signs of improving Turkish-US relations.

On his first day of his visit, Yildirim met with head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker.

The “frank” meeting, held at the Washington hotel where Yildirim is staying lasted over an hour.

While Senator Corker provided no detail about what was discussed, he described the meeting as “very good.”

“It was very frank both ways, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with him [Binali Yildirim],” Corker said.

Asked how soon tensions between Turkey and the US will subside, Corker stated that the parties have a number of issues to work out and that this will take time.

“Turkey is a beautiful country. So much progress has been made for so many years. But recently, at least in the last five years, maybe in the last decades, things have curved and taken us backwards,” he said, adding that countries which want to main good relations have to work on it.

During his four-day US visit, Binali Yildirim is scheduled to meet Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday.

The two are expected to discuss economic and military ties, as well as the situation in the Middle East, including Syria and Iraq. It has been stated that Yildirim also has the issues of the YPG/PYD and extradition of Fetullah Gulen, leader of the terrorist organization FETO, which orchestrated the July 15 coup attempt on his agenda.

On Tuesday Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirm urged the United States judiciary to immediately extradite Fetullah Gulen, the U.S.-based criminal cult leader, whose clandestine organization (FETO) attempted a military coup in Turkey last year.

Speaking to the reporters at Ankara’s Esenboga Airport before embarking on the US visit, Yildirim said there were piles of files, enough to prepare for FETO leader’s extradition. “The judiciary in the U.S. should take immediate legal action and do what’s necessary,” he said.

250 people were killed and nearly 2,200 others injured while resisting the July 15 coup attempt in Turkey in 2016.

The visit of Turkish Prime Minister to the U.S. comes against the backdrop of the visa crisis between the two countries that was set off after Turkish staff at the U.S. mission were arrested two months ago for their ties with FETO. While the visa services were though partially restored on Monday, the PM’s visit is expected to further improve the relationship between the two NATO allies.

However, Yildirim promptly dismissed the statement made by the U.S. Embassy about “high-level assurances” from Turkey and that the country will give advance notice of any detentions or arrests of local staff members in the future.

Yildirim called for the respect for Turkey’s principles of law on the part of U.S., citing the example of the arrest of two bodyguards of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his visit to the U.S.. “The legal process is underway in line with the principles of the state of law in both countries. Therefore, negotiations demanding mutual assurances are not needed,” said Yildirim.

The agenda of the visit where Yildirim is expected to meet U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to discuss a range of issues which include Syria, Iraq, FETO, PYD, YPG, and refugees.

1,837 FETO suspects appear in court

Meanwhile, at home in Turkey the trials of 1,837 FETO coup suspects began on Monday in the Sincan Criminal Courthouse complex, which hosted six separate trials. The trials include FETO’s involvement in the Turkish General Staff, Akinci Airbase, Gendarmerie Schools Command, and Turkish Military Academy as well as the Polatli 58th Artillery Brigade, Artillery, and Missile School Command.

Appearing in court were 221 suspects in the General Staff case, 486 suspects in the Akinci Airbase case, and 239 suspects in the Military Academy case. Also, the trial of 330 suspects from the 58th Artillery Brigade along with the Artillery and Missile School Command in the capital Ankara’s Polatli district is also continuing.

In two separate criminal courts in Sincan, 317 suspects and another 244 suspects in the Gendarmerie Schools Command Case appeared before a judge.

In the Akinci Airbase case, former Brig. Gen. Gokhan Sahin Sonmezates, accused of attempting to assassinate Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the defeated coup, made his plea.

During his hearing, Sonmezates refused to answer any questions from the judge or prosecutors.

Tensions in the court room later rose as some of the complainants and suspects were evicted from the courtroom.

The court decided to reconvene for the Turkish General Staff main coup-plotters case on Tuesday morning. The hearing of the Gendarmerie Schools Command case ended after the identification of 244 suspects, and the chief judge decided to reconvene on Tuesday.

The U.S. government continues to support the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria under the pretext of destroying Daesh. The U.S. provides various military capabilities to the terrorist group that include heavy weapons.

Meanwhile, NATO-ally Turkey has strongly opposed the U.S. engagement with the YPG, the Syrian branch of the PKK, which is listed by Turkey, EU, and the US a terrorist organization.

President Erdoğan recently expressed discontent about providing weapon to the terrorist organization, claiming; “Who can guarantee that these heavy weapons will not be used against Turkey tomorrow?”

While these debates are ongoing, a Turkish newspaper reported on Monday that the U.S. set up PYD military quarters in Faysh Khabur.

According to the newspaper, the U.S. allowed the PYD to establish a new camp in Faysh Khabur – at the border gate between the regional government of northern Iraq and Syria, when the Iraqi army took action to provide control over all border territories in the country.

Faysh Khabur remains the only gate open to Syria for the regional administration in northern Iraq after Iraqi forces recently took control of the Rabia Border Gate between Iraq and Syria.

Amid all developments, it was announced that the Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım is to visit Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday in the White House. It was stated that U.S. assistance to the PYD was one of the headlines on Yıldırım’s agenda, along with other critical issues including the refugee crisis and the current visa row. The two will be discussing bilateral political, economic and military ties and also regional issues in Syria and Iraq.

Russia postpones Sochi initiative

In addition to the U.S., already party to the Astana talks, the Russian administration has also brought the YPG to the political forefront.

Russia announced late last month that on November 18 a meeting will be held in the Black Sea resort of Sochi to discuss Syria’s future constitution with the participation of 33 Syrian groups and political parties, including Kurdish groups and anti-Assad rebel factions.

Turkey strongly objected to the invitation of the PYD and YPG, and Presidential Spokesman Ibrahim Kalin announced on Sunday that Russia has postponed the meeting they planned to organize under the name of Syrian Peoples Congress in Sochi as a result of Turkey’s objection and that YPG will not be invited to the upcoming congress.

Following the July 15 coup attempt, which left 250 people martyred and nearly 2,200 injured, the Turkish government has been trying to tackle the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO), which has infiltrated state institutions, including the army and various ministries.

While the fight against the criminal cult members has been ongoing within Turkey, FETO is well known to have wings overseas. Mainly, the leader of the organization, Fetullah Gulen, is still residing in the US.

Following the coup attempt, while on many occasions Ankara requested for the extradition of Gulen, Washington refused on the basis of lack of evidence. Meanwhile, however, Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul has confirmed that all procedures for extradition have been completed.

Minister Gul said: “For both parties, all conditions have been fulfilled for an extradition. We now wait for the extradition.” Earlier last week the Minister had also emphasized that Washington was bound by law to extradite the terrorist.

According to the extradition treaty, which was signed in 1979 and came to force in 1981, both countries are obliged to extradite an offender which “covers offenses in both countries that are punishable by more than a year in prison.”

The treaty adds that the countries “undertake to surrender to each other… all persons who are found within the territory of the requested party and who are being prosecuted for or have been charged with an offense.”

In response to a question on whether Gulen’s Turkish citizenship would be revoked, Abdulhamit Gul said it could be possible “through a demand from the Interior Ministry and by a cabinet decision.”