At the forum “Meetings of the Century of Turkey” at the Istanbul Congress Center, Erdogan said “nothing from Syria to Gaza, from the Persian Gulf to the conflict in Ukraine can happen without Turkey”.
Whether Ankara exports peace and stability to the world, as the Turkish president claims, is another question. For Erdogan, his country provides a future in which no generation is wasted and peace, security and prosperity prevail throughout Turkey's geography. It is not clear how far Turkey's geography extends, but it is a fact that Ankara is very closely monitoring the processes in the world and finding a way to interfere in events.
That is why it is difficult to swallow Netanyahu's statement that "neither Turkish troops nor Turkish companies" will be allowed into Gaza. According to Trump's plan, Turkey should participate in the post-war working group for Gaza, and Hamas has demanded that Turkish military forces be stationed there as a security guarantee. Tel Aviv considers this a "threat", although Trump sided with Erdogan in this case. Netanyahu categorically opposes the entry of Turkish troops into Gaza and has defined this position as a "red line" for Israel.
Regardless of the fact that Trump's plan for Gaza was presented in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on October 16, and the presence of Turkey among the international forces that will be deployed in the enclave was specified there. It was also specified during the meeting between Trump and Erdogan in the Egyptian resort to end the military operations in Gaza. Turkish media are leaking information about the concern of officials in Washington regarding Netanyahu's statements, because this could undoubtedly fail the full implementation of Trump's plan.
Tel Aviv preferred that Turkey and Qatar engage only in civil and humanitarian functions such as providing aid. There was no need for these countries to participate in Gaza, because they would gain political influence, strengthen ties with Hamas, and this would “threaten Israel's security interests”. According to Netanyahu, "any Turkish and Qatari presence is a direct threat to Israeli sovereignty and regional stability." For his part, US Vice President Vance, during his meetings in Tel Aviv these days, categorically stated that "we will not put pressure on Israel to deploy foreign forces in Gaza."
And also that "we will not put pressure on Israel." The issue remains open, but Ankara does not like to leave its horse in the river. The Middle East, including Gaza, are a priority in its foreign policy.
But the situation in Syria is also a priority. Fears that the model from Iraq after 2003 will be applied in Syria force Ankara to emphasize at all meetings of its representatives outside the country that "the Iraqi model will not work in Syria." For Turkey, only circles close to the Syrian Kurdish organizations and the PKK are trying to keep this model on the agenda in Syria. They claim that Israel is the leading force among these forces. But there were other forces behind Israel that “subtly, without advertising, support this agenda”.
The goal is to establish a regional government in the Kurdish-populated region of Syria, similar to the situation in Iraq. This is a model of regional government that is independent in internal affairs, subordinate to the central government in external affairs, has its own armed forces and shares natural resources in proportion to the population. This is exactly the model that was implemented after the Western invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to Ankara, this model is inapplicable to Syria in many respects. There are demographic differences, because in Iraqi Kurdistan the population is mainly Kurdish, and in the Kurdish areas of Syria there are also quite a few Arabs.
The Turks claim that Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and Hasakah are Arab cities, but Syrian Kurds rule there. There is no single Kurdish belt in Syria, which is disputed by the Kurds themselves. Moreover, the extent to which this is a reason to claim that it is an obstacle to the creation of an autonomous part of Syria is debatable. Because in Iraqi Kurdistan there are also Assyrian, Turkmen, Yazidi and other ethnic groups, which is not an obstacle to self-government. And there are Kurds in Syria in Damascus and Aleppo. Emphasizing the role of Barzani, whom Ankara has been financing for many years, in achieving autonomy for Iraqi Kurdistan /back in 1970 with the support of Britain, the USA and Israel/ is also not much of an argument.
But it is a fact that the current Iraqi Kurdistan has legitimacy based on the 1970 agreement and the current government in the capital Erbil was created after the Persian Gulf War in 1991 by the USA. On the principle of “divide and rule”. You never know when pressure will be needed on the so-called Kurdish issue.
Ankara believes that the Syrian Kurds are generally under the influence of the rulers in Damascus, and Turkey has a major role in bringing the new government under its own umbrella. For Ankara, the Syrian Kurdish organization YPG is a branch of the PKK and this was realized back in 2003. Their power was formalized after Assad lost control over the border with Turkey after 2011.
The Turks are definitely counting on the fact that this is not 1991, nor 2003, when the US intervened unilaterally and tried to establish its own order by force. Moreover, neither Russia nor Turkey, not to mention Iraq and Iran, have withdrawn from the region in the face of American initiatives. This is also claimed by James Jeffrey, a former US ambassador to Ankara, who was an official representative for both Syria and Iraq. Whatever one may say, this issue is very painful for Turkey and it is always present in the analyses and forecasts of experts, institutions and media in Erdogan's country.
However, recently attention has also been focused on Trump's recent meeting with Bartholomew, where topics of "religious freedom and the position of the Orthodox world" were discussed. The Turks call Bartholomew the "Patriarch of Fener", but they do not fail to point out that the time for the meeting was chosen on purpose and is a "message to the evangelical base in US domestic politics". The prepared bill is non-binding, but serves the "white house's soft religious power policy". And the bill has actually been submitted to the US Congress and lists Turkey among the countries "that ignore religious restrictions" i.e. religious freedom.
Where you fuck it, where you give a damn! Apparently pressure on Ankara because of other decisions of its that do not please Washington. That is why difficulties in “obtaining residence permits for religious minorities” are also cited. The question arises why Orthodoxy is again a topic for dialogue or simply for consideration, and with the participation of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew?
In this regard, the upcoming European Rabbinical Conference on November 3-6 in Baku, Azerbaijan, which is financed by Bavaria and Israel, is also of interest. The focus of the conference is the Abraham Accords. Rabbis from the USA, Israel and Europe will be in Baku to develop a “road map for deepening and expanding agreements between several Arab countries and Israel”. Aliyev will also speak at the conference, which is part of the so-called interfaith dialogue. And there is information that Azerbaijan will be among the countries that will sign the Abraham Accords. The conference will be led by Rabbi Goldschmidt, who was the chief rabbi in Russia until 2023, but Moscow has included him among those who receive money from abroad and he preferred to leave the country.
Ankara writes that “he probably did not want Russia to monitor the spending of the money he received from foreign countries”. Then he accused Putin of “authoritarian character” and advised Jews to leave Russia. There are his appearances that are supported by photos of Putin, Erdogan and Raisi, whom he calls dictators. Those who support Hamas and are authoritarian regimes.
Here it is appropriate to recall the words of Tom Barak, the US ambassador to Ankara, who stated “just think how Turkey, Israel, the Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Armenia together combine and create the most powerful region in the world. And why not”. Through the Abraham Accords, which have already been signed by Sudan, Morocco, the UAE and Bahrain.
In a word - interfaith diplomacy unites rabbis, imams, clerics beyond national and social borders. So regional wars are not enough. Will there be religious ones too? Because such unifications are unlikely to be accepted without problems by countries with expressed sovereignty and steadfastness towards independence and their own civilization. What else is the world waiting for today?