“This is a decision to establish a moral distance”, says Prof. Davutoğlu and announces the dissolution of the Future Party, whose leader he is. The party has been suspended and dissolved. “In order not to be part of the polluted political climate, a decision was made to withdraw from party politics and to terminate the political activity of the Future Party”, adds Davutoğlu.
According to him, the political system in Turkey as a whole, as well as party politics in particular, have fallen into a political impasse. It was not a decision to capitulate, but to “establish a moral distance”. It was not a renunciation of politics, but a call for everyone to rethink politics. It was not a withdrawal from the fight for Turkey, but a placing of “our responsibility to Turkey above daily political calculations”. The Turkey of tomorrow should be the Turkey of freedom, of thought, of law, of social justice, equal citizenship, strategic thinking.
The question is why right now, is there a plan behind the scenes or has what happened to the main opposition HRP /Republican People's Party, Kemalists/ raised concerns about pressure, coercion, not to mention a deadlock. Does the separation of the secular opposition HRP through a court decision and thus ensuring a trouble-free success for Erdogan's ruling AKP /Justice and Development Party/ in the upcoming elections have anything to do with the decision of the Future Party?
This is against the backdrop of analyses in the world press that the world is entering a period when the decisions of several governments can have an impact far beyond the borders of, for example, the Middle East. A region that is strategic for Ankara's interests abroad. A period in which it is realized that today's conflicts are not regional disputes, but potential factors for global economic instability.
The world economy and international security are being tested, and it is by no means certain that the great powers can bring back the times of diplomacy that would precede the use of military force. Jeffrey Sachs also thinks so, but not only he, but also Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland teach at Columbia University. It is significant, isn't it? It is also about expanding the geography of war.
If we take into account the war in Iran, for which there are now and then no negotiations for a diplomatic outcome with compromises from military actions in the country of the ayatollahs and in response defeats over American bases in the Persian Gulf, Jordan and Egypt, it is clear that the conflict is spreading to the Eastern Mediterranean. Its indirect effects are said to reach Spain, Ukraine and the Far East.
The geography of the war is not only the armies, but also missile sites, energy facilities, treatment plants, ports, water reservoirs, etc. Outside the region, Ukraine attacked an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea and explained it with an ”attack on Russia's logistics networks”. A kind of Caspian Sea turns out to be a corridor that connects two wars - the Ukrainian and the Iranian. Both are part of the geopolitics of related wars.
If the information that North Korea is providing troops, missiles and ammunition to Russia is true, this actually connects the war in Ukraine, i.e. Europe, with East Asia. And this is a connection that extends from Russia to Iran, but through China. They say that Beijing will provide Tehran with air defense systems and in this way another strategic connection will be regulated. Some argue that this is a new equation - Ukraine, Russia, Iran, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, North Korea, China. A network where different wars are interconnected through military resources, technology, intelligence, strategic pressure.
In this regard, one can also mention the position of Spain, which condemns the genocide in Gaza, the growing military cooperation between Morocco and Israel, Trump's hostility to Sanchez and the migrant crisis in Ceuta, which they say is sudden. But all these events fit perfectly into the above equation. It is impossible to believe that suddenly 70 thousand Moroccans in formation can invade Ceuta, which has been part of Spain since 1580 and has had autonomous status since 1995. A Spanish military base, of course. On the African coast, but so close to mainland Spain.
This is Gibraltar, and lately every strategically located strait in the world has become the subject of special attention and it is difficult to hide the desire to control its use. And Gibraltar is key to the Mediterranean. Like Hormuz for the world's trade route to the Indian Ocean, to China, and back past Iran and Oman. In practice, each player benefits from pressure created by others while waging their own war.
For example, the war in the Middle East intersects with the wars in Eurasia, and thus Turkey becomes a strategic crossroads. NATO, Russia, Iran, Syria, Iraq and the Kurds intersect there. They are in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran and for Ankara, etc. the Kurdish issue may turn out to be the vortex that can form with the reduction of Tehran's regional power and draw Turkey into it. Therefore, Ankara is stepping on its toes in relation to Iran at the stage of the US and Israel's war against Tehran. It did what was necessary to deflect Washington's pressure for the intervention of the Iraqi Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan in a proposed ground offensive in Iran.
The conclusion is that the world is in a position of a system of wars. In such a system, various conflict zones in world politics feed off each other. At least that's what some in Ankara write. It is a valid question whether the war in Iran is transforming seemingly separate wars into a single Eurasian conflict system. The risks are definitely connected and events prove it. New fronts are opening up and the boundaries between these fronts are blurring. Whether this will lead to a change in borders remains to be seen.
And whoever is able and has the power can interfere and even take advantage. Turkey's concerns are definitely with regard to the Kurds, who are emerging as a factor that could change not only the external front of the war with Iran, but also the internal geography of Iran. It is no coincidence that the “Jerusalem Post” on July 26 suggested that it was “time for Israel to arm the Kurds and help create Kurdistan”. For decades, the Kurds have been lied to with similar promises by various powers, but for Ankara, "fear is a shield."
Because it is known that Kurdish forces operating in Western Iran, with externally supplied weapons, intelligence information and logistical support, have the ability to pave the way for ethnic and regional conflicts through cross-border armed movements and demands for statehood. For Ankara, this is the long arm of Tel Aviv.
Turkey also sees this "long arm" in relation to Cyprus. On the 52nd anniversary of Ankara's operation in Cyprus, after which the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared, unrecognized by anyone, Athens, the Greek Cypriot administration /Nicosia/ and Israel have united in demands for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island, the abolition of Turkey's guarantor status and the return of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a member of the EU.
Israel has declared the Turkish military presence on the island of Cyprus to be “unacceptable”. There is a statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that is directly directed against Turkey. For Dendias, the Greek Defense Minister, “Greece does not forget” and “Cyprus is close to the Greek Armed Forces”, while Mitsotakis, the Prime Minister, defines the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus as “an open wound”. For Athens, the Cyprus issue remains a problem of an illegal operation called occupation. Both Turkey and Greece remain on their positions on the Cyprus problem - a federation for Greece and a two-state solution for Turkey, which are incompatible as positions.
Guterres, during a recent visit to Cyprus, left the island without a solution, despite having brought together the two leaders of the divided island, Christodoulides and Erhurman, for an informal dinner in the buffer zone. Two days of negotiations, separately and together, and finally “we do not want negotiations just for the sake of negotiations”. We do not want a 5+1 format just for the sake of a 5+1 format. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, under the umbrella of Turkey, rejects the EU representative for Cyprus because he lacks legitimacy. There was no consent from the Turkish side and they were not asked.
There is no unity, no reconciliation, no united Cyprus based on a UN resolution. Israel openly supports Greece and directly draws attention to Turkey's military presence in Cyprus. Ankara does not accept any “loose solutions” for Cyprus - a federation of two separate states with their own representative assemblies. Where will Ankara go then? The Cyprus issue will be like the Palestinian issue, like the Kurdish issue, which will be used in geopolitical battles in certain situations. Masha in foreign hands. Something like that is being said about Kiev.
The issues of how to get out of such situations remain for the future. And some, like China, are watching carefully, learning and gaining experience for the upcoming redistribution of spheres of influence. It is inevitable. Even in Washington, some share it. But there is no key yet.