Journalist Aykan Sever stated that although Turkey is not likely to lose its significance in the near future, the current government is in no position to offer a positive or constructive vision for the region.

Closely following the developments in foreign policy, Sever responded to ANF’s questions.

What is Turkey’s role in the Istanbul talks between Ukraine and Russia?

Putin himself brought up the idea of holding talks. Most likely, he felt he had missed something. For him, it was also a way to appear diplomatically effective, creating the impression that a decisive step was being taken. But from the very beginning, questions were raised, such as: ‘Did he really want to take steps for peace?’ Looking at it now, we can say he was not acting for peace, but for other concerns. One of those concerns may have been keeping Turkey on his side. Another could have been to appeal to Donald Trump. It could be said that Vladimir Putin has been trying to form a kind of pact or alliance in the Middle East. If we recall, even before Trump came to power, he claimed, ‘I will bring peace here.’ And there are signs that the United States of America (USA) and Russia might reach some sort of understanding over Syria, especially considering Russia’s stance during the rise of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

After Trump took office, he continued the so-called ‘peace’ efforts regarding Ukraine. A situation emerged where it seemed Ukraine was being divided between the USA and Russia. Trump secured a deal over valuable minerals. In fact, it could be said that he got what he wanted and then left the rest to Putin’s initiative. This led to questions such as, 'Is Putin trying to draw the USA to his side?' Some developments occurred, but China responded to these moves. Last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Moscow. Several new agreements were signed there, which relatively distanced Russia from Trump. However, none of these agreements are definitive. Putin may have entered a phase where he realizes that he must cooperate with Trump in order to maintain his influence in the Middle East and achieve results in the Ukraine conflict. He might simply be trying to assert himself and say, ‘I am here too.’

You mentioned keeping Turkey on his side. What exactly is the aim here?

There was an informal NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Antalya. One of the key topics there was Turkey’s role as an active NATO extension. If we look at the statements Turkey made behind closed doors, it does not appear to be distancing itself from this role. Of course, they are expecting certain returns in exchange. This is not a one-sided matter. Putin may have wanted to prevent or limit this, to a certain extent. Nevertheless, they are clearly on opposing sides, but keeping Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a non-confrontational position could still be valuable for Putin. We do not know exactly what kind of agreements or meetings are taking place between Erdoğan and Putin at the moment. The meeting between Zelensky and Erdoğan appeared to be, as we have observed for some time, a kind of appeal for support, not only to Erdoğan, but also to NATO. Zelensky is looking for a way out. There is still no consensus on this issue within the Western bloc. Some countries in Europe do not agree with Donald Trump’s proposed solution. They also want their own share of the resource between Russia and the USA. Russia and Ukraine sent delegations that, being low-level, did not take each other seriously. So, it would be unrealistic to expect anything substantial to emerge from that.

Turkey is currently positioned between Trump’s mediation role and its relationship with Ahmed Al-Sharaa in Syria. Trump says he will lift sanctions after his talks with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. So, the question is: will these sanctions actually be lifted? And is Turkey’s position becoming clearer from the perspective of the USA?

One dimension of Trump’s visits to the Middle East was trade. Another was his attempt to form a new axis. A similar attempt was also made during the Joe Biden administration, but due to interventions by China and Iran, it didn’t materialize. China and Iran moved closer to Saudi Arabia and similar countries. In particular, China signed quite comprehensive agreements with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. As a result, many of the contracts ended up going to China. Now, can Trump win all that back? Most likely, he wants to reverse the course of these relations. Some agreements have already been made. Arms trade deals were also signed. Now, with this axis, meaning the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt, there is a desire to reshape the Middle East. They have already expressed this openly. In fact, this was stated clearly during the times when Trump met with Benjamin Netanyahu. They have not yet achieved their ambitions with regard to the Palestine issue. A similar situation applies to Lebanon. And they have failed in Yemen as well. Iraq remains unclear. The real long-term target is, of course, Iran. For now, they have achieved a certain level of success in Syria. Trump is trying to collect the rewards of that.

I define the rise of HTS to power as a NATO operation. So, it’s not just about a meeting between Trump and Al-Jolani. It is likely that the groundwork had already been laid. It is said that Al- Jolani sent a letter. We are not fully aware of the details of the meeting with Al- Jolani, but some outcomes have already been listed. Even if temporary, certain sanctions could be lifted, there is a foundation for this. Trump brought Erdoğan and Saudi Arabia into this process. From an economic perspective, the USA, or rather, without economic guarantees, the USA would not move forward. In all these policies, it will probably be American or international companies to undertake some of the work. We should also note that segments of the capital-owning class in Turkey are quite pleased about this.

Can the HTS management really provide what is being asked of Al-Jolani?

It is rather unlikely. Structurally, they are not really equipped for it, but with a bit of cosmetic effort, both sides could pretend. HTS had already existed as a project in Syria even before the war began, in 2006. This is visible in various documents. It wasn’t called HTS back then, but such a group had been designed. These were not random policies in the past, but they carry the potential to doom the region to chaos. If they fail to establish power, that outcome seems likely. On the other hand, although Israel appears to be uninvolved in all of this, the demands Trump is voicing are essentially the same as Israel’s. So, there is no contradiction with Israeli interests.

There are claims that Israel disagrees with Trump on certain issues, and that some dismissals in the USA are considered as attempts to restrict Netanyahu. What is your view on these discussions?

In general terms, I think they are aligned. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu’s style of acting does not fully meet Donald Trump’s expectations. It’s important to highlight something here: there’s a classical assumption that without the USA, the countries in the region, including Turkey, cannot act independently. But this is not the case. Today, to a certain extent, they have their own initiatives and distinctive characteristics. There are strategic qualities at play, and the Netanyahu administration is using those. It is not losing anything anyway. For instance, at least 80 people were killed in Palestine recently, and this barely made the news. The Turkish administration made no statement about it. Of course, in the past, we knew such statements were made only for appearance’s sake, but even that has disappeared now. There is actually a growing closeness between Israel and Turkey. I believe the issue of southern and northern Syria is still relevant here. This goes back to the period before any change in government. It probably wasn’t a formally written plan, but there was an understanding: Turkey would control the north of Syria, and Israel the south.

In recent days, Turkey has appeared as an international mediator. Trump has praised this. But surely this praise also comes with something in return. Turkey may not be the only one gaining from this. What does the USA gain, and what are Turkey’s disadvantages despite its advantages?

Turkey’s military is the strongest among the countries in the region. That is its most important advantage. For example, Trump would not want something like that in Ukraine, but in the event of a possible war with Iran, the army that would appear on the scene to confront Iran is Turkey’s. This is already being mutually discussed in some form with NATO. A war with Iran cannot be completely ruled out. I don’t think it will happen immediately, but in the long term, the chances are high. If Iran does not entirely terminate its nuclear program and submit to Trump in some way, Netanyahu will especially push for this. Most recently, the USA sold 124 million dollars’ worth of missiles to Turkey. There are other types of missiles as well, but the majority are air-to-air missiles. We’re not exactly sure why they were given or sold, but who could these air-to-air missiles be used against? There is only one real rival: Iran.

On the other hand, Turkey is not being cautious on another front and has come under increasing pressure over the Cyprus issue. This mutual closeness could also be partly related to that. Turkey has now resorted to a policy of seeking to align itself more closely with the USA within the framework of NATO. Of course, there may also be a certain degree of caution toward Israel here. In this sense, it is important to follow the Israeli press. Israeli analysts have never advocated for war with Turkey. Instead, they have consistently argued for maintaining a balanced relationship. However, in the past 10 to 15 days, the general tone of Israeli commentary, at least from what I have seen, has emphasized further reconciliation with Turkey. Israel’s capacity is obvious. It cannot enter such a war without the USA. It is also clear that the USA does not want to launch such a war either.

Even in Yemen, the USA was reluctant to push further. It helped bring the war to a certain resolution and then withdrew. War could be costly for the USA. We can already see this in the so-called trade war with China. At least tactically, they have retreated. Trump was forced to take a step back. And it’s unlikely that this will continue further. Because when you make such bold challenges, saying you will do this or that, and the world sees you fail, it becomes evident.

Meanwhile, economic indicators in Turkey are not looking good. The erosion of democracy is already well known. Overall, there is a society in crisis, and the current regime under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is incapable of producing long-term plans for Turkey’s future. One could say Turkey is facing a multi-dimensional deadlock. Most likely, they are calculating that the answer lies elsewhere. They are still making strategic calculations involving Southern Kurdistan, particularly areas like Mosul and Kirkuk. These are seen as key to solving Turkey’s deepening economic problems. Even if they cannot take full control of those areas, obtaining a share from them could, in their eyes, be a solution to the crisis.

The so-called ‘economic opportunities’ in Syria, which essentially means ‘looting’, are still on the agenda. They are trying to find a way forward by reaching an agreement with Trump on these matters. In my view, there has long been a consensus on expanding the occupation of Southern Kurdistan. The goal is to transfer oil from the region to Israel. Requests have been made by the administration of the USA, urging them to accelerate the flow of oil between Iraq and Turkey right away. Who will end up seizing the largest share of that oil is another matter. But in the end, Turkey is also entering this with its own expectations, hoping to get a piece of the pie.

Although Turkey cooperates with the United States, it also has its own imperial ambitions. There is a simultaneous urge to satisfy those ambitions. What’s also notable is that, up to now, no one, including Israel, has called on Turkey to withdraw from the territories it has occupied in Syria. The same goes for Southern Kurdistan. One reason they are particularly supportive of Turkey’s actions in Southern Kurdistan, in my view, is that it creates a buffer against Iran. They seem to be trying to turn this into a foundation for preparations for war with Iran. There are reports suggesting that the USA is already making certain preparations in this regard.

Turkey will not lose its significance in the near future. However, the Turkish government is in no position to present a constructive or positive vision for the region. As a result, what we see is a country stuck in place, unable to move forward and, in fact, steadily heading toward an even worse situation.

So, you are saying this rise in visibility will not translate into a major leap for Turkey itself?

Yes, leaving aside the issue of democracy, even just to solve its economic problems, Turkey would need major investments and a much larger inflow of capital. But there is no sign of that happening. In fact, its own policies are preventing even that.