Some things repeat cyclically, and this is not merely about the Republicans returning to the White House but about the fact that, for the second time in five years, the Turkish president has ignored an agreement with Donald Trump. In both cases, it concerns Syria. Let us recall that in 2019, Erdoğan easily dismissed Trump’s suggestion directed at Turkey to refrain from attacking Syria. The day after receiving the letter dominated by the sentence “Let’s make a good deal for peace in Syria,” Erdoğan launched an offensive. Was this an act of defiance or the result of support for this move from part of the deep American state, including a significant number of Republican senators and congressmen?
THE FALL OF ASSAD AND PREPARATION FOR THE WAR OF ALL WARS
Five years later, the Turkish president once again ignores Trump’s initiative for a peaceful resolution to the problems in the Middle East. Alongside Israeli and French special forces, substantial infantry units of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, assembled into the coalition Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and, of course, with intelligence support from the outgoing American administration, Turkey launches massive strikes and a classic invasion into Aleppo. This is followed by attacks on Hama and Homs, and subsequently the occupation of Damascus. A significant video shows allegedly pro-Turkish rebels in Aleppo trampling and tearing Palestinian flags.
The Assad dynasty becomes a subject of history books, but not only it. In Libya, let us not forget, with the overthrow of Gaddafi, the state ceded its place to refineries whose oil is divided between the Turks and the French. Similarly, after Saddam Hussein’s fall, Iraq was divided into spheres of interest among the U.S., Turkey, and Iran. The fall of Syria is the prelude to its fragmentation — the Americans will retain the oil-rich areas and continue supporting the Kurdish entity. Israel will consolidate and expand its occupation of the Golan Heights, cutting off Iran’s communications with its proxy forces in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Russia will be forced to withdraw from the Mediterranean coast with diminished geopolitical power and an inability to protect its partner states and peoples.
Turkey will obliterate traces of Hezbollah in Syria and prepare for a new war of all wars, in which only a Muslim country can achieve what is impossible for both the U.S. and Israel — conquering the holiest Muslim sites in Mecca and Medina. Naturally, the main target is the wealthy Saudi Arabia, which will face Turkey’s plan to destroy the “Prophet’s nation.”
WITH THE TURKISH SOROS AGAINST UNRELIABLE ERDOĞAN
The grim reality is as follows: The Arab League is dead, the Arab world is fragmented, and key Arab states such as Egypt are weakened, with some occupied and devastated by wars. While Turkey targets energy resources, Israel is content with the security sector. The summary is that Turkey and Israel, under American mentorship, have successfully torn apart the Middle East. At one time, when Turkey operated within the framework of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and in its relations with Russia, Erdoğan was regarded as a useful geopolitical figure. The fragility of his power became evident during the attempted coup initiated by the Americans; their intelligence community, with government backing and the support of the recently deceased Fethullah Gülen — the imam from Pennsylvania often referred to, not without reason, as the “Turkish Soros.”
The actions of the coup plotters had a clear objective: the complete elimination of the unreliable Erdoğan, the purging of his loyal personnel, the pacification of the AKP, and the dismantling of the entire political system built over the preceding years. The reason for this was the geopolitical reshuffling — the U.S. was redrawing new frontlines with Russia and China, with the help of NATO and the EU. Missile shields were installed across Europe, the war in Ukraine and the Middle East was to be directed, the Pacific crisis around the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea was to be managed, and military forces and equipment were being amassed in the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine. In such constellations, Erdoğan was identified as an obstacle to the plans for dragging Europe and Asia into the crisis of a new, large-scale war.
FROM THE STRUGGLE FOR BARE SURVIVAL TO THE RISE OF NEO-OTTOMANISM
Erdoğan understood perfectly well that the military is not the guardian of democracy in Turkey or anywhere in the world, and even less the protector of Atatürk’s secular legacy. Over the past decade, the AKP, the military, and Turkish society as a whole have undergone active Islamization, while neo-Ottoman ambitions have become the leitmotif of a new policy and vision that even ordinary Turkish citizens enthusiastically embrace. However, what the military attempted to defend and preserve has its name: the “Euro-Atlantic legacy.” This refers to Turkey’s destructive role in the Middle East, the Balkans, and its relations with Russia, serving NATO’s interests.
After the attempted coup, Turkey entered a new phase. Erdoğan was not merely fighting Gülen but also resisting American presence and influence in Turkish society and the state — with an emphasis on the Turkish military. In defending his political power, infrastructure, and sheer survival, Erdoğan, in the years that followed, focused on mitigating internal conflicts in a deeply divided society and managing relations with the Kurds. In foreign policy, however, he entirely reshaped Turkey’s strategy. Behind the facade of regional cooperation, Erdoğan strongly articulated neo-Ottoman ideas and ambitions, creating instability far beyond Turkey’s borders. Erdoğan’s focus shifted to the Balkans and Armenia, where he provoked crises and the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, strengthening Turkey’s foothold in the Caucasus. Turkey’s return under the American umbrella became a tool for realizing neo-Ottoman actions.
DANGEROUS ADVENTURES
Neo-Ottomanism is essentially a dream of reviving or at least expanding Turkey’s influence over the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched from Algeria to Egypt and Somalia, from Yemen to Syria and Iraq, encompassing Anatolia and the Balkans, as well as much of the Black Sea coast, including Crimea. Turkey’s foreign policy in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East can be described as neo-Ottoman — undermining the foundations of international law as well as the territorial sovereignty and integrity of numerous states, from Syria to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Around a hundred years ago, Turkey’s “father of the nation,” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founded the Republic of Turkey on the principles of secularism. Atatürk removed religion from politics, banned Arabic calls to prayer, granted equal rights to men and women, and introduced numerous political, economic, and cultural reforms to orient Turkey toward the values of humanism and the Western world. Erdoğan has done the opposite. The transformation of Turkey into an autocratic and theocratic state, along with Erdoğan’s ambition to become the leader of the Muslim world, heralded dangerous foreign policy adventures that threaten peace and security in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East. Although the European Union and the United States still consider Iran the greatest “ticking time bomb” in the region, for neighboring countries, the greatest threat does not come from Tehran but from Ankara.
THE REHABILITATION OF THE OTTOMANS
Accusations from foreign politicians that Erdoğan is pursuing a neo-Ottoman policy have further strengthened his position among Turkey’s right-wing circles. Nostalgia for Ottoman times among nationalist and religious groups has never faded among the Turkish people. Unlike other European countries that have retained constitutional monarchies and given their royal families symbolic powers (e.g., the United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain), modern Turkey, the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire, declared the Ottoman family, the Osmanoğlus, traitors to the Turkish people. The ink on the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924 had barely dried before members of the Osmanoğlu dynasty, who had ruled the Ottoman Empire for six centuries, were deported from Turkish lands. It wasn’t until 1974 that they were granted permission to return to Turkey, though many, out of fear, did not take advantage of the opportunity.
Today, members of the royal family can live in peace. While politicians and historians in Kemalist Turkey diminished the significance and achievements of the Ottoman era, under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s leadership, things have changed drastically. Erdoğan acknowledges the importance of national history during the Seljuk and Ottoman periods.
BORDERS HAVE CHANGED, BUT THE SOUL…
Some experts argue that all of Turkey is essentially an “open museum” of its ancestors. The architecture and customs bear witness to the fact that the Ottoman legacy has always been inseparably tied to the Turkish nation. Responding to accusations that Erdoğan’s Turkey aims to become a regional power modeled after the Ottomans, particularly during the Arab Spring, the Turkish leader stated:
“The Republic of Turkey, like our previous states, which are successors to one another, is also a continuation of the Ottomans. Of course, the borders have changed. The forms of governance have changed… But the essence is the same, the soul is the same, even many institutions are the same.”
With this statement, Erdoğan openly shared his view that Turkey is, in essence, spiritually and partly institutionally, the successor to the Ottoman Empire. This stirred deeply hidden nationalist passions not only among Turks but also among the peoples who were once part of the Ottoman Empire. Erdoğan’s foreign policy inspires spiritual fervor not just among Turkish nationalists but also among Arab, Azeri, and Bosniak nationalists. In recent years, there has been a growing popularity of Turkish soap operas, TV dramas (Ertuğrul), books, films, and other cultural expressions dedicated to Ottoman history. However, neo-Ottoman policies have also led to diplomatic disputes with Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which firmly refuse to be part of any Ottoman revival.
TWO STATES – ONE NATION
Across the Mediterranean, Turkey’s expansionist policy has turned the political tide. Turkish intervention facilitated the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 and later helped Libya’s Government of National Unity, based in Tripoli, crush rebel forces led by Khalifa Haftar, securing Turkey’s foothold in North Africa and countering rivals like Egypt. Beyond the Aras River on Turkey’s eastern flank, Erdoğan’s foreign policy has contributed to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which concluded in favor of Turkey’s ally, thanks in large part to Ankara’s drone program. In the conflict in the South Caucasus, Pakistan joined Turkey in supporting Ilham Aliyev’s government.
The alliance between Turkey and Azerbaijan is particularly significant. The slogan “Two states, one nation” is embraced not only by Turkish ultranationalists but also by Erdoğan and Aliyev. This reflects pan-Turkism — the belief that speakers of Turkic languages in Western China, Central Asia, Siberia, the Caucasus, Crimea, Cyprus, the Balkans, Anatolia, and the Middle East constitute a single nation.
PAN-TURKISM IN THE CAUCASUS
Turkey’s goal with Azerbaijan is to establish direct transport links between the “Turkic states” to facilitate the transit of oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to the Aegean Sea. The only obstacle is Armenia, specifically its Syunik province, which disrupts the connection between the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan and the rest of Azerbaijan. The 2020 peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia included provisions for building a road from Nakhchivan through Syunik to Azerbaijan. However, there are plans suggesting that Azerbaijan might seek to seize all those territories, with Erdoğan aiding Aliyev in this endeavor. Encouraged by the progress of pan-Turkism in the Caucasus, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, Ersin Tatar, stated last year that Turkey, Azerbaijan, and the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus represent “One nation, three states.” The occupation of northern Cyprus remains contrary to UN Resolutions 550 and 789.
THE HOMELAND OF THE BOSNIAKS?
The expansion of Turkish influence in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires a detailed analysis, but it is clear that the neo-Ottoman policy of the past 10–15 years has left troubling traces, further complicating relations between Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. Tying themselves to the idea of neo-Ottomanism has reinforced the belief among some Bosniaks that Turkey is their historic and future homeland. Naturally, they overlook the fact that the Ottoman Empire occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, destroying the medieval Bosnian state and its identity. A similar scenario could happen today. Certain Bosniak intellectuals have recognized this danger and have distanced themselves from Turkish tutelage.
Although Erdoğan is cautious in the Balkans due to the division of spheres of influence between Great Britain and Germany, he has never stopped positioning himself culturally, militarily, and politically. It is not unrealistic to assume that Turkey’s expansionist game might be nearing its end. The modern “sultan” could once again provoke the United States. What if his luck runs out this time?
