Turkey – the new strategic doctrine
by Thierry Meyssan on 13 Sep 2016 1 Comment

Denouncing the interpretation of the military coup d’état in Turkey as a manoeuvre by the United States against Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Thierry Meyssan proposes a larger view which integrates the prior resignation of Ahmet Davutoglu and the re-establishing of commercial relations with Israel, Iran and Russia. Thereafter, he anticipates what the new Turkish strategy will probably be.


During the coup d’état, several soldiers were decapitated by Islamistes from the AKP (the Justice and Development Party) and their heads were thrown into the Bosphorus. Here, an Islamist whips soldiers who had been arrested. The secular army was “purged”, with absolutely no connection between the soldiers who were punished and those implied in the attempted putsch.


Many erroneous interpretations have been developed concerning the evolution of Turkey over the last three months, particularly since the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (22 May) and the attempted military coup d’état (15 July).


The false coup d’état


First of all, let’s get rid of the absurdities proffered about the coup d’état. All authors agree on two points:


- The coup was organised with the participation of the United States from the NATO base at Incirlik, and supported by the Air Force, which is controlled by the multinational Lockheed Martin.


- It was designed to fail, as attested by the absence of any initiative against the leaders of the régime and its party, as well as against the Presidential palace, which is the strategic base of power. Besides which, some of the putschists were in league with President Erdogan, since two rebel aircraft escorted the President when he returned to Istanbul.


Consequently, only two interpretations are possible:


- Either the United States was addressing a warning to President Erdogan in order to make him more amenable, in which case, they failed.


- Or the United States and President Erdogan plotted the coup d’état together, in order to purge the country of all opposition.


We are bound to note, however, that despite appearances and the official declarations, this purge serves the common interests of the United States and President Erdogan.


Indeed, Turkey is today the godfather of the world’s Muslim Brotherhood, and also their armed branch, in other words, international jihadism. From this position, on behalf of Washington, it continues to pull the strings of the “Syrian rebels”, as well as Daesh. Unfortunately, this position is incompatible with membership in NATO.


First of all, Washington thought it could solve the problem by changing the Turkish President. The CIA therefore supported the transformation of the HDP (the Peoples’ Democratic Party, representing the minorities, mainly Kurds), but this party lost the elections of November 2015, which were massively faked by the AKP [1]. Washington then accepted to maintain Erdogan, but decided to cancel Turkey’s NATO membership.


The Atlantic Alliance was created, just after the Second World War, at the demand of the West European power elites, who feared being ejected more or less democratically by the Communists, on the “1948 Czechoslovak coup d’état” model. The Alliance was transformed during the Cold War into a war machine against the Soviet Union, and therefore needed weapons in vast quantities. This is why it allowed Turkey to enter NATO in 1952. Turkey proved to be indispensable during the Korean War, and later during the missile crisis.


However, after the collapse of the USSR, the Alliance was not dismantled, but transformed in 1999 into a unipolar world police force (New Strategic Concept). Since that time, all NATO armies have been adapted qualitatively for this new function – the end of conscription and the purchase of high-technology equipment. Consequently, the presence of Turkey in NATO, which was necessary in 1952, is today worthless.


Although the Alliance holds a summit conference of its heads of state every two years, Washington has called for an exceptional meeting in July 2017 in Brussels. Turkey will then be excluded so that Washington will be able to deny any responsibility for international terrorism.


Let’s note that the AKP regularly accuses the army in general of collaborating with the United States. It produced a fictional film about Gladio, the CIA/NATO secret service, and convicted more than 200 superior officers for plotting against the state (the Ergenekon trial) [2]. However, these convictions were later cancelled and the officers freed. In reality, they had attempted to create relations with the Chinese Army, therefore distancing themselves from the Pentagon. They are, of course, accused today of being members of the putsch.


The only objection that can be laid against the interpretation of complicity between Washington and Erdogan is the future of Hizmet, the movement of Fethullah Gülen. This man is indispensable to the CIA in Africa, the Balkans and Central Asia – but today, he has lost his Turkish financing. We shall see in the next few months what alternative Washington has planned for.


Let us point out that Gülen has no connection with the coup d’état, since he belongs to another school of Islam, while all the putschists are Kemalists.


The sacking of the Prime Minister


Let’s now look at the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, which occurred two months before the coup d’état.


After having taught political science in Malaysia, he published, in 2001, his Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Uluslararasi Konumu (Strategic Depth). Basing himself on the theses of Dimitri Kitsikis, he commended a form of neo-Ottomanism which would confer regional power to Turkey. According to him, the creation of a new Turko-Mongol Empire had to be achieved in two movements.

First of all, by restoring diplomatic relations with its neighbours (“zero problem with neighbours”), and then by promoting Islam in the neighbouring states in order to unify them. He entered the cabinet of Prime Minister Erdogan in 2003, and became his diplomatic advisor until 2009. During this period, he implemented the first phase of his programme, and managed effectively to solve all the neighbourhood problems inherited from the Ottoman period (but not the Armenian question dating from the Young Turks, nor the Cypriot question bequeathed by Henry Kissinger).


Named as Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2009, he completed this first phase by negotiating the Syria-Turkey-Iran Common Market, then moved on to the second phase of his project. After the Erdogan-Peres clash in Davos (end of 2009), he organised the “Gaza Freedom Flottilla” to support Hamas, and entered into direct conflict with Israel, who pirated the Mavi Marmara, which was flying the Turkish flag. Then he supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya and participated in the overthrow of the Jamahiriya (2011). Finally, he once again supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, this time against the secular Republic. We are obliged to note that this policy failed, and has led Turkey into a dead end.


During the second phase of the Davutoglu project, Ankara found itself once again in conflict with every one of its neighbours, with the exception of Azerbaijan (“zero neighbours without problems”). This is why, last May, President Erdogan decided to change his strategy, and replaced Davutoglu with Binali Yildirim. The goal is still to found a new Turko-Mongol Empire, but this time by attempting to first unify Turkey, then expand its model to its neighbours.


Yildirim is a godfather of the Turkish mafia which has been looking after the financing of the AKP since its inception. He has established corrupt relations with most of the main Turkish businesses, and is today purging those who once resisted him.


Turkey’s new strategic doctrine has already led Ankara to re-establish good relations, at least commercial relations, with several of its neighbours.


At the end of June, in Rome, Turkey signed an agreement with Israel which restored their diplomatic relations. High-level exchanges with Iran have maintained intense economic links, despite the war in Syria. Apart from that, out of public sight, consultations are multiplying about the Kurdish question. Finally, President Erdogan has presented his excuses to his Russian counterpart concerning the Sukhoï which Turkey shot down, and last week, the economic flow between the two countries was resumed.


The coming evolution


Four questions still have to be examined:


- Support for the jihadists at the frontier with Golan


At the end of 2014, the blue helmets of the UNDOF withdrew from the No Man’s Land instituted by Resolution 338, and have been replaced by Al-Qaida, with the support of Tsahal. I revealed the existence of an agreement between Moscow and Washington to force Tel-Aviv to cease offering support to these terrorists and to accept the return of the UNO [3]. It may be imagined that Ankara could take over, but in the absence of a communications corridor from Turkey to Southern Syria, this is impossible. Meanwhile, the British have organised the change of the name of Al-Qaida in Syria (“rebranding”), probably in an attempt to ensure that the process will drag on.


- Support for the jihadists in East Aleppo


The intervention by Jeffrey Feltman to place the humanitarian corridors under UN control attests to the fact that the siege by the Syrian Arab Army is efficient. And yet Western propaganda pretends that it has been broken. After the closing of the communications route from the frontier, Turkey can only remain in East Aleppo with the support of the population. It will therefore have to accept this fact quickly.


- Support for the jihadists in Al-Raqqa and Mosul


Only the population of Al-Anbar (Iraq) is exclusively Sunnite and favourable to the jihadists. Turkey will therefore have to fight against Daesh in Al-Raqqa, but continue to support it in Mosul. Finally, the maintenance of an Islamic Emirate in Al-Anbar is the only way for Washington to sever the “silk road” while still pretending to support peace in Syria.


- The Kurdish question


The project of the AKP, supported by Paris and endorsed by Washington, is to create a Kurdish state outside of Turkey, and to expel the Kurds of the PKK. Over these last few years, it has been agreed to install this new “Kurdistan” in the North of Syria, in an Arab-Christian zone, after having emptied it of its historical inhabitants. This project is supported by certain members of the PKK who are hoping for a state of their own, anywhere at all, without worrying about finding themselves in a situation as illegitimate as that of Israel in Palestine after the Nakba.


In the next few months, the Kurds will thus have to clarify their position. Until now, they have been the allies of anyone fighting Daesh, which enabled them to liberate the Arab town of Manbij and to consider it as the embryo of their new state. They will now have to split into two camps, pro-US and pro-Russian. It will then be possible to evaluate the feasibility of a “Kurdistan” on non-Kurdish territory.


Ultimately, when all these questions have been resolved, and the dictatorship installed, Turkey will once again attempt to expand its model to its neighbours, probably beginning with those who have closed cowardly eyes on their methods.



[1] “The rigging of the Turkish general elections”, Translation Pete Kimberley, Voltaire Network, 11 November 2015.


[2] “Turkey: The AKP’s Judiciary Coup”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 19 August 2013.


[3] “The Security Council Gets Ready to order Israel to Break Ties with al-Qaeda”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network, 9 July 2016.


Courtesy Thierry Meyssan; Translation Pete Kimberley


User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top