Iran’s historical confession and Turkey’s new path

I would like to elaborate on the recent remarks of Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian in light of a thought-provoking Turkish proverb: "Manful gypsy admits that he is a thief while praising himself." According to the Iran-based Farda News, in a story published a few days ago, Abdollahian said that Israel's security would be at risk should the U.S. and its allies seek to topple the Syrian President Bashar Assad in the name of fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).

Touching on Turkey's role in the Syria predicament, Abdollahian stated that despite the dispute with Turkey over Syria, they had warned both Turkey and the U.S. that those who would decide on whether Assad should go were the Syrian people themselves. He also claimed Turkey aspires to neo-Ottomanism in the Middle East and warned Turkey and other coalition countries against possible troubles they would face in the case of a military intervention in Syria.

In an attempt to defend Assad, Iran actually defends ISIS and Israel. Ironically, this reminds me of the détente process in the Cold War period. Throughout the Cold War period, the Soviet Union and the U.S. seemed to be two poles at opposite ends of the world. However, this polarization was a mere sham as the Soviet Union and the U.S. were two allies that relied heavily on each other. During an address to the U.N. General Assembly in 1960, Soviet politician Nikita Khrushchev got so angry while criticizing U.S. imperialism that, he took his shoe off and hit it on the lectern. Today, however, we understand that Khrushchev was a perfect poseur in the full sense of the world. Then, by taking all this into account, can we say that if it were not for Israel in the Middle East today, Iran could not persist as a self-enclosed dictatorship of mullahs as it is now?

Just before Israel's latest offensive in Gaza and the emergence of ISIS, with Hassan Rouhani as head of state, Iran started to fix its relations with the West and revoked its threats against Turkey. However, following Israel's assault on Gaza and the emergence of ISIS, Iran once again started to hurl threats toward Turkey. Now, we advise Iran to give up this policy, as it is not a policy to be adopted by a Muslim country. There is no room in Islam to support a mass murderer such as Assad, who kills people with chemical weapons. If Iran wants to do this in the name of realpolitik, it should first look at Prophet Muhammad's life and struggles. Is there any room in his teachings for opportunism, better known as realpolitik?

If Iran persists in this way, Israel will continue to determine its politics and we could declare Iran and Israel sister countries heading toward the same destination, as was suggested by Abdollahian. This is the sincere admission of a crime as it discloses that Iran's opportunist foreign policy and current structure have nothing to do with Islam.

This confession also tells us that although Iran and Israel are two different countries, Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are driven by the same motives. It is important hearing this from Abdollahian himself. All of this justifies the arguments of Turkey, which has never had imperialist motives toward the region unlike the West. Turkey's sole purpose in the Middle East is to see that the people of the Middle East region make a claim to their own energy resources and rich underground resources, as well as having sovereignty over them and attaining welfare and democracy. This desire of Turkey has nothing to with neo-Ottomanism.

This approach can be briefly explained as follows: Countries like Turkey and their hinterlands are an unfolding dynamic that will raise a new political ontology. However, the extent to which they unfold this will inform the level of chance of overcoming crises without causing social conflicts. Therefore, this geography needs new, decentralized and participatory democracies which are based on local values and are composed of elected central governments; rather than centrist, rigid and self-enclosed management models. The moment this is achieved, there will be a chance to get out of outmoded national models and transform into a new public power. Today, this is only possible with a transition model toward a presidential system which introduces a new and constituent political will whilst expanding the dynamic to all local councils with the government as its epicenter.

This is the one and only way to end current clashes and take us toward permanent peace.