Let us begin with the following sweeping statement: "Long-term diplomatic tensions between countries are ultimately based on the economy. If tension takes a long time and renews itself with lame excuses, the old economic equilibrium is about to end or has already ended."

Now, U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening Turkey. Indeed, the U.S. has long done this not only to Turkey but to many other countries as well. Since Trump came to power, there have been few countries that have not been exposed to direct or indirect threats by the U.S.

We cannot explain this threat policy with Trump's personal characteristics or with his "inward-oriented" social media policy alone. Obviously, this is the U.S. beginning to seek its "old power," its desire to test it and to see whether the "old equilibrium" continues or how long it will continue. In this sense, the problem here is not about a pastor being put on trial. If it were not for the pastor Andrew Brunson case, there would be something else. Therefore, the U.S. wants to test and learn the hard way that the world is not the old world. I think it should be given this opportunity.

It is also an opportunity for countries that are exposed to these unjust threats. Apparently, the U.S. has failed to fathom that the world is no longer a bipolar world (the U.S. / the Soviets) since 1989, but a new multipolar and multibalance one in which mutual interests and tradeoffs recreate the global equilibrium every day. In fact, this should be something expected since the realpolitik of the new equilibrium could not be fully implemented yet.

The financial and political system – the crisis – created by the U.S. after World War II is still ongoing, but it is faltering at the same time. This being the case, how long can the U.S. continue to exert partial or comprehensive military force, impose its own interests through occupation and/or financial, economic isolation and continue acting as a rogue state at one point?

We can answer this question in terms of current realpolitik as well. The first question, however, is how sustainable it is for the U.S. to impose sanctions on Turkey after Russia in Eurasia? Can the U.S. endure the new radical equilibrium to be created when this situation is coupled with trade wars in the Pacific region? The U.S has to think about the answers to these questions more than Turkey. Therefore, this threat policy does not have a background and is a weapon that will backfire on the originator when it is used.

We can collect the U.S.' threats under two main headings: The first is exerting a direct military force such as invasion and the second is the strategy of creating economic and political crises in countriess under the title of economic sanctions. The point of origin of U.S. economic sanctions is the dollar-based currency system. I have written many times on the fact that the Bretton-Woods system or the global currency system in which the dollar is the basic reserve currency is coming to an end.

Today, the logjam in the world trade and the search for a new trade order are not independent of the search for a new currency system. However, if this currency system is over, the U.S. sovereignty will end earlier than we expect. The U.S. also acknowledges this, and the most vulnerable point of the U.S. is that the whole trade cycle in the world is now based on basic reserve currencies – with the dollar taking the lead. The trade cycle independent of the dollar means the U.S. will no longer be able to finance itself as it has done so far. Because the dollar is the main means of payment in commodity trading and the dollar is demanded mostly with this motive.

By adjusting the dollar demand and supply in this process, the U.S. Federal Reserve has directed the world economy. The U.S. controls and monitors this with the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) code system.

This system also constitutes the floor on which monopolistic capital structures across the world and banking and financial oligarchs in countries operate. The system has been built on the continuous transfer of value from the East to the West and from the underdeveloped to the developed through the exploitation mechanism based on interest and dollars. Just as a football team can play on a good grass pitch, the financial oligarchy also plays on this system. However, this system has come to falter in recent years.

As digital currency systems and agreements on trade with local currencies come into play, the U.S.'s control mechanism over the financial system is disappearing and it becomes harder for the U.S. to make the world finance its enormous tripartite deficits.

For this reason, the U.S. seeks to maintain and even increase the number of countries in the SWIFT system, let alone reduce it. At this point, new quests by countries like Turkey and the increase of structures like BRICS and collecting their funds in a pool will bring the end of the U.S. In this respect, the U.S. should look into the eyes of Turkey these days. The inevitable end for the U.S. is also based on the basic situation: The issue of balancing of goods and service production, and even technology formation.

In his "Capital in the 21st Century," French economist Thomas Piketty says the current crisis matures the process in terms of production for a new "Eastern development," continuing, "From 1900 to 1980, 70-80 percent of the global production of goods and services was concentrated in Europe and America, which incontestably dominated the rest of the world. By 2010, the European-American share had declined to roughly 50 percent, or approximately the same level as in 1860. In all probability, it will continue to fall and may go as low as 20-30 percent at some point in the 21st century. This was the level maintained up to the turn of the 19th century and would be consistent with the European-American share of the world's population. In other words, the lead that Europe and America achieved during the Industrial Revolution allowed these two regions to claim a share of global output that was two to three times greater than their share of the world's population simply because their output per capita was two to three times greater than the global average. All signs are that this phase of divergence in per capita output is over and that we have embarked on a period of convergence."

That is the whole point. This situation will undoubtedly be reflected in the dollar-based currency and financial system that the U.S. has "managed" so far.

As a result, this threat policy and economic sanctions can just bring a superficial harm to fully open countries like Turkey. The dollar-based fund volume that the U.S. can control directly or indirectly is downwards. Where the capital will go can be politically controlled to a certain extent today.

In this respect, the U.S. should not hold on to the weapon whose bullets will backfire at the end of the day.