Looking back to 2025 and what is left behind in terms of domestic politics and regional developments, the terror-free Türkiye initiative has, indeed, emerged as one of the most significant developments in recent decades impacting the relationship between internal security, political legitimacy and regional order. What began as a game-changing political intervention by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), has, over the course of the year, turned into a multidimensional state project. Moreover, it has transformed the country’s four-decade fight against PKK terrorism beyond a mere hard security issue to a diplomatic bargaining and domestic political realignment.

Leading the initiative

The MHP leader’s "unexpected" call and the initiation of the process have analytical importance for modern Turkish political history, as the framing of "terror-free Türkiye” has redefined counterterrorism as a long-term state objective rather than a cyclical security response. In addition, Bahçeli, as a unique political actor in Turkish politics, framed the issue as a matter of state survival and historical responsibility, which helped consolidate nationalist legitimacy behind a process that would otherwise have faced immediate polarization. Bahçeli’s move, of course, was not a reaction limited to domestic security and political realms but rather it was one that transcends short-term plans and sought to recalibrate Türkiye’s position in the face of changing regional and global dynamics.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visionary, strong and experienced political leadership, in turn, transformed this bold and risk-laden call into an operational strategy. Here, an in-depth analysis of Erdoğan’s role must be made. As a political mastermind, his awareness of the high risks the new process contained, the domestic political situation and the regional security developments enabled him to maneuver within the thorny and risky areas of the highly polarized issue. For Erdoğan’s political stance, this issue, while at times called the Kurdish issue, Kurdish question, PKK issue or any other security-related description, is one of seeking to ensure that fraternity and justice are established between all segments and ethnicities of the society. Erdoğan’s acknowledgement of "political risks” demonstrated a political calculation of trade-offs inherent in transitioning from permanent securitization to sustainable peace, which requires a balance between coercion and political accommodation, which is a requirement for durable stability. Here, it is important to also mention that, in general terms, for this political approach, the decades-long problem is a security-related issue that is backed (instigated) by external actors that seek to instill instability among the peoples of the region via terrorism, and in this case, namely through the PKK and its affiliates.

Political-security gains of 2025

Throughout 2025, it is important to acknowledge that tangible results have been achieved as part of the terror-free Türkiye initiative. From the meetings and consultations of the National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Committee established in the Turkish Parliament to the PKK terrorist group’s decision to lay down arms and the symbolic burning of weapons in northern Iraq, the delicate and multilayered process has been moving forward. The consolidated internal security gains, combined with enhanced intelligence and border coordination and cross-border operations against the PKK, enabled Türkiye to link domestic counterterrorism to regional state-building, particularly in Syria. As such, the call for the PKK’s Syria-affiliate, the YPG, to act in line with the PKK laying down arms and be fully integrated into Syria’s central administration, indeed, reflects Türkiye’s approach to "state sovereignty" and the rejection of the normalization of armed non-state actors as permanent political stakeholders.

As such, the success of the initiative would not only produce positive outcomes related to Türkiye’s internal dynamics, but also, it would generate significant positive regional externalities. A terror-free Türkiye would minimize terror-related threats along Türkiye’s southern and eastern borders, facilitate refugee repatriation as a result of stability in northern Syria, and strengthen economic interdependence with neighbors in the south. Ultimately, the stability in Türkiye, as the first layer of the terror-free Türkiye initiative, would thus function as a stabilizing anchor within an otherwise volatile regional subsystem.

Opposition's silence

The state’s and strategic leadership of the ruling political actors, however, have not been matched by domestic political opposition at home. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) has not played a role that is expected from the country’s main opposition party for an issue whose importance transcends mere political tactics. While formally endorsing peace and democratic norms, the CHP leadership has so far failed to strategically participate in the process. The CHP’s shallow criticism has not gone beyond mere labeling of the process as an electoral tactic. The party has avoided substantive engagement and responsibility for proposing credible policy or alternative approaches.

In fact, the CHP’s position reveals a deep contradiction related to the main opposition’s role of enhancing accountability without undermining state capacity in matters of national security. More significantly, the CHP’s approach has rather sought to weaken societal consensus at a moment when domestic political convergence is a strategic asset. Put differently, the CHP’s short-sighted political stance reflects their attempt to obstruct a process that demands long-term commitment and institutional continuity.

Aim to divide and conquer

In terms of regional dynamics, the year also highlighted the destabilizing role of certain actors, most notably Israel. Israel’s expanding engagement with armed groups in Syria, including YPG terrorists in the north and select Druze factions in the south, reveals the aims of using proxy elements to instigate fragmentation and instability. Such interventions entrench Syria’s security dilemma, undermine post-conflict reconstruction and perpetuate the conditions in which terrorism thrives.

From Ankara’s perspective, these actions directly constrain the realization of a terror-free regional order. Moreover, Turkish decision makers, including President Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, have consistently labeled Israel as an irresponsible actor and a destabilizer in the region, from the genocide in Gaza to attacks on Lebanon and expanding occupation beyond the Golan Heights in southern Syria.

The regional reality, especially in Syria, explains why diplomacy with the United States has been central to Ankara’s approach in managing the security dynamics. Türkiye’s effort to persuade Washington to pressure the YPG toward full integration reflects a strategy of assertive diplomacy within alliance politics. The underlying logic behind Ankara’s aim for the Syria dossier is clear: Long-term stability requires demobilization and reintegration of the YPG elements, and establishing the centralized authority in the country. A stable and unified Syria will, indeed, produce positive implications for the region’s people and also act as a block to the expansionist policies of Israel.

While 2025 witnessed the tactical patience in Ankara, the YPG has dragged its feet, particularly as an outcome of the short-sighted strategy of following suit with Israel’s instigation. Ankara’s patience, however, as political actors have repeatedly said, is not unlimited. As such, the tide of Ankara’s approach to the YPG may shift in the coming months if the YPG exploits Türkiye’s diplomatic method and willingness to reach out to Kurds, Arabs and Turks as part of a regional brotherhood and stability project.

Will 2026 bring success?

Looking back and analyzing the current state of the terror-free Türkiye initiative in 2025 has shown how Bahçeli’s historic call to bring terror to an end, Erdoğan’s adaptive leadership, and the Turkish state’s institutional capacity have developed a rare strategic window of opportunity.

Whether this new opportunity produces further success in 2026 or is squandered will depend on the continuity of the ruling political actors’ consistency in their approach to solving the decades-long issue for Türkiye and the wider region. Equally important is the Turkish main opposition actors’ approach and willingness to take responsibility for a problem that must be held as an issue that transcends daily political tactics and requires long-term strategic commitment. Ultimately, states that are successful in aligning their domestic consensus with regional strategy tend to benefit from this long-term vision and become influential and stronger international actors.

From Israel’s expansionist policies in the region to the developments between Ukraine and Russia to U.S.-Venezuela tensions to Sudan conflict and beyond, Türkiye’s multidimensional foreign policy, combined with political internal stability, will continue to take position under the strong leadership of Erdoğan. This position is not reactionary, but instead a proactive one that engages in different developments in its region and beyond through active mediation. As such, the terror-free initiative’s aim, while it may be seen as a mere domestic project, is driven by an underlying motivation to eliminate terror within Türkiye’s borders and beyond, not only to increase Türkiye’s regional leadership but also to enhance its prestige, which could serve as a stabilizer and mediator and positively contribute to issues beyond its immediate neighborhood.