Turkish Forum

Author: Ibrahim Kurtulus

  • US and Türkiye Must Stand Firm in Support of Georgia’s Democratic Future

    US and Türkiye Must Stand Firm in Support of Georgia’s Democratic Future

     As Georgia prepares to celebrate its Independence Day on May 26th, the occasion must serve not only as a national commemoration, but also as a moment of strategic reflection for its allies and partners particularly the United States and the Republic of Türkiye. At a time when nearly 20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territory remains under Russian occupation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, silence and disengagement are not options. The world has already witnessed in Ukraine the devastating consequences of failing to push back firmly against Russian aggression before it escalates further.

     Georgia has spent decades pursuing democratic reform, Euro-Atlantic integration, and closer cooperation with the West. American assistance played a central role in strengthening Georgia’s democratic institutions, military readiness, education system, healthcare sector, and civil society. Yet recent policy shifts from Washington risk undermining those hard-earned gains. The suspension of over $95 million in U.S. government assistance in 2024, followed by the deeper USAID cuts and restructuring in 2025–2026, has sent troubling signals throughout the region.

     The sweeping dismantling of USAID programs under the Trump administration effectively halted much of the soft-power infrastructure that supported Georgia’s network of civil society organizations, educators, reform advocates, and democratic institutions. Regardless of political disagreements, abandoning Georgia at a moment of geopolitical vulnerability risks creating a dangerous vacuum that Moscow would eagarly exploit.

     The Georgian people have repeatedly demonstrated their desire for a democratic and European future. Punitive disengagement from Washington weakens not only Georgia, but broader Western credibility throughout the Black Sea and Caucasus regions. Support for Georgia is not charity it is a strategic necessity tied directly to regional security, energy transit, NATO stability, and the containment of Russian expansionism. The Republic of Türkiye must also recognize the seriousness of this moment. As a NATO ally and regional super power with deep historical, economic, people to people and  strategic ties to Georgia, Türkiye cannot afford passivity. Georgia remeins essential to critical energy and trade corridors, including the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline and the Southern Gas Corridor, which strengthen both European energy security and Türkiye’s role as a regional energy hub. Stability in Georgia directly impacts Artvin, my dads home State of Rize, and Trabzon, and Türkiye’s broader strategic interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

     If the democratic world fails to stand firmly beside Georgia today, the consequences tomorrow may mirror what the international community failed to prevent in Ukraine. The cost of hesitation is always far greater than the cost of principled engagement.

     May 26th must therefore stand as a reminder that Georgia is not alone. The United States and Türkiye must reaffirm their commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty, democracy, and territorial integrity. To stand idle now would not only abandon a loyal partner it would embolden Russian ambitions across the region and weaken the foundations of democratic security itself.

  • Letter to Alon Ben Meir

    Letter to Alon Ben Meir

    Response to Alon Ben Meir  

    I have publicly  criticized  Turkish Consul General  Ahmet Yazal. / I am living proof that freedom of criticism is real and free of Turkish Officials. 

    Mr. Ben -Meir you are at it again with your smear campaign  of Türkiye.

    First and foremost, I must remind you, Mr. Alon Ben-Meir, that the official name of the country is Türkiye. Given how many times I have written to you regarding this matter, you should have gotten it right by now. Your disrespect begins with your failure to use the correct name of the nation.

    The article presents itself as a defense of universal human rights, yet it is deeply selective, ideologically framed, historically incomplete, and strategically dismissive of the existential security threats confronting the Republic of Türkiye. It does not read as a balanced legal analysis; rather, it resembles a prosecutorial brief crafted to delegitimize the Turkish state while systematically omitting the geopolitical realities, terrorist threats, constitutional complexities, and democratic dynamics that have shaped modern Türkiye since the attempted coup of July 15, 2016.

    Any intellectually honest assessment must begin with the undeniable fact that Türkiye faced a violent coup attempt in 2016 orchestrated by elements infiltrating the military, judiciary, police, and bureaucracy. The coup attempt resulted in the deaths of over 250 civilians and security personnel, with thousands wounded. Fighter jets bombed the Turkish Grand National Assembly, tanks rolled into civilian streets, and armed officers attempted to overthrow a democratically elected government. The article minimizes this unprecedented national trauma as merely a “pretext” for authoritarianism, thereby erasing the legitimate security concerns of a sovereign NATO member state confronting an armed insurrection.

    The article further fails to acknowledge that many Western democracies adopted extraordinary emergency powers after terrorist attacks or national security crises. Following 9/11, the United States implemented the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay detentions, enhanced surveillance, extraordinary renditions, and broad counterterrorism authorities. France enacted emergency powers after the Paris attacks. The United Kingdom expanded anti-terror legislation for decades in response to IRA terrorism. Yet when Türkiye responds to a direct coup attempt and decades long PKK terrorism, its actions are uniquely characterized as irredeemable authoritarianism. This double standard is impossible to ignore.

    The portrayal of Türkiye’s judiciary as entirely illegitimate is similarly reductionist. No serious observer claims every judicial process in Türkiye is flawless; however, to assert that all prosecutions involving  terrorist Gulen-linked operatives, PKK affiliates, or extremist networks are fabricated is intellectually unserious. The FETO network was not merely a religious or educational movement. Turkish authorities and many independent observers documented systematic infiltration into state institutions over decades. Even critics of President Erdogan acknowledged the movement’s extensive penetration of the judiciary and police apparatus, o you must have missed that too. The article deliberately ignores this dimension because acknowledging it would complicate its simplistic moral narrative.

    The claims regarding Kurdish repression also omit crucial context. Türkiye’s conflict has never been with Kurdish identity itself. Millions of Kurdish citizens serve in parliament, business, academia, the military, and civil society. Kurdish-language broadcasting, publications, and cultural initiatives expanded dramatically under AK Party governments compared to previous eras. The issue is not Kurdish ethnicity but the PKK, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States, NATO, and the European Union. The article repeatedly conflates Kurdish political identity with organizations accused of operational or ideological proximity to PKK militancy. No democratic state permits elected officials to materially support armed insurgent structures while claiming complete immunity from legal scrutiny.

    Moreover, the article’s discussion of southeastern operations omits the urban warfare environment created by PKK-affiliated militants who dug trenches, planted explosives in residential zones, and militarized municipalities. Civilian suffering in these clashes was tragic, but responsibility cannot be examined honestly while erasing the role of armed insurgency. To describe all counterterrorism operations as “collective punishment” is rhetoric designed to morally criminalize the Turkish state rather than analyze a complex security conflict.

    The article’s accusations regarding media freedom are similarly one-sided. Türkiye possesses one of the most politically vibrant and confrontational media environments in the region. Opposition parties openly campaign nationwide. Anti-government media outlets continue to operate. Social media criticism of state officials remains widespread.  

    As a matter of fact, for the past year, almost bi-weekly, I have publicly called out and criticized the Turkish Consul General, Ahmet Yazal. Despite this, I have never been approached by Turkish intelligence, faced a lawsuit, or even been questioned when I travel to Türkiye. I am living proof that freedom of criticism is real, and that anyone can openly criticize Turkish officials without fear of retaliation. I am living proof. 

     Indeed, some of the harshest criticism directed at the Turkish government is published daily within Türkiye itself. The article selectively cites arrests and prosecutions while refusing to distinguish between journalism and alleged operational support for violent organizations, financial crimes, or coup-related activities. Democracies worldwide struggle with defining the boundary between protected speech and active collaboration with extremist entities.

    Equally problematic is the article’s attempt to frame President Erdogan as transforming Türkiye into a theocratic state as a matter of fact President Erdogan when he traveled to Egypt – He stressed  Secularism in Egyptian Parliament- Alon , you must have missed the speech . 

    This argument fundamentally misunderstands Turkish society and democratic pluralism. Türkiye remains constitutionally secular. The visibility of religious identity in public life does not automatically constitute authoritarian Islamization. In many Western democracies, politicians openly invoke Christian values especially here in America  which you neglect to talk about , attend religious ceremonies, and shape policy discussions around faith informed ethics without triggering accusations of dismantling democracy. Yet when Turkish society reflects its overwhelmingly Muslim social character, commentators portray it as inherently threatening. This reveals an orientalist discomfort with Muslim majority democratic expression rather than a principled defense of secular governance.

    The article’s treatment of refugees is especially disingenuous. Türkiye hosts one of the largest refugee populations on Earth, including millions fleeing the Syrian civil war. Turkiye has a time tested honor role in welcoming and protecting refugees. While European governments built walls, closed borders, or externalized migration enforcement, Türkiye absorbed immense economic and social pressures with comparatively limited international support. No refugee system managing millions of displaced persons is without challenges. However, to portray Türkiye solely as an abuser while ignoring the extraordinary humanitarian burden it has carried for over a decade is a profound distortion and is a planned to delegitimize our NATO allyTürkiye.

    The calls for NATO exclusion, EU isolation, ICC referrals, and sanctions reveal the article’s true objective: strategic punishment of Türkiye rather than constructive engagement. Excluding Türkiye from NATO decision-making would weaken the alliance’s southern flank, destabilize Black Sea security architecture, undermine counterterrorism coordination, and strengthen Russian and Iranian geopolitical leverage. Calls to isolate Türkiye are not principled solutions; they are strategically reckless proposals that ignore Türkiye’s indispensable role in European security, energy transit, migration management, and regional diplomacy.

    Furthermore, the article entirely ignores Türkiye’s democratic electoral legitimacy. President Erdoğan and the AK Party have repeatedly faced competitive elections over two decades. Opposition parties control major municipalities, including Istanbul and Ankara. Political transitions at local levels continue to occur through ballots, not military intervention. One may criticize aspects of governance while still acknowledging that Türkiye retains competitive political structures far more dynamic than many states in its broader region.

    Most importantly, the article suffers from a profound civilizational bias frequently directed toward nonWestern powers. Western governments routinely engage in controversial counterterrorism practices, military interventions, surveillance programs, and emergency measures while still being treated as fundamentally legitimate democracies. Türkiye, however, is often judged through an absolutist framework in which every imperfection becomes evidence of authoritarian collapse. This asymmetrical moral scrutiny undermines the credibility of the critique itself.

    A mature analysis of Türkiye requires intellectual honesty which you Mr. Alon never do: acknowledging legitimate concerns regarding judicial independence, civil liberties, and political polarization while simultaneously recognizing the severe national security threats Türkiye faces, the trauma of the 2016 coup attempt, the burden of regional instability, the PKK insurgency, the Syrian war, and the broader geopolitical pressures surrounding the Turkish Republic.

    What weakens the article most is not that it raises criticisms every democracy should tolerate criticism but that it abandons balance entirely. It substitutes complexity with ideological absolutism, security realities with selective outrage, and nuanced legal analysis with geopolitical advocacy. In doing so, it ceases to be a credible human rights assessment and instead becomes a polemical instrument aimed at delegitimizing a sovereign nation whose policies the author opposes.

    The Republic of Türkiye is not beyond criticism. No state is. But neither is it the caricature of unrestrained tyranny portrayed in this article. Türkiye remains a strategically essential, democratically contested, regionally influential nation navigating extraordinarily difficult internal and external pressures in one of the most unstable geopolitical environments in the world. Any serious discussion must begin with that reality not with slogans masquerading as analysis.

    Ibrahim Kurtulus 

    Community Activist 

  • Turkey’s new missiles target India

    Turkey’s new missiles target India

    Letter to Editor : Turkey’s new missiles target India, presage a new Kashmir push” by Michael Rubin

    Letter to Editor Sunday Guardian Ms Joyeeta Basu 
    Sundayguardianlive
    India 

    Dear Ms Joyeeta Basu: 

    First, a matter of basic accuracy and respect. The official name of the country is Türkiye, not “Turkey.” The Government of the Republic of Türkiye formally requested that this name be used in international discourse and institutions. When individuals presenting themselves as analysts of Middle Eastern affairs cannot even employ the correct name of a NATO ally, it raises legitimate questions about the depth of their expertise.

    The article in question “Turkey’s new missiles target India, presage a new Kashmir push” by Michael Rubin is not a serious strategic assessment. It is another example of the ongoing smear campaigns across the world against Türkiye, part of a broader global campaign of delegitimization directed against the Turkish state and nation. This issue has become another weapon in the international campaign to de-legitimize the Turkish state and the Turkish people.

    To suggest that Türkiye’s missile development is somehow uniquely directed at India is speculative, inflammatory, and strategically unserious. Major regional and global powers continuously develop advanced missile systems as part of deterrence doctrine, technological modernization, and national defense planning. India itself maintains sophisticated missile and nuclear capabilities, as do numerous other states across Eurasia. Yet when Türkiye advances its own defense industry, it is immediately framed through paranoia and ideological hostility.

    Türkiye has every sovereign right to strengthen its defense capabilities in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment marked by war in Eastern Europe, instability in the Middle East, terrorism, maritime disputes, and evolving missile threats. Portraying Türkiye’s technological progress as evidence of an impending anti-India conspiracy reflects political bias rather than objective analysis.

    The article further descends into ideological caricature by attempting to portray President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and modern Türkiye through reductive Islamist stereotypes divorced from geopolitical reality. Türkiye remains a constitutional republic, a member of NATO, a G20 economy, and a critical strategic actor balancing relations across Europe, Asia, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Middle East. It is, in fact, A NATO Ally Against Authoritarian Threats.

    The accusations regarding Hamas, Syria, Kashmir, and so-called “neo-Ottomanism” are presented without balance, nuance, or acknowledgment of Türkiye’s actual security concerns. Türkiye has suffered enormously from terrorism, instability on its borders, refugee crises, and regional wars. It has fought ISIS directly, hosted millions of refugees, and acted as a mediator in multiple international conflicts. Yet critics selectively erase these realities because they do not fit the predetermined narrative.

    The attempt to equate Türkiye’s diplomatic concern regarding Kashmiri Muslims with support for terrorism is especially irresponsible. Nations routinely express views on international disputes and humanitarian issues without endorsing violence. Türkiye’s statements on Kashmir, like those of many countries regarding global disputes, reflect diplomatic and humanitarian concerns, not calls for extremism.

    More troubling is the broader pattern behind such rhetoric. Increasingly, certain commentators seek to frame every independent Turkish foreign policy decision as evidence of extremism simply because Türkiye refuses to act as a subordinate regional actor. Whether the issue is the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, Syria, the Caucasus, Palestine, or defense modernization, the same narrative machinery activates: demonize Türkiye, question its legitimacy, and isolate it internationally.

    This is not objective analysis. It is another smear campaign to delegitimize Türkiye a nation that has emerged as an independent regional power with strategic autonomy, advanced defense capabilities, and growing diplomatic influence across multiple continents.

    Ibrahim Kurtulus
    Community Activist 

    Turkey’s new missiles target India, presage a new Kashmir push

    Turkey’s new missiles target India, presage a new Kashmir push

  • Letter to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Closest Ally – Mr. Ali Najmi Advisor

    Letter to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Closest Ally – Mr. Ali Najmi Advisor

    Letter to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s  Closest Ally –  Mr. Ali Najmi 

    Mr. Ali Najmi 
    The Law Office of Ali Najmi
    32 Broadway Suite 1310
    New York, NY 10004

    April 4, 2026

    Dear Mr. Najmi,

    At the outset let me ask:  Are Christian Armenian lives more precious than the 2. 5 million Muslim lives to you and Mr. Mamdani that were  killed / lost in World War 1 ?

    I acknowledge your recent remarks concerning my position on the characterization of the events of 1915- World War 1, as well as the references made to my professional background. I respond to clarify the issues raised and to ensure the discussion remains grounded in principle, law, and evidentiary standards rather than insinuation.

     During our text messaging Sunday April 26, 2026 , rather than engaging with the facts, Mr. Najmi, you have chosen to rely on personal diversions that have no bearing on the historical and legal questions at hand. This approach prioritizes personal antagonism over evidence-based debate. I maintain that this discussion should be guided by judicially tested evidence and documentation, rather than irrelevant personal attacks.

    The central issue is not whether history can be studied or discussed by scholars, but whether the legal classification of grave international crimes such as genocide can be definitively established outside a competent judicial process. In my view, such determinations properly fall within the jurisdiction of established legal bodies, including international courts and tribunals or competent human rights mechanisms. Scholarly interpretation, particularly when selective or ideologically driven, should not substitute for formal legal adjudication where such serious legal characterizations are concerned. A determination of genocide requires rigorous evidentiary review, adversarial testing, and cross examination within an appropriate judicial framework.

    Sir, it is important to separate historical inquiry from legal adjudication. While historians may contribute to contextual understanding, legal determinations of this magnitude are ultimately the responsibility of impartial tribunals. This distinction is fundamental to the integrity of international law.

    Sir, no one disputes that the early 20th century was marked by immense human suffering across multiple communities during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the First World War. This includes significant losses experienced by 2.5 million Muslims as well as Armenians and others. A balanced historical understanding must acknowledge all such suffering without selective omission. The legal argument advanced here is often misunderstood. The absence of the 1948 Genocide Convention at the time of the events in question does not preclude accountability under international law. 

    Indeed, precedents such as the Nuremberg Trials demonstrate that mass atrocities were prosecuted as crimes against humanity under existing principles of international law. Furthermore, later international tribunals, including those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, confirm that judicial mechanisms are routinely established after the fact to determine responsibility based on evidence and due process.

    Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan January 24, 2025, during a meeting with members of the Armenian diaspora in Zurich, Switzerland. said ” How is it that there was no agenda for the Armenian Genocide in 1939, and how is it that the agenda for the Armenian Genocide appeared in 1950? How did it happen?”

    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon April 16, 2015 said “Armenian deaths during World War I were not genocide”

     U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Armenian Allegations.

    European Court of Human Rights, ECHR on December 17, 2013 (Perincek vs Switzerland)  that the events of 1915 cannot be proven to be genocide or compared to Jewish Holocaust.

    The continued efforts by segments of the Armenian diaspora to advance interpretations of history that Türkiye considers inaccurate have long been a matter of concern. In this context, Türkiye’s 2005 proposal to establish a joint historical commission with Armenia remains unfulfilled. If the evidentiary basis is as clear as asserted, engagement with such an initiative would seem constructive.

    Perhaps, Mr. Najmi and Mr. Mamdani,  might consider taking a leading role in pursuing a legal avenue to definitively clarify the matter at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice (ICJ) an effort that could, in your view, bring resolution and recognition to the Armenian position. You or Mr. Mamdani can Mr. Najmi become a hero to the Armenians.

    Mr Najmi,  Are Christian Armenian lives more precious than the 2.5 million Muslim lives to you and 

    Mr. Mamdani that were killed in World War 1

    Mr. Najmi, I am quite curious as to why you think that I, and many others in my position, do not deserve a right you so readily claim for yourself ?

    Finally, attempts to resolve or prejudge such deeply contested historical and legal issues outside of proper judicial forums risk undermining both legal standards and constructive dialogue. For that reason only competent international judicial bodies not selectively curated scholarly consensus or politically motivated narratives are appropriate forums for definitive legal determinations of genocide.

     Also, Using of the outdated term “Turkey” in official communication is a insult to a honorable people and Nation. The nation has formally adopted the name “Republic of Türkiye,” which has been recognized by the United Nations and numerous international bodies. Addressing countries by their chosen names is a basic element of diplomatic respect and cultural decency. Mr. Mamdani should, get it right !

    Accordingly, I respectfully decline to accept the characterization set forth in your statement and that of Mr. Mamdani.

    Until a verdict of genocide can be reached by a “competent tribunal ” after “due process” where both sides of the conflict are properly represented and evidence cross examined, the term genocide should be preceded by the qualifier “alleged”.

     WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW IS TRUTH AND HONESTY, NOT SELECTIVE MORALITY.

    Respectfully,

    Ibrahim Kurtulus

    Community Activist 

    From: EMI P
    Date: Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:43 AM

    Back page of the French daily Le Petit Journal, dated 24 November1896 (Armenians attacking a mosque):
  • Leadership, accountability and the voice of the Turkish American community

    Leadership, accountability and the voice of the Turkish American community

    Staten Island Advance Newspaper Prints Editorial about Turkish Consul General Ahmet Yazal, New York in Newspaper.

    Since his appointment, Turkish Consul General Ahmet Yazal has become a focal point of concern.

    Clink onto Link Below to Read Editorial about Turkish Consul General Ahmet Yazal, New York 

    Leadership, accountability and the voice of the Turkish American community

    • Published: Apr. 22, 2026, 6:00 a.m.

    In every diplomatic post, leadership carries not only authority, but a profound responsibility to represent, protect and unify the people it serves. For the Turkish American community, the role of Consul General is especially significant. It must bridge Ankara and the diaspora, uphold dignity and respond firmly to external challenges particularly in moments when Türkiye faces criticism or misrepresentation in international media.

    Since his appointment, Turkish Consul General Ahmet Yazal has become a focal point of concern among segments of the Turkish American community. These concerns are not rooted in hostility toward Türkiye. Rather, they reflect a desire for stronger advocacy, clearer communication, and a leadership approach that fosters inclusion instead of division.

    One issue that has resonated deeply is the sentiment among community members, including respected elders, that their voices and contributions have not been adequately recognized. For a community that takes immense pride in its history, including the sacrifices of Turkish soldiers in the Korean War, this perception is especially painful. Honoring that legacy should be a unifying principle.

    Equally troubling is the perception that criticism or questioning of leadership is discouraged or met with coordinated pushback from loyal supporters of Consul General Ahmet Yazal. Many describe an environment where individuals who raise concerns feel targeted, intimidated, harassed or subjected to efforts to delegitimize their voices by Turkish Consul General Mr. Yazal foot soldiers. Whether formal or informal, this dynamic has created a chilling effect within the community.

    There is what many now describe as a “silent majority” within the Turkish American community — individuals who share similar concerns but hesitate to speak publicly. Their reluctance stems from fear of backlash, including harassment, intimidation or reputational harm. When individuals feel constrained from expressing their views, the strength and unity of the community suffer.

    Public accountability, including for Consul Generals, is not “anti-Türkiye” or “anti-government.” It is a fundamental democratic principle. Communities must be able to apply pressure when officials appear unresponsive or when gatekeepers attempt to silence inconvenient voices. Labeling criticism as “weaponizable” risks becoming a method of suppressing legitimate dissent.

    At a dinner on March 12, 2026, Turkish Consul General Ahmet Yazal emphasized the importance of civic voice, stating:

    “Most importantly, in the country where we reside, let us learn about and take ownership of the rights and opportunities available to our communities, and let us not forget our right to have a voice in this land.”

    This is an important message. However, it must be applied consistently. Encouraging individuals to speak must also include the freedom to question leadership without fear.

    The Turkish American community deserves leadership that listens from Ankara and does use foot soldiers to silence inconvenient voices. Open dialogue, accountability and mutual respect remain essential to strong representation.

    https://www.silive.com/opinion/letters/2026/04/leadership-accountability-and-the-voice-of-the-turkish-american-community.html

    (Ibrahim Kurtulus is a Dongan Hills resident.)

  • Challenging Malliotakis Cyprus Claims

    Challenging Malliotakis Cyprus Claims

    Response to US Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis

    Guarantor Rights vs. Political Rhetoric: Challenging Malliotakis Cyprus Claims

    Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis statement on Türkiye’s actions in Cyprus is not only deeply one-sided, but it also disregards the legal, historical, and strategic realities governing the island.

     First and foremost, Türkiye is not an external interloper in Cyprus. Under the internationally recognized Treaty of Guarantee, Türkiye is a guarantor power a status that explicitly grants it the legal authority and obligation to ensure the security and constitutional order of the island, particularly for Turkish Cypriots. To characterize Türkiye’s defensive posture as a “violation” while ignoring this binding framework is a selective interpretation of international law. It is also striking that Congresswoman Malliotakis remains silent on the extensive and longstanding presence of foreign military forces on the island particularly the British sovereign bases and the increasing military cooperation between the Greek Cypriot administration and outside actors. These forces operate without guarantor rights, yet their expansion is somehow deemed acceptable. This double standard raises serious questions about the objectivity of her position.

     Moreover, recent actions by the Greek Cypriot side inviting external military actors and deepening defense alignments have contributed significantly to rising tensions. These developments have effectively transformed the island into a forward operating platform, increasing its exposure to regional threats, including those emanating from Iran. In such an environment, Türkiye’s measures are not provocative they are precautionary and rooted in its legal responsibilities.

     Let us be clear: Turkish Cypriots have an inherent right to security. Türkiye, as a guarantor, has both the right and the duty to protect them. One must ask what would the United States do if a directly linked population under its protection faced escalating regional threats? What would any sovereign nation do to safeguard its national interests against actors like Iran? The answer is obvious. Yet when Türkiye, a NATO ally, exercises these rights, Congresswoman Malliotakis choooses to ignore the legal framework and instead advances legislation that risks upsetting the delicate balance on the island. Lifting the arms embargo on Cyprus is not a step toward stability it is a move that could accelerate militarization, deepen divisions, and undermine prospects for a negotiated settlement.

     Her argument that such a move would benefit American jobs further weakens her position. U.S. foreign policy cannot and should not be reduced to a transactional exercise in defense contracting. Stability in the Eastern Mediterranean requires balance, diplomacy, and respect for existing treaties not policies that risk emboldening one side while isoleting the other.

     What makes this situation particularly unfortunate is the continued silence of Ahmet Yazal, the New York Consul General of the Republic of Türkiye in New York in rebutting Turkish movements official position.  At a time when misleading narratives about Türkiye appear regularly in major American tabloids and coming from Congresswomen Malliotakis , one would expect stronger public engagement in defending the country’s reputation. Diplomacy requires more than ceremonial presence and walking two dogs; it requires active communication when misinformation circulates widely. Not Opinion, but official government policy.

    Finally, the pattern is clear. Congresswoman Malliotakis rhetoric consistently aligns with the positions of the Greek Cypriot administration, while dismissing Türkiye’s legal rights and security concerns. This is not constructive diplomacy it is political advocacy that risks inflaming an already sensitive geopolitical issue. 

    Türkiye has made its position unequivocal: it will continue to take all necessary measures, within its legal rights as a guarantor power, to ensure the security of Turkish Cypriots and to protect its national interests. Durable peace on the island will not come from partisan narratives or legislative escalations, but from a balanced and honest recognition of the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved.

    Respectfully,

    Ibrahim Kurtulus