Category: America

A Letter To the Editors of The New York Times

The New York Times
Joseph Kahn – Editor-in-Chief
Kathleen Kingsbury – Opinion Editor
Patrick Healy – Deputy Opinion Editor
Thomas Feyer – Letters Editor
Joseph Kahn – Executive Editor
Binyamin Appelbaum – Editorial Board Member

Opinion Department
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
USA

April 30, 2025

To the Editors of The New York Times:

The recent editorial targeting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Republic of Türkiye reflects a persistent and ideologically driven narrative that distorts the realities of Türkiye’s democratic evolution and its role as a pivotal regional and NATO actor. This framing, cloaked in the language of liberal internationalism, is neither objective journalism nor principled critique—it is a selective indictment that ignores both context and complexity.

At the heart of the editorial’s mischaracterization lies an obstinate refusal to recognize Türkiye as a functioning multiparty democracy. Contrary to the New York Times’ assertions, Türkiye holds regular, competitive elections monitored by respected international institutions, including the OSCE. President Erdoğan has consistently secured electoral victories through transparent and legitimate processes. To question the validity of these results is to not only undermine the Turkish electorate’s will but to insult the foundational democratic principle of popular sovereignty. Such condescension betrays a troubling double standard when compared to how contested electoral processes in Western countries are framed.

The editorial’s comparison of Türkiye with autocratic regimes such as Russia is both analytically flawed and geopolitically reckless. Türkiye’s political environment is not a monolith—it includes diverse and vocal opposition parties, freely elected mayors, and a parliament that has repeatedly demonstrated its autonomy. The victory of opposition candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu in Istanbul, even after a court-ordered electoral rerun, is proof of the system’s resilience and internal checks.

Legal proceedings against political figures must be evaluated through the lens of due process, not through prejudiced assumptions. The Republic of Türkiye operates under a constitutional framework that provides judicial independence and accountability. The case of Mayor İmamoğlu, like all others, is subject to the rule of law and independent judicial review. To assume political motivations without substantive evidence mirrors the very bias the editorial purports to condemn.

Indeed, the United States—whose own democracy has faced numerous constitutional and civil liberties challenges—would do well to avoid projecting its inconsistencies onto others. Only last week, 97-year-old Federal Circuit Court Judge Pauline Newman was forcibly removed from her chambers without full due process, raising serious concerns about judicial dignity. Immigration enforcement agents continue to detain individuals across major American cities, often without warrants. Such developments should prompt introspection, not distraction through foreign finger-pointing.

Meanwhile, Western nations, including EU member states, have engaged in press censorship, police crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators, and judicial harassment of journalists—yet such abuses receive scant scrutiny from The New York Times. Why, then, this disproportionate focus on Türkiye? What interest does The New York Times serve in meddling with the internal affairs of a sovereign country to which it pays no taxes, whose language it barely speaks, and whose culture it has not endeavored to understand in full? How many of its editorial contributors have lived in Türkiye for two decades or more?

The continued depiction of Turkish politics as a clash between “Islamism” and “authoritarianism” is intellectually lazy and culturally reductionist. It simplifies a complex, modern, and evolving society into a binary unworthy of serious journalism. Under President Erdoğan’s leadership, Türkiye has ended military tutelage, empowered the ballot box, and brought unprecedented stability to civilian governance. If opposition movements are to win the hearts of the electorate, they must do so through engagement, not defamation.

Assertions suggesting a drift toward “Islamist extremism” in Türkiye are inaccurate and inciteful. Türkiye maintains its status as a secular republic dedicated to pluralism, international cooperation, and the protection of human rights. The nation’s stances on regional conflicts, particularly within the Middle East, stem from valid strategic and humanitarian considerations, not extremist ideologies. To characterize these positions as rigid dogma undermines constructive dialogue. This issue has regrettably become a tool in an international effort to delegitimize the Turkish state and its people.

Mr. or Ms Editor, it is noteworthy that the presence of more liberal social customs in Türkiye, such as women being topless on certain beaches, particularly in tourist areas, and the prevalence of modern attire in cosmopolitan districts of Istanbul like Caddebostan, Bebek, Nişantaşı, and Bağdat Caddesi, underscore the secular nature of the republic. These observations, reflecting the separation of state and religion enshrined in the constitution and the freedom of lifestyle choices within legal boundaries, directly contradict claims of a drift toward “Islamist extremism” by illustrating the diverse and secular fabric of Turkish society.

You motive is very clear it’s a smear campaign across the world against Turkiye.

Similarly, Türkiye’s foreign policy is neither erratic nor destabilizing. It is independent, strategic, and often facilitative of peace—most notably in mediating grain export agreements amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Such diplomacy should be acknowledged, not ignored.

For example, even Time Magazine noted during the Istanbul mayoral election rerun that “while Erdoğan may continue to reach for Putin-like powers, Turkey is not Russia.

Even American voices outside the mainstream echo chamber have recognized this truth. The American Conservative, in its April 29, 2025 edition, wrote: “The Turkish question will continue to vex Europe, especially post-American retrenchment. Turkey is too big and too important geographically to keep out of European balance. It shows a growing appetite to provide order, to push for political settlements and new equilibria in the historic lands it ruled for centuries.” This recognition of Türkiye’s rising influence is conspicuously absent from The New York Times’ editorial pages.

On national security, Türkiye has a right—indeed, an obligation—to defend its borders and citizens. Operations in Syria target the PKK and YPG, organizations internationally recognized as terrorist entities. The continued Western support for such groups undermines NATO solidarity and sows’ distrust among allies. No sovereign nation would tolerate armed threats along its frontier, and Türkiye is no exception. Furthermore, as NATO’s second-largest standing army, Türkiye anchors the alliance’s southern flank. Efforts to marginalize Türkiye through editorial campaigns weaken collective security and embolden hostile actors. Constructive engagement, not coercion, has historically yielded better results in Turkish-Western relations.

Domestically, the critique of Türkiye’s judicial actions as politically motivated lacks introspective parity. Consider the United States’ pursuit of Edward Snowden, the decades-long detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without trial, and the charges faced by former President Donald Trump. Are these instances evidence of a failed democracy, or do they reflect a legal system grappling with complex national security and political questions? If the latter is accepted for the U.S., the same consideration must be afforded to Türkiye.

Selective outrage betrays a larger problem the politicization of democratic values. Press freedom, civil liberties, and rule of law must be defended universally, not selectively applied to target disfavored governments. The disproportionate focus on Türkiye, to the exclusion of other countries with far more restrictive regimes, signals not principled advocacy but agenda-driven criticism.

Even the refusal to adopt Türkiye’s official name the Republic of Türkiye is emblematic of a deeper problem. Names are not trivial; they are expressions of sovereignty and identity. Türkiye’s formal request to be called by its rightful name deserves the same respect afforded to other nations. That The New York Times resists even this basic diplomatic courtesy speaks volumes.

In conclusion, Türkiye is not a rogue actor, a theocratic outlier, or an authoritarian state in disguise. It is a sovereign nation with a dynamic democracy, an indispensable ally, and a rising regional force. Its people deserve engagement, not derision; partnership, not paternalism.

It is time for the West and particularly institutions like The New York Times to move beyond outdated paradigms and embrace a more honest, principled, and balanced relationship with the Republic of Türkiye. Demonization is not diplomacy, and editorial bias is not advocacy.

Respectfully,

Ibrahim Kurtulus

Community Activist

May 1, 2025
Letter to New York Turkish Consulate General Lost on 1 Ave and 46 street

Ambassador / Consul General M. Ahmet Yazal
Turkish House
821 United Nations 5th floor
New York, NY 10017

April 27, 2025

Subject: Deep Concern Regarding Lack of Representation at Mrs. Aynur Erim’s Funeral

Dear Ambassador M. Ahmet Yazal,

Today, we gathered with deep sorrow to bid farewell to Mrs. Aynur Erim, a woman widely regarded as the “Mother of the Turkish-American Community.” As the devoted wife of Dr. Ata Erim, the Erim family has dedicated over fifty years to strengthening the unity, representation, and interests of Turkish-Americans in the United States.

Since my earliest childhood, I have personally witnessed Dr. Ata Erim’s tireless efforts from organizing parades and educational events to advocating on behalf of our community at all levels. Even today, at the remarkable age of 94, Dr. Erim continues his commitment, directly and indirectly, to our collective cause.

It is with a profound sense of sadness — and candidly, disbelief — that I must express my disappointment that no representative from the Turkish Consulate General in New York attended Mrs. Erim’s funeral. Despite there being multiple Consuls and their families assigned to New York, not a single diplomat was designated to represent our nation on this solemn day.

Moreover, since I personally notified the Turkish Consulate General in New York on Friday afternoon of Mrs. Erim’s passing, it is deeply troubling that not even a condolence phone call was made to Dr. Erim or his family over the ensuing days. This absence of direct engagement is, respectfully, unacceptable.

While the Diyanet Imam who presided over the funeral graciously conveyed condolences on your behalf, with all due respect, an imam is not a diplomat representing the Turkish Consulate General of New York . The lifelong contributions of the Erim family to our community merited the direct presence and acknowledgment of our official representatives.

Regrettably, this marks the second such instance within recent months. Earlier this year, following the death of a highly decorated Turkish Korean War veteran, there was once again a noticeable absence of engagement from the Consulate General. I was particularly saddened to learn that you were reportedly informed of the veteran’s passing several days after the initial notification.

Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, I ask sincerely: why was no Consul delegated to attend Mrs. Erim’s funeral? How is it possible that, even after 3 days, no direct communication with Dr. Ata Erim was made? These omissions are profoundly disheartening to our community and raise serious concerns regarding the current approach to community relations.

The Turkish-American community looks to our diplomatic mission not only for leadership but for solidarity, especially during times of mourning. We respectfully urge greater attention, engagement, and responsiveness moving forward.

I remain, as always, a devoted member of the Turkish-American community and a firm supporter of the Republic of Türkiye. My intention here is solely to express a heartfelt concern shared by many who witnessed today’s absents of a Turkish Diplomat at a very important Turkish American families funnel. Just so sad !

Respectfully, Ibrahim Kurtulus

April 28, 2025
Letter to Newsweek Inc

Newsweek Inc,
The Graham Holdings Company
One World Trade Center, Floor 72
New York, NY 10007

To the Editors of Newsweek,

Your recent article, “The U.S. Should Not Sell Weapons to Turkey,” presents a deeply flawed and misleading analysis, marred by selective omissions, strategic distortions, and a troubling lack of diplomatic nuance. Rather than offering a constructive critique, the piece unfortunately aligns with a broader campaign that seeks to delegitimize a sovereign nation and NATO’s second-largest military power: the Republic of Türkiye.

To begin with, a basic yet critical correction: the internationally recognized name of our country is the Republic of Türkiye. Continued use of outdated terminology disregards the democratic will of the Turkish people and fails to meet the diplomatic standards expected of a global publication.

Türkiye’s role in NATO and global security is both substantial and indisputable. From Afghanistan to the Balkans, Libya to the Black Sea, Türkiye has borne a disproportionate share of the burden in defending collective security. It was Türkiye that engaged in direct ground combat against ISIS, and Türkiye that fortified NATO’s southeastern flank during times of regional volatility.

The assertion that Türkiye has distanced itself from the West is factually incorrect. NATO officials and European partners have repeatedly affirmed that Turkish intelligence—particularly under the leadership of Hakan Fidan—has been instrumental in thwarting terrorist plots, countering extremism, and managing mass migration. Far from turning away from the West, Fidan’s tenure as head of MIT was defined by pragmatic cooperation with Western intelligence agencies.

As Foreign Minister, he continues to advocate a balanced foreign policy anchored in sovereign interests and regional stability. International actors, including the United States and Germany, have recognized Türkiye’s intelligence contributions as reliable and indispensable. NATO sources have even described Fidan as a “reliable interlocutor.”

The article’s portrayal of Türkiye’s engagement with Russia also omits vital facts: it was Türkiye that closed the Straits to Russian warships, supplied Ukraine with Bayraktar drones, and led the Black Sea Grain Initiative—helping to avert a global food crisis. These are not the actions of a nation disengaged from the West, but of a responsible actor committed to sovereign diplomacy and international order.

Regarding the S-400 issue: Türkiye sought to purchase the U.S. Patriot missile defense system for over a decade and was repeatedly denied. In the absence of viable alternatives, Türkiye acted to safeguard its national security. The subsequent imposition of CAATSA sanctions was not only punitive but revealed a stark double standard—other NATO allies operating Russian systems have not faced similar penalties like Bulgaria, Slovakia ,Greece and Non NATO member India .

Additionally, the issue of U.S. foreign aid directed toward entities with ties to terrorist organizations, as highlighted in Gregg Roman’s testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, warrants urgent scrutiny. Ignoring such troubling contradictions while fixating on Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns represents a grave lapse in intellectual and journalistic integrity. Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute has rightly noted: “Türkiye is invaluable to the central task of American statecraft: countering the challenge from the revisionist bloc of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.” Without Türkiye, the West cannot uphold a viable order in Eurasia, nor effectively support partners such as Ukraine or Azerbaijan. Türkiye anchors critical energy corridors, promotes regional stability, and counters malign influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Regrettably, this Newsweek article appears less focused on nuanced analysis and more intent on perpetuating a narrative of Türkiye-bashing that serves certain political agendas. This is not a good-faith policy critique—it is a concerted effort to portray Türkiye as a perennial antagonist, to the detriment of transatlantic unity and the principles of equitable diplomacy.

The authors’ distortions and inflammatory rhetoric offer little substance and much harm. Once again, Türkiye and the Turkish people are unfairly vilified in a narrative that disregards facts in favor of ideological convenience. In this era where principles are often forsaken for personal or political gain, these authors exemplify the erosion of objective discourse.

I urge Newsweek to reflect with greater journalistic and editorial responsibility. Opinion pages should foster informed and balanced dialogue—not serve as conduits for interest-driven disinformation. The Republic of Türkiye remains a committed NATO ally, a sovereign democracy, and a force for regional and international stability. It will continue to uphold its responsibilities—but it will also defend its right to national security, territorial integrity, and diplomatic respect.

I call on Newsweek and its contributors to recognize these realities, reject politicized narratives, and engage in more honest, fact-based dialogue.

Respectfully,

Ibrahim Kurtulus
Community Activist

April 25, 2025
Letter to Turkish Ambassador Sedat Onal

His Excellency Sedat Onal
Ambassador of the Republic of Türkiye to the United States
Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye
Washington, D.C.

April 16, 2025

Your Excellency,

I extend to you my sincere congratulations and deepest appreciation for your principled decision to cancel your appearance at the Assembly of Turkish American Association, ATAA annual meeting. Your refusal to lend legitimacy to an organization that has, under the guise of advocacy, recently served to organize and promote anti-Türkiye sentiment is both commendable and timely. At a moment when truth is so often distorted by misinformation and orchestrated campaigns, it is heartening to witness that ethics, loyalty, and integrity continue to serve as the guiding pillars of Türkiye’s diplomatic posture.

Your decision resonates powerfully, much like TRT1’s recent action to exclude actress Aybüke Pusat from the Teşkilat series following her public boycott post. While personal opinions and artistic expression must always be respected in a democracy, leveraging one’s public platform to support campaigns that target the Republic of Türkiye its institutions, services, or image abroad is both irresponsible and divisive. Such actions do not reflect constructive criticism but rather serve to undermine national unity and international credibility.

As a Turkish Americans and many I know of friends of Türkiye, we recognize the necessity of respectful dialogue and even constructive disagreement. I have personally expressed policy differences with Ambassador / Consul General Ahmet Yazal in a direct and professional manner, upholding mutual respect. However, I categorically reject the idea of undermining Türkiye’s diplomatic presence through street protests in New York or elsewhere in America—protests that often aim to mislead or confuse our fellow Americans, many of whom may lack even a basic understanding of Türkiye’s history, geography, or governance.

It is equally troubling that political activism here in America has become a platform for divisive, threatening, and polarizing discourse that disregards democratic processes and the rule of law. When political rhetoric seeks not engagement but humiliation—particularly towards our NATO ally and sovereign state, it becomes a weapon in the larger campaign to delegitimize Türkiye’s standing on the international stage.

Even more disturbing is the fact that threats to the Republic of Türkiye’s economic stability and statements aimed at damaging civilian and investor confidence are being disseminated abroad, especially in the United States, by certain circles within the grassroots community. This goes beyond political rivalry—it is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the national interests of the Republic of Türkiye. I have been a community activist for over 35 years, steadfastly advocating for Türkiye’s rightful place in the global community especially here in America . I have spoken out on matters ranging from World War I distortions to Cold War alliances and modern national security and national Interest of mothers homeland of Turkiye. Yet, I have never seen 55% of these individuals at our community meetings, never heard their voices raised in defense of Türkiye’s interests. However, when it comes to defaming Türkiye, they are suddenly at the front of the line without even needing an invitation.

This issue has become yet another tool in an international campaign to delegitimize the Turkish state. The groups in America who hold Turkish or dual citizenship and engage in these activities are not seeking accommodation, democratic normalization, or unity in grassroots politics. Their intent is clear: to humiliate the Republic of Türkiye on American soil, to sap its international reputation, and to harm it politically and economically.

Therefore, Your Excellency, I once again commend your ethically sound and strategically wise decision. It sends a message that should resonate across all of our diplomatic and community institutions that the Republic of Türkiye will not stand idly by while its values, people, and sovereignty are maligned. I respectfully urge the Turkish Consulate General in New York and all those in positions of public representation to adopt the same principled stance. Individuals and organizations subcontracted to serve Türkiye’s interests whether as providing a service , event organizers, or consultants must be held to a standard that reflects loyalty and ethical responsibility. I firmly believe just as you demonstrated, Mr. Ambassador that it is higher principles such as national dignity, truth, and moral clarity that must ultimately guide our choices.

Thank you, Your Excellency, for your service and for setting a powerful example in these difficult times.

Respectfully,

Ibrahim Kurtulus
Community Activist

April 22, 2025
Letter to Senator Chris Van Hollen

Senator Chris Van Hollen
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4654
Fax: (202) 228-0629

RE: Rebuttal to Senator Van Hollen’s Assertions Regarding Türkiye and U.S. Policy

April 7, 2025

Senator Chris Van Hollen,

Your recent commentary during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing concerning Tom Barrack’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye, and your subsequent public statements, reveal a deeply flawed and intellectually inconsistent approach to U.S.-Türkiye relations. Your assertions, particularly regarding the nomenclature of Türkiye, the Ekrem İmamoğlu case, the CAATSA sanctions, and the broader characterization of Türkiye’s governance, warrant a rigorous and unequivocal rebuttal.

Firstly, the persistent disregard for the Republic of Türkiye’s formal request to be addressed as “Türkiye” is not a trivial semantic matter. It constitutes a profound act of diplomatic disrespect, undermining the very principles of sovereignty and national identity that the United States purports to uphold. To continue employing the outdated “Turkey” is to perpetuate a colonial vestige, a relic of a bygone era that fails to acknowledge the nation’s contemporary self-determination.

Secondly, your critique of the administration’s response to the Ekrem İmamoğlu case, couched in the rhetoric of “stability” versus “democracy,” reflects a superficial understanding of Türkiye’s legal and political complexities. The legal proceedings against İmamoğlu, regardless of their political ramifications, must be contextualized within Türkiye’s established legal framework. To conflate legitimate legal processes with authoritarianism is to engage in a disingenuous exercise in political grandstanding. As Time Magazine aptly observed, “Istanbul’s Rebuke of Erdogan Shows That Democracy Lives in Türkiye,” highlighting the nation’s vibrant democratic processes and the robust participation of its citizenry. To selectively isolate İmamoğlu’s case while ignoring the broader context of Türkiye’s democratic engagement is an act of selective perception.

Furthermore, your stance on the F-35 and S-400 issue is riddled with inconsistencies and strategic myopia. The imposition of CAATSA sanctions, while presented as a matter of principle, has demonstrably weakened NATO’s southern flank. The United States’ refusal to provide Türkiye with the Patriot missile system precipitated its acquisition of the Russian S-400, a decision born of necessity, not malice. Moreover, your conspicuous silence regarding the operation of Russian-made S-300 systems by other NATO members—Greece, Bulgaria, and Slovakia—exposes a glaring double standard. This selective application of punitive measures undermines the integrity of the alliance and emboldens adversaries who exploit such internal divisions.

The narrative you and others propagate, portraying Türkiye as an “authoritarian” state, is a gross oversimplification. Türkiye, despite its challenges, operates as a functioning democracy, characterized by active political participation, a diverse media landscape, and regular elections. President Erdoğan’s electoral victories, achieved through high voter turnout, attest to the strength of Türkiye’s democratic mandate. The legal actions taken against certain journalists, while subject to scrutiny, are part of broader efforts to ensure responsible and unbiased reporting. To ignore the diversity of viewpoints present in Türkiye’s media landscape is to deliberately misrepresent the facts.

Your selective indignation regarding legal proceedings in Türkiye contrasts sharply with your silence on similar issues within the United States and other Western nations. The prosecution of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, the detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay without trial, and the use of extrajudicial drone strikes all raise profound questions about the application of democratic values. Are these not examples of the same “democratic backsliding” you so readily condemn in Türkiye? Further, your silence regarding the corruption charges against prominent figures in France, England and the United States, such as the French Far Right Leader, Former Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson, and Former Governor of Puerto Rico, Wanda Vázquez Garced, exposes a deeply troubling inconsistency. Your selective outrage reveals a political agenda, not a principled stance.

Furthermore, the documented instances of U.S. foreign aid being directed to entities with ties to terrorist organizations, as highlighted by Gregg Roman’s testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee, demand your attention. To ignore such egregious breaches while fixating on Türkiye’s legitimate security concerns is an act of profound intellectual dishonesty.

The orchestrated campaign to delegitimize Türkiye, characterized by the exploitation of digital platforms and non-governmental organizations, constitutes a deliberate assault on the nation’s sovereignty and existence. This sustained effort to demonize Türkiye, to paint it as a villain, is not merely a diplomatic disagreement; it is a calculated attempt to erode the nation’s rightful place on the world stage.

In conclusion, your assertions, Senator Van Hollen, are predicated on a selective application of facts, a profound disregard for diplomatic norms, and a conspicuous double standard. A more balanced and intellectually rigorous approach is imperative if the United States is to maintain a constructive and mutually respectful relationship with its vital NATO ally, Türkiye.

Ibrahim Kurtulus

Community Activist

April 11, 2025
Letter to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
United States

April 5, 2025

Honorable Secretary of State

I write to address the so called concerns raised by American citizens of Greek heritage and Philhellenes

regarding the Republic of Türkiye and to provide a factual and balanced perspective that counters misleading narratives and unjustified accusations against our NATO ally. The argument against Türkiye’s procurement of F-35 fighter jets is based on outdated rhetoric, mischaracterizations of Turkish policies, and a failure to acknowledge Türkiye’s indispensable role in regional and global security.

1. Türkiye’s Commitment to Counterterrorism and Regional Stability

The assertion that Türkiye harbors or supports terrorist organizations is categorically false. As a nation that has suffered immensely from terrorism, Türkiye has been at the forefront of the fight against groups such as ISIS, the PKK/YPG, and other extremist elements. Contrary to the claims made, Türkiye has actively dismantled terrorist networks and conducted military operations to secure its borders and protect civilian populations.

On Hamas: Türkiye has engaged with Hamas as part of its diplomatic efforts to promote regional stability, much like other states in the region, including Qatar and Egypt. Diplomatic engagement does not equate to material support. Moreover, the recent normalization of Türkiye-Israel relations, including intelligence-sharing agreements, demonstrates Türkiye’s pragmatic approach rather than hostility toward Israel.

On Hezbollah: There is no factual basis to claim that Türkiye has exhibited “sympathy” toward Hezbollah. Türkiye has maintained a consistent position against Iran-backed militant groups that threaten regional security.

2. Türkiye’s Right to Defend Its Borders and Counter the PKK/YPG Threat

The claim that Türkiye’s military operations in Syria constitute aggression against U.S. allies ignores key realities:

The PKK is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. The YPG, its Syrian branch, has been armed and supported under the guise of counter-ISIS operations. However, it continues to attack Turkish cities and civilians.

Türkiye has conducted counterterrorism operations in full compliance with international law and the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. No sovereign nation would tolerate terror threats emanating from its borders.

The argument conveniently omits that Türkiye was the only NATO country to engage in direct combat against ISIS in Syria, including the liberation of key cities such as al-Bab and Jarabulus, saving thousands of lives.

3. Türkiye’s NATO Commitment and Relations with Russia

Accusations that Türkiye has failed to impose sanctions on Russia ignore the complexity of Türkiye’s geopolitical position and strategic autonomy. It is important to note:

Türkiye has supplied Ukraine with Bayraktar TB2 drones, which have played a crucial role in resisting Russian aggression.

Unlike several European NATO members, Türkiye closed the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits to Russian warships, limiting Moscow’s naval mobility.

Sanctions are not the sole measure of alignment; Türkiye’s diplomatic efforts, such as the Black Sea Grain Initiative, prevented a global food crisis by ensuring Ukrainian grain exports.

4. The F-35 and the S-400 Issue

The decision to sanction Türkiye under CAATSA due to its procurement of the Russian S-400 system was a strategic miscalculation that weakened NATO’s southern flank. The United States refused to sell Türkiye the Patriot missile system, leaving Türkiye with no choice but to seek alternatives for its air defense needs.

It is hypocritical to punish Türkiye while permitting other NATO countries like Greece, Bulgaria, Slovakia (NATO members) to operate(d) Russian-made S-300 systems without similar repercussions.

The exclusion of Türkiye from the F-35 program disrupts NATO’s interoperability and emboldens adversaries by weakening alliance cohesion.

5. Greek Provocations and the Eastern Mediterranean

The claim that Türkiye threatens Greece is a one-sided misrepresentation of the ongoing disputes in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.

Greece has repeatedly violated international law by militarizing Aegean islands, contrary to the 1923 Lausanne and 1947 Paris Peace Treaties.

Greek airspace violations and unlawful expansionist policies under the “Blue Homeland” doctrine have escalated tensions, not Türkiye’s legitimate actions to protect its maritime rights.

Türkiye has consistently called for diplomatic dialogue, while Greece continues to seek unilateral military escalations and misrepresentations to international partners.

6. The Cyprus Issue: A Call for Equitable Solutions

Türkiye does not “occupy” Cyprus but rather protects Turkish Cypriots from historical ethnic violence that began in 1963, years before the 1974 intervention.

The international community has failed to hold Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration accountable for violating the rights of Turkish Cypriots.

The 2004 Annan Plan, which proposed reunification, was overwhelmingly rejected by Greek Cypriots while Turkish Cypriots supported it, proving who is the obstructionist party.

Conclusion: Türkiye is an Indispensable Ally

Denying Türkiye advanced defense capabilities weakens NATO rather than strengthening it. Türkiye has:

The second-largest military in NATO, securing the alliance’s southern flank.

Been a reliable partner in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the Black Sea in various military and humanitarian missions.

Played a vital role in counterterrorism, energy security, and regional stability, far outweighing the misleading narratives propagated by interest groups seeking to undermine U.S.-Türkiye relations.

Decisions on arms sales should be based on strategic security interests, not lobbying efforts rooted in historical grievances. Türkiye remains committed to its NATO obligations, counterterrorism efforts, and regional diplomacy, and it is in the best interest of the United States to reinforce this partnership rather than weaken it.

We must recognize that we are confronted by a highly coordinated and determined network of individuals who thrive on promoting hatred and misinformation.

These so-called “merchants of hate” have become adept at exploiting digital platforms and engaging with non-governmental human rights organizations in increasingly sophisticated ways to advance their agenda.

If this ongoing campaign of delegitimization is left unaddressed, it risks becoming a significant impediment to regional peace and stability.

While some may dismiss these smear campaigns as absurd, the consequences they produce are far from trivial. It is important to acknowledge that many of those perpetuating such narratives harbor longstanding grievances and nationalistic ambitions. Rather than examining their own domestic shortcomings, including the reality that Greece remains the only European capital without a functioning mosque and continues to draw condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights for its treatment of the Turkish Muslim minority, they attempt to shift attention through baseless accusations against the Republic of Türkiye.

Greece’s antagonism toward Türkiye is multifaceted—extending well beyond the political and military spheres. It encompasses direct attacks on the spiritual and cultural identity of the Turkish and broader Muslim communities, including deeply offensive acts such as the desecration of mosques and the burning of the Holy Quran.

Moreover, Greece has invested substantial resources in establishing a global apparatus of influence and propaganda. Through the strategic use of social media, transatlantic platforms, and well-funded lobbying efforts—particularly within the U.S. Congress—Greece has sought to shape international narratives to its advantage. These efforts are further supported by investments in academia, think tanks, and media outreach, all designed to undermine the legitimacy of the Turkish state.

This issue has become another weapon in the international campaign to de-legitimize the Turkish state and the Turkish people. Once again, Turkiye is painted as a villain.

What we are witnessing is not a simple diplomatic disagreement but a deliberate and sustained effort to target the very existence and sovereignty of the Republic of Türkiye. At the heart of this campaign is a singular and troubling objective: to demonize Türkiye at every opportunity. This orchestrated rhetoric has become yet another tool in a broader international campaign aimed at eroding the legitimacy of both the Turkish state and its people.

It is therefore imperative that we confront these efforts with unity, resolve, and strategic communication, firmly asserting Türkiye’s rightful place and reputation on the world stage.

Respectfully,

Ibrahim Kurtulus

Community Activist

April 7, 2025