Turkish Forum

Category: Regions

  • The Nakhchivan Incident and Its Potential Consequences

    The Nakhchivan Incident and Its Potential Consequences

    Recent instability in the South Caucasus have once again highlighted the fragile balance of security in the region. The crash of several unmanned aerial vehicles in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic has become a new source of tension between Azerbaijan and Iran. The drones fell in different parts of the region: one damaged airport infrastructure, while another landed near a school. Reports mentioned injuries among civilians.

    Following the incident, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev issued a strong statement describing the episode as a terrorist act and requesting explanations from Tehran. Iranian officials rejected the accusations and called for a careful investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident.

    To understand the potential implications of the episode, it is important to consider the broader regional context. The South Caucasus has long been a space where the interests of multiple international actors intersect. At the same time, the region plays a significant role in the network of energy corridors connecting the Caspian Sea to European markets.

    Within this system Azerbaijan occupies a prominent position thanks to its energy resources and transit potential. Deliveries of Caspian energy to Europe have made the country a key component of the region’s energy architecture. Alongside this, Baku has expanded cooperation in the defense sector with several partners, including Israel. Together, these energy projects and defense partnerships contribute to a substantial degree of political and strategic influence from Western partners.

    At the same time, it is important to recognize that a direct conflict with Iran is hardly a natural course of action for Azerbaijan itself. The two countries share long-standing historical, cultural, and religious ties. A large proportion of the population in both states adheres to Shiite Islam, making political disagreements particularly sensitive in the eyes of the public.

    Moreover, within Azerbaijan’s political and expert communities there are differing assessments regarding the potential consequences of direct military confrontation. Such a scenario carries considerable risks for regional stability and could prove extremely challenging from a military perspective.

    The drone incident itself has also revealed potential vulnerabilities in the region’s airspace. Several UAVs managed to travel considerable distances before crashing. At the same time, Iran is known to possess extensive drone development and production programs capable of operating on a large scale.

    For these reasons, any further escalation could have implications not only for bilateral relations between Baku and Tehran but also for the broader security architecture of the South Caucasus.

    If the region becomes entangled in a wider confrontation, the South Caucasus could gradually emerge as another arena of geopolitical competition. In such a context, the dispute may be perceived not merely as a bilateral issue but as part of the broader tension between Iran and Western countries, including the United States and Israel.

    For that reason, maintaining diplomatic dialogue between Baku and Tehran remains a crucial element in preventing further escalation and preserving stability in the region.

  • My Response to New York Post

    My Response to New York Post

    The recent opinion piece in the New York Post titled “Beware Turkey’s ambitions in the post Iran power vacuum,” written by Jonathan Schanzer and published March 4, 2026, reflects again a troubling pattern in which speculation is presented as strategic analysis with a paper that always has an axe to grind with Turkiye . Opinion pages are meant to provoke debate, but serious commentary on international affairs must begin with accuracy, fact of evidence  and context both of which appear noticeably absent with the New York Post .

    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. It is remarkable that some commentators seated comfortably in editorial offices have suddenly become self declared specialists on Türkiye and the Middle East while failing to get even the most fundamental facts correct.

    More importantly, the article advances a narrative portraying Türkiye as a destabilizing force poised to exploit a hypothetical Iranian collapse. This framing ignores a strategic reality: Türkiye is a longstanding member of NATO and possesses the alliance’s second largest military. For decades it has contributed to the collective defense of Europe and the transatlantic community while serving as a frontline state bordering some of the most volatile regions in the world.

    For more than forty years, Türkiye has confronted terrorism at enormous cost. Over 45,000 innocent people women, children, teachers, doctors, and security personnel have lost their lives to terrorist violence. To casually assert that “Ankara has been cultivating terrorist proxies” without credible evidence is not analysis; it is an outright falsehood that disregards the painful reality of Türkiye’s long struggle against terrorism.

    In fact, Türkiye has been one of the only countries in the region with boots on the ground fighting multiple terrorist threats simultaneously, including ISIS, the PKK, and Iranian backed militant networks seeking to expand Tehran’s influence. Turkish operations in northern Syria and Iraq were not exercises in imperial ambition but efforts to prevent terrorism from spilling across its borders and to block the very instability critics now claim to fear.

    Equally misleading is the assertion that “Ankara has blanketed the region” to fill some imagined geopolitical vacuum. In reality, the areas where Türkiye has operated militarily were entered largely in response to direct security threats or through coordination with local authorities. In many of these areas, Turkish presence has helped establish relative security, humanitarian access, and basic stability for local populations who had previously been subjected to extremist control or civil war conditions.

    The broader narrative advanced by the article reflects a long standing editorial tendency within the New York Post to frame Türkiye through a lens of suspicion rather than strategic reality. Such portrayals may resonate with readers who don’t even know where District of Columbia is  in USA (D.C.) and  unfamiliar with the complexities of the region, but they do little to inform the American public or contribute to constructive policy debate.

    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, 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. 

    Ultimately, the article does not expose Türkiye. Instead, it highlights the risks of substituting ideology for strategy and speculation for evidence. Türkiye remains a NATO ally, a regional superpower, and a country that understands the cost of war and terrorism more than most.

    Foreign policy demands seriousness, not slogans. Unfortunately, this commentary offers little of the former. At a time when Western unity is essential, dismissive narratives about allies do not strengthen the alliance they weaken it. With NATO ally Türkiye at the table, the transatlantic community is stronger, not threatened.

    Respectfully,

    Ibrahim Kurtulus 
    Staten Island, New York 

    https://nypost.com/2026/03/04/opinion/beware-turkeys-ambitions-in-the-post-iran-power-vacuum

  • Letter of Appreciation to Congresswomen Marjorie T. Greene

    Letter of Appreciation to Congresswomen Marjorie T. Greene

    An Open Letter of Appreciation to The Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene
    Türkiye , Israel , Iran

    The Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene
    P.O. Box 829
    Dalton, GA 30722
    United States

    Dear Congresswoman Greene,

    I write to express my sincere appreciation for your clear and principled response to the recent remarks made by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. When you stated plainly, “Hello. Turkey is a NATO member country. Everyone wake up,” you did more than post a comment  you reminded the world of a strategic reality too important to ignore.

    Türkiye is not “the new Iran.” Such rhetoric is not analysis; it is provocation. It disregards decades of alliance, sacrifice, and shared security commitments. Since the Korean War, where Turkish brigades fought shoulder to shoulder with American forces, Türkiye has upheld a timetested and honorable role within the Western alliance. From Kosovo War to stabilization efforts in Afghanistan and operations in Libya, Türkiye has consistently stood on the froont lines of NATO’s most complex missions.

    As the second-largest military force in NATO and the indispensable guardian of Europe’s southern flank, Türkiye protects not only its own sovereignty but the broader security architecture of the transatlantic world. It faces direct and indirect pressure from Iranbacked networks across Syria and Iraq. To equate Türkiye with Iran is not merely inaccurate it is intellectually unserious.

    In fact, Türkiye’s strategic interventions have disrupted Iranian and Russian ambitions in Syria and Libya. Even James Jeffrey, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye and later as Special Representative for Syria, acknowledged that Turkish actions “stymied” Russian and Iranian designs and that this “is not a bad thing.” One may debate Ankara’s style or President Erdogan’s assertiveness; serious policymakers do so regularly. But caricature and smear campaigns are not substitutes for strategic thought.

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s remarks read less like statesmanship and more like political theater a careless attempt to delegitimize a NATO ally for shortterm applause. Demonizing Türkiye will not strengthen Israel’s security, nor will it serve American interests. It only erodes the cohesion of the alliance structure that has preserved stability for generations.

    Türkiye is an independent regional major power, a complex democracy, and a pivotal state bridging Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. It is not Iran, nor is it on a path to become Iran. Reducing it to such a slogan is a disservice to history and to facts.

    Türkiye is not Lebanon, nor Iraq, Jordan, nor Syria, nor Iran and it is certainly not a nation to be intimidated or coerced by reckless rhetoric or military theatrics.

    Those who believe otherwise misunderstand its history and resolve. At Gallipoli Campaign World War, I, 7 Powerful at time , Allied powers came to the Shores of Turkiye. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, invading forces learned a hard lesson Ataturk said  “the way they came, they left.”. Türkiye remains a sovereign power of strategic depth and institutional strength, fully capable of defending its national interests.

    Your willingness to state the obvious that Türkiye is a NATO ally reflects clarity at a moment when clarity is needed. For that, many Americans who value strategic honesty are grateful.

    Respectfully,

    Ibrahim Kurtulus
    Community Activist

  • Turkish Parliamentary Outreach in Washington Highlights a Deeper Grassroots Gap

    Turkish Parliamentary Outreach in Washington Highlights a Deeper Grassroots Gap

    A delegation from the Turkish Grand National Assembly, led by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Fuat Oktay, is in Washington this week holding a series of meetings aimed at strengthening diplomatic ties at the legislative level. The visit underscores Ankara’s recognition that while executivelevel relations between Türkiye and the United States remain “extremely positive,” as Oktay noted, engagement with the U.S. Congress has proven far more difficult.

    Oktay’s remarks deserve close attention. His observation that the U.S. Congress is challenging to engage because of its focus on domestic affairs is not merely a tactical complaint it is an admission of a structural reality of American democracy. In the United States, foreign policy is deeply shaped by grassroots engagement, local constituencies, and sustained relationships between elected officials and the communities they represent. This is not a flaw in the system; it is the system.

    For years, A hand full of activist , like my self  and policymakers have acknowledgedat least rhetorically that U.S. domestic politics is driven from the bottom up. Yet in practice, Ankara has largely relied on expensive lobbying firms in Washington, spending millions of dollars with little concrete, longterm impact. Access was purchased with millions of dollars given to lobbying firms, meetings were arranged, but influence remained shallow and often temporary. Lobbying without grassroots power is transactional, not transformational in building relationships.

    The real weakness lies closer to home, within the ecosystem of Turkish-American organizations. Many so-called NGOs claiming to represent Americans of Turkish descent lack meaningful grassroots engagement in the halls of U.S. power. Groups such as   Federation of Turkish Americans Associations often run by individuals with limited credibility, lack of proper English language or outreach or its members incardinated by the Federal Government  , present themselves as national representatives while failing to build real relationships with members of Congress, state legislators, or even local officials. Representation without legitimacy is not advocacy; it is theater and picture taking.

    Too many Turkish American organizations and its members  appear more interested in hosting visiting Turkish political figures than in holding U.S. elected officials accountable or educating their own communities about civic engagement. Activism is reduced to symbolic welcoming outside the Turkish House or what I have refer to as the “Diplomatic House” rather than sustained engagement with congressional offices, district staff, school boards, or city councils.

    The consequences are visible. Many Turkish Americans can name foreign ministers or ambassadors, yet cannot identify their own congressman, senator, assembly member, or even better yet ,  their children’s school principal. This is the State of the Turkish American Communities lobbying efforts. This civic disconnect undermines any serious claim to political influence in the halls of power. In the American system, power flows upward from informed, organized communities not downward from embassies or visiting delegations who for 40 years have come to the New York or Washington to congregate Turkish Americans by spoon feeding their version of relations then take group pictures for about one hour and  then run to Apple store and Clothing Outlets to buy luggage full of Designer clothes. 

    Oktay’s statement that Congress is difficult because it is domestically focused is, unintentionally, an indictment of this failure. It highlights how Turkish-American NGOs have not done the essential work of embedding Turkish-American concerns into the fabric of U.S. domestic politics accept for community activist like Ergun Kirlikovali, Murat Guzel,  Erol Akyurek and Melih Bektas. If Congress seems distant, it is because the bridge has not been built.

    Leadership matters in this process, and it starts with consulates. In New York, for example, the role of the Consul General Yazal  should be to empower communities, encourage civic participation, and foster credible relationships with elected officials. Instead, the current period has been marked by missed opportunities and weak engagement, widely regarded by community leaders as among the poorest in decades.

    Strengthening U.S.Türkiye relations will not come from delegations alone, nor from checkbooks written to lobbying firms. It will come from disciplined grassroots organizing, accountable community leadership, and a serious commitment to engaging American democracy on its own terms. Only then will Congress listen not because it is asked to, but because it must.

    Ibrahim Kurtulus

    Community Activist 

  • Ukraine and Estonia: A Strategic Partnership at Risk

    Ukraine and Estonia: A Strategic Partnership at Risk

    Estonia has consistently demonstrated a record level of support for Ukraine among European Union member states, allocating substantial financial assistance amounting to hundreds of millions of euros — representing a significant share of its GDP. This support, initiated well before the full-scale invasion, has encompassed defense and humanitarian aid, the reception of refugees, and participation in post-war reconstruction efforts. Tensions, however, are rising within the Baltic information space.

    According to data from the Kiel Institute, Estonia ranks among the leading donors in terms of aid per capita.Under such circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the most favorable conditions for further cooperation, including for Estonian businesses integrated into European markets.

    Nevertheless, emerging information has raised concerns regarding several Estonian companies operating in Ukraine.In particular, the situation surrounding Lviv Isolator Company, part of Global Insulator Group Holding, highlights the complexity of current law-enforcement practices. Despite the suspension of operations and potential economic losses for all parties — including disruptions to the supply of critical components for the energy sector — Ukrainian authorities continue to examine issues related to ultimate beneficial ownership. It is crucial that such proceedings are conducted in strict compliance with international law and investment protection principles, especially in light of the looming energy crisis and the Baltic states’ planned exit from the BRELL energy ring.A comparable situation has developed around Arricano Real Estate Plc., involving personal sanctions and asset confiscation. Although court proceedings have failed to substantiate the alleged connections, ongoing criminal cases continue to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for investors.

    These incidents may lead to regrettable consequences, ranging from a potential cooling of political and economic relations between Estonia and Ukraine — as already noted within the Baltic states — to a reduction in future assistance and delays in reconstruction efforts. Maintaining the confidence of European investors in the Ukrainian market remains a critical priority. For Estonia, which is preparing for parliamentary elections, the protection of its citizens’ and businesses’ rights abroad is becoming an important political issue requiring dialogue and attention. Timely and fair resolution of such matters in accordance with European standards is essential for preserving long-term strategic partnership.

  • Letter to Lindsey Graham- US Senator

    Letter to Lindsey Graham- US Senator

    Regarding  Recent Statement on Syria and ‘Saving the Kurds’

    February 9, 2026

    Lindsey Graham -US Senator
    211 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510

    Dear Senator Graham,

    I read your January 27, 2026 statement on X with great concern. Your claim that “the Kurds are under threat from the new Syrian government aligned with Turkey” and your announced intent to introduce “crippling sanctions” through a “Save the Kurds Act” constitutes not only a misreading of the regional reality but, more troublingly, a reversal of your own previously stated national security concerns.

    First, your framing collapses a diverse people into a single militant faction. There are more than 15 million Kurdish citizens living in neighboring states who serve as parliamentarians, ministers, governors, diplomats, judges, academics, and business leaders. If these governments were engaged in a campaign against Kurds as a people, they would not have sheltered half a million Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein in 1991 nor hosted millions of Syrian refugees, including tens of thousands of Syrian Kurds, since 2012. The omission of intra-Kurdish plurality is astonishing. Nechirvan Barzani, President of the Kurdistan Regional Government, has publicly defined the PKK as a “headache” and demanded their expulsion from Kurdish territory in Iraq. Abdullah Keddo of the Syrian Kurdish National Council has warned that PKK-linked groups must be expelled from Kurdish-majority towns in Syria. Kurdish rejection of PKK authoritarianism is not peripheral — it is central.

    Second, your romanticization of the YPG/PYD also ignores hard legal and intelligence facts. Interpol, FATF, and UN agencies have documented PKK-linked networks involved in narcotics trafficking, forced conscription, human smuggling, extortion, and arms procurement. No sovereign state including our own would tolerate an armed separatist formation operating on its borders financed through transnational organized crime.

    Your narrative also erases the chronology. The collapse of the 2013–2015 peace process did not occur in a vacuum. It was the PKK that unilaterally broke the ceasefire, declared “autonomous zones,” dug urban trenches, and launched urban insurgencies from Cizre to Sur. No Western democracy would permit an armed non-state actor to carve municipal fiefdoms under the banner of cultural rights.

    You are also aware of the U.S. role in muddying this conflict. Under the cover of counter-ISIS operations, Washington rebranded the PKK’s Syrian affiliates (YPG/PYD) as the “SDF.” Senior American officials have since admitted the obvious. Then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the PKK an “enduring threat.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed that the SDF maintains structural ties to the PKK. Ambassador James Jeffrey openly described the SDF as a national security problem for our NATO ally. President Donald Trump went further: “Kurds are not angels. The PKK… is probably worse at terror and more of a terrorist threat in many ways than ISIS.”

    Senator Graham, respectfully you once recognized this. During hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee, you questioned Secretary Carter and General Dunford about U.S. cooperation with the PKK/YPG in Syria and Iraq, highlighting their acts of terror and the thousands of civilian lives lost. You warned against entanglements with designated terrorist entities. Today, you are proposing sanctions on governments combating the very groups you once warned about. One is left to ask: when did the policy change, and why?

    Meanwhile, the new Syrian government under President Ahmad al-Sharaa has granted Kurds full citizenship, legalized Kurdish education, recognized Newroz as a holiday, and enacted anti-discrimination laws. These reforms undermine the separatist thesis and remove the humanitarian alibi Western commentators often rely upon.
    Iraq’s Kurdish Parliament has repeatedly expressed gratitude for cross-border support against ISIS between 2014–2017 and credited regional integration for their economic development. Kurdish leaders have never claimed that their survival depends on an armed Marxist separatist formation only certain Washington think tanks have.

    Senator, no one is attacking Kurds. Counter-terror operations target groups like the PKK/YPG/PYD that exploit instability to advance extremist goals. Conflating Kurds with separatist militants is an insult to Kurdish citizens who reject authoritarianism.

    America’s reputation will not suffer by ceasing to fund non-state militias. It will suffer by appearing to legislate on behalf of a terrorist organization. If you are so committed to their protection, one wonders whether your constituents in South Carolina would welcome their relocation, protection, and financing at home.

    At a time of economic strain, American taxpayers deserve investments in American communities not another open-ended proxy commitment to groups that U.S. officials themselves have labeled as terrorists.

    Respectfully,
    Ibrahim Kurtulus
    Community Activist