By Dr. Loqman Radpey
Special to the Mirror-Spectator
Turkey has been leading regional developments since Assad’s decline in Syria. With intensified military operations in the north, a reinforced presence in Damascus, and a strategic blow to its long-time rival — the PKK — through Abdullah Öcalan’s message and his call for disarmament, Ankara is reshaping the region to fit its neo-Ottomanist ambitions. But beneath this drive lies a deeper objective: the formation of a new ideological bloc that merges Islamism and leftist anti-liberalism to counter the evolving Middle Eastern order.
Turkey’s neo-Ottomanist project, driven by Sunni political currents, has been unmistakable. Its military incursions in Syria and Iraq have not been about securing its borders but rather about dismantling a critical regional divide — what can be termed a “ready platform” for a new regional order. This expansionism, in tandem with Iran’s regional influence, has targeted the Kurds, who have long struggled for political autonomy or independence in the four states of Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq. Turkey and Iran claim to restore a so-called natural and imperial order through respectively the Sunni Brotherhood and the Shiite Axis of Resistance. Their model of Islamic integration and militarism seeks to stifle Kurdish aspirations and prevent the rise of a liberal-national political order in the Middle East.
The Kurds, uniquely positioned as a non-Islamist national movement, pose a challenge to Turkey and Iran’s ideological monopoly. Consequently, both Ankara and Tehran have pursued strategies to entrap the Kurds within an Islamic-leftist framework that opposes liberalization. Their objective is to prevent the Kurds from aligning with emerging Western-backed alliances, such as the Israeli-Saudi bloc and the geopolitical shifts under the Abraham Accords.
A deeper examination of Turkey’s opposition to the Abraham Accords and its proposed alternative to the IMEC Corridor reveals the complexity of this strategy. Turkey’s growing tensions with Israel, coupled with the historic affinity between Israel and Kurdish self-determination, have driven Ankara to employ similar tactics as seen in Syria under the Trump administration. This involves complicating issues on the ground to limit Washington’s unilateral decision-making, much like the Turkish incursion and subsequent occupation of the Kurdish city of Afrin in 2018. Yet, Israel’s support for Kurdish independence is not a recent phenomenon — it is a long-standing policy that predates the latest geopolitical realignments.