Ahmad Hashemi

For the last 40 years, the Israeli lobby and neoconservative hawks in Washington—who advocate for endless hegemonic wars and regime change in the Middle East and elsewhere—have managed to influence foreign policy to the detriment of average American citizens and the U.S. economy. By repeatedly claiming that the mullah regime is two weeks away from the atomic bomb, they have successfully pushed for a second war with Iran in less than a year.

While U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that Iran’s major nuclear sites sustained severe damage and destruction during the Twelve-Day War in June 2025, the US and Israel started this unprovoked and unjustified war of choice on February 28, 2026. This intervention, if anything, has made the repressive regime in Iran more belligerent, weakened the pro-democracy movement, decapitated the country’s vibrant civil society, and rallied the people around the leadership.

Following the inconclusive 40-day war, which left the Iranian regime weakened and wounded but short of regime change or a decisive military defeat, negotiators have successfully drafted a 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to extend the current ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The agreement—mediated by international partners like Pakistan following a dangerous string of military exchanges, including U.S. strikes on drone hubs and retaliatory Iranian strikes on a U.S. air base in Kuwait—now sits on the desk of President Donald Trump.

Trump’s hesitation to sign, under the premise that “time is on the U.S. side“ and that Iran will bend under the prolonged naval blockade, is a dangerous miscalculation.

Iran has always been a regional superpower and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Thus, the belief that a perpetual kinetic or economic siege can permanently curb Iran’s regional ambitions without triggering a catastrophic war is a foundational error. It is a strategic myopia shared by Washington hardliners who are under the influence of pro-Israeli lobby groups in America.

The U.S. and Israel often pursue divergent national and security priorities because they are distinct sovereign nations facing different geopolitical realities. Israel wants the U.S. to fight its wars on its behalf, as the United States has the most powerful military on earth, possessing unmatched global reach, logistical superiority, and advanced technology.

This is not a healthy relationship, and the United States must free itself of foreign influence, including, by indiscriminately implementing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). This is a tall order, as Miriam Adelson and other Israeli nationals are Trump’s single largest campaign donors. However, Trump, who advocates for “America First”—while MAGA pundits sometimes go as far as to claim “America only” as their motto—must be able to push pro-war, pro-Israeli organizations such as AIPAC, UANI, and FDD to register under FARA.

For years, the consensus in Israeli politics, spanning from right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to his center-left rivals like Yair Lapid, has relied on the flawed assumption that a prolonged campaign of covert operations, military pressure, targeted strikes such as bombing bridges, schools, energy facilities, oil refineries, and hospitals could manage the Iranian challenge indefinitely. When Lapid famously insisted that “Israel must destroy all of Iran’s oil fields and energy industry,” he exposed a systemic reality: the political debate was never about the strategic concept of containing the Iranian threat, but merely about the intensity of the violence, as Israel tries to repeat the Gaza playbook in Lebanon and potentially in Iran—which entails carpet bombing, destroying civilian infrastructure, and committing genocide.

This persistent focus on an external kinetic solution became a convenient structural tool, allowing Israeli leaders to unify the political system around a real or perceived existential threat while sidestepping foundational domestic questions—chief among them the occupation of Palestine and parts of Lebanon and Syria.

But as the current regional crossfire demonstrates, the kinetic solution provides only a temporary disruption. It can delay and it can exact a steep price, but it completely fails to alter Iran’s long-term strategic direction. Believing that a status quo of “managed conflict” is sustainable ignores the mathematical certainty of escalation.

The proposed 60-day MoU offers a fragile but necessary exit ramp from this cycle. Under its terms, the strategic Strait of Hormuz would reopen for unrestricted commercial shipping, with Iran required to clear its naval mines within 30 days. In return, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports and grant temporary sanctions waivers for oil sales. Crucially, the deal binds Tehran—now under the leadership of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei—to an explicit commitment never to pursue nuclear weapons, creating a structured 60-day framework to negotiate the suspension of its uranium enrichment program.

It is important to emphasize that any signed agreement will be highly fragile. The risk of collapse remains high because Washington and Tehran inherently interpret obligations differently. Even if the MoU is executed, the region will not instantly stabilize; limited clashes, cyberattacks, and sabotage will likely persist.

Yet, the alternative to this fragile diplomacy is not a maintained status quo—it is the inevitability of a broader war. The current lull is dictated primarily by the calendar, pushing major escalations past the mid-summer sports window in the US. However, the danger zone peaks from late July through September. In Israel, this window directly precedes elections. Netanyahu, facing domestic political uncertainty, has an acute strategic and electoral interest in launching a strike on Iran’s infrastructure—and dragging the United States along with it—before the political landscape shifts. Without a certified, signed U.S.-Iran agreement to anchor regional de-escalation, the temptation for a unilateral, catastrophic strike will be overwhelming.

Trump’s refusal to sign the MoU based on the assumption that the U.S. naval blockade can break Iran’s will indefinitely is a fantasy. The 60-day window does not demand blind trust; its strict “relief for performance” framework ensures that permanent sanctions relief and the unfreezing of assets are entirely contingent on verified compliance. What the MoU does provide is time—an alternative to the illusion that security can be achieved solely through missiles and warships.

Another war with Iran is unnecessary and unmaintainable. While focus needs to be placed on China as the peer competitor, the intense usage of advanced weaponry in the war with Iran at Israel’s request has significantly drained the United States’ stockpiles. According to some reports, the U.S. will need years to replenish stockpiles of advanced weapons used in the Iran war.

There are things that military operations can achieve and things that they cannot. In the case of Iran, one can confidently claim that the limits of military power have been reached. America must reject the allure of endless military brinkmanship on behalf of Israel and sign the 60-day MoU. Trump must sign the MoU, break the cycle of kinetic dependency, and force a shift toward a long-term politico-strategic vision before the summer calendar runs out.

Trump favors authoritarian regimes, but it would be a distinct advantage if he has a change of heart and instead decides to support the Iranian people and the country’s resilient, pro-American civil society to help the Iranian people help themselves in democratizing their nation.

Summary:

Ahmad Hashemi argues that President Donald Trump must reject the illusion of a military solution and sign a mediated 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Iran.

Influenced by the pro-Israel lobby and neoconservative hawks, the U.S. and Israel launched an unjustified war against Iran in February 2026. This inconclusive 40-day conflict failed to achieve regime change; instead, it strengthened the repressive regime, weakened Iran’s pro-democracy movement, and depleted U.S. weapon stockpiles.

The proposed MoU offers a crucial exit ramp. Under its terms, Iran would clear naval mines from the Strait of Hormuz and commit to never pursuing nuclear weapons. In exchange, the U.S. would lift its naval blockade and grant temporary sanctions waivers for oil sales.

Hashemi warns that Trump’s hesitation to sign—driven by the false belief that a prolonged blockade will break Iran—is a dangerous miscalculation. Without this agreement, regional escalation is inevitable, particularly as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces domestic political pressure and seeks to drag the U.S. into a broader conflict. Ultimately, the limits of military power have been reached, and Trump must choose fragile diplomacy over endless, catastrophic war.

• #AhmadHashemi

• #SignTheMoU

• #TrumpSignTheMoU

• #NoWarWithIran

• #ResistTheKineticIllusion

• #DiplomacyOverWar

• #AmericaFirst

• #EndEndlessWars

• #USForeignPolicy

• #FARA Enforcement (referencing the call for FARA registration)

• #StopTheBlockade

• #StrategicVision

• #MiddleEastDiplomacy

• #StraitOfHormuz

• #IranCeasefire

• #Deescalation Now

• #IranUSRelations

• #ForeignInfluence

• #MilitaryBrinkmanship

• #LimitsOfMilitaryPower

• #AvoidEscalation

• #CostOfWar

• #IranMoU

• #AntiWar

• #PeaceNow

• #TrumpForeignPolicy

Subscribe now

By Ahmad Hashemi

May 19, 2026

The glittering skyline of Dubai has long served as a testament to the power of ambition, capital, and a relentless “build it, and they will come” philosophy.

For decades, the United Arab Emirates marketed itself as a neutral playground—a Middle Eastern Switzerland where trade trumps ideology and commerce bridges the gaps between belligerent neighbors.

But today, that facade is fracturing. Thanks to its leaders’ recent strategic blunders, the era of the “Dubai Dream” as modern times’ most luxurious engineering and construction project is coming to an end.

The fundamental flaw of the UAE, often referred to as a “crystal country,” is its inherent fragility.

It is a desert nation built on the transparency of global markets, foreign investments, and the fluid movement of people and goods, disregarding the geopolitical fact that it is located in a restive and rough neighborhood.

In times of peace, its risk-averse model excels. However, the country lacks the structural resilience to withstand a direct hit from significant geopolitical conflicts.

A Flydubai Boeing 737 Max aircraft prepares for landing as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport in Dubai on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

A Flydubai Boeing 737 Max aircraft prepares for landing as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport in Dubai on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

Strategic miscalculation

During the 40-day U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, while other Arab Gulf nations practiced restraint, recognizing the catastrophic cost of a regional conflict, the UAE chose a path of active escalation.

This is more than a diplomatic faux pas; it is a fundamental betrayal of the boutique nation’s “survive and thrive” strategy.

The UAE’s hyper-globalized economy is based on aviation, international trade, and luxury tourism. All of these areas require an atmosphere of absolute safety.

By choosing to confront a regional heavyweight like Iran, the Emirati leadership has “bitten off more than it can chew.”

The UAE’s decision to respond militarily places its entire economic miracle in the crosshairs of a conflict it cannot win. While Iran thrives on chaos, the UAE’s entire success rests on security and stability.

The Dubai skyline with the landmark Burj Khalifa skyscraper (R) is pictured as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport, UAE on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

The Dubai skyline with the landmark Burj Khalifa skyscraper (R) is pictured as a smoke plume rises from an ongoing fire near Dubai International Airport, UAE on March 16, 2026. (AFP Photo)

Overextension and aggression

Overconfident in its economic miracle, the UAE has in recent years pursued an assertive foreign policy beyond its weight across the Middle East and Africa, utilizing proxies, financial aid, and strategic investments.

These actions include bombing Yemen and supporting secessionist forces in the south, backing the Rapid Support Forces (RSF)—who are committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Sudan—and establishing military and economic ties in Somalia’s breakaway region of Somaliland, which is recognized only by Israel.

These moves by Abu Dhabi put the small country at odds with its powerful neighbors, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The UAE’s aggressive foreign policy approach gained momentum with the normalization of relations with Israel. The UAE was the first Arab Gulf nation to move toward this normalization, even as the situation in Palestine reached a fever pitch.

With the ongoing genocide in Palestine and high-casualty Israeli aggression in Lebanon, it is clear that this UAE-Israeli alliance is increasingly unsustainable.

The UAE’s decision to join the Abraham Accords—essentially an effort to forge an Arab-Israeli front against Iran—effectively alienated it from a significant portion of the region.

Now, by doubling down and engaging in hostilities with Iran, the UAE has effectively boxed itself into a corner. Geographically and logistically, the UAE is fully dependent on the Strait of Hormuz.

This narrow waterway is the jugular vein of the Emirati economy. Without maritime security and regional “buy-in” for safe passage, the ports of Jebel Ali become graveyards of a bygone era.

A country built on commerce cannot survive a war of attrition; one cannot sell luxury real estate in a combat zone.

As a sign of a major strategic blunder for the UAE, during Operation “Roar of the Lion,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and heads of Israeli military and intelligence agencies reportedly made a clandestine trip to meet President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. Netanyahu reportedly offered the Emirates the “Iron Dome” defense technology.

Furthermore, the small Persian Gulf sheikhdom crossed the red line in April 2026, committing the unthinkable. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Emirati warplanes repeatedly carried out strikes on Iran, targeting refineries and other oil facilities.

By escalating tensions and directly attacking Iran, the UAE has abandoned the very neutrality that allowed it to exist and thrive in the first place.

From Tehran’s perspective, these developments confirm that the UAE has effectively become a Mossad and IDF outpost sitting just across the Persian Gulf.

This alignment provides Iran with a heightened sense of justification to target Dubai and Abu Dhabi should a regional conflict erupt.

Ultimately, the UAE has tethered itself to Israel’s deep-seated rivalry with Iran—an enmity that runs deeper than the Emirates’ own tensions with Tehran. It is a risky gamble, especially considering the UAE shares a maritime border with Iran, whereas Israel remains safely a thousand kilometers away.

Geopolitical realities require Emiratis to stop being a proxy for Israel. Iran can never tolerate the active presence of Israeli forces near its borders, and the Emirates will no longer be safe for tourism and trade.

Iran has recently announced the creation of the “Persian Gulf Strait Authority” to manage navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It appears that an Iran-dominated modus operandi has already begun to emerge at the Strait, one that has somewhat stabilized global markets.

The question for the Trump administration is whether it wants to disturb that emerging equilibrium by initiating another war against Iran and risk further damaging the global economy, or let the Islamic Republic get away with its expanded powers.

Iran-led realignment in Gulf

The conclusion of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran will mark a seismic realignment in Middle Eastern diplomacy, characterized by the gradual collapse of the Abraham Accords and a fundamental erosion of the strategic alliance between the United States and the Arab Gulf states.

Persian Gulf nations have reached a turning point after concluding that Washington prioritizes Israeli security over the protection of its Arab partners.

This disillusionment is rooted in the 40-day war, where the U.S. failed to respond to attacks on Arab oil facilities, leading regional leaders to believe that the American security umbrella is unreliable when their specific interests are at stake.

In response to this perceived abandonment, the Gulf region would gradually shift toward a multipolar framework where Iran is increasingly recognized as a central hegemon.

To manage this new reality, the Persian Gulf states are pursuing diplomatic realism by improving direct ties with Tehran. For instance, Saudi Arabia has floated the idea of a regional non-aggression pact with Iran in the aftermath of the U.S.-Israel war.

They are also diversifying their global security alliances. By deepening partnerships with major powers like China, these nations are moving away from their exclusive reliance on Western security arrangements, effectively ending the era of U.S.-led regional stability.

The UAE is the main loser in the recent conflict with Iran. This conflict undeniably exposed the nation to unprecedented collateral damage and geopolitical risk.

While the UAE absorbed thousands of Iranian projectiles—more than Israel—it also participated in covert military strikes against Iranian energy assets, fundamentally altering its long-standing “safe haven” reputation.

The small country—made up of seven tiny emirates—has no strategic depth. With a native population of only around 1.3 million out of 11.5 million total residents, Emiratis make up just over 10% of their own country.

This is not a population sufficient to sustain hostilities with an Iranian nation of over 90 million, and Israeli help will not save the UAE.

The “Dubai Model” was predicated on the idea of economic prosperity. Once the dust settles on any broader U.S.-Iran confrontation, the regional landscape will be fundamentally altered.

Iran, as a permanent geographic fixture, will likely ensure the UAE can no longer operate with the impunity it once enjoyed.

The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular domestically and may fall in the near future, but no matter the future political structure, Iran has always been a hegemon and will remain a dominant power in the Gulf region.

Conversely, the U.S. is likely to retreat as isolationist voices grow louder, questioning why they are wasting American blood and treasure in the deserts of Arabia.

Iran and the UAE, however, will eternally remain neighbors. Geography is destiny, and this is exactly why—by over-relying on external powers—the Emiratis have made the gravest mistake of their young country’s history: participating in a war of aggression against Iran. For the foreseeable future, the UAE will not be safe again for tourism, trade, and business, and Iranian drones will not cease to inflict pain.

It would not be an overstatement to claim that the era of the Emirati model has come to an end. The crystal-clear transparency that once invited investors now reveals a nation overextended, exposed, and vulnerable.

The “Emirati Dream” is no longer alive.

The lights of the Burj Khalifa may still shine, but the foundation beneath them has already started to tremble.

Read it here: https://www.turkiyetoday.com/.../twilight-of-the-dubai...

#AhmadHashemi

#Geopolitics

#ForeignPolicy

#MiddleEastPolitics

#DubaiDream

#MiddleEastGeopolitics

#IranUAE

#StraitOfHormuz

#BurjKhalifa

#MiddleEastConflict

#ForeignPolicy

#AbrahamAccords

#RegionalRealignment

#AbuDhabi

#ProxyWar

#GlobalMarkets

#DubaiEconomy

#InternationalTrade

#AviationSecurity

#LuxuryRealEstate

#StrategicMiscalculation

#GeopoliticalRisk

#DiplomaticRealism

#GeographyIsDestiny

Share

Share Ahmad Hashemi

Leave a comment

Read more

U.S. President Donald Trump is seen praying with faith leaders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C, accessed on April 13, 2026. (Photo via White House)

By Ahmad Hashemi

April 24, 2026 08:49 AM GMT+03:00

For decades, the political alliance between American Evangelical Zionists and the State of Israel has been treated as a theological and geopolitical fortress.

Built on a shared vision of the Holy Land, this bond has channeled billions of American taxpayer dollars and vast amounts of advanced weaponry into the Israeli military.

However, a series of disturbing events—culminating in a viral video of an Israeli soldier’s vandalism of a Jesus statue in Southern Lebanon—demands a painful, long-overdue reckoning.

If the American Christian conscience is to remain intact, it can no longer turn a blind eye to the systematic destruction of the world’s oldest Christian communities in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran.

Israel must be held accountable for the desecration of churches, and the church-going American “patriots” who fund this destruction must ask themselves why they are subsidizing the erasure of their own faith’s heritage.

Now-deleted AI-generated image depicting Trump as Jesus Christ posted on Truth Social, accessed on April 13, 2026. (Photo via Truth Social)

A pattern of destruction

The creation of Israel and its subsequent wars have been major factors in the sharp decline of the Christian population across the Levant.

Since its inception, Israel has mistreated Christians and sought to displace them in significant numbers. In 1948, some 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes to make room for Jewish immigrants.

Alongside their Muslim neighbors, roughly 90,000 Palestinian Christians were displaced, accelerating a demographic decline from 12.5% of the population to 1.2% today.

Thus, the recent footage from Lebanon was not an anomaly; it was a symptom of a broader policy of cultural and religious liquidation of Christians by Israel.

From Gaza City to the towns of the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran, Christian places of worship are being reduced to rubble.

The historical irony is staggering. While the Israeli government often presents itself as the sole protector of religious freedom in the Middle East, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have overseen the bombardment of religious sites that have stood for centuries.

This is a regime that has not limited its reach to Palestine; its military actions have expanded to impact Christian and other religious sites across the region, including destruction reaching as far as Christian landmarks in Isfahan, Tehran, and other cities in Iran during recent airstrikes.

These are not isolated incidents, despite the narrative presented by Israel’s expansive propaganda machinery. A consistent pattern has been repeating for a long time.

Consider this: recent U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in Iran have damaged centuries-old Armenian churches in Isfahan and the St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church in Tehran.”

In Palestine, Israeli forces struck the Holy Family Church, the only Catholic church in Gaza, on July 17, 2025, killing three and injuring dozens of Christians, including the parish priest, Father Gabriel Romanelli, not to mention the systematic Israeli settler attacks on Palestinian Christian villages in the occupied West Bank.

Again, these are not merely collateral damage in a secular war; they are the intentional targets of a policy that views non-Jewish religious identity as an obstacle to total territorial control and land grabs.

Israel’s goal is to engineer demographics by settling global Jewry (Aliyah) in the region to create a pure ethno-supremacist Jewish land in Palestine and Lebanon, devoid of its indigenous Christian and Muslim populations.

Israeli soldier’s act breaks stone, our faith remains unbroken: Priest Dargham

Region

1 min read

The hypocrisy par excellence of the American Church

Perhaps the most jarring element of Israel’s anti-Christian enterprise is the source of its funding. American taxpayers—specifically those within the MAGA movement and the ranks of Christian Nationalists—are the primary financial engine behind this destruction.

This evangelical MAGA lunacy, at its extremes, is willing to go as far as to sacrifice the indigenous Christian inhabitants of the land at the expense of Jewish territorial expansionism.

Consider this: evangelical Zionist and current U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, in his February 2026 interview with Tucker Carlson, suggested that biblical interpretation grants Israel rights to vast areas of the Middle East stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, saying it would be “fine if they took it all.”

There is a profound, almost pathological hypocrisy at play. American evangelical Zionists claim to love the “Holy Land,” yet they remain silent as the original Christians of that land—the direct descendants of the first apostles—are displaced and killed.

These are people who have kept the flame of the Gospel alive for two millennia, yet because they are “non-white” Christians in the Middle East, their lives and their cathedrals seem to carry less weight than a political alliance in Washington.

We must ask the hard question: Why do American Christians support a regime that actively destroys the very faith they claim to hold dear? Is it a “moral decay” within the American church, or a blind adherence to a supremacist political ideology that has superseded the teachings of Christ?

US President Donald Trump (R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands as they arrive to speak to journalists during a joint press conference at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, on Dec. 29, 2025. (AFP Photo)

A history of Muslim tolerance and the Zionist threat

To understand the gravity of what is being lost, one must look at the history of the region. For centuries, Muslim-majority lands were the primary refuge for those fleeing religious persecution. 

When Medieval Europe was busy persecuting Jews, Muslims, and “heretical” Christian sects, it was the Ottoman Empire, the Iranian Empire, the Andalusian Empire (Al-Andalus), and other Middle Eastern and North African nations that opened their arms.

The Spanish Inquisition saw Jewish, Muslim, and “heretical” Christian refugees fleeing to the Muslim East for safety. For generations, these Jewish and Christian minorities lived within the fabric of the Muslim world.

Now, that delicate pluralism is being shattered by a Zionist movement that treats Christian and Muslim holy sites with equal disregard.

The “freedom of worship” touted by Israeli PR is a myth that dies every time a bomb levels a Christian parish, or a soldier defaces a statue of Jesus or Mary.

The call for accountability

For too long, Israel has benefited from Christian evangelicals, seeing it as “useful idiots” for its expansionist causes. However, there are clear signs that the era of America’s “unconditional support” is coming to an end.

A new generation of Americans is turning on Israel. Data confirm a significant generational divide in American attitudes toward Israel, with younger generations (Gen Z and Millennials) showing much lower levels of support than older Americans.

As another indication of this change, in a historic April 2026 vote, 40 U.S. Senate Democrats voted to block key weapon sales to Israel.

These sentiments in the U.S. public need to evolve into policy. There must be protection for Christian minorities and their places of worship, ensuring they are exempt from the death and destruction prevalent in current regional conflicts.

American Evangelical Christians must find the moral courage to say: “Not in my name.” They must demand that their tax dollars stop funding the bombardment of the Middle East’s Christian minorities—and everyone else, for that matter.

If the “patriotism” of the American right is to mean anything, it should not involve the subsidizing of a foreign military that views its own religion as a target.

Ultimately, Israel must be held accountable—not just for the loss of life, but for the systematic effort to erase the Christian footprint from the Middle East.

If the American church does not speak up now, it will have to explain to future generations why it stood by and watched while the cradles of its own faith were turned into dust. Accountability is no longer a political option; it is a spiritual necessity.

Share Ahmad Hashemi

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Get more from Realpolitik, by Ahmad Hashemi in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

An illustration showing Donald Trump (L), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (R) and Benjamin Netanyahu (C). (Photo Collage by Zehra Kurtulus / Türkiye Today)

By Ahmad Hashemi

April 13, 2026 12:06 PM GMT+03:00

Reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a pivotal role in persuading President Donald Trump to launch military operations against Iran during a high-stakes, secret meeting in the White House Situation Room on Feb. 11, 2026.

This escalation, however, appears to be only one chapter in Israel’s much larger regional playbook.

Despite the indecisive results of the war of choice with Iran, Israel is not yet done attempting to draw the United States into “forever wars” in the Middle East.

Having engaged in genocidal campaigns in Palestine and Lebanon, Netanyahu has increasingly framed these conflicts as prerequisites for the establishment of a new regional and even global power status.

This push is a clear attempt to realize the vision of a “Greater Israel”—the biblical Eretz Yisrael that spans territories from the Nile to the Euphrates through the conquest of territory and the assertion of regional hegemony.

Netanyahu has been remarkably candid about these intentions.

In August 2025, during an interview with i24NEWS, he expressed explicit support for the concept of Greater Israel, describing his administration’s work as a historic and spiritual mission to fulfill this vision.

This is why, as the smoke barely clears from the primary theaters in Iran, a new and more dangerous narrative is already being crafted in the corridors of Washington’s most influential pro-Israeli think tanks.

There is now only one country standing in the way of Israel’s expansionist agenda: Türkiye.

For decades, a coordinated chorus of voices branded Iran as the singular existential threat to Israel’s security to justify U.S. military interventions, repeating the claim for 30 years that Iran was mere weeks away from a nuclear bomb.

Now, those same voices are shifting their gaze toward Ankara, framing Türkiye as an existential threat to Israel.

The question now haunting political analysts and American taxpayers alike is whether Israel can convince America to wage another war of choice, this time against the Republic of Türkiye.

This is no longer a whispered conspiracy; it is an unequivocally stated strategic outlook. Consider this, for instance: former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has explicitly framed Türkiye as “the new Iran,” implying that Ankara is not merely a diplomatic adversary but a strategic menace that must be neutralized.

This sentiment is echoed by a powerful network of Israeli and pro-Israel think tanks and lobby organizations in the United States, including the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), JINSA, AIPAC and the Middle East Forum.

For example, the influential “Israel First” think tank, FDD, recently claimed, “Türkiye, the new Iran?” Ankara’s growing challenge to Western interests.”

Their collective thesis is clear: Türkiye’s growing military might, its defensive capabilities, and its pursuit of strategic autonomy represent an unacceptable challenge to Israeli hegemony.

According to this worldview, once the “Iranian problem” is fully settled, the crosshairs must inevitably move to Türkiye.

U.S. President Donald Trump (R) shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, United States on Dec. 29, 2025. (AFP Photo)

Türkiye is not Iran: The Iran playbook will fail

However, those seeking to demonize Türkiye and drag the United States into a confrontation are ignoring a fundamental reality: Türkiye is not Iran.

Any attempt to replicate the “maximum pressure” campaign or military interventionism seen in Tehran would encounter a brick wall of geopolitical and military obstacles.

First and foremost is the NATO shield. Unlike Iran, which has been a pariah for nearly half a century, Türkiye is a cornerstone of the NATO alliance.

As a treaty ally with the second-largest military in the alliance, an attack on Türkiye would represent the formal dissolution of the Western security architecture.

A direct military confrontation would likely require the U.S. to exit NATO—a move President Trump has already signaled following his allies’ refusal to join the war with Iran.

While this shift is often framed as a reaction to uncooperative allies, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent offers a more targeted theory: withdrawing from NATO could be a calculated step to side with Israel in a future clash with Türkiye over conflicting interests in Syria.

Furthermore, the personal dimension of diplomacy remains a significant hurdle. President Trump has consistently maintained a rapport with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In Trump’s Washington, the appetite for destroying a functional strategic partnership with Türkiye is low, complicating the efforts of pro-Israel hawks who rely on the dehumanization of foreign nations to sell wars.

Additionally, the lessons of the recent “40-Day War” with Iran remain a sobering deterrent. Billed by Netanyahu as a “walk in the park” that would lead to immediate regime collapse, the reality was a brutal conflict that triggered a global crisis in energy, shipping and aviation.

If a war with an isolated Iran caused such global pain, a war with a globally integrated G20 economy like Türkiye would be economic and geopolitical suicide for the United States.

Turkish Navy deploys four vessels for NATO exercise in Rotterdam, South-Holland, The Netherlands on February 27, 2026. (AA Photo)

‘America First’ vs ‘Israel First’

The push by the Israel lobby for foreign conflicts, particularly the unprovoked 2026 U.S.-Israel aggression against Iran, has created a significant divide within the American right and the MAGA movement.

A clear rift has emerged between the “America First” and “Israel First” factions of the movement.

While figures like Miriam Adelson, Larry Ellison, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, and Laura Loomer work to create a pro-Zionist echo chamber in the U.S. media, they face increasing opposition from vocal “America First” conservatives like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Candace Owens.

These critics argue that dragging the United States into foreign conflicts serves no national interest and only benefits a foreign power’s regional expansion.

They also point to the staggering hypocrisy of fearing an ascendant Türkiye while Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a massive, undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Given Türkiye’s NATO ally status and close personal ties between the leaders in Washington and Ankara, a direct U.S. confrontation with Türkiye is highly unlikely, but Israel is not going to simply give up.

If the pro-Israel lobby in Washington fails to convince America to launch a kinetic war against Türkiye, including in the Syrian theater, the campaign of destabilization will likely continue through “war by other means.”

This involves the support of Kurdish separatist movements and militant organizations like the PKK to erode Turkish national cohesion.

For Israel, as an actor that thrives on regional instability, chaos in neighboring states is not a failure of policy; it is the desired outcome.

The American people now stand at a crossroads. For thirty years, they were told Iran was a week away from a bomb to justify wars that have finally come to pass with devastating results.

Striking a NATO ally would be more than madness; it would be the final nail in the coffin of American global credibility.

While a conflict with Türkiye may seem unimaginable, President Trump’s strategic blunders and juvenile tantrums—including threats to blow up Iranian civilian infrastructure, including every bridge and power plant, and wipe out the “whole civilization” and send Iran “back to the stone ages”—indicate a susceptibility to manipulation.

If the U.S. moves to abandon its NATO commitments, the chances of being dragged into an Israeli-desired conflict with Türkiye will rise significantly.

The stakes are high, and Washington needs to realize that another war of choice is a choice America simply cannot make.

Share

Leave a comment

Share Ahmad Hashemi

Get more from Ahmad Hashemi in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Today I’m announcing a brand new addition to my Substack publication: Ahmad Hashemi subscriber chat.

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

An illustration showing the Strait of Hormuz and a map of the Middle East. (Collage prepared by Türkiye Today/Zehra Kurtulus)

By Ahmad Hashemi

April 11, 2026 02:19 PM GMT+03:00

For decades, the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran has dominated the nightmares of Western strategists.

From the halls of Congress to the corridors of the Knesset, the debate has remained fixed on centrifuges, enrichment levels, and the “breakout time” required for Tehran to assemble a warhead.

However, the 40-day conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has shattered this conventional paradigm.

An unexpected reality has emerged from the smoke of battle: Iran does not need a nuclear bomb to achieve strategic deterrence against its archenemies.

Iran has realized that it possesses a weapon of mass disruption far more potent than any atomic bombs.

As Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian President, noted, Iran has already tested its “nuclear” weapon: control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical oil artery—a narrow chokepoint through which one-fifth of the world’s liquid energy consumption passes daily.

Since the start of the conflict on Feb. 28, Iran’s disruption of shipping in the Strait has severely impacted global energy markets and maritime trade, and in the wake of recent hostilities, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shifted its focus from land-based defense to maritime dominance.

By weaponizing the logistics of the Persian Gulf, Iran has proven that its true power lies in its ability to wage economic, logistical, and energy warfare.

A close-up map highlights the Strait of Hormuz, bordered by Iran and key Gulf states, accessed on April 14, 2024. (Adobe Stock Photo)

Reverse engineering regime change

The strategic calculus has undergone a seismic shift.

For years, the stated or whispered goal of Washington was regime change in Tehran.

Yet, as the IRGC tightened its grip on the strait, the roles reversed. By disrupting shipping and threatening the global energy supply, Iran demonstrated a new capability: the power to influence political stability within the United States and the rest of the world.

In a globalized economy, energy prices are not just economic issues; they are the pulse of political stability.

A sustained spike in global inflation, triggered by a blockade or a “shipping war” in the Strait, could challenge Western governments—and, for that matter, all governments—more effectively than any conventional war.

Thus, as Vice President J.D. Vance is about to meet with Iranian negotiators in Pakistan to hammer out a potentially lasting peace deal, the U.S. priority has abruptly pivoted from the lofty goal of regime change to the desperate necessity of reopening the Strait.

This realization redefines the concept of deterrence. In the traditional sense, nuclear weapons prevent war by threatening total destruction.

But nuclear weapons are often “too big, too consequential” to use; they invite immediate global pariah status. Conversely, the Strait of Hormuz offers a “sliding scale” of deterrence.

Having survived an unprovoked, indiscriminate, illegal, and existential U.S.-Israeli airstrikes and Trump’s genocidal threats to wipe out Iran’s civilization,

Tehran is now undeterred and can dial the pressure up or down—hitting a tanker here, harassing a destroyer there, or mining a shipping lane—creating a perpetual energy crisis that keeps the global economy in a state of high anxiety.

Jag Vasant, an Indian-flagged tanker carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) that transited through the Strait of Hormuz amid the Middle East war, remains docked at an offloading terminal along the coast in Mumbai on April 1, 2026. (AFP Photo)

New diplomatic hand

As diplomacy between Tehran and Washington tentatively resumes, the stakes have fundamentally changed.

In previous rounds of negotiations, the focus was almost entirely on nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile ranges. Today, Iran enters the room with a much stronger hand.

Tehran may be willing to offer concessions on its nuclear program or limit the range of its missiles, but it is unlikely to concede regarding its influence over the Strait.

Tehran understands that a nuclear deal is a piece of paper that can be trashed by a U.S. president at any time, but geographic control of the world’s energy chokepoint is a physical reality.

Iran may use this leverage to pressure the U.S. and its ally Israel, to halt massacres in Lebanon, Palestine, or other international theaters.

Iran is expected to use its “discovered” maritime leverage—beyond immediate financial gain—to demand long-term security guarantees and deterrence measures in any final peace settlement with the United States.

However, Iran’s reliance on this “maritime deterrent” is not without risks. The image of confidence Iran projects masks a deeply fragile domestic reality; it is a regime grappling with economic collapse, political unrest, and weakening legitimacy in the aftermath of the mass killings of protesters on Jan. 8 and 9 in the streets of Tehran.

The very “energy war” Iran wages to protect itself also risks further isolating its economy and impoverishing its people, potentially fueling the domestic fire it seeks to extinguish.

The United States now faces a grueling path forward. After the devastating 40-day war, mistrust is at an all-time high, and the critical talks on the Strait, the proxies, and the nuclear program are now inextricably linked.

While the United States has long positioned itself as the primary guarantor of “free passage” in international waters, particularly since World War II, that promise is difficult to keep when the “gatekeeper” is a hostile power willing to commit to a war of economic attrition.

Infographic showing the different types of naval mines that the United States has accused Iran of using in the Strait of Hormuz, a claim denied by Tehran. (AFP Infographic)

The asymmetric era

The lessons of the last 40-days are clear: we must stop viewing the Iranian threat through the narrow lens of the 20th-century proliferation and nuclear arms race.

We are in a new era of “asymmetric deterrence,” where the flow of a commodity is more valuable than the splitting of an atom.

Iran has discovered that it doesn’t need a bomb to challenge its enemies if it can simply harass them at the gas pump.

The stakes are high, and the declared two-week ceasefire is fragile, as Iran’s 10-point and Trump’s 15-point plans have few overlaps, if any.

Regardless of how the talks in Islamabad progress, the Strait of Hormuz will remain the true barometer of peace and a new tool of Iran’s power projection and deterrence.

Until the world finds a way to decouple the global economy from this 21-mile-wide chokepoint, Iran will remain the most powerful “un-nuclear” state in the region and beyond, holding the keys to global stability in the palm of its hand.

Leave a comment

Share

2

Protesters wave pre-1979 Islamic Revolution flags of Iran as they gather for a demonstration against the Iranian regimes crackdown on protests in central Paris, France on Jan. 4, 2026. (AFP Photo)

By Ahmad Hashemi

January 06, 2026 04:48 PM GMT+03:00

A collapse in Iran’s currency in late December 2025 has sparked ongoing nationwide demonstrations that represent the most significant challenge to the regime since the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests.

Yet, as the Islamic Republic teeters, a dangerous narrative is being pushed by Israeli officials and right-wing pundits in the West: the return of the Pahlavi monarchy.

We are witnessing what can only be described as a “deepfake revolution.” In recent years, Pahlavi backers have utilized AI, sophisticated digital manipulation, and disinformation to hijack the genuine slogans of the Iranian people.

By altering footage from the streets of Iran to include monarchist chants that were never uttered, they attempt to prop up exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the sole alternative to clerical rule. This is more than a marketing ploy; it is a PSYOP (Psychological Operation) and strategic deception that threatens to derail the struggle for true Iranian self-determination.

However, the idea that the current Islamist system can be replaced by a secular monarchist dictatorship—one originally brought to power by foreign-backed coups—is not only a moral failure but also a strategic impossibility. It ignores the fundamental reality that the rejection of the current regime, while nearly pervasive, does not equate to a desire to return to the monarchy.

Recent surveys indicate that while over 80% of Iranians oppose the continuation of the Islamic Republic, the data also reveal a deep fissure that a Pahlavi restoration would only widen.

Nowhere is this divide more evident than in the ethnic periphery. For the one-third of the population that identifies as Azerbaijani (or South Azerbaijani), the Pahlavi name is synonymous with “Persian chauvinism,” forced assimilation, and the suppression of minority rights.

Historically, the monarchy oversaw a centralized state that marginalized the diverse ethnic identities making up the Iranian mosaic.

Currently, the Azerbaijani people have remained largely silent during recent unrest. This is not out of support for the clerics, but out of a legitimate fear of a perceived psychological and covert operation designed by external factors to return them to Pahlavi-era subjugation. This silence of Azerbaijanis and other ethnic minorities is the regime’s greatest shield.

Without the active participation of the Azerbaijani people, no seismic change in Iran is possible. History tells us that for the state to truly tremble, Tabriz (the capital of South Azerbaijan) must march with Tehran (the heart of Persia).

This image captures a meeting between Reza Pahlavi and his wife Yasmine Pahlavi with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara Netanyahu. (Photo via X/ @PahlaviReza)

Furthermore, the moral authority of the exiled opposition has been compromised by its reliance on foreign backing. Figures like Reza Pahlavi are increasingly perceived as tools of foreign intelligence agencies—particularly after endorsing external military intervention during the 2024 and 2025 airstrikes. Nationalistic pride remains a potent force; when foreign bombs fall, even the most ardent dissidents may “rally round the flag” against perceived external aggression.

The struggle is further complicated by the ‘support’ of far-right politicians in the West. It is not helpful when figures like Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Elon Musk, Charlie Kirk, and Tommy Robinson claim to be on the side of the Iranian people and vocalize support for Iranian “freedom.”

Rather, it provides an excuse to the regime, as these figures often promote racist policies in their own countries, such as advocating for mass deportations of people of color to make their nations ‘white’ again.

Senior regime officials—including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Ali Larijani and Ali Shamkhani—have used these statements by anti-Muslim figures to portray legitimate protests as foreign, far-right-fueled sabotage.

They argue that these external forces do not care about the plight of Iranians or other non-white nations, but rather their own geopolitical interests.

True change cannot be imposed from outside; it must be democratic, inclusive, and homegrown.

Donald Trump has a documented pattern of praising authoritarian leaders and ‘strongmen’ in the Middle East. Yet, the suggestion that Iranians are incapable of democracy or ‘deserve’ a strongman and a medieval monarch is a relic of colonial thinking.

What Iran needs is a secular, pluralistic, and multiparty system that respects the rights of all, including women, Sunnis, Jews, and ethnic minorities such as South Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Baluchis and Arabs.

Contrary to the narratives often promoted in certain Israeli and American right-wing political circles, Reza Pahlavi does not represent a viable solution; rather, he is part of the problem.

The path forward depends on the formation of a unified opposition front that bridges the gap between the Persian heartland and the ethnic periphery.

True transformation must be a grassroots-driven movement, led by the resilient citizens in Tabriz and Tehran who endure the regime’s daily oppression.

The Islamic Republic is an illegitimate, brutal regime that must go to the dustbin of history, where it belongs; however, it cannot be replaced by a foreign-backed authoritarian regime. Iran’s future must belong to its people—all of them.

Subscribe now

Share

Share Ahmad Hashemi

Leave a comment

Get more from Ahmad Hashemi in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

President Erdogan arrives before a meeting with European Commission President and EU Council President at the EU headquarters in Brussels on March 9, 2020. (AFP Photo)

By Ahmad Hashemi

December 31, 2025 05:16 PM GMT+03:00

The year 2025 profoundly transformed the Eastern Mediterranean, as a regional spillover from conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and post-Assad Syria further militarized the basin.

As the geopolitical landscape continues to shift, two critical strategic miscalculations are emerging within the Eastern Mediterranean and the broader European sphere, to Türkiye’s detriment.

First, a nascent “Hebrew-Hellenic” axis—comprising Greece, Cyprus, and Israel—is increasingly moving to isolate Türkiye from the regional security architecture.

Recent trilateral summits between Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Mitsotakis, and President Christodoulides have solidified a partnership that seeks to bypass Türkiye in energy, security, and trade.

While framed by its proponents as a “pillar of stability,” an alliance that excludes Türkiye is, in reality, a gift to the West’s primary adversaries: Russia, China, and Iran.

By systematically excluding the second-largest army in NATO from the defense arrangements of Europe and the Mediterranean, these nations are not merely pursuing a local rivalry; they are actively undermining the cohesion of the European and transatlantic alliance, as well as the strategic interests of the United States in its peer-rival competitions.

Second, and more importantly, in response to Russia’s increasing threat to Europe and perceived American hesitation to engage under the Trump administration, the EU launched the Security Action for Europe (S.A.F.E.) program in 2025.

While Türkiye sought entry as a key NATO partner, its membership was effectively blocked by veto threats from Greece and Cyprus. While this veto may satisfy domestic voters, it serves the European Union poorly in a time of war.

As an indispensable NATO ally maintaining the alliance’s second-largest military, Türkiye’s exclusion from the €150 billion S.A.F.E. defense initiative marks a significant lapse in strategic foresight.

The political bias of this decision is underscored by Canada’s admission as the “only non-EU country with complete access.” While Canada’s inclusion is lauded for bolstering G7 and NATO ties, the same door remains closed to Türkiye, despite its far greater geographic and operational importance to European security.

This exclusionary move is a security risk, as it forces Ankara onto an autonomous path outside of Western frameworks and undermines the very cohesion upon which NATO depends.

It pushes Türkiye to look elsewhere for its strategic needs precisely at a time when the West requires its military-industrial might to counter a revisionist Russia.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C), Greek Cypriot leader Nikos Christodoulides (L) and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (R) hold a joint press conference after a trilateral meeting in Jerusalem, Dec. 22, 2025. (AFP Photo)

It is worth noting that under similar exclusionary circumstances, Türkiye turned to Russia to purchase the S-400 missile defense system in December 2017, primarily because the U.S. refused to sell the Patriot system.

To claim to build a “holistic“ European defense while walling off the region’s most significant military power is not just a paradox; it is strategically hollow.

Türkiye’s defense industry, known for its battle-tested drones and naval technology, is essential for replenishing Western stockpiles.

As the conflict in Ukraine intensifies, Europe must not overlook the pivotal role Türkiye’s Bayraktar TB2 drones played in the nation’s early defense.

Some military experts argue that these drones, alongside other Turkish armaments, were instrumental in saving Kyiv during the initial Russian onslaught. Although the invasion was designed to capture the capital swiftly, the Russian armored advance was effectively halted by TB2 strikes.

In light of this, forcing a wedge between Ankara and Brussels does nothing but create a “two-tier” NATO that favors Moscow’s desire for a fragmented West.

The SAFE program aims for “strategic autonomy,” but autonomy requires scale. A Europe that deliberately excludes its most militarily powerful neighbor is a Europe that is smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable.

The anti-Türkiye maneuvers currently being played out in Jerusalem, Athens, and Nicosia are a luxury the West cannot afford in 2026.

When Greece and Cyprus use institutional vetoes to settle bilateral grievances, they prioritize “micro” disputes over the “macro” survival of the Western alliance. Every move to isolate Türkiye is a move in favor of the Russia-China-Iran axis.

Map showing Türkiye, Cyprus, and Greece. (Prepared by Türkiye Today.)

Türkiye: Key to ‘America First’ Mediterranean Policy

In contrast to the exclusionary policies favored by certain European capitals, the approach championed by President Trump offers a more pragmatic and effective path.

The Trump administration has correctly identified that a strong, integrated Türkiye is the key to an “America First” foreign policy. By working with President Erdogan on major security matters, ranging from the stabilization of Gaza to post-Assad reconstruction in Syria, the U.S. can successfully disengage from the “forever wars” of the Middle East.

True “America First” realism understands that a stable Mediterranean requires Türkiye’s cooperation. Working with Türkiye allows the U.S. to delegate regional security to a capable, high-tech military ally, thereby freeing up American resources to focus on the southern border, the domestic economy, and the primary threat of Chinese expansion in the Far East. Weakening Türkiye does not lead to a safer Mediterranean; it creates a power vacuum that Russia is eager to fill.

President Trump must intervene to bring common sense back to the Eastern Mediterranean and the SAFE program. The U.S. should reject the exclusionary logic of anti-Türkiye alliances and instead champion an inclusive security framework that recognizes Türkiye’s indispensable role.

The United States must transcend the petty provincialism of Eastern Mediterranean rivalries to prevent the internal erosion of the Western alliance.

By adopting a realist partnership with Türkiye, the U.S. and the West can secure a vital foothold across the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Eurasian heartland.

Such a pivot is not merely a diplomatic courtesy; it is a strategic necessity that prioritizes American interests by leveraging the region’s most significant military power, allowing Washington to place its focus on the Far East, where all U.S. attention is needed.

Ahmad Hashemi

Ahmad Hashemi is the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Program at the Global Policy Institute (GPI). He has a unique background as a former Iranian Foreign Ministry official, freelance journalist, and pro-democracy activist. Mr. Hashemi received a BA in Political Science from the University of Tehran and an MA in Regional Studies (American Studies) from the School of International Relations, affiliated with Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2022, he graduated from Missouri State University’s Department of Defense and Strategic Studies in Fairfax, Virginia, with a Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies. His professional experience includes a research fellowship at the Hudson Institute, where his work focused on Iran, Azerbaijan, and Middle Eastern foreign policy. As a freelance journalist, Mr. Hashemi has authored hundreds of pieces in Persian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, and English for outlets such as The National Interest, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, JNS, The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, BBC Persian, Al Arabiya, Iran International, and The Independent Persian. Follow him on X @MrAhmadHashemi.

Get more from Ahmad Hashemi in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Leave a comment

Share Ahmad Hashemi

Share

Subscribe now

Turkic pivot: How OTS is redrawing geostrategic map of Eurasia

3

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (4th R), Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (C), Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev (3rd L), Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov (2nd L), Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev (3rd R), Turkmen National Leader Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov (4th L), Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (2nd R), Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) President Ersin Tatar (L), and OTS Secretary General Ambassador Kubanychbek Omuraliyev (R) attend the 12th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the Organization of Turkic States at Heydar Aliyev Congress Center in Gabala, Azerbaijan on Oct. 7, 2025. (AA Photo)

By Ahmad Hashemi

December 24, 2025 10:52 AM GMT+03:00

The Eurasian Heartland is undergoing a silent but profound transformation, challenging the long-standing dominance of the regional hegemon, Russia.

For decades, the “Turkic World” was a concept relegated to linguistic abstraction and cultural nostalgia; today, that abstraction has morphed into a geopolitical reality.

Through the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), a new pole of power is emerging—one that seeks to navigate the pressures of Russia, China, and Iran by forging a path of collective autonomy.

The member states of the OTS—Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan—have moved past the “talking shop” phase of their development. They are now taking practical, sovereign steps to reduce their reliance on Moscow and Beijing.

This is evidenced by the implementation of shared projects: the creation of a joint investment fund, the adoption of a common Latin-based alphabet, the development of a simplified customs corridor, and, most crucially, deepening military cooperation.

This shift signals the birth of a middle-power bloc that no longer feels compelled to act as Russia’s “little brother” or a pawn in a Great Power game.

The strategic vacuum created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent weakening of its regional influence has accelerated this trend.

Simultaneously, as China’s economic footprint expands aggressively, Central Asian nations are seeking a “third way.”

The OTS provides exactly that—a framework for collective sovereignty that allows these nations to leverage their position between East and West without surrendering to a single neighboring hegemon.

This new reality is most visible in the burgeoning security dimension of the bloc. The 2020 war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the subsequent liberation of Azerbaijani territories after over three decades of Armenian occupation served as a turning point.

It proved that Turkic military cooperation—specifically the synergy between Turkish defense technology and Azerbaijani tactical execution—could fundamentally change the facts on the ground.

Today, the proliferation of Turkish defense systems across Central Asia is not merely a matter of procurement; it is a strategic diversification of security dependencies.

By deepening defense ties with Ankara, Central Asian states are effectively hedging against a distracted Russia and an increasingly assertive China.

The OTS is transitioning into a security actor capable of addressing regional threats, fundamentally altering the security architecture of the Eurasian landmass.

Parallel to this military alignment is a massive transport and economic project: the “Middle Corridor.” As the “Northern Corridor” through Russia remains fraught with sanctions and political risk, the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (Middle Corridor) has gained strategic value.

Since gaining independence from Soviet rule, the Central Asian and Caucasian OTS member states have sought to revitalize the ancient network of trade routes known as the “Silk Road.”

By investing in the ports, railways and digital infrastructure necessary to connect China to Europe via the Caspian Sea and the South Caucasus, these states are positioning themselves as indispensable gatekeepers of Eurasian trade.

This integrated energy and transport network—often called the Middle Corridor—offers a strategic alternative to dependence on Moscow’s rail networks or Beijing’s “debt-trap diplomacy” within the Belt and Road Initiative.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan attends the Informal Summit of the Heads of State of the Organization of Turkic States in Budapest, Hungary on May 21, 2025. (AA Photo)

Türkiye as catalyst, not the master

At the heart of this movement sits Türkiye. Under President Erdogan, Ankara has skillfully played its “Turkic card,” presenting itself as a partner that offers technological sophistication and security cooperation without the imperial baggage associated with Russia, China, or even Iran.

However, it would be a mistake to view the OTS as a unilateral tool of Turkish foreign policy. Leaders in Baku, Astana, and Tashkent are active architects of this union. For them, the organization is a tool of “multi-vector diplomacy.”

It allows them to balance the giants on their borders—Russia to the north, China to the east, and Iran to the south—by anchoring themselves to a broader Turkic identity. This collective diplomatic weight allows them to wield an influence that no single South Caucasus or Central Asian nation could achieve alone.

The rise of this bloc has not gone unnoticed. Russia and China view the formation of a Turkic union within their traditional spheres of influence with growing wariness.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, meanwhile, considers Turkic integration an existential threat, given that ethnic Azerbaijanis comprise more than one-third of Iran’s population.

The West remains ambivalent. While some strategists in Washington and Brussels see the OTS as a useful counterweight to expansionism from Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran, others are wary of the independent, assertive foreign policy paths these nations might take.

Nevertheless, the OTS is no longer a peripheral cultural club; it is a central pillar of the new Eurasian order.

President Donald Trump signs a trilateral joint declaration with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, Friday, August 8, 2025, in the State Dining Room. (Photo via White House)

The American interest: The ‘TRIPP’ and strategic minerals

Strategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Halford Mackinder paid close attention to the Eurasian landmass, viewing its control as the key to global dominance. Likewise, today’s statesmen cannot afford complacency.

As a rising geopolitical force, the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) offers the U.S. a vital platform for counterbalancing near-peer rivals in Eurasia. Central Asia is a landlocked region bordered by Russia to the north, China to the east, and Iran and Afghanistan to the south.

Integrating Central Asia and the broader Eurasian region into a powerhouse requires robust land connectivity.

A major proposed step in this direction is the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), a revised conceptualization of the Zangezur Corridor. This transportation corridor seeks to enhance regional stability and economic integration by establishing a trade link from Central Asia, through the South Caucasus, to Europe.

The success of such an initiative is contingent upon the reopening of the Zangezur Corridor—a project to which President Trump seeks to attach his name: the TRIPP.

His administration’s approach to foreign policy, often characterized by coercive diplomacy and strategic unpredictability, has yielded results in negotiations between hostile parties in the past. This same approach could be applied to the Zangezur Corridor.

If materialized, the TRIPP would establish more than just a lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan; it would create a seamless trade link from Central Asia to Europe, significantly reducing the Turkic states’ dependence on Russia and China.

The strategic imperative for the U.S. centers on critical minerals, a primary theater of competition with China.

Central Asia’s vast deposits—most notably Kazakhstan’s status as the global leader in uranium production and its significant rare earth reserves—offer a vital opportunity to decouple global supply chains from Chinese dominance.

To this end, President Trump has leveraged personal diplomacy with Presidents Erdogan of Türkiye and Aliyev of Azerbaijan as a cornerstone of U.S. strategy to gain a competitive advantage over Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.

While shifting U.S. priorities leave the future of the TRIPP initiative uncertain, the Turkic world has already cemented its status as an indispensable actor in a multipolar order.

Its ascent demonstrates that a shared identity, reinforced by pragmatic security and economic ties, serves as a bulwark against the expansionist designs of revisionist powers.

Ahmad Hashemi

Ahmad Hashemi is the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Program at the Global Policy Institute (GPI). He has a unique background as a former Iranian Foreign Ministry official, freelance journalist, and pro-democracy activist. Mr. Hashemi received a BA in Political Science from the University of Tehran and an MA in Regional Studies (American Studies) from the School of International Relations, affiliated with Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2022, he graduated from Missouri State University’s Department of Defense and Strategic Studies in Fairfax, Virginia, with a Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies. His professional experience includes a research fellowship at the Hudson Institute, where his work focused on Iran, Azerbaijan, and Middle Eastern foreign policy. As a freelance journalist, Mr. Hashemi has authored hundreds of pieces in Persian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, and English for outlets such as The National Interest, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, JNS, The Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, BBC Persian, Al Arabiya, Iran International, and The Independent Persian. Follow him on X @MrAhmadHashemi.