Journalist Aykan Sever assessed the conflicts unfolding in the Middle East within the framework of a Third World War, saying that the United States is seeking to build new alliances outside the United Nations, that Iran is being pushed toward compromise under military and political pressure, that Iraq is turning into a new fault line, and that a broader social, political and ecological unraveling is taking place across West Asia. According to Sever, Turkey is not outside this process either; policies pursued in the name of the state’s survival have led to the fragmentation of society, allowed regional war strategies to shape domestic politics, and rendered claims of democratization meaningless in the face of structural problems.
The United States has gradually intensified pressure in South America
Aykan Sever said that with the new year, global tensions have expanded by finding new arenas across different geographies, describing the process as follows: “What we refer to as the Third World War has, with the new year, found new channels through which to grow and expand. In the first days of the year, a United States operation was carried out against Maduro in Venezuela, and Maduro was abducted. A striking picture has emerged, particularly across the Abyala continent.”
Sever said that following these developments, United States policy toward the region turned into a more explicit line of pressure, and continued: “After this operation, the Venezuelan administration and the Trump administration fell into line with each other; it became clear that a large part of Washington’s demands were being met. Trump then directly targeted Cuba. The Cuban people are being kept under a heavy blockade, and serious shortages are emerging, particularly in the energy sector. Aid that was sought to be sent via Mexico is being blocked. Countries south of the United States, including Mexico, are being squeezed by the Trump administration; governments in the region are being placed under United States pressure and are being reduced, as it were, to the level of colonial governors. All of this is already directly linked to the new national security strategy of the United States administration. There are, however, reactions to Trump’s moves as well.”
The United States moves to build a new order outside the United Nations
Aykan Sever said that debates conducted through Gaza point to a broader institutional search, noting that under this heading the United States is attempting to construct a new structure. He conveyed the process in the following words: “Through the Gaza issue, Trump moved to establish an alternative institution to the United Nations. He called it the Peace Council; we are talking about a structure that includes Turkey as well. When viewed within the framework of a Third World War, the United States administration is seeking to build a bloc outside the United Nations, under its own leadership, to shape the world order.”
Sever said this strategy has not been met in the same way by all countries and assessed the differentiation emerging in global balances as follows: “These moves did not progress in harmony with all actors. Canada chose to move closer to Beijing by concluding strategic agreements with China. A similar process unfolded for the United Kingdom; reciprocal steps were taken between London and Beijing. The European Union formed a strategic partnership with India, while also moving toward cooperation based on free trade with Mercosur countries. This picture shows that while the United States is pursuing a particular strategy, some countries are embarking on different searches. In West Asia, the United States sought to form a constellation of alliances centered on Israel. Along this line, an orientation that shields Israel’s expansionist policies came to the fore; the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Azerbaijan, Syria under Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) administration, Lebanon and the Druze can be mentioned within this framework.”
Utility matters more than identity for the US
Sever said that recent debates around a so-called “Sunni alliance” are insufficient to explain reality, outlining his approach as follows: “In recent weeks, grand theories were put forward about a Sunni alliance, and it was claimed that the United States essentially bases its policy on state power. In the broadest sense, this may appear correct, but such theories are in fact unfounded. Azerbaijan and Armenia are cited as being within this alliance; one is Shiite, the other Christian. Different identities stand side by side. What binds or motivates the United States is the usefulness of these actors. At the point where they cease to be useful, being Sunni, Alawite, Druze, Kurdish or any other identity has no significance.”
Sever added that the emphasis on the central state is not an absolute principle and assessed alliance relations in the region as follows: “It is said that central state power is preferred, and that is true, but only insofar as it is useful. For example, the position of the Druze is included within this structure as long as it remains useful. For imperialism, religion, ethnicity, or state structure does not constitute a fundamental criterion. Although actors such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are included in this alliance, a configuration in which Israel stands at the center unsettles these countries. The steps taken by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan show that they are seeking a coalition among themselves in response to a balance of power in which Israel occupies such a central and rising position.”
These ties are based more on forced proximity than real alignment
Sever said that Turkey’s and Saudi Arabia’s positioning along the United States axis reflects a compelled orientation, describing the situation as follows: “Turkey or Saudi Arabia stands along the United States axis; this is inevitable. Saudi Arabia has increased its arms purchases in recent times. Relations between Turkey and the United States have also advanced as never before. Turkey has opened almost all its natural resources to United States capital and concluded agreements accordingly.”
Sever stressed that this process rests more on a forced partnership than on voluntary reconciliation and assesses the tensions in regional relations as follows: “These are reluctant arrangements. It cannot be said that these powers have genuinely reached an understanding; it is more a kind of complicity. Looking at the agreements Turkey has signed in recent days with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, neither the Egyptian administration nor Saudi Arabia is fully comfortable with these relations. The parties are dependent on one another; they form a bloc together with Israel, yet at the same time they are in competition. The current war landscape allows these positions to converge to a certain extent, but new developments that could strain these balances may always emerge. The United States administration will hold talks with Iran in Oman. Even the choice of Oman rather than Turkey as the venue for these talks shows that the parties do not trust one another in all these relations, including Iran–Turkey relations, and that the process could be carried into other dimensions.”
Military buildup around Iran points to pre-war preparations
Sever said that Washington has recently begun to move toward Iran in a manner like the approach it pursued in Venezuela. He said, “The Gulf region has effectively been placed under blockade; numerous warships have been deployed to the area. Missile defense systems have been installed in countries surrounding Iran, and military exercises have been stepped up. Joint drills by Israel and the United States have drawn attention. France and the United Kingdom have also joined this military buildup with their warships. This picture shows that preparations for a major war are under way.”
Sever also spoke about Iran’s current position in this process and outlined the likely content of potential talks: “The Iranian administration is in a seriously weakened position. For this reason, it appears that the scope of any talk will be broad. According to reports reflected in the press, Iran’s nuclear program, missile program and its regional proxies will be on the agenda. The positions of political-military structures such as the Popular Mobilization Forces and Hezbollah will also be brought to the table. The discussion of these issues amounts to a step back for Iran.”
The unraveling in West Asia is not only geopolitical, but social
Sever said the overall picture in West Asia points to a period of profound upheaval, describing the situation as follows: “The region we refer to as West Asia is generally on the brink of a major upheaval. A similar process is unfolding across the world, but new dynamics are emerging across this entire geography, including our region. Societies, in general, are dissatisfied with their own governments. Governments, in turn, are far from meeting people’s basic daily needs. When we look at Iran, water shortages, power outages, air pollution and the cost of living have reached serious levels. Setting aside the American threat, the country is facing extremely heavy internal problems.”
Sever situated the governance crisis in Iran within a historical continuum and continued: “Serious protests have been taking place in the streets of Iran for a long time, and these protests are being suppressed through massacres. These massacres continue to be uninterrupted. The Iranian authorities even turn people’s lives into bargaining chips in negotiations with the United States in international relations. There is a decayed understanding of governance at play. At the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire and Iran were drawn into a vortex centered on the ‘survival of the state.’ It is possible to say that a similar new cycle is being experienced today. Ibn Khaldun’s saying that ‘every state is condemned to decline’ describes the current situation. The ancient city of Persepolis in Iran is gradually collapsing due to the depletion of groundwater; this picture symbolically reflects the impasses Iran is facing.”
Iran has paid a heavy price for its bid to become a regional power
Sever said that Iran has not been a passive actor in developments in the Middle East, describing the picture as follows: “Over the past 15 to 20 years, Iran has played an active role in all the processes unfolding in the Middle East. The issue of becoming a regional power has been on the agenda of both Iran and Turkey, and they have taken steps in this direction. During this power struggle in these lands, Iran has depleted human life and caused serious destruction to nature. Moreover, it was facing imperial powers far more assertive than itself. The negative picture that has emerged today is one of the outcomes of this power struggle.”
Sever also addressed possible Iran–United States contacts, drawing attention to Washington’s instruments and potential scenarios: “We cannot know for certain what will come out of any talks between Iran and the United States. However, it appears that Iran is stepping back or at least seeking compromise. The United States, for its part, has different cards in hand. As before, it may turn to targeted operations against figures symbolizing the religious leadership or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Analysts writing from Iran point to reformist circles, particularly those represented by Pezeshkian, as well as economically constrained segments of capital, seeking accommodation with the United States. For the United States, opening a direct war on Iran is neither feasible nor affordable. For this reason, it seems more likely that Washington will seek a low-cost solution like Venezuela’s by appearing to support protests within Iran and further pressing the authorities at the negotiating table.”
Iraq may become a new flashpoint in US–Iran tensions
Sever drew attention to recent diplomatic and political developments in Iraq and conveyed the United States’ approach on this front in the following words: “The United States representative in Iraq has changed, and Tom Barrack has been appointed to this post. Barrack’s first statement was that federalism is not good for Iraq; more precisely, he pointed out that the current trajectory is unhealthy. In addition, the United States administration has for some time objected to Nouri al-Maliki becoming prime minister again. They strongly oppose Maliki’s premiership, as he is seen as close to Iran. Even if a compromise is reached between Iran and the United States in Oman, a separate set of issues remains on the agenda in Iraq.”
Sever continued his assessment of possible scenarios in Iraq, outlining Washington’s potential moves in the region as follows: “The question of how the United States will seek to resolve the issue in Iraq from its own perspective is an important one. It appears that remnants of ISIS in Syria may be reactivated on Iraqi soil. Signs that the status of Southern Kurdistan could be targeted have appeared in some publications and propaganda materials. This possibility aligns with the United States’ tendency to act through low-cost methods. If it fails to compel the Iranian authorities to concede, it may choose to plunge the entire region into chaos by reigniting conflicts. This approach also appears to align with Israel’s. However, I believe that the authorities in Iran calculate that the cost of a regional conflagration would be extremely high for them. For this reason, there is a possibility of a limited compromise; but it would not be realistic to say that this would resolve the fundamental issues between the United States and Iran, or between Israel and Iran. The parties may only seek a temporary balance in line with their own interests.”
Signs that violence will not subside in the Middle East are becoming clearer
Sever said there are clear indications that violence in the Middle East will not come to an end, explaining the reasons for its entrenchment as follows: “There are open signs that violence will not stop in the Middle East. Because all the developments we are discussing today are linked to the geostrategic steps taken by state authorities. The future of the peoples of the region, human life and the future of nature is not on the agenda of these agendas. We see that countries we refer to as imperialist powers are trying to force a single garment onto the world and this region. All of this amounts to criminal conduct. This situation is not something that was revealed only by the Epstein affair; that was merely one of the indicators.”
Sever also addressed the global impact of United States strategy and assessed the consequences of this approach as follows: “The United States national security strategy announced recently is a clear expression of Washington’s determination to reassert dominance over the world. The way in which this dominance is to be secured is also stated plainly: through war. If the approach of a country described as the world’s number one power toward the world is fundamentally based on violence and war, the possibility for humanity and nature to seek peaceful, democratic and libertarian paths is blocked from the outset. The United States is not alone in bearing guilt in the world; however, it stands as the main force that motivates and steers. There is little difference between what is happening within the United States and what is happening elsewhere in the world. Today, the United States military is being transformed almost into an internal war force; the American public is being pushed toward authoritarianism through pressure and violence. The same methods are being applied on a global scale. Forces producing political responses to this, whether Iran, Turkey, Europe or other countries, respond not by seeking alternative paths but by escalating militarism. The resulting picture is one in which the dark and destructive process driven by a Third World War draws all of humanity and nature into its vortex. We cannot set aside geostrategic debates; however, we must also speak about the ways in which people can organize a shared path to salvation together.”
Turkey has undermined social cohesion in the name of state survival
Sever placed recent developments in Turkey within a historical framework, saying that the period after 2015 has been particularly decisive: “Turkey has entered a process like the vortex of ‘state survival’ seen in the nineteenth century. This picture has become more visible, especially after 2015. The quality of being a society has largely been lost; society has been divided into mutually hostile camps. The forces that produced this process were directly state policies and the choices of the ruling classes. The problem of state survival has, since the 2010s, been sought to be resolved through the pursuit of becoming an imperial power.”
Sever said that Turkey’s regional moves have become intertwined with its domestic political orientation and continued: “The presence of HTS in Syria, together with the stances of the NATO, the United States and Israel, is linked to the strategy pursued by Turkey. In the process of the partition of the Middle East, ISIS was used; as ISIS weakened, HTS came to the fore. Policies pursued in Iraq have pushed Turkey into an occupying position, while attempts were made to cover up internal disintegration. The approach presented as ‘integration policies’ has taken shape not as peace, but as a line aimed at integrating Kurds into the Turkish state.”
Sever concluded by drawing attention to Turkey’s structural problems: “The Turkish state is not a democratic state; it is built upon structural problems. We are talking about a state structure shaped by the Armenian, Syriac and Assyrian genocides of 1915, and a social order built on the deception of the Kurds. To create expectations of democratization while ignoring these realities is self-deception. To attribute the problems solely to the United States also obscures the truth. The ruling classes and bureaucratic structures that cooperated after 1945 are part of this picture. Today, those in power position themselves in the shadow of Trump and know that they cannot go beyond this.”
Leave a Reply