The article critiques Steven A. Cook’s views on U.S.-Turkey relations, arguing that Turkey’s past alliances were based on historical manipulations rather than genuine expectations, and emphasizes the need for careful navigation of future geopolitical relationships.
The article critiques Steven A. Cook and the NeoCon faction’s views on U.S.-Turkey relations, highlighting their outdated rhetoric and lack of understanding of historical context. Cook’s predictions about the decline of U.S.-Turkey alliances, stemming from fundamental differences in values and interests, are discussed, along with his provocative statements about Turkey’s geopolitical situation. The author argues that Turkey’s alliance with the West was not based on genuine expectations but rather the result of historical manipulations and misrepresentations, suggesting that the country must carefully navigate its future relationships without blindly following the West.
It’s often said that even a broken clock is right twice a day. In the U.S., those who find themselves in a president’s team—whether their experience is positive or negative—often look forward to another president from the same party, hoping to join that administration as well. Meanwhile, some individuals in think tanks simply waste time. Steven A. Cook is part of the NeoCon faction; even as the chaos instigated during George W. Bush’s presidency under the guise of an “endless war on terror” continues, he dreams of revitalizing this group. He makes provocative statements like “Remember, Sinwar is dead, but Hamas is alive” and “Whatever Israel says about Iran is right!” Alongside fellow “experts” like Aslı Aydıntaşbaş and Sinan Ciddi, he sometimes tells his followers, “Erdoğan’s end is near!” Recently, he authored a book warning that if the Neocons do not regain power soon, America’s so-called “global ambition” will put an end to imperialism. To keep figures like him relevant, their think tanks often have them publish books that simply rehash old articles. These are the rare moments when Cook’s clock shows the correct time!
In a 2017 article, Cook made a statement that would earn my respect even after 70 years, not just 7. He asserted that “it is time to understand that Washington and Ankara share neither values nor interests, and that their partnership cannot return to its glory days during the Cold War,” marking the end of the U.S.-Turkey alliance. After a member of the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul’s Drug Enforcement Administration was arrested for alleged ties to the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization (resulting in an 8-year and 9-month prison sentence), the U.S. suspended visa applications for Turks as punishment. President Erdoğan responded, claiming that the then-U.S. ambassador, John Bass, had lost his capacity as a representative of his country.
“The alliance is over.”
Tensions between nations are common. However, Cook predicted, “Ah! There you have it! The U.S. and Turkey are on the brink of conflict,” stating, “Blaming the troubled relations between Washington and Ankara on Turkey’s charismatic and temperamental president would be a mistake. The reality is that the U.S. and Turkey have been on a collision course since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.” While the remainder of his article reached distorted conclusions, it provided key insights into the U.S. policy of misleading Turkey. For instance, Cook claimed Erdoğan’s views on Turkey’s strength and distrust of the West were widespread in the country. He also noted that if the CHP came to power, these views would lose significance. Furthermore, Cook argued that the U.S. and Turkey lack shared social or political values, and thus, their interests do not align. If these points were not convincing enough, Cook added another piece of evidence: “Finally, the world has changed dramatically since the peak of the U.S.-Turkey alliance more than 25 years ago.”
In this article, Cook underscored that it was misguided to expect Turkey to remain an ally of the U.S. after the hammer and sickle flag was removed from the Kremlin’s flagpole. Naturally, Cook and his fellow “experts” wouldn’t explore how Turkey became part of this alliance, the traps laid during the transition from British to American hegemony after World War II, or how both the İsmet İnönü and Menderes governments fell victim to these traps.
Unnecessary Boldness
If we don’t carefully analyze the benefits (and the “costs”) of Turkey’s alliance with the West, particularly the U.S., we risk unnecessary boldness or hesitation as we explore pathways through BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). By unnecessary boldness, I mean abruptly severing ties with NATO and the EU. Conversely, unnecessary timidity can lead us to stagnate at undesirable points and overlook new opportunities. Turkey did not join the U.S. alliance out of unnecessary boldness. However, during a time of political transition from a single-party to a multi-party system, the deceptive narratives surrounding “The Danger of Communism” and “If you don’t align with us, Russia will take you!” were not scrutinized. We must remember Stalin’s errors, which misled not only Turkey but also many Asian nations and even his own Georgia, as well as the atrocities committed in the name of socialism, including the deliberate slaughter of 6 million Russian peasants.
Steps from Loyalty to Independence
In an effort to ostensibly protect Armenia and bolster the Soviet Union, Stalin permitted certain Armenian politicians and “intellectuals” to propagate “historical information” claiming that some Turkish provinces rightfully belonged to Armenia. Adding to this was Stalin’s claim during discussions with British trade union representatives that he would occupy Turkey and annex six provinces to Armenia, leaving Turkey, which barely survived World War II, feeling helpless against these assertions. (I have elaborated on this in previous articles for Milliyet).
Steps from Dependency to Independence
The U.S., which inherited the region’s hegemony from England, emerged as the sole victor of World War II and became the most powerful, largest, and wealthiest nation globally. It captured the attention of the Union and Progress Party, remnants of the Ottoman Empire eager for Western alliance following the departure of British forces from Istanbul, a sentiment reflected in songs and poems. Celal İnce’s “Friendship Song” expresses this:
“America, America,
As long as the world stands,
Turks stand with you,
In the war for freedom.
Our determination is to live freely,
To establish peace in the world.
It always waves for this cause,
The love of independence is in our souls.”
(Feel free to listen to this anthem of the “new era!”)
We know how the “six provinces” myth was exaggerated first by the single-party and later by the Democrat Party press, paving the way for our involvement in the UN and subsequently NATO. This participation cannot be attributed to Turks’ “determination to live freely,” as sung in Celal İnce’s lyrics, but rather to the U.S.’s pursuit of a new hegemony to prevent Soviet access to warm seas post-World War II.
Contrary to Steven Cook’s assertions, Turkey should not have harbored expectations from the Western alliance even before the Soviet Union’s collapse. If the truth had been presented, we would have recognized the U.S. reports we received from British unionists as fabrications.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus ruled the Roman Empire from 161-180; however, he was primarily a Stoic philosopher. According to Stoic thought, happiness is achieved through social and intellectual morality, not by being a puppet. For over 20 years, we have demonstrated the necessity of not being a puppet of the U.S. by taking vital steps toward independence in defense, energy, and finance. Let’s see how the future unfolds.
