America’s strategic plans for the Middle East have not changed

As the countdown for the G-20 Summit in Rome continues full-swing, many are debating what the future holds for Turkey-U.S. relations

Here, we would do well to particularly remember the strategy America designed for our region over the past 30 years.

Due to its irrational Israel policy, ever since the First Gulf War in 1991, it has been gradually implementing its strategy to dismember all the monolithic and strong countries in the Middle East that it perceived as a “threat,” one by one.

America is even threatening its ally countries for the sake of being a father to Israel, which behaves like its prodigal son.

Its long term Middle East strategy is behind the invasion of Iraq, its stance on Syria, and its destabilization of Libya through NATO.

America is strongly opopsed to strong, monolithic centralized states forming in our region. It sees them as a threat to Israel. The use of energy resources is a whole other matter.

Hence, as a strong country, Turkey has become the U.S.’s prime target.

The strain in Turkey-U.S. relations prevalent during the second Obama term is exponentially increasing during Biden’s era, which we have dubbed as the “third Obama term.”

The 2016 coup and invasion attempt toward the end of Obama’s reign served as the most violent area of conflict in Turkish-American ties.

Biden, who was vice president back then, glossed over the matter by saying, “We thought it was a simulation” with regards to the coup attempt.

Ever since that day, Biden, the President of the third Obama era, continues to increase tensions in relations with Turkey by the day.

Furthermore, when Turkey was rife with terrorist attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and Daesh, the U.S.’s ambassador to Ankara was none other than John Bass.

When Trump was elected president, he said: “We will prepare the elected president for government.” As Bass had been declared persona non grata in Turkey and was packing up to leave for Afghan capital Kabul, he directly threatened Turkey by saying, “Thanks to our cooperation, Daesh hasn’t launched an attack on Turkey in nine months.”

***

These days, on the agenda of Ankara-Washington relations, we have the Turkish purchase of the S-400 missiles, Turkey’s removal from the F-35 fighter jet program and the sanctions America imposes on its “adversaries” being prepared for Turkey.

Can you imagine: America is enacting a sanction law "for its adversaries" and imposing those very same sanctions on Turkey,  a NATO partner, which has signed a Strategic Partnership agreement and is its supposed ally.

And then it has the audacity to talk about “friendship, allies and strategic partnership.”

Last but not least, U.S. President Joe Biden wrote a letter to Congress in which he exemplified the role America would play in our region and declared the country posing a threat within the scope of that role: Turkey!

For the sake of protecting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)’s Syrian offshoot, the PYD/YPG, which is also known as America’s ground forces in Syria, he stated that Turkey’s operation in Syria is detrimental to the fight against Daesh.

“The situation in and in relation to Syria, and in particular the actions by the Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria, undermines the campaign to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, endangers civilians, and further threatens to undermine the peace, security, and stability in the region, and continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” he wrote.

Turkey is the only country battling Daesh on the ground. Turkey is the only country fighting against the PKK/YPG terrorist group. But, as Biden would have it, Turkey’s legitimate fight against terror groups is marked as an extraordinary threat against the U.S.’s national security and foreign policy.

America’s long-term strategic goals for our region have not changed. Those goals signify carving Turkey into pieces, just as in the situation of Syria and Iraq. And to, furthermore, establish an autonomy for the PKK.

Resisting this strategy and fighting it is Turkey’s primary duty.

If we consider the "fluctuations" in domestic politics in this context, we will have evaluated issues from a broader perspective. 

What do you think?