Notes on the Latest Developments in the Middle East (December 1, 2024)

In order to interpret the developments in the Middle East amidst the rising flames of war, it would be meaningful to emphasise the important points of the process we are facing, without chasing after the day-to-day moves. Because the details of the war raging in the Middle East as part of the 3rd World War can change at any moment. What we really need to do is to try to analyse the main tendencies and the general framework. Let us remember that years ago, the USA’s Greater Middle East Plan was introduced in relation to redesigning the Middle East. This plan still exists, expresses a strategy and its aim is to redivide the region. This project was put into effect after the collapse of the USSR. When the Soviet Union existed, the world was divided into two different systems, the capitalist system was not alone. There was a cold war between the two systems or blocs based on a policy of equilibrium under the shadow of nuclear weapons. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the old cold war period came to an end and the world began to witness wars of re-division between imperialist powers. The parties have determined their strategic positions accordingly. Greater Middle East Plan is the expression of this for the USA.

There have been many people who have said that the Greater Middle East Plan is a fiction and that the US is stuck in a quagmire. There are those who make strategic comments based on the fact that some tactics in a strategy have not produced the desired results. There are those who argue very strongly that the US cannot achieve what it wants. Greater Middle East Plan has existed in the past, but what is happening now? Is the situation for the US different now? Yes, the war, which was ignited by the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and continued with the capture of Aleppo by the US-Israeli backed HTS forces on 27 November 2024, shows that the US has entered the second phase of the Greater Middle East Plan.

No matter how we look at it, there is a crisis of hegemony in the world today, the hegemony of the USA has been shaken to some extent. What does a crisis of hegemony mean? It does not mean that there is no hegemonic power in the world. In general, there is no crisis of hegemony if there is a power that is big enough to prevent someone else from participating in the struggle for hegemony. From this point of view, there is a crisis of hegemony today because of the entry of big imperialist countries like Russia and China into the capitalist system. However, Russia and China are not able to replace the current hegemony of the USA. The USA is on the offensive in the world today to strengthen its shaken hegemony against the rising China while there is still time. The 3rd World War is being waged in the form of interlocking rings, and it is currently focused on the Middle East.

Undoubtedly, in every process, each new link contains differences compared to the previous one. But this does not mean that the general strategy has changed. At the moment, there is a situation related to the deepening crisis of capitalism and the moves needed by the USA to consolidate its shaken hegemony. In this sense, what is happening now is a new phase in the general strategy. This phase will determine the course of World War III in the Middle East and its impact on the situation in Turkey is one hundred per cent. In accordance with the decision taken for the accelerated phase of the Greater Middle East Plan, Trump will form a Council of Ministers desired by the finance capital summit. As far as we understand from the news leaked to the press, the US is forming a completely Zionist cabinet. What is happening in the US certainly cannot be interpreted as if it is only about Trump. Trump is an outward reflection of the situation in which the capitalist system and its hegemonic power, the USA, find themselves. With the aim of redrawing the maps in the Middle East, the US, first through Israel and then through HTS, has launched an offensive to dismember the existing states and establish new ones. With some agreements on the positions obtained at some points, it wants to bring things to a point in the Middle East for now and jump to the Pacific as soon as possible. The accelerated phase of its plan is aimed at settling the Middle East as soon as possible. The same thing happens in all wars; they fight, they settle their scores and the parties are forced to come to an agreement at some point. The agreement is in favour of whoever has the upper hand. The reason why Israel is so aggressive is to show that Russia cannot prevent these attacks. This is how it became clear that Russia is not a power on a par with the US in the Middle East. But let us not forget that even if Russia is not decisive, it has the power to prevent the US plans from working out exactly as it wants.

For the time being, it seems that the US is imposing the acceptance of Rojava on the Turkish Republic. On this basis, the Kurdish question of the Turkish Republic is directly related to the possibility of the establishment of a Kurdish state next to it. The US wants to prevent Turkey from pressing ahead with its imperial ambitions and to weaken and squeeze Iran in Syria-Lebanon-Iraq. Perhaps it wants to change the Iranian regime through a low-intensity war. Of course, what will happen will depend entirely on the balance of forces achieved through war.

Trump's 'I will bring peace to the Middle East' rhetoric is based on continuing the war elsewhere. At this point, the importance and accuracy of our World War III diagnosis should not be forgotten. Those who think that a third world war will be like the previous world wars are busy saying 'war has come, war is coming' while the war is going on before their eyes with the addition of new fronts and new links. But why should world wars repeat themselves in form and scale? It is not quite correct to call these wars waged by the imperialist powers in different countries 'proxy wars'. Because this definition hides the fact that the Third World War is waged by the imperialist countries and is their war of division. If we take it together with the collapse of the USSR, as a result of this change in the world, the necessity of redrawing the spheres of influence appeared. In fact, the war started in the Balkans and then spread to the Middle East. The Middle East is a more difficult geography than the Balkans. In the Balkans, some conflicts emerged later, but the division there is largely complete for the time being.

In order for the problem in Syria to be solved in the way the US wants, Russia must be pushed into a corner. Thanks to the war in Ukraine, the US, Britain and the EU have prevented Russia from making the moves it wants in the Middle East. Now an agreement can be reached to leave the territories that Russia has taken from Ukraine to Russia. Because Russia has been badly battered in the Ukraine war.

In such a world, there is a situation that directly concerns Turkey. What is happening in Syria and Iran directly affects Turkey. There are those who say that Turkey is trying to take a position in advance and sit at the negotiating table for a wider area. Erdoğan may think so, but we should analyse this issue. Is this a desperate struggle or the moves of a powerful country? If the most general issues are not analysed, people will be confused. If you look at the big picture with a Marxist method, you can get more clarity. Now Turkey is actually the next country in line. But how will Turkey avoid it, what will happen? The old times are over. In one of the articles, I wrote in 2003 in connection with the invasion of Iraq, I had said that Turkey would be next. When the Middle East was divided and there was a problem like the Kurdish problem that had to be solved, it was not possible for Turkey not to be next. These problems came to Turkey at a time when the USA wanted to speed up the war in the Middle East.

The situation today is very different from the 2013 settlement process. If the Erdogan regime had pushed the settlement process together with the US, the US would have tried to shape the Middle East together with its ally Turkey. But then Russia would undoubtedly not have remained silent either. But this did not happen and the problems that could not be solved are now to be solved by war. Turkey is a NATO country and it is normal for the bourgeois order to act together with the USA. For this reason, Turkey may not be turned into a battlefield directly. But the fact that Turkey is next in line means that it will now be put under pressure with the Kurdish problem. How do we see the developments at this point?

There are some basic factors we need to know. The US is saying 'you will solve this problem now'. It wants Turkey to recognise Rojava and to find a solution that is acceptable to the Kurds at home. If this does not happen, there is a possibility that the war in the Middle East will spread in such a way that a piece of Kurdistan in Turkey will break off. What did Bahçeli say? ‘Either we lose territory or we gain territory.’ What does this mean for the core of the state? To solve the problem by forcing its own Kurds to accept less in order not to lose territory! Bahçeli's words are very clear. He says this because Turkey is stuck. Surely the Kurds would not be satisfied with the crumbs of the state in a situation where they could get more!

Let's move on to another reality. What is the most discussed issue in Turkey? Why did Bahçeli make that outburst, does Erdoğan know about it, is there a game being played, etc.? These things always confuse people. First of all, let's understand that the regime in power is a fascist regime, but it is a bloc. Let us never forget how it was established. There is no monolithic fascist regime in Turkey. Hitler's regime was monolithic. There is a fascist regime in Turkey in the form of a bloc formed by Ergenekonists, MHP and AKP. Blocs tend to break in times of great crisis. We have to see the conflict within the bloc. They are not showing it, but we should see it. Bahçeli is a man of the state. Erdoğan, on the other hand, is a merchant-minded politician acting for his own benefit. That is his logic in politics. Bahçeli represents the pro-NATO wing. Erdoğan has become a power that acts for its own interests. Based on his experiences so far, he thinks he can play between Russia and the USA, but this is no longer the case.

Bahçeli acts as a state actor, and indeed he is. He does not act with any concern for votes. He has no worries like Erdoğan. Could it be possible for Turkey, which has been a NATO country since 1949, to swing to Russia on Erdoğan's whim? Since Erdoğan's and Bahçeli's concerns and goals are different, their game plans are also different. So why don't they reflect their conflict to the public? What would happen to the regime if the masses admitted that there are cracks in the regime? For one thing, the fear of the masses towards this regime will decrease. For this reason, they are trying to manage it by pretending that there are no cracks for now, but there is a big conflict between them.

At this point, let us remember this. When it comes to historical development, only the Western type of development is known in the West. However, there is a different development in the East and this determines everything. Without understanding this, it is not possible to analyse what is happening in Turkey correctly. Where there is no private property, the state is a despot that descends on society. This situation is completely different from that in Europe. Without analysing this difference, nothing in Turkish politics can be resolved. In the political struggle in Turkey up to now, the war within the state, the battle for supremacy between the wings, has determined the politics. The establishment of the Turkish Republic is not like the bourgeois state organisations in the West; the Turkish Republic was established as a continuation of the Ottoman Empire. The state in Turkey has a role that it does not have in the West. And when it comes to politics here, it is mainly conducted at the state level. In other words, politics is carried out on the basis of conflicts within the ruling class. In Europe, on the other hand, even if there are conflicts within the bourgeoisie, in the final analysis the politics between the two main classes is decisive. Now the ruling forces of Turkey are squeezed into a corner by the US plan. In such a situation, the rulers have different views on how to get out of this impasse in one way or another, and for this reason they are engaged in a conflict among themselves. This conflict has the potential to grow even more.

Against the characterisation of a one-man regime, which the left has been trying to establish for a very long time, we have both discussed and expressed in our articles in Marksist Tutum that this is not the case, that the regime is actually a fascist bloc. The fascist bloc, on the other hand, has adopted the characterisation of a one-man regime because of Erdoğan's power. Thanks to his power, Erdoğan has taken control of the appointments of military officers, the appointment of judges, etc. But this did not eliminate the bloc character of the fascist regime. Erdoğan gradually gained great power and expanded his space in spite of Bahçeli, who represented the core of the state. Now, when the Turkish Republic is facing a great pressure, the bloc character of the regime makes the solution of the problem even more difficult. If there was a monolithic fascist regime, it would be relatively easier for them to solve this problem one way or another.

Let's look at the fascist bloc. After the end of the Cold War, the pro-NATO wing was divided. Those within the pro-NATO wing who opposed the liquidation of the Ergenekon organisation against the will of the USA searched for new alliances and formed the so-called Eurasianist clique. Now, within the fascist power bloc, there are the pro-NATO wing, the Eurasianist wing and Erdoğan's own clique, which is in a hegemonic position above them. But these are not the only forces within the state. One of them is the CHP and there are also wings within the CHP. We have to see the situation here as well. The fascist regime is making many manoeuvres to crush the forces that oppose it. Was Bahçeli ever expected to make this speech about Öcalan? So there is a new situation, it is clear. Afterwards, the parties were silent and the journalists chased after the question. It is clear that Bahçeli, i.e. the pro-NATO wing, thought that the Turkish Republic was in danger and made his speech in order to convince his own Kurds, but he did not include Erdoğan in it. So there is a problem here. If a process is to take place with the US plan and the acceptance of the pro-NATO wing, and on this basis Turkey is to solve its own Kurdish problem in some way, will there be Erdoğan in the 'new Turkey'? Perhaps this plan opens the door to a period without Erdoğan. This is why Erdoğan is trying to buy time on the one hand and, in essence, to get the parties to accept that 'there can be no solution without me'.

But why might there not be much room for him in a new era? Will the US easily forgive what Erdoğan has done to it? Why would the US forgive a man who has fluctuated between Russia and the US, who has gone his own way, who thinks for his own interests, who has undermined US plans? For its own benefit, the US will have him do its dirty work for a while, just as it has used Islamist gangs in the Middle East. It took advantage of Erdoğan's adventurous initiatives in order to level Syria. But later on, when developments reach a different point, the US will write off those it once used!

Let's leave aside the moves that have not materialised yet and see the general picture. There is this state of struggle within the ruling class that determines politics. Bahçeli's outburst is not a bravado, but a search for a specific solution. And Erdoğan, because there was no place for him in this plan, launched the attacks in which the mayors of the opposition were deposed. But how is it that Erdoğan is undermining the process? Look, we cannot understand if we do not see the intricacy. It is not that the Kurdish problem should never be solved, that what the US wants should never be realised, but that if it is going to happen, it should happen with me involved! So that I would be the one to solve it, and the other wings would see this and obey me...

Erdoğan had previously attempted to solve this problem in his own way through a process called ‘normalisation’. Comments such as Erdoğan will bring Öcalan to his side, in which case he will convince the DEM (Equality and Democracy Party of Peoples) and realise his plan for constitutional amendments were and are flying in the air. But why would Öcalan, as a leader who has spent many years in wars and spent many years in prison, say yes to a plan that will not bring success? While Erdoğan was busy with his own plan, Bahçeli made the well-known statement from his own lane.

Now, let’s leave Erdogan aside. Let’s look at the other wing. In a country like Turkey, those who defend NATO are not US lackeys. They are on the American side because they see the interests of the Turkish Republic there. While the NATO supporters accept the demands of the USA in one way or another, they undoubtedly have their own demands. That is why Bahçeli wants to solve the Kurdish problem by giving the least possible rights. Yes, they are fascist- minded, but when the danger is at the door, statesmen can easily change their views. For example, when the US says, ‘You will definitely recognise Rojava, you will stop the attacks there, you will somehow make peace with the Kurds in your own country’...

There are also conflicts and cracks within the Kurds, and so does everyone. While they are fighting among themselves, Erdoğan is trying to see if he can get the DEM to vote for the constitution the way he wants. Asking the right questions, knowing what are the fundamental problems to be solved is the starting point of the solution path. We cannot know in advance what the second and subsequent moves will be on the basis of current developments. Beyond seeing the general picture, it would be absurd to predict that tomorrow will be like this or that. But this is the general picture, we should know it. To be able to understand what is going on in the labyrinths correctly is a matter of knowledge, method and experience.

Bahçeli's and Erdoğan's moves may differ from each other. Moreover, not every step to be taken in domestic politics will be decided by them or determined by rosy agreements. In a country like Turkey, with its Asiatic roots, one should never forget the battles within the ruling class! For example, with the coup d'état of 27 May, they hanged their own bourgeois on a rope. Look at the people who deliberately do not interpret the developments correctly and confuse the most. Let's look at those like Merdan Yanardağ and Perinçek whom we call Eurasianist. No matter how you look at it, an extremely chaotic and conflictual process awaits us.

Let's look at history. How many things have happened! How many presidents of the USA have been removed! If Erdoğan had not had the opportunity to pull the strings for so long, the most likely thing that the core of the state could do right now would be for the CHP and the MHP to agree to end Erdoğan's reign with a coup d'état. They would even have set up a Constituent Assembly to convince the masses. But Erdoğan has captured the top of the army. He has also carried out a massive purge within the army, right down to the lieutenants. Nevertheless, the coming process is pregnant with all kinds of surprises. We cannot think that it will be the same as it has been from yesterday to today. It is necessary to look at events with an open mind, without creating moulds, seeing new developments but also knowing the general picture. It is necessary to analyse the concrete situation at every moment and in every new situation. Each new phase requires a new analysis, not because it refutes what was said before, but because the concrete situation has changed.

Today, the USA is accelerating the second phase of the Greater Middle East Plan. Because it wants to get its hands on the Pacific as soon as possible. The rise of Chinese imperialism is a problem for US imperialism. The US wants to shape the Middle East as soon as possible and move to the Pacific, and to come to an agreement with Russia and end the war in Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, wants to end the war with Ukraine and gather strength at points in the Middle East where it can lend support as soon as possible. For this reason, it is often rumoured that Russia may come to an agreement with the US over Ukraine. In fact, Russia and the US seem to have reached an agreement on this issue. At the moment, Russia cannot do much about Iran and Syria. By launching the attack on Aleppo with jihadist forces, the US has started a process in which even Iraq will be reshaped. The US is starting some wars for the plans it is trying to impose on Turkey. Now Syria is being divided.[*] What will happen to the Kurdish regions in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey? The outcome will be determined by the clashes between the powers. While this is the case, a lot of false news is being spread about these developments. Because in war the truth is the first thing to be lost!

From Aleppo, the US has allowed Turkey to advance with HTS. The US also uses groups it calls terrorist organisations. At the moment, the US has paved the way for HTS for its own interests. Erdoğan has acted in accordance with the USA. What will happen tomorrow? Will Turkey be able to act as it wishes or will it be sucked into a quagmire? We cannot know the details of what will happen in advance. But it would be a big mistake to take today's situation for granted and not recognise the transience of today. It is necessary to recognise that the need for a solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey will eventually change the current situation. Turkey cannot go on without finding a solution one way or another. In this course of events, the United States, for example, could double-cross Erdogan in a way that would surprise them! In conclusion, we know this: Erdoğan is not stronger than the USA. Erdoğan's plans and adventurous actions cannot determine the outcome of the imperialist division in the Middle East. Although the situation may appear different from time to time in the intermediate moves and domestic politics in Turkey, the dominating influence of external factors, especially the USA, should never be forgotten.

In this process, when the Kurds take steps to solve their problems, it is not for us to say anything. The national problem is essentially a bourgeois problem, and of course the Kurds are sitting at the table with the bourgeois alliances that were formed on this basis. We are different from other left circles. We have neither opposed the Kurds' right to self-determination nor have we thrown in our lot with the Kurdish movement! There are turbulent days ahead for Turkey. We are used to difficult conditions, we do not deviate from our class line.

Another issue is the attitude of TÜSİAD, which represents the traditional part of the financial capital. Until the 2010s, the attitude of TÜSİAD was different. But with the establishment of the fascist regime, TÜSİAD withdrew. At this point, we should remember the characteristic of extraordinary regimes. Under extraordinary conditions, the bourgeoisie leaves the politics to an extraordinary government (such as Bonapartism, fascism) in order to carry out its economic affairs. Moreover, the difference in the organisation of the state in Turkey compared to the West should not be forgotten. In the Western societies based on private property, when the bourgeoisie fought against feudalism and established its own order, the state was formed on the basis of the agreement, an alliance, of the bourgeoisie from below. In our country, on the other hand, everything takes place within the state. In the period of the Turkish Republic, the state even ordered its own bourgeoisie to 'fall in line' when necessary, and it still does! In such a structure, the bourgeoisie willingly submits to the state in all extraordinary periods. In Turkey, capital has never taken a stand against the state, which is at the top, in order not to endanger its economic interests. After the coup of July 2016, TÜSİAD grudgingly accepted the status quo. At times, it pretended to make a noise, but then it immediately backed down. The attitude it will take today will depend on the impositions of foreign powers and developments.

It is also useful to look briefly at the US-China rivalry. Recently, the US has raised customs walls against China and this has been interpreted by some as the end of globalisation and that protectionism will prevail. This is a wrong approach. In the days of colonialism, trade wars were quite different. There was no globalised world like today. The colonies had advantages in terms of cheap raw materials in the colonies and exporting their own goods there as a monopoly. The colonialist countries did not want this to be disrupted and did not want to give up their dominance in their own areas. But capitalism is not such a system, it spreads trade everywhere. In time, the imperialist rulers said that it was better to leave colonial policies aside and continue with imperialist policies. In fact, in the capitalist world after the Second World War, there were imperialist countries at the top, capitalist countries with a medium level of development below them, and countries at the bottom that had gained political independence but were still trying to become capitalist economically. But at that time there was also a system outside the capitalist system, formed by the Soviet Union and the like. In such a world, these two systems could not fight each other in trade wars. But the trade of the capitalist world has an irresistible tendency to spread and infiltrate. In one way or another, the goods of the big imperialist countries infiltrated the USSR, the Eastern bloc countries and China. A country cannot be governed by politics alone, there is such a reality as the economy. The Soviets and the like, which could not survive economically in the face of a capitalist world, collapsed.

Today's trade wars are not like those of the colonial era. Can the US succeed against China by raising tariff walls? Economic relations are so intertwined that the US is shooting itself in the foot by trying to undermine the Chinese economy. Economic measures taken to put the enemy in a difficult situation also hit the country that is doing it. It is not possible for the US to go too far in squeezing China economically, because it would exhaust both sides. Looking ahead from the current situation, China is continuing to rise faster than Russia. Russia's economic moves are not as strong as China's. Russia has not been able to rise as much as China. It has lost even more power because of the war in Ukraine. The US is preparing for a new battleground against China in the Pacific. China began to establish trade relations with the US as early as 1973. China proceeded with its characteristic cunning. In the 2000s it made much greater progress than Russia, not only by importing US capital but also by entering into capital partnerships with it. So while the US acted as if it were the world's sole hegemon, Chinese power was emerging. For the US, the Chinese market is huge. For China, the US is the same. Goods must be sold for profits to be realised. If they are not sold, there is a crisis of overproduction. The US says 'I should not lose my market, I should be the hegemon', but China wants the same thing. Although today's trade wars are labelled 'protectionism', in the end this is just a small parenthesis in the general trend.

Protectionism is ultimately an impediment to imperialist expansion. It hinders capitalist development. The USA actually wants to seize China's spheres of influence or does not want to lose its existing spheres of influence. There is a struggle for hegemony between them and this means instability for the world. Because if a system has a hegemon, there is stability. In the past, the USA was the hegemonic power of the capitalist system. But in the new millennium, rival countries emerged against it. Looking at today's indicators, pushing the USA to the second place is a difficult task, especially considering its enormous military power. But there is still the threat of a rising China. Therefore, the US wants to stop China's hegemonic rise. In such a world, the historical system crisis will continue to grow. Under these conditions, the struggle for hegemony between the three great powers will continue with imperialist wars of division. A war starts and ends in one place, and begins in another. We are in such a period. The imperialist powers have come to the point of burning the world for their own interests.

We cannot know what will happen in, say, 10 years. What will become of the world and the masses while the imperialists are fighting among themselves with this historical crisis and great dilemmas? Firstly, will the masses remain silent while crises grow, wars spread, poverty deepens? Secondly, will our world remain a world to live in under this out-of-control capitalism? After all, there is a system based on profit that cannot find solutions to environmental disasters. Therefore, there is a chaotic situation that continues with wars, and only revolutions can put an end to this. There is no other way possible.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise once again that Turkey is going through an extremely turbulent period today. The working class is big but unorganised. The trade union movement is at its lowest point and the trade union bureaucracy is dragging the workers into inertia. When it comes to the working class, those who see it as a shapeless and unorganised mass spread hopeless or condescending thoughts like 'with these?' But let us not forget that it is not the whole mass of the class, but its organised vanguard that creates change in a revolutionary direction. This is what we serve to build. Every work that has to be done for the organisation of the vanguard of the class, especially in the conditions of Turkey, is extremely arduous, but it is also extremely important and honourable. Let us never forget this!