Il massacro del popolo insorto dell’Iran è un chiaro esempio di crimine contro l’umanità

ITALIANO - ENGLISH

Dichiarazione della Co-Presidenza del PJAK: 

L’insurrezione dei popoli dell’Iran contro la dittatura della Repubblica Islamica continua in tutto il Paese con una determinazione e una risolutezza esemplari. Le strade delle città del nord, sud, est e ovest dell’Iran si sono trasformate in arene di confronto diretto tra il popolo amante della libertà e le forze repressive del regime. La potente ondata di proteste popolari si espande di momento in momento, lasciando il regime disperato e disorientato. I leader della Repubblica Islamica sanno meglio di chiunque altro che ciò che stanno imponendo ai popoli di questa terra è una manifestazione totale di oppressione e dispotismo; tuttavia, non sono disposti a fare neppure un solo passo indietro da questo percorso distruttivo. Per questo motivo, i popoli dell’Iran, con rabbia crescente e una determinazione sempre più salda, continuano la loro insurrezione democratica e rivoluzionaria, spingendo il regime passo dopo passo verso la sua fine e il suo crollo. 

Le autorità al potere e Khamenei in persona, percependo che il loro regime si trova sull’orlo della distruzione, hanno fatto ricorso al massacro, attuando uccisioni di massa contro il popolo resistente dell’Iran. Cercano di farlo nel completo silenzio, senza che il mondo ne sia a conoscenza. Stanno inoltre tentando di interrompere i collegamenti tra le diverse città e regioni dell’Iran, affinché le forze repressive possano eseguire i loro ordini di uccidere senza alcun ostacolo. Per questo motivo hanno tagliato internet e le linee telefoniche, con l’obiettivo di ridurre a zero la possibilità di informare il mondo esterno. 

Nonostante il tentativo del regime di isolare l’Iran dal mondo, la voce dell’insurrezione e del popolo iraniano amante della libertà non può essere messa a tacere. Alcune notizie e informazioni giunte all’esterno indicano che le forze repressive del regime hanno compiuto massacri di persone in molte città e regioni dell’Iran, utilizzando ogni tipo di arma leggera e pesante per uccidere i cittadini che protestavano. Le poche immagini diffuse di questi massacri mostrano che gli agenti repressivi del regime hanno attaccato i manifestanti e le insurrezioni popolari con violenza estrema e in modo brutale. Il comportamento della Repubblica Islamica costituisce un chiaro esempio di crimine contro l’umanità, e la piena responsabilità ricade sui leader di questo regime. 

Le forze repressive del regime hanno aperto il fuoco direttamente contro la popolazione in tutto l’Iran, inclusi Teheran, Karaj, Isfahan, Khorasan, Lorestan e varie parti del Kurdistan come Ilam, Kermanshah, Shahabad, Gilan-e Gharb, Kamyaran, Salmas, Khoy e altre aree, uccidendo un gran numero di civili. L’Iran è ora completamente avvolto da fuoco, insurrezione e sangue. Considerata la natura di questo regime e ciò che sappiamo di esso, è evidente che potrebbe ampliare ulteriormente la portata di questi massacri. Condanniamo fermamente queste azioni brutali e disumane del regime della Repubblica Islamica e dichiariamo che adempiremo alla nostra responsabilità di sostenere il nostro popolo amante della libertà in tutto l’Iran. 

Invitiamo le istituzioni internazionali a non rimanere in silenzio di fronte a questi massacri selvaggi e alle uccisioni di massa, e ad adottare immediatamente misure pratiche per sostenere il popolo dell’Iran. Invitiamo tutti gli iraniani all’estero, le persone amanti della libertà e le coscienze vigili a essere la voce del popolo iraniano in tutto il mondo in questi difficili momenti storici e a sostenere l’insurrezione rivoluzionaria del popolo oppresso dell’Iran. Crediamo che le proteste democratiche del popolo iraniano, con la grande determinazione, volontà e sacrificio dimostrati da giovani e donne di fronte al governo repressivo, avranno infine successo e che il sole della libertà sorgerà su questa terra. 

Co-Presidenza del Partito per la Vita Libera del Kurdistan (PJAK)  

11 Gennaio 2026 

www.pjak.eu         X: @RojhelatInfo_En                                                                                  Email:    info@pjak.info , pjak.eu@gmail.com 

ENGLISH

The massacre of the uprising people of Iran is a clear example of a crime against humanity

Statement by the Co-Presidency of PJAK:

UN ARTICOLO SULL’IMPERIALISMO ARABO SU CUI RIFLETTERE

da Luciano Dondero

BILINGUE: ITALIANO - ENGLISH

Caro Roberto,

il sito inglese Point of No Return ( https://www.jewishrefugees.org.uk ) è dedicato a un gruppo di ebrei fin troppo dimenticati, ovvero i rifugiati dai paesi arabi e islamici del Medio Oriente.

Qualche giorno fa hanno pubblicato un articolo molto interessante di Olga Kirschbaum-Shirazki intitolato “Il Medio Oriente ha bisogno di respingere l’imperialismo arabo per raggiungere la pace”.

Fra gli elementi più interessanti dell’articolo della Kirschbaum-Shirazki, cofondatrice ed editrice della Tel Aviv Review of Books, mi pare ci siano due elementi: intanto una riflessione di fondo sulle nozioni di impero e nazione viste in un quadro europeo e mediorientale; e poi il rifiuto della nozione che gli arabi (e l’Islam) siano i soli legittimi, e antichi, abitanti del Medio Oriente.

In questo, come sottolinei tu, si nota: “la profonda cultura (storico-politica-geopolitica)” dell’autrice, e la sua capacità di porre “la questione curda nell’epicentro dell’aggressività di tre correnti imperiali: turca, iraniana e araba […] e che nelle mire imperiali turche, iraniane e arabe si veda oggi il fattore di maggior pericolo in area mediorientale”.

Condivido pienamente un’altra considerazione che fai quando dici che l’autrice: «sottolinea un “piccolo” dettaglio che sfugge a tutti coloro che affermano un’assenza di continuità degli ebrei dalla loro terra d'origine: e cioè che per quasi due millenni gli ebrei sono stati esuli perché perseguitati, ovunque, e non in conseguenza di esodi dovuti a guerre. In realtà agli inizi vi fu un primo grande esodo (Guerra giudaica del 66-70), ma poi poco a poco presero il via le persecuzioni che, come sappiamo ancora continuano».

E ne consegue che, se si vuole veramente aprire una prospettiva di pace per la regione mediorientale, occorre una iniziativa di portata internazionale per frenare le ambizioni imperiali delle tre diverse componenti islamiche. Al di là dei tentativi di attori non-statuali impegnati alla rinascita del “Califfato” (Al-Qaeda, Isis/Daesh e una miriade di altri operatori più o meno velleitari) sono veri e propri Stati come l’Iran, la Turchia e alcuni Paesi arabi che incorporano in sé intenzioni molto pericolose.

Il fatto che alcuni fra quegli Stati arabi siano orientati oggi a un’alleanza con Israele e con l’Occidente, in un’ottica volta a contrastare le mire degli ayatollah di Teheran (vedi la vicenda degli “Accordi di Abramo”), potrebbe contribuire alla ricerca di una soluzione. Ma questo non significa dimenticarsi che per decenni l’Egitto e l’Arabia Saudita sono stati in prima fila nei vani tentativi di distruggere Israele e nel diffondere in tutta Europa l’ideologia politica dell’Islam più aggressivo.

Penso che questo articolo possa essere molto utile per la riflessione di chi segue Utopia Rossa. Non da ultimo per la critica netta allo slogan “Due popoli, due Stati”.

Buon lavoro,

Luciano

Il Medio Oriente ha bisogno di respingere [ROLL BACK] l’imperialismo arabo per raggiungere la pace

 di Olga Kirschbaum-Shirazki

Nella nostra epoca di aspri dibattiti sul nazionalismo, vale la pena prendersi un momento per considerare l’origine della creazione di piccoli Stati nell’Europa continentale dopo la Prima guerra mondiale. In questo primo quarto di secolo del secondo millennio, gli Stati nazionali europei hanno dimostrato di essere più stabili e governabili, oltre che più democratici, rispetto ad altre forme politiche. Gli Stati di maggior successo del dopoguerra – se la misura è la prosperità dei loro cittadini e la trasparenza dei loro governi – sono gli Stati nazionali della Scandinavia con le loro minoranze Sami e Inuit, ora semiautonome. Il grande risultato dell’Unione Europea non è la sua unità e le sue dubbie strutture politiche con la loro mancanza di trasparenza e responsabilità, ma piuttosto la sovranità nazionale dei popoli d’Europa, uniti da lingua, cultura ed etnia, che sono i suoi membri costituenti in un continente dove un tempo governavano gli imperi.

Inoltre, gli Stati nazionali sono stati le unità di maggior successo nel mantenere il concetto di bene pubblico e nel limitare le società multinazionali e i monopoli statali. In effetti, lo Stato e le sue leggi sono probabilmente l’unica cosa che può garantire con successo che i lavoratori e i locali non subiscano orribili abusi. Le multinazionali prosperano soprattutto negli Stati in cui le rimanenti gerarchie razziali imperiali persistono nel mandare in frantumi ogni nozione di bene comune: questa è la storia di tutte le ex colonie di insediamento nelle Americhe, con la possibile eccezione dell’Uruguay, un piccolo paese che è in gran parte un amalgama fra gli immigrati spagnoli e italiani con la minuscola popolazione indigena del XIX secolo, decimata dalle malattie dopo la colonizzazione europea e una guerra genocida. In molti casi queste gerarchie fanno ancora parte dell’assetto giuridico del Paese, soprattutto con l’abrogazione dei trattati con le Prime Nazioni. Tutti questi paesi, a vari livelli, hanno una sottoclasse radicalmente impoverita, spesso composta da popolazioni indigene e in alcuni casi dalla diaspora africana.

WHAT HAMAS REALLY WANTS

by Roberto Massari

ENGLISH - ITALIANO - ESPAÑOL

I have to repeat - as I did in some of my previous comments - that ignorance (together with psychological need for protagonism) is the main support to «left-wing» antisemitism. Among the main points of ignorance by the professors and students yelling their support to Hamas in some universities of the Usa, France, Italy etc., there is the program of Hamas: what this terrorist group really wants.

Its founding paper (the «Hamas Charter or Covenant») adopted in August 1988 was a concentrate of hate for the Jews, religious fanatism, appeals to Jihad and to personal sacrifice in the name of Allah. (If you want to plunge into the Medieval atmosphere of the Crusades, you may read it on-line. For instance in https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp).

That text was never revoked, but went through a revision in 2017. The new text is more political and much less barbarian or medieval in the form, but it is identical in the substance: it is still  antisemitic, religiously fanatic and in favour of destroying Israel (there you find the infamous slogan «from the river to the sea» which is yelled with a sadistic taste in the mouth also by members of the reactionary left in some civilized countries). But the new text is politically important because it states clearly that for Hamas there  is no solution to the Palestinian question: either they get control of the whole country (with the whole of Jerusalem as a capital) or they will continue fighting.

They also are for the one-State solution (as I am, thinking of a democratic, interethnic and no-confessional State) but what they mean is a Palestinian Islamic State, built on the destruction of Israel and the defeat of its inhabitants. The university ignorants above mentioned could read also this text on-line (e.g. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full). But I can help them, showing the main points which characterize today the project of Hamas.

Please, notice point 7 because for the first time in the history of humanity it is stated in a political constitution the obligation to believe that the religious Founder ascended to Heaven (in this case Muhammad from Jerusalem). Not even the Catholic Church has ever dared... But for Hamas this is the ground to claim the divine and juridical right to occupy the whole of Jerusalem.

Con molta tristezza

Roberto Massari

  

The quotations and the bold sentences are mine:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all worlds. May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad, the Master of Messengers and the Leader of the mujahidin, and upon his household and all his companions.

3. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land.

7. Within Palestine there exists Jerusalem, whose precincts are blessed by Allah. Palestine is the Holy Land, which Allah has blessed for humanity. It is the Muslims’ first Qiblah and the destination of the journey performed at night by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is the location from where he ascended to the upper heavens. 

It is the land of people who are determined to defend the truth… and they will continue their mission until the Promise of Allah is fulfilled.

8. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance… 

10. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine… Its Islamic and Christian holy places belong exclusively to the Palestinian people and to the Arab and Islamic Ummah. Not one stone of Jerusalem can be surrendered or relinquished. 

18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal. 

20. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. 

21. Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them.

25. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws.

27. A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. 

ITALIANO

UN’ALTRA DONNA VITTIMA DELL’ISLAMISMO IRANIANO

di Roberto Massari, Antonella Marazzi, don Ferdinando Sudati

Carissimi/e,

oggi [21/12/23] fremo di ira e orrore a vedere cosa il regime iraniano sta facendo alle sue donne, impiccandole a decine.

Vorrei reagire, anche per stigmatizzare il rifiuto dei presunti «kompagni» di solidarizzare con le donne oppresse dall’islamismo (non dall’integralismo islamico, ma dall’islamismo tout court, che anche in Iran è un islamismo di regime). Ma sono così inferocito che rischio di dire degli sfondoni. Fatico però a tacere.

Possibile che anche su una questione così umana ci si trovi ad essere isolati rispetto alla sinistra reazionaria che nel suo viscerale antiamericanismo finisce col dare copertura politica anche a questi immensi crimini verso le donne? E un po’ anche verso gli uomini iraniani che a loro volta vengono impiccati a centinaia per ragioni spesso di puro libero arbitrio.

C’è poi la lugubre ironia che l’Iran ha assunto da poco la presidenza del Consiglio per i Diritti umani delle Nazioni unite (Unhrc). Gli è toccato per avvicendamento come prevede il regolamento. Ebbene, una logica minimamente «politica» avrebbe voluto che, avendo assunto questo incarico da poche settimane, sospendessero momentaneamente le esecuzioni, almeno quelle delle donne, almeno quella di ieri che grida vendetta al cospetto dell’umanità ancora umana: una madre di due figli, costretta a sposarsi a 11 anni e che ha reagito alle violenze del marito uccidendolo.

Ma appare chiaro che a loro dell’opinione internazionale non interessa nulla. Nel loro attuale Medioevo non esiste alcuna preoccupazione per l’opinione pubblica internazionale. Loro hanno Allah dalla loro parte…

Se qualcuno se la sente di scrivere un testo di denuncia, sarò lieto di associarmi. Io non me la sento.

Roberto

____________________________

Capisco l'orrore di Roberto e da donna dovrei trovare la forza e le capacità per scrivere io una lunga e argomentata protesta di fronte a queste manifestazioni di terribile disumanità, ma mi vengono meno sia la forza che le capacità.  Che si può dire di altro oltre ciò che si è scritto a più riprese sul nostro blog a proposito di questi crimini bestiali?

Francamente mi mancano le parole, i pensieri, le riflessioni appropriate e pacate. Sento salire al mio interno una furia irrazionale e tremenda contro questi regimi islamici immersi in una loro dimensione barbarica e arcaica fuori del tempo e tragica. Ho voglia di vomitare tutto il mio furore più aggressivo verso questi uomini, comunque appartenenti al genere umano, che si arrogano il diritto di torturare e uccidere in nome di un dio, che tra tutte le divinità inventate nel corso del tempo è certamente il più diabolico e vendicativo e anche il più idiota.

E il furore mi porta al desiderio di uccidere con le mie mani tutti costoro. Con una furia tremenda e irrazionale come la loro. E ciò non deve accadere perché si diventerebbe simili a loro. Ma debbo confessare che la mia disapprovazione, se non la mia furia, tocca anche le donne islamiche, quelle che non si ribellano, quelle che si coprono completamente divenendo dei fantasmi mortiferi e che giungono a convincersi che tutto ciò sia giusto e santo. Quelle che perpetuano nelle famiglie di fronte a figli e figlie la propria profonda subordinazione, come se fosse un motivo di vanto, e ne fanno oggetto di esempio ed educazione. Certo, conosciamo bene i meccanismi psicologici per cui le vittime divengono complici dei loro tortutatori in una società che da secoli si muove sulla base di questi canoni. Ma la mia furia rimane e finisce per avvolgere anche le donne che sempre sono vittime, ma spesso, inconsapevolmente, complici, appunto della società assassina. 

Tutti i governi degli stati borghesi cosiddetti democratici dovrebbero richiedere a gran voce la rimozione dell'Iran dalla presidenza del Consiglio per i diritti umani delle Nazioni unite, ma la ragione di Stato e l'opportunismo osceno politico impedisce tutto ciò. Se credessi in qualche ente superiore urlerei: che siano maledetti! E che sia sottolineata sempre e con forza l'idiozia politica della sinistra reazionaria che nella sua furia antiamericana non si ferma di fronte ai massacri dei civili palestinesi ed ebrei, né a quelli del popolo ucraino e delle donne che hanno avuto la sorte perversa di nascere in terre islamiche. Che sia maledetta anche lei di fronte agli occhi dell'umanità intera!

Antonella

__________________________________

Anch’io, Roberto, ho provato indignazione (e umiliazione) alla notizia dell’impiccagione di quella giovane donna. Tanto più che è avvenuta dopo 10 anni di durissimo carcere e che potrebbe aver avuto tra i 28 e i 32 anni - il figlio maggiore ne ha 17 e il più piccolo 10 - ed essere stata data in sposa a un energumeno a non più di 11 anni (cfr. Francesca Paci, La Stampa del 21-12-2023). E non sapevo, come tu riferisci, che proprio all’Iran è toccata la presidenza del Consiglio per i Diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite!

Siamo al fallimento delle istituzioni di più alto livello, oltre di singole personalità, e pure del senso comune.

Qualche giorno fa, a fine novembre, ti scrivevo della conversazione telefonica tra papa Francesco e il capo di Stato dell'Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, su richiesta di quest'ultimo, per una mediazione del papa per un cessate il fuoco a Gaza. E della mia aspettativa che il papa gli avesse risposto: “Lo farò, anzi, continuerò a farlo volentieri e ti ringrazio di avermelo chiesto, però tu cerca di portare il tuo Paese fuori dal Medioevo e, in particolare, fai cessare lo stupro, la tortura e l’assassinio di ragazze per motivi di velo portato un po’ di traverso - e lascia che pure non lo portino -, e la condanna a morte di giovani che fanno dimostrazioni, lecite in quasi tutti i Paesi del mondo, a favore di elementari diritti”. 

Non ho, però, letto o sentito notizia del genere; forse la diplomazia non lo consentiva, ma di che dannata diplomazia parliamo?  Oppure gliel’ha detto “in privato”, che sarebbe già qualcosa, ma non lo si può divulgare, e allora serve a poco!

Ci manca solo che, passo dopo passo, ma abbastanza velocemente, il Medioevo ritorni in Europa. Lo farà, e probabilmente lo "meritiamo", ma sento dispiacere per le future generazioni.

Ti saluto e oso inviare anche un augurio di pace in questo Natale che assomiglia così tanto a un Venerdì santo.

don Ferdinando

P.S. Ho letto ora il commento di Antonella, che mi trova del tutto d'accordo. Salvo scusare - ma lo fa anche lei - un po' di più la mancata iniziativa delle donne islamiche, sia per la loro educazione fin da piccole sia soprattutto perché quei regimi sono davvero spaventosi.

Nella diffusione e/o ripubblicazione di questo articolo si prega di citare la fonte: www.utopiarossa.blogspot.com

REFLECTIONS ON TURKISH POLICY, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

IN DUE LINGUE (Inglese, Italiano)
IN TWO LANGUAGES (English, Italian)

© Shlomo Cohen

Has Turkey changed under Erdoğan? The question may seem absurd only due to the habit of considering Turkey a secular and Westernised country before Erdoğan came to power.

However, this consolidated image turns out to be false. There has been a change, but not in substance: what has changed is its exteriority. In fact, albeit with periodic recourse to elections, the country has always been governed in an authoritarian way, and today this feature is only more evident and its quality is more pronounced.

Mustafa Kemal and his successors made immense efforts to westernise Turkey quickly – too quickly – and they were apparently successful. Kemalist secularism never appropriated, for example, the French model, but limited itself to putting the Turkish religious world under political and state control and banning its public manifestations.

In the end, a centuries-old national history which had too hastily been sent to the museum of past things has re-emerged with cultural, spiritual and political strength.

On the other hand, the whole history of the Turks from their departure from the steppes of Central Asia has developed under the sign of Islam, and the Kemalist revolution – also imposed bloodily – had in many respects raped the identity of what we could call the “Turkish soul”.

If we want, Atatürk himself, without moustache and Western dress, gave a certain sense of artificiality. This does not mean that there is no longer a Westernised and secular sector in Turkish society, but only that it has lost political and cultural hegemony, and in addition it has proved to be in a minority.

In 2002, the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the elections and in a few years managed to penetrate the secular strongholds of public administration and justice that previously seemed impossible to conquer. Their power was neutralised and the same fate fell on the Armed Forces, in theory also a solid pillar and guardians of the Kemalist turnaround.

Ultimately, Erdoğan and the AKP have freed the profound sentiment of popular and Islamic Turkey, the Islamism of which – previously confined to the private sphere – has become free and of public significance.

The success is such that the portrait of Atatürk, still hanging on the walls of public offices, now no longer does damage and can remain where it is – after all it represents a moment of national victory for the Turks.

The victory of the AKP has not led to a new course of democracy, it has simply established a new cult of personality: that of Erdoğan instead of that of Mustafa Kemal. Some say that ultimately the Islamic turnaround was not an end in itself, but the instrument for the affirmation of Erdoğanism.

Now elected directly by the people, Erdoğan behaves as if he were the incarnation of the volonté générale of the Turkish nation. His power is fully consolidated: the AKP has the majority in Parliament, the Armed Forces have been tamed, the judiciary and the Constitutional Court are obedient, the mass media are mostly controlled and finally (and not least) the new masters of the country can distribute public procurement – both large and small – among their clients in peace.

One instrument in particular has shown singular effectiveness: the wide use of a rhetoric that blends victimism, neo-Ottoman arrogance, an internal-external conspiracy syndrome and the hunting of traitors.

This is an effective instrument, because it corresponds to a widespread attitude especially among the most working class, especially Anatolian, sectors and considered by many external observers as a psychological remnant of the troubled history of Ottoman imperial decline.

Treason is now perceived as present in anyone and in any sector that does not go along with the AKP. This is a very heterogeneous basin: Turkish left, Kemalists, liberals, Kurds and pro-Kurds, religious minorities such as the Alevites, the few Shiites in existence, some Armenian and/or Greek Orthodox survivors.

Traitors now include personalities who were once authoritative exponents of the AKP, but then fell into the unforgivable sin of political dissidence – albeit minimal: Abdullah Gül, one of the founders of the AKP and former president of the Republic; Bülent Arınç, also co-founder and former speaker of the Parliament; and finally Ahmet Davutoğlu, former minister of Foreign Affairs and president of the Council.

Fethullah Gülen is a well-known enemy, but it is worth recalling that without his support (due to the vast network of connections he had at his disposal) Erdoğan might not have succeeded in winning over the secular bureaucracy and the Armed Forces during the crucial period of 2011–12.

In addition there is the growing nostalgia for the Ottoman – that is Islamic imperial – period, a source of inspiration for Erdoğan’s variable and contradictory foreign policy, thanks to which Turkey remains in NATO but performs nonchalant “waltzes” with Russia.

Finally, there are the expansionist ambitions, which today are aimed at Syria, using the Kurdish obsession of Erdoğan as a pretext.

SEESAWING BETWEEN MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON

On the Kurdish problem, the initial “opening” of the Turkish president did not last long, and he returned to the most obtuse Turkish nationalism and its basic lie: the Kurds do not exist, they are simply “Mountain Turks”.

Thanks also to the previous complicity of Erdoğan with the jihadists in Syria, a situation has now arisen in which the Syrian Kurds – connected with the PKK of Turkey – are not seen as enemies either by the Kremlin or by Washington; hence Erdoğan’s swinging between Russia and the United States, welcomed by his interlocutors in an opportunistic way when convenient, but always with suspicion.

Incidentally, the Kurdish-Syrian problem is not the only one to pollute relations between Ankara and Washington: it seems that investigators of the FBI are working on a dossier on Erdoğan, his family and related entourage for a fraud involving the Turkish State Bank regarding trade with Iran, subject to the accusation of violating US sanctions and banking laws.

The problem will become tangible if there are indictments against the suspects, with the risk of US sanctions against Turkey. In this case, the question could also – in theory – be reflected on Turkish membership of NATO. If this were to happen, a further Turkish rapprochement with Russia should not be surprising, notwithstanding the unknown quantity of Russian willingness (and possibility) to accept Turkish claims on the Kurds of Syria.

THE AFRIN ISSUE

Meanwhile, in Afrin things are not going very well for the troops of Ankara, struggling with a fierce resistance and technical difficulties in protecting their armoured vehicles, which in fact have suffered substantial losses. If the final battle were to arrive, the Turks would most likely win it, but at the price of very strong losses not only in terms of material resources, but also of human lives.

On the possibility or not of Russian acceptance of Turkish claims in Syria, a reflection is necessary. In Syria, Moscow has entered into agreements with the Damascus government for its geostrategic interests. The military presence of Russia requires that the country be stabilised and remain a friend; to this end there are no serious alternatives to Assad, whose government must be definitively strengthened and regain control of all Syrian territory. Not easy, but not impossible.

In light of this, Russia has no interest in supporting the Turkish claims, since it would clash with the government of Damascus leaving only a rather uncertain eventuality: that is to say that Ankara, pushing to the extreme, ends up breaking with NATO. As things stand, a prudent strategist can only wait for the fruit, in the case of maturation, to fall by itself into the metaphorical basket.

It is clear that the Afrin operation has a dual function: annihilate the Kurds in the border areas and establish a Turkish control zone in northern Syria, to be used as a basis for the anti-Assad jihadists supported by Ankara – perhaps giving Turkey the hegemony over what remains of Jihadism in Syria.

This would mean prolonging the Syrian conflict and nullifying government victories supported by the Russians. It follows that the Afrin operation goes against the interests of Russia: this is enough to disprove certain rumours about a prior agreement between Erdoğan and Putin.

It seems that the Assad regime has facilitated the transfer of Kurdish fighters in the Afrin area, and the logic of this initiative is clear: for now Kurdish ambitions do not threaten Damascus, but the same cannot be said in the case of a Turkish victory.

In the meantime, it looks like the Kurds have ceded some territories in the Aleppo area to government control. And if, as the al-Masdar agency claims, the Kurds will hand over the city of Manbij – a clear Turkish target – to the government in the near future, then it would mean that in order to continue Turkey would also go against Russia.

THE DILEMMA FOR RUSSIA

Here things become complicated for Russian policy, which is moving on a kind of tightrope. On the one hand, without Turkish cooperation the stability of Syria remains at risk; on the other hand, Ankara’s initiatives are at odds with this cooperation.

In addition, Moscow will have to avoid direct confrontation between Syrian and Turkish troops, and not only because the Syrians would have the worst of it: besides the serious deterioration of relations between Russia and Turkey (and so much for Syrian stabilisation), Moscow would receive not resistible pressure from Damascus and Tehran for its intervention, with potentially dangerous US countermoves.

But Turkey also has an interest in non-deterioration of its relations with Russia. The situation appears to be one of stalemate, but Moscow would have at least one chance to negotiate – especially if Kurdish resistance caused the Turks very heavy losses.

It would be a question of leveraging two factors: the fact that Ankara would still have achieved the objective of securing the Syrian border by blocking supplies between the Kurds of Syria and the PKK, as well as the costs – and dangers – that going beyond would imply.

At the same time, Moscow could act on the Kurds of Syria underlining the convenience of abandoning risky initiatives solicited by the United States – which would then leave them to their destiny – and convincing them, moreover, to soften their attitude towards the government of Damascus, because an agreement with it could have calming effects on Turkey.

A corollary would be to persuade Damascus to accept for the moment (and under Russian protection) both a Turkish presence in the north and the concession to the Kurds of some autonomy that would not be dangerous for the interests of Ankara.

ERDOĞAN’S NEO-OTTOMANISM AT A DANGEROUS TURNING POINT, by Pier Francesco Zarcone

IN DUE LINGUE (Inglese, Italiano)
IN TWO LANGUAGES (English, Italian)

© TIME Magazine/Marco Grob

It is not being dealt with by major media, but there appear to be new and dangerous winds of war about to blow in the eastern Mediterranean.

On October 15, 2016, in a speech at the university that (modestly) bears his name, the Turkish president outlined some lines of his new foreign policy, announcing the intention to regain territories lost by the Ottoman Empire following defeat in the First World War, with specific reference to Western Thrace and the Dodecanese, all areas belonging to Greece, in theory an ally of Turkey in NATO.

In December 2017 he was echoed by the head of the secular neo-Kemalist opposition, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), who announced that Turkey would invade eighteen Greek islands in 2019 – as then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit had done with Cyprus in 1974 – stating that “there is no document” demonstrating that these islands belong to Greece. This was to happen – and here lies the gravity of the situation – if his party (apparently Social Democratic) were to win the next elections.

Another sign came in Erdoğan’s speech on February 17 at a congress of his party (AKP) held in Eskişehir. Speaking of the military action against Syrian Kurds, he proclaimed:

“Those who think that we have erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong. We say at every opportunity we have that Syria, Iraq and other places in the geography [map] in our hearts are no different from our own homeland. Wherever the call to prayer is understood, we fight so that we do not brandish a foreign flag. What has been done so far is nothing compared with the even more imposing attacks that we expect for the coming days: God wills it!”.

Then, on his recent visit to Athens, Erdoğan had addressed – albeit only at the diplomatic level – the problem constituted by those Aegean Islands situated near Anatolia that the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 had assigned to Greece, expressing the need for a review of that agreement.

In the meantime, it is worth noting, the final touches were being put to the sale to Turkey of the ultramodern Russian S-400 anti-missile system, an initiative highly criticised by NATO also because it is not compatible with other weapon systems used by the Atlantic Alliance.

It should be recalled that the Treaty of Lausanne – replacing the previous Treaty of Sèvres, which had been degrading for what remained of the Ottoman Empire – recognised the reconquest of the whole of Anatolia by Kemalist forces, and that in view of this the attribution to Greece of the now contested Thracian islands and territories was acceptable.

It was also a sort of sop to Athens, ruinously defeated by Atatürk after being installed with British support in the area of Smyrna, in the crazy dream of partly rebuilding the Byzantine Empire (it was the so-called Megali Idea).

The worrying episodes that form part of this pre-war climate are not lacking, and the recent confrontation in the Aegean between the Greek offshore patrol vessel 090 Gavdos and the Turkish patrol boat Umut was only one element of the series. On July 28, 2017, for example, a Turkish CN-235 spy plane was intercepted by the Greeks, and shortly afterwards, on August 12, eleven Turkish F-16 planes trespassed in Greek air space over a twelve-hour period, resulting in thirteen occasions on which as many Greek planes engaged in interception. The trespassing took place in the skies of Limnos, Lesvos, Samos and Chios.

That belligerent revanchist intentions also rub off on the Turkish opposition is serious both in and of itself, and because the neo-Kemalists would be expected to have it clear why Atatürk had warned several times not to make enemies on the borders: the good and security of Turkey.

Today, Ankara’s troops (and as many enemies) are outside the borders of the Turkish Republic in the occupied part of Cyprus, northern Syria and Iraq.

In the Iraqi area of Mosul, Turkish troops are present once again without the permission of the Baghdad government, which in fact speaks of invasion. In the Mosul region, according to former Greek Chief of Staff General Fragkos Fragkoulis, Turkey intends to secure access to Iraqi oil. Would it be a surprise if, sooner or later, Erdoğan were to claim (perhaps resorting also to military action) the entire territory of the former vilayet of Mosul, to which Kemalist Turkey effectively aspired but which was assigned to Iraq by British will?

At this point the current operation in Syria presents disturbing connotations, which could lead to international complications and bloodshed. The problem is to understand against whom the “imperial” intentions of Erdoğan are really directed.

It is now so evident that the doors of Europe are closed for Turkey that the majority of Turks themselves have stopped taking it into account, and perhaps – with the Islamist wind that is blowing – they no longer want to enter.

Another example of how political myopia strikes “indirectly”: if instead of closing up (hypocritically, without saying so) into racist xenophobia and paranoid anti-Islamism – yet having a higher, clearly deficient cultural level – European leaders had taken the opportunity to allow that country in when the assertively “moderate” Muslims still did not have power, today we would perhaps have a different situation and different problems.

And probably the AKP could have counted on one less card: dangerous wounded Turkish pride, which inevitably falls back on the old saying: “the Turk has no friend but the Turk”.

Today Erdoğan, whose popular consensus does not seem to have waned, is angry with so many: Germany, the European Union, NATO and the United States, partly because of the failed coup against him – most likely triggered by his Western “allies” – and with the addition that archenemy Fethullah Gülen continues to live peacefully in the United States. It cannot be ruled out that the hostile attitude towards Greece is part of a plan to create difficulties for NATO, of which both countries are part.

An article recently appeared in the Turkish newspaper Yeni Şafak (perfectly aligned with Erdoğan) which, while on the one hand it increased Greek concerns, on the other may provide elements of interpretation. Its author, İbrahim Karagül – an AKP “hardliner” considered the President’s unofficial spokesperson – writes that Erdoğan’s latest move follows the persistence of Western ambiguities and especially of the United States, false friend of Turkey and accomplice of the Kurdish enemy.

At this point, once the country had reunited around him, he would lead it to a new “war of independence” (after that of Atatürk), having all those who dared not to follow him classed as traitors of their country. In theory there could be neo-Kemalists among them, and perhaps (stressing perhaps) this would explain Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s “putting on a fierce face”. But this is not necessarily the case, because Turks are very sensitive to hyper-nationalist contagion.

On the fringes there are Erdoğan’s nods to Russia, being understood that in Moscow it is well known how unreliable the Turkish president is. But he is not behaving well even as far as Russia is concerned, as shown by the “Olive Branch” operation, which can also be seen as part of a broader strategy in which the neo-Ottoman dreams of Islamic “moderate” Erdoğan can turn into a nightmare for others.

Recent events on the battlefield of Afrin make the possibilities of an extensive confrontation between Turkish and Syrian troops anything but unrealistic.

Since it does not appear that the recent mass purges in the armed forces have reinforced its efficiency, if Syria reacts with the aid of Moscow, Erdoğan could end up calling on NATO for help, regardless of having previously pontificated that the obligations of the Atlantic Alliance do not extend to the Near East.

The Russians have so far maintained a cautious attitude, but as a successful ally of Assad they could not lose face by leaving the field open to Turkey. The fact is that it would not be Turkey that had been attacked – bearing in mind that the fighting is in Syrian and not Turkish territory –, but it would not be strange if, by turning the tables, Erdoğan were to argue (in the Israeli way) that his was a preventive action to prevent Kurdish aggression.

The Turkish President proves to be a good student of the US school of international politics – under which, when it is convenient, international law is waste paper – in the uninhibited violations of other countries’ borders, as shown by the case of armed intrusion in energy exploration in the sea around Cyprus, a sovereign country and member of the European Union, at whose door Erdoğan pretends to keep knocking.

For several days, Turkey has blockaded the drilling vessel Saipem, chartered by ENI and duly authorised by the Cypriot government, citing completely unfounded claims based on international treaties.

The 1982 Treaty of Montego Bay establishes that the sovereignty of a State extends up to 12 nautical miles from its coast; however for the specific case of the exclusive exploitation of minerals and hydrocarbons it is extended to the whole of its continental platform, to be understood as the natural extension of landmass until it is at a more or less constant depth before sinking. But arrogance always pays.

And the poor and crippled Greece, left high and dry by the European Union? It has asked the United States for protection! In fact, its right-wing Minister of Defence, Panos Kammenos, has offered the Americans new bases in the Aegean; this is a risky move given the high rate of Washington’s betrayal of its allies in their moment of need, and then because it was done precisely to infuriate the Turks.

At the worst, hope costs nothing, but in this case what the object of hope might be is not clear. Hope for Turkey getting bogged down in Syria? But even if that were the case, can we be sure that Erdoğan would not seek revenge on the very weak Greece?

Hope that, in the meantime, he will satisfy his imperial appetites in the Near East? Apart from the fact that it does not go without saying that this will happen, nevertheless, even if it were to happen, there is no guarantee that his imperial appetite would be satisfied, especially if he were really intent on reconquering former Ottoman territories lost in the Near East and Europe.

A seemingly insane design, but considering all the factors in the field – including the tried and tested unwarlike nature of the various players – it is not certain that it really is, even if the consequences would be insane.