Pashinyan's Diplomatic Realism and Realpolitik: Ukraine's Lessons Shape Armenia's Stance on Turkey

Abstract: This article takes a comprehensive look at the recent policies and statements of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and analyzes them from a geopolitical perspective. 

In the complex arena of international relations, the experiences of one nation are carefully monitored by other countries, shaping the strategies and decisions of its leaders. This is also true for Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Among the intricate web of geopolitics, Pashinyan closely monitors the complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. When tensions between these neighboring states reached a boiling point, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's efforts to counter Russian influence, Pashinyan took careful note. However, it was not just the rhetoric and showmanship that caught Pashinyan's attention, but rather the sudden withdrawal of what was touted as unlimited support and the harsh realities that followed. This left Ukraine suddenly alone with its powerful neighbor. In the wake of this geopolitical drama, Pashinyan drew valuable lessons from Ukraine's fate to shape Armenia's delicate relationship with its regional power Turkey.

On the geopolitical stage, promises are often made with grand gestures and resounding declarations. This is the case for Ukraine, a country that has become a target of great power rivalry, and for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who finds himself in the midst of growing tensions with Russia. In the face of Russian aggression, the imperialist states have promised token aid, military support and endless solidarity with Ukraine and its struggling leader. However, as the conflict unfolded and the stakes rose, once prominent allies faded into the background, their promises of support ringing hollow in the ears of Ukrainian officials. As Ukraine was abandoned by those who once promised unwavering support, it found itself alone in the face of a growing existential threat, and the disappointment was all the more palpable. This betrayal left a lasting mark on the international stage and became a cautionary tale for countries in the region, such as Armenia. As he watched Ukraine's alliances unravel, Nikol Pashinyan highlighted the dangers of relying too heavily on the promises of imperialist powers.

Before moving on to Pashinyan's major shift in Armenian policies, let us take a look at the historical perspective of the issue. Otherwise, a change in policy more than 100 years after the events could be explained by economic difficulties, geopolitical imperatives or shifting alliance relations. But the geopolitical situation before the events took place and the words of the political leader of modern Armenia, who witnessed the events with his own eyes, can only be based on facts. Let us therefore allow history to bear first-hand witness.

The Armenian race is known throughout history as a people inhabiting various parts of Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Armenians, the heirs of the Urartu Kingdom in ancient times, established the independent Armenian Kingdom in the 6th century BC. In 301, it became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as the state religion. In the Middle Ages, Armenians lived under Byzantine, Persian and Arab rule, and after the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia in the 11th century, Armenians lived under the patronage of various principalities and kingdoms. From the 16th century onwards, they came under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.

During the Ottoman Empire, Armenians were one of the loyal nations known as "millet-i sadıka (the faithful nation)", a Christian minority that generally lived in various parts of the empire. Armenians played important roles, especially in the fields of trade, crafts and education. However, towards the end of the 19th century, under the influence of nationalist movements, some Armenian groups demanded independence. During this period, there were tensions and rebellions between the Ottoman administration and some Armenian groups. 

Before the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was weakened by economic problems, nationalist movements and territorial losses. While demoralized after the Balkan Wars, reform efforts and the search for alliances continued. While struggling with these difficulties, the Empire entered the war against all objections, or more accurately, was forced to enter the war by Britain and Germany.

During the years of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire faced serious challenges on both domestic and foreign fronts. In 1915, the invasion of Eastern Anatolia by the Russian Empire and the attacks on Ottoman soldiers and civilians by some Armenian gangs collaborating with the Russian occupation caused great turmoil in the region. These attacks led to civilian organization and acts of revenge among the Muslim population. The Ottoman government took the decision of deportation (forced migration), which aimed to remove the Armenian population from the war zones, in order to control this situation, to ensure the safety of all people and to ensure internal security. The realities of war, poverty, hunger and disease along the route that Armenians had to follow during this deportation were the most formidable threats to this migration. During the deportation, the Empire was unable to provide adequate assistance and thousands of Armenians lost their lives due to malnutrition, disease and harsh conditions. Among the places of displacement were the desert regions of Syria. This process seems to have laid the foundation for historical traumas in Turkish-Armenian relations.

But could what actually happened have been manipulated by imperialist states in order to foment enmity between the two peoples and prepare a favorable environment in which they can realize their own ambitions? Let us seek the answer to this question together below.

In April 1923, the Dashnaktsutyun Party's report "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do" was presented to the Dashnaktsutyun Party's Conference Abroad in Bucharest under the signature of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime minister of the Armenian government and leader of the Dashnaktsutyun Party. In his report, Katchaznouni discusses the state's struggle against the systematic attacks of Armenian gangs on the local population and the forced migrations in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, but does not use the term "genocide" to describe these events. While the report usually describes the events in question with terms such as "catastrophe" or "tragedy", it discusses in detail what happened during this period. Instead of the "Armenian genocide", it emphasizes the great losses and sufferings of the Armenians and the strategic mistakes of the party in this process. Although the tragic consequences of the events are emphasized in this report, in which Katchaznouni is self-critical and questions the party policies, it is very striking that the term "genocide" is not used directly. 

An English edition of this book was published in 1955 in New York by the Armenian Information Service (Armenian Intelligence Service) under the title "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaksoution) Has Nothing To Do Any More". However, this English publication did not contain the entire book. The Armenian intelligence service had removed the parts that they found objectionable. In the same way, the originals of the book were collected from European libraries by the Armenian diaspora. Interestingly, in these libraries, the name of the book appeared in the catalogs, but there was no trace of the books on the shelves. It is only natural that this historical report of the first Armenian prime minister was banned in Armenia, and later, in the form of books published in various languages, it was collected from European libraries and made a banned publication in Armenia. It is also known that the publications were collected from European libraries by the Dashnak Party. However, the Russian edition of the book that the Dashnaks forgot to destroy was found in the Lenin Library in Moscow and translated into Turkish by Dr. Arif Acaloğlu. As we always encounter, the truth has a way of coming out one day!

In the following years, Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv's English article introducing this report was published in French, German and Spanish translations.

[Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv, An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Une Source Armenienne: Hovhannes Katchaznouni: Eine armenische Quelle: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Fuenta Armenia: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Second Printing, Ankara, March 1995]

Now let us examine the content of this report. In his report, then Prime Minister Katchaznouni says; "The British occupation had raised the hopes of the Dashnaks again. Because the British had occupied Istanbul at that time and had established a 'Dashnak dictatorship' in Armenia. We were unconditionally oriented towards Russia. Without any justification, we were in a triumphal mood. We were sure that in return for our loyalty, our work and our help, the tsarist government would grant us the independence of Armenia. In the summer and fall of 1915, the Turks subjected the Armenians to a forced deportation. The Turks knew what they were doing and today they have nothing to regret. We participated in military operations. We were deceived and tied to Russia. The deportation was right and necessary. We failed to see the facts, we are the cause of the events. The Turks' national struggle was justified. It was a big mistake to refuse peace and take up arms. We revolted and fought against the Turks. Our rebellion was based on the dream of a great Armenia promised to us by the Entente powers. It was as if our short-sightedness was a heroism, because everyone who wanted to, the French, the British, the Americans, the Georgians, the Bolsheviks, the whole world, easily deceived, dodged and betrayed us, while we were naively convinced that this war was being fought for the Armenians. We were now all in the camp of the Allied Powers, the enemies of the Turks, demanding 'Armenia from sea to sea' from the Turks. Finally, there is the fact that as long as we have existed, we have been fighting, killing and dying with the Turks non-stop. What confidence can we inspire in the Turks now? Do not look for blame outside the Dashnak leadership..."

It is noteworthy that the term "genocide" does not appear anywhere in these words, which were uttered while the events were still fresh. Why did Katchaznouni, the head of the Armenians, carefully choose his words and take most of the blame, even though he felt the full power of imperialism behind him at the congress, which took place at a time when the new Turkish state was still in its infancy and weak, and Armenian nationalism was on the rise? This is a great virtue as well as the ability to look at events objectively despite all the circumstances.

At this stage, I would like to talk a little bit about Hovhannes Katchaznouni. Katchaznouni was the first prime minister of the Armenian state established in July 1918. He led the Dashnak government for 13 months until August 1919. He was one of the founders and an important leader of the Dashnaktsutyun Party. He is the highest authority of Armenia and the Dashnak Party. He was born in 1867 in the Meskhetian region of Georgia. After studying architecture, he worked as an architect in Baku. There he joined the Dashnak organization. In 1917, he became a member of the Armenian National Council. Until 1918, he was a Dashnak representative in the Caucasus parliament (Seym). He took part in the Armenian delegation during the peace negotiations with the Turks in Trabzon and Batumi. When the Caucasus state disintegrated, he became the first prime minister of independent Armenia in July 1918. He remained in this position until August 1919. In 1920, after the Bolshevik government was established in Armenia, he was arrested. In 1921, during the counter-revolution against Bolshevik rule, he fled the country after the suppression of the uprising. Years later, he returned to Soviet Armenia and worked as an architect until his death in 1938. 

Let us now turn to Pashinyan's statements that form the basis of his new policies. Regarding Armenian policies and the genocide allegations, Pashinyan said the following: "We became victims of intrigues and false promises. This large-scale tragedy took place during the First World War, and the Armenian people, who had no state, who had lost their state centuries ago, and who had essentially forgotten the tradition of statehood, became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises, first and foremost because they lacked a political mind capable of making sense of the world and its rules.”

So, what was Pashinyan's main emphasis when he said this? Clarifying Armenia's borders and pursuing a realistic foreign policy by accepting these borders, rejecting the historical dreams of "Greater Armenia" and focusing on protecting and developing the existing borders. Pashinyan also emphasized that he has put an end to the dreams of "Greater Armenia" and that such dreams cannot be realized. While stating that the focus should be on Armenia's existing borders and territories, he argues that Armenia has created an unlivable environment by establishing hostile relations with its neighbors. While stating that Armenia cannot be enemies with millions of Turks and other neighboring countries, he emphasizes that Armenia should focus on protecting and developing its existing borders. In his recent rhetoric, Pashinyan explains that Armenia's current borders are determined by maps from the Soviet Union. This statement means that Armenia's borders have been clarified and disputed territorial claims have ended. Moreover, the Prime Minister argues that this clarification will end Armenia's hostile relations with its neighbors and create a more peaceful environment. On the other hand, Pashinyan, like Katchaznouni, argues that the events of 1915 should be characterized as a "great catastrophe" and that genocide allegations should be put aside, stating that the Ottoman Empire did not commit genocide against the Armenians and that this claim was used by the Soviet Union as a policy tool against Turkey and furthermore, that it was put forward by the Soviet Union to advance its policies against Turkey. This approach aims to improve Armenia's modern relations and end ideological conflicts based on the 1915 events. Stating that the ideological framing of the 1915 events is detrimental to Armenia's modern development and that this issue should be consigned to history, Pashinyan also emphasizes that Armenia should open up to the West and build good relations with Turkey to enhance its efforts to ensure regional peace and stability. Pashinyan thus aims for Armenia's independence and the ability to make its own decisions by getting rid of the influence of the diaspora. In this context, he also states that Armenia has taken further steps towards resolving its relations and border disputes with Azerbaijan.

Let's analyze the issue in more detail. Pashinyan, as an intelligent, successful politician who cares about the future of his people, saw the game being played early on and found the future of his people in maintaining good relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan rather than throwing himself in front of the front line by falling for the fancy lies of the "organizers" in order not to fall into the same situation, which already means a policy in line with Turkey's calls for many years.

Pashinyan's bold and revolutionary statements reveal the need to build a new paradigm of relations for Armenia's future. Challenging Russia and trying to set a new direction in Caucasus geopolitics, Pashinyan loudly expresses the truths that his people will hardly accept and aims to back up these truths.

These events and rhetoric are very similar to what Zelensky has been facing and what he has been saying lately, right? The difference, of course, is that for Zelensky the end seems to be in sight.

As a result, for the first time in history, Pashinyan seems to have made an effort to define Armenia's borders, to put an end to the dreams of a "Greater Armenia" and to ease tensions with radical and bold statements on the 1915 genocide allegations. The reality is that these statements give the opportunity to elaborate on their possible positive impact on Armenia's future and its efforts to open up to the West.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's revolutionary policies and statements, which include significant changes for the future of Armenia, reflect Armenia's efforts to clarify its borders, which were disputed in the past, and the concrete steps taken in this regard, and draw a new road map for the future of Armenia.

Turkey is endeavoring to transform its relations with Armenia from an environment of hostility and turmoil to an axis of friendship, partnership and trade according to the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. This seems inevitable given the gains that the regional geography will realize in the long run. In line with the policies of Turkey and neighboring countries, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan seems to see common regional development within the framework of friendship. Unfortunately, this situation does not seem to be to the liking of the imperialist states that are trying to create chaos among the regional states.

Who knows, there may be more political assassinations in the region in the coming period.

Read More

Iran has lost its president, accident or assassination?

On May 19, at around 4 p.m. Turkish time, Iranian news agencies reported that the helicopter carrying President Ibrahim Reisi lost contact. Reisi had traveled to the region with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to inaugurate the Kizil Kalesi Dam, jointly built by the two countries on the Aras River on the border with Azerbaijan, and had chosen to travel by helicopter from Hudaferin region to Tabriz. In addition to Reisi, there were 7 other people in the helicopter. We will talk about 3 very important names in more detail below. The 4 people who lost their lives in the crash were Seyed Mehdi Mousavi, the head of Reisi's guard team, the helicopter pilot Colonel Seyed Tahir Mustafavi, the co-pilot Colonel Mohsen Deryanoush and the flight technician Major Behrouz Gadimi.

Let's take a closer look at the other VIPs who lost their lives in the helicopter crash;

• Hossein Amir Abdollahian: Iran's foreign minister, who was on board the downed helicopter with President Reisi, played an important role in shifting Iran's foreign policy from engagement with the West to developing relations with its regional neighbors. Amir Abdollahian, 60, has held various posts in the Iranian Foreign Ministry since 1997, including Ambassador to Bahrain and Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs. Reisi had nominated him as foreign minister after becoming president in 2021. Amir Abdollahian helped restore Iran's diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia as part of a deal brokered by China. Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, Amir Abdollahian has been traveling around the Middle East to coordinate with allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to communicate Iran's positions to countries in the region. He holds a PhD in international relations from Tehran University.

• Malik Rahmati Malik Rahmati was recently appointed by the Iranian cabinet as the new governor of East Azerbaijan province. Prior to this, he held various positions within Iran's political system. He was previously appointed head of Iran's Privatization Organization and deputy director of Astan Quds Razavi (AQR), one of Iran's major religious institutions. Rahmati was also the chairman of the Razavi Economic Organization, which was established in the late 1990s to provide financial resources for the AQR, and a board member and vice chairman of the Kowsar Economic Organization, which operates in several economic sectors, including mining, agriculture and health. Rahmati also held various administrative positions in Iran's Interior Ministry.

• Ayatollah Mohammad Ali al-Hashim: Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's representative in the province of East Azerbaijan and the imam of Tabriz, Mohammad Ali al-Hashim, was perhaps more important than the President among the dead, but more on that in a moment. He was also a member of the provincial council of the Consultative Council and a provincial deputy in the Assembly of Experts.

President Reisi and his accompanying delegation, including Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian, departed in three helicopters, but after a while, Iranian officials announced that the helicopter carrying the President and Foreign Minister made a hard landing. These three helicopters were on their way back after the ceremony mentioned above. In fact, although all three helicopters followed the same altitude and the same route, only the VIP helicopter could not pass through the valley and the other two passed without any problems. Then the media started discussing whether the helicopter crashed or landed hard, whether something happened to Reisi, whether they were injured, whether their location was known. But then inconsistent information started to fly in Iranian and world news agencies. For example, Reuters reported from the beginning that the helicopter had been found, when in fact it had not. Likewise, Sky News, Al Jazeera, the Iranian Red Crescent and the Iranian vice president announced conflicting reports, with one saying it had not been found and the other saying it had. Then Iranian state television made it clear that the helicopter had not yet been found. Also, some American news channels first reported that Reisi had been rescued and was now moving by land. On the other hand, there was a complete chaos on social media; a lot of inconsistent news like it crashed, it didn't crash, it made an emergency landing because there was fog but it was mistaken for an accident because of the hard landing, they died, they are alive, they were found, they were not found, etc. were flying in the air.

As someone who knows the region, I can tell you that this is a forested-mountainous area that is foggy most of the year. Especially during these periods, serious cold temperatures and even snowfall can be effective. On the night of May 19, after the accident, there were reports of terrible fog and -25 degrees Celsius cold. There was even footage of a wolf pack attacking the search and rescue team in the area, with the wolf pack attacking the crowded search and rescue team and injuring two people. So the environment and conditions are really challenging.

Let's go on, a little while later, a statement came from the European Union saying that we have activated the rapid response satellite mapping service at the request of Iran. In the minutes that followed, almost the whole world announced that they were following the issue closely. Adding to all these difficult conditions the darkening weather after the search and rescue efforts were prolonged, Iranian officials asked for help from Turkey through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Within half an hour, Turkey sent a fully equipped Akinci drone and a Kuger-type helicopter to the region to participate in the search and rescue of the downed helicopter, which became the most watched flight in the world on the Flightradar24 website. Throughout the night, millions of people around the world had the opportunity to watch the search operations live. At around 02:00 local time, Akinci01 detected a temperature center and directed its coordinates to Kuger with its night vision camera, confirming the crash site. The Iranian authorities were then immediately notified and rescue teams arrived in the area and recovered the bodies.

Since Akıncı advanced drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle that can also be used for offensive purposes, can be equipped with air-to-air rockets, can fly continuously for 24 hours at an altitude of 45 thousand feet, and is equipped with many state-of-the-art imaging sensors, it can easily move to hard-to-reach areas and conduct advanced search activities. Moreover, it can provide communication and logistic support by acting as a mobile base station, especially in disaster areas where GSM signals are cut off. Thanks to these capabilities, it played an effective role in reaching President Reisi and his entourage in a short time under the most difficult and foggy night conditions with limited visibility. Although Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei thanked Turkey for its help and support, the Iranian media seems to have been less than pleased. Comments such as "we don't even have a night vision helicopter" were made and the government was criticized. Moreover, Iranian media reports on May 20 took the criticism a notch higher, claiming that the Akinci drone, which was flying over the country to locate the downed helicopter, flew over the country's military facilities and missile centers. The Iranian media, concerned about the detection of the location of missiles that Iran uses as a threat to other countries, characterized this as a "vulnerability against Turkey".

In the meantime, it was also announced that the helicopter that buried Reisi and his companions was a US-made Bell 212, which was about 50 years old and no longer in production. Although proper maintenance of helicopters is much more important than their age in terms of technical flight life and flight safety. However, it is a fact that due to the sanctions imposed by the US against Iran since the 1980s, there have been problems in obtaining spare parts and the helicopters have been deprived of modern flight devices that were added to the model for development purposes. As is known, it is believed that modern helicopters do not have electronic equipment such as Radar Altimeter, Ground Approach Warning System (GPWS), Fog Radar, Thermal Cameras and Autonomous Flight Systems, which support safe flight in low visibility conditions. On the other hand, the flight should have been canceled by the pilots due to unfavorable weather conditions. Nevertheless, it is possible that Reisi and his entourage wanted to return to Tehran as soon as possible due to their busy schedules, so they accepted these risks and convinced (!) the pilots to do so.

Now we need to talk a little bit about Iran's form of government. Because a proper understanding of what follows depends on this information. The governance structure of Iran is quite different from other republics. In Iran, the religious leadership represents the highest authority of the country. The Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a figure who determines the political, religious and military decisions of the state, and is superior to the popularly elected President (Ibrahim Reisi). Moreover, in Iran, the president has significant powers as the country's top executive, but within the political system of the Islamic Republic, he is under the authority of the supreme leader and cannot act without his knowledge and approval. The competent body for electing the religious leader in Iran is an institution known as the "Guidance Council (Majlis-e Hubregan-i)". The Guidance Council consists of six permanent members and six alternate members. The majority of these members are appointed by Iran's supreme religious leader. The Guidance Council follows a rigorous process to identify suitable candidates for religious leadership. These candidates are expected to have deep knowledge and experience in Islamic sciences. The Council usually selects candidates from among Iran's religious and political leaders. From among the candidates selected by the Guidance Council, the most suitable person is appointed as the Supreme Leader of Iran. This appointment process can often be opaque and may not include a public selection process. Iran's supreme leader remains in this position for the rest of his life, usually until his death. Iran's supreme leader combines both political and religious leadership roles in fulfilling his role as supreme leader. Therefore, for Shi'a, he is considered not only the political leader of Iran, but also its spiritual leader and guide. Religious leadership in Shi'ism is centered around the concept of imamah, a sacred figure who is believed to best represent the will of God. If we try to summarize the Shia understanding of imamah very briefly; the person who is the imam has the same characteristics as the prophet, except for receiving revelation, and is believed to be innocent, that is, protected from sin and error, just like the prophet. Therefore, the people are obliged to obey the imam unconditionally, which already determines the authority of the Supreme Leader, who, according to the Iranian regime, is the Imam of the time. Another important actor in the Iranian regime is the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is Iran's most important armed force. It has a primary role in all military fields, but its mandate is not limited to the military system. It has become the most important economic force in the country, as it also plays a leading role in the country's reconstruction, development and progress. Today, Iran's largest companies are essentially owned by the IRGC. As such, the IRGC is the backbone of Iran in both military and commercial fields. It should be noted that the commercial activities of the IRGC are also exempt from taxation. This information will shed light on the issues we will begin to examine below.

What we have described so far has been compiled from a completely objective point of view and from information published in open sources about the heinous accident. The following part of the article should be evaluated more from the perspective of the author's personal point of view and the readings he has done. There are two fundamental questions that will inspire this part. Could the helicopter crash have been an assassination? If so, who benefits the most from it?

We can answer these questions more easily by doing the following readings.

1. Although there is no data, explanation or claim of responsibility, this incident in Iran brings to mind the recent escalation of Israeli-Iranian tensions. Iran's airstrike on Israel on the night of April 13, which significantly raised the rules of military engagement, was not responded to by Israel with a similar escalation under pressure from the United States. If this was an Israeli sabotage, it would be easy to deny, only the two sides would be aware of the background and perhaps the escalation could be reduced for a while.

2. There are important developments in the world on the Turkish-Azeri axis, the issue of Turanian unity is very serious. Iran is the country most concerned about this situation. Therefore, its policy on the opening of the Zangezur corridor has been criticized by Turkey and Azerbaijan. As it is known, Iran supported Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, and allowed the passage of weapons from Greece and France and PKK terrorist groups from the Syria-Iraq region. 

3. The involvement of some political groups within the country. The decision to fly a very old helicopter in bad weather conditions in a mountainous region reinforces such rumors. Nevertheless, the symbolic importance of the Hudaferin region and the fact that Seyyed Mohammad Merendi, a senior Iranian political communicator, posted a post on the Palestinian resistance after the incident suggest that the possibility of an external dimension cannot be dismissed.

4. On the domestic front, with Ibrahim Reisi completely out of the picture, the chances of Mujtaba Khamenei, the son of supreme leader Ali Khamenei, to succeed his father have increased considerably. Accordingly, the current Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Baqer Galibaf, an important ally of his, has a better chance of becoming President of the Republic in the election to be held in 50 days. With the evolution of a unified governance structure, the post-Khamenei transition scenarios will be more smoothly realized.

5. The Iranian political system is hierarchical. However, as expected, this has not created complete harmony. The power struggle between the religious leader and the president has been clearly observed in Iranian politics in every period. Add to this the IRGC's power that can change the balance in Iranian politics and the situation becomes even more complicated. General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC, was known as one of the most important figures determining Iran's policies in the region, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria to Lebanon. He has been described as the director and organizer of many political assassinations against the regime on behalf of Iran. Due to his role as a personal executioner in political murders in his youth, he quickly advanced in his organization and rose to the highest position. The reason for his death seemed to be that US President Trump wanted to weaken Iran's position in Iraq and Syria. But in the background, Qassem Soleimani was a person who had all the secret information of the mullah regime. On the other hand, the Hashd al-Shaabi militia under Soleimani's command was held responsible for the inhuman massacres, rapes and other atrocities committed against Sunni Muslims. A deeper view is that Soleimani's emergence as a hero and future leader in the Shiite world, and naturally in Iran, may have worried the mullah regime and ultimately led to the decision to sacrifice him. This is because the intelligence on Soleimani's assassination seems to have come from Iran. The IRGC may have somehow equalized the situation.

6. One of those killed in the crash was Ayatollah Mohammad Ali al Hashemi, about whom I gave you a little tip at the beginning. The elimination of Ali al Hashemi may have been more demanded from inside Iran than the other senior officials on board the helicopter. To the point of sacrificing the President and the Foreign Minister. Inside Iran, Ali al Hashemi is called the imam of East Azerbaijan. Ali Khamenei's entire inner circle and even his son Mojtaba Khamenei and perhaps most importantly the IRGC hate this man. As we mentioned above, the Iranian Mullah Regime supported Armenia during the Karabakh war. However, Armenia is Orthodox Christian and Azerbaijan is Muslim. So much so that Khamenei once offered a special prayer for Armenia. However, Ali Al Hashem, the so-called imam of East Azerbaijan, under all pressure, supported Azerbaijan and said "Azerbaijan is Muslim, Armenia is Christian". Of course, this did not go unnoticed by the Mullah regime and the IRGC and caused hatred.

7. Turkey-Azerbaijan-Iran rapprochement: Israel's Palestinian policies and the recent genocide in Gaza have brought a partnership on the Turkish-Iranian axis to the agenda, and the opening on the day of the accident may further strengthen Azerbaijan-Iran rapprochement... From a geopolitical point of view, this situation is undesirable for some EU countries, China and especially the UK. This is because the frictions between Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine are forcing the US to focus its attention on this region. A spring weather to be experienced in this region will cause the US to refocus on the Pacific region and spend its power there. China's desire for this is easily understandable. But here some of our readers may ask, why the UK? Because the UK-based City of London capital has invested in China and does not want the dollar to become the world currency. Because the biggest clash with the US-based capital groups is taking place today with the City of London capital. As you know, the world hegemony and world money that changed hands after World War II evolved from the UK-Sterling-Rothschild axis to the US-Dollar-Rockafeller axis. To avenge this, the UK-based City of London capital strongly opposes a dollar-dependent world policy. So why is it that the EU prefers the US to stay in a region close to the Russia-Ukraine war rather than heading towards the pacific. They know that if the US leaves, a Russian threat awaits them at the door.

Of course, none of these geopolitical balances give a clear answer to the question of assassination. Therefore, it seems that this situation will puzzle us for a while.

In conclusion, the key issue isn't who shot down the helicopter but what the future holds and the challenges that lie ahead. To understand this situation better, we must ask: How will these events impact the region?

If the incident was merely an accident, it will have little to no special impact on the region. According to the Iranian Constitution, if the President dies, is impeached, becomes ill, or is unable to serve for any reason for more than two months, the First Vice-President takes over presidential duties with the approval of the Supreme Leader. A three-member council comprising the acting President (First Vice President), the Speaker of the Majlis, and the Head of the Judiciary must then organize early elections to choose a new President within 50 days. This ensures the continuity of Iran's domestic and foreign policies, as the Supreme Leader, not the President, determines the fundamental policies of the country.

If sabotage was involved, it is unlikely to be revealed, so its impact on regional dynamics may be minimal. However, given the already highly tense and fragile regional situation since October 7, if Iran decides to respond aggressively to Israel, there could be significant actions against Israeli targets either within the country or in a third country. Importantly, any such response would need to be deniable. It is crucial to note that, at this time, there are no indications or evidence of sabotage.

Read More

France/Turkey relations and international conflicts in the axis of New Caledonian independence movements and colonialism

 Colonization, or in other words colonialism, is the process by which a state seizes and dominates territory outside its borders, usually for economic, social and political reasons, and in this process, the state that dominates the colonized territories imposes its own culture, political structure or religion on this region over time. Thus, decolonization is the process by which a state ends its control over the people and institutions of another country, and is a political and cultural process that focuses mainly on popular movements and ideas in colonies demanding the end of colonialism and independence. Decolonization is associated with the disintegration of colonial empires, especially those established after World War I, and the right of nations to self-determination is defined by the United Nations as the essence of decolonization. 

The United Nations has issued several declarations on the decolonization process. One of them is the "Declaration on the Right to Development", proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 4, 1986. This declaration emphasizes that peoples have the right to freely determine their own political status and to achieve economic, social and cultural development and addresses issues such as decolonization, non-discrimination, respect for and provision of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The first steps of the United Nations on decolonization were taken in the early years of the organization's establishment in 1945. The United Nations defined the right of nations to self-determination as the essence of decolonization and decided that the colonizing nation did not have the right to cancel the process, but could have a say in the direction of the process. Therefore, it was used to dismantle the colonial empires established after World War I. These processes constituted an important turning point in international relations and paved the way for many countries to gain independence. Decolonization is a process that still continues today and is an important part of international politics.

Colonialism can be defined as the process by which historically powerful states take control of other communities economically, socially and culturally. This process is often characterized by colonial powers appropriating resources, labour and markets and oppressing the socio-cultural and religious values of the people under their colonies. Although the terms colonialism and imperialism are sometimes used interchangeably, imperialism refers to a broader sphere of control and influence and encompasses dominance in both tangible and intangible spheres.

Colonialism has left deep traces in world history and affected the structure of many societies. In the modern world, the legacy of colonialism is still felt in language, culture, political structures and economic relations. Understanding the impact of colonialism and imperialism on the modern world is important to grasp the events of the past and the global dynamics of today. The United Nations monitors colonized or non-self-governing territories around the world. The situation of these territories is an important issue in international politics and sometimes controversial. The United Nations supports the right of the peoples of these regions to determine their own future and works towards this end. However, final decisions on the future of these regions are often shaped by complex political and diplomatic processes.

It is very sad, but even in the 21st century, there are still colonies and colonizers. This situation actually shows us that the United Nations Organization only imposes sanctions on certain countries for decolonization and remains at the level of arbitrariness for the permanent members of the UN and some privileged states that pursue policies close to them. It is not new and surprising that the UN favors powerful states when it should be defending the rights of all member states. There have been many examples of this throughout the history of the UN. The President of the Republic of Turkey, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declared to the world at a UN gathering that "The world is bigger than five...". Even today, Israel is seriously favored. Through a brief internet search, I have tried to list below the colonized territories and the states that control them;

Colonialist Country	Number of colonies	Colonial District State
France	10	New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Mayotte, Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy, French Guiana, Saint Pierre and Miquelon
United Kingdom	7	Virgin Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Anguilla, Saint Helena
USA	2	Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands
Netherlands	2	Curaçao, Aruba
Denmark	1	Greenland
Morocco	1	Western Sahara

The situation of France

As can be seen from the table above, France has the largest numerical majority in terms of the colonies it controls among the colonial states. In addition to these, there are also states in Africa that France has made economically dependent on itself, although they appear to be politically independent. The national revenues of these states flow firstly to the French Central Bank, and after France collects its share from there, these resources are returned to the original owner state through France as compulsory investment (or to the governments supporting the French colonization!), and of course French companies have the lion's share in this return. This cycle shows that these states have no independence, they are completely dependent on France, in other words, they are secret colonies.

Apart from the politically fully dependent colonies or economically dependent semi-colonies, there are also some countries that France used to exploit but which are still culturally colonized despite their political and economic liberation. These states can be listed as follows; Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, Tunisia.

Of course, as these countries woke up and realized their dependence on France, they began to reject this and raised the flag of rebellion against France in order to achieve their full independence. North African countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc. have realized this a long time ago, and this awakening has taken shape in the rest of the states and many of them have now reconsidered their relations with France and many of them have, so to speak, expelled France from their countries. Recently, the revolt against France in Africa has increased significantly and has begun to bear fruit. Of course, France is not happy with this situation, because according to a study, France earns 500 billion dollars a year directly or indirectly from its colonies. France has been experiencing serious political frictions with some countries, which it holds responsible for the declining colonial revenues. Turkey is among these countries. In particular, African geopolitics has recently tended to shift towards the Turkey-Russia-China axis, with France at the center. 

On the other hand, Turkey-France relations have historical accounts and serious problems. At this stage, briefly summarizing the historical background of Turkish-French relations will be useful for understanding the issue.

Historical background of Turkish-French relations

The first Turkish-French encounters occurred both as a result of the Turks' migration from Central Asia to Anatolia with the migration of tribes and as a result of France's orientation towards the east with the first crusades. Around the 10th century, there were more limited and indirect interactions between the Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman state and the House of Capet, rather than direct and intensive diplomatic contacts.

After the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire and took Constantinople in 1453, they felt the need to establish more political and trade relations with Western Europe. Until the 16th century, these interactions took various forms, and eventually the level was significantly improved with the Franco-Ottoman alliance.

François I of the House of Valois, while fighting against the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (Charlemagne), established diplomatic contact with the Ottoman Emperor Suleiman the Magnificent and asked for help from the Ottoman Empire, the superpower of the time. The alliance and friendship between the Ottoman Empire and France began with this event. The treaty of commerce and friendship signed between the Ottoman Empire and France in 1536 granted wide privileges to French merchants in Ottoman lands. This treaty formed the basis of commercial and diplomatic relations between the two countries. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Ottoman-French relations continued largely through trade and diplomacy. France became one of the Ottoman Empire's most important links with the West.

This situation suddenly declined with Napoleon Bonaparte's France in the early 19th century. Napoleon Bonaparte's attacks on Ottoman lands during his Egyptian campaign (1798-1801) strained relations between the two countries. In the ensuing war, the Ottomans succeeded in driving Napoleon out of Egypt, but this caused a major wound in relations. Immediately afterwards, the French invasion of Algeria in 1830 brought relations between the two countries to a new level of tension. Between 1853 and 1856, the Ottoman Empire allied with France and Britain in the Crimean War against Russia. This war led to a renewed strengthening of relations between the Ottoman Empire and France.

During World War I, the Ottoman Empire and France were on opposing fronts, which led to the division of Ottoman territories between Britain and France after the Ottoman Empire lost the war, and ultimately to the drawing of new borders in the Middle East after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. During the 1st World War and the Turkish War of Independence that immediately followed, Turkey and France confronted and fought on many fronts. The victory in the War of Independence and the international recognition of the newly established Turkish Republic and the regulation of Ottoman debts led to cooperation with France. With the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, relations with France were reshaped. Diplomatic and commercial ties between the two countries were strengthened. Turkey adopted the French legal system and education model in the process of westernization.

During World War II, Turkey tried to remain neutral throughout the war. Turkey became a member of NATO in 1952 and increased its military and strategic cooperation with France. Turkey and France worked together as NATO allies. Although there were occasional tensions in relations between the two countries during this period, cooperation generally continued.

In the 21st century, as Turkey healed its wounds from the past and began to regain power and to speak out against imperialism, Turkish-French relations entered a new trend and France developed new policies against this as a result of the shift of power from the French axis to the Turkish axis as mentioned above. With this, relations between the two countries became tense and evolved into a different political structure.

Let us review these factors that have contributed to the tensions in France-Turkey relations:

1. Geopolitical Factors: 

1. Use of Natural Resources:

1. The irrepressible rise of Turkey in the Central Asian and Caucasian countries has attracted the attention of France. Turkey is forming the Turan Region Political, Economic and Military Cooperation Organization with the countries of the region, which are also Turkic descendants. It is known that this region is rich in oil, natural gas and valuable mineral resources. The fact that Turkey is trying to strengthen its steps to prevent this trend causes Turkey's discontent.

2. Energy Resources in the Eastern Mediterranean: The discovery of natural gas and oil deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean has caused a conflict of interest between France and Turkey. France, in cooperation with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, claims the right to explore and exploit the energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean, while Turkey considers these activities as a violation of its continental shelf rights.

3. Water Resources and Hydroelectric Potential: France has been trying to provoke countries such as Iraq and Syria over the management of water resources in the region, especially due to its concerns about Turkey's dams and hydroelectric power plants built on major rivers such as the Euphrates and Tigris to eliminate its dependence on foreign energy.

4. Natural Resources in Africa: France's colonial past and present influence in Sub-Saharan Africa has fueled a rivalry between Turkey and France over natural resources in Africa. In particular, oil, natural gas, mineral, agricultural and especially uranium resources in Sub-Saharan Africa affect French and Turkish interests in the region.

5. Oil and Gas Resources in the Middle East: The rich oil and gas resources in the Middle East have already caused conflicts of interest between France and Turkey for more than a century. In particular, the control of energy resources in countries such as Syria and Iraq has become the focal point of political and military struggles in the region.

2. Geopolitical Rivalry: France and Turkey both seek to be influential in strategic regions such as the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, France's declining influence in Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey's growing influence in the region have increased the rivalry between the two countries. France's military presence in Sub-Saharan Africa and Turkey's economic and humanitarian aid projects deepen the conflict of interests in the region day by day.

3. Regional Balance of Power: France and Turkey seek to influence the balance of power in strategic regions such as the Middle East and the Mediterranean. Turkey's growing influence and the limitation of France's traditional influence in the region have increased rivalry and fueled tensions between the two countries. Turkey has long dealt with PKK terrorism and suffered serious economic losses in this war, and considers France among the main PKK-supporting countries.

2. Historical and Cultural Heritage: Historical and cultural factors also play a role in relations between France and Turkey. In particular, the traces of relations during the Ottoman Empire can still cause ongoing disagreements on some issues. France's Anti-Ottoman and Anti-Turkish Propaganda: During the Ottoman period, the French conducted propaganda campaigns against the Ottoman Empire and tried to portray the Turks as backward from the civilization of the Western powers. Such propaganda still causes some negative perceptions in Turkey.

3. Bilateral Disputes: 

1. Armenian Genocide Debates: While Turkey rejects the allegations that characterize the 1915 events as "genocide", some countries, such as France, officially recognize the genocide. This situation creates tension between the two countries from time to time. France has passed laws criminalizing those who deny the Armenian Genocide, causing diplomatic crises with Turkey. 

2. Cyprus issue: France supports the Republic of Cyprus and criticizes the Turkish presence in the northern part of the island. Turkey, on the other hand, recognizes the Turkish Republic of Cyprus and strives to protect the integrity of the island of Cyprus. This has been a constant point of contention between the two countries.

3. Turkey's EU Membership: France has been one of the most vocal opponents of Turkey's EU membership. France's criticism of Turkey's EU membership has occasionally caused tension between the two countries and has been criticized by Turkey as hypocrisy and double standards. Indeed, despite applying years after Turkey, countries that are politically and economically far behind Turkey have been approved for membership. 

4. Aegean Sea Disputes: Turkey and Greece have long-standing disputes over sovereign rights, continental shelf and sovereignty in the Aegean Sea. Disagreements over the continental shelf and the sharing of natural resources often create tensions between the two countries. In particular, the recent military escalation in the Aegean has negatively affected Turkey's relations with France and other European countries, and has been exacerbated by France's arms aid to Greece. 

5. The Eastern Mediterranean Problem: The dispute between Turkey and Greece over maritime jurisdiction has been further complicated in recent years by the discovery of energy resources and submarine natural resources in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey's drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean have been condemned by Greece and Greek Cyprus, causing tension in the international community. Turkey's "Blue Homeland" concept arising from international maritime law has been unlawfully criticized by France.

6. The Problem of the Islands Another dispute between Turkey and Greece is the sovereignty of the islands in the Aegean Sea. While Greece claims that the islands are effective in determining the continental shelf, Turkey does not accept this situation and while questioning the effect of the islands on the continental shelf, it brings the law of the sea conventions to the forefront and proves its justification with case studies. France, on the other hand, backs Greece, which does not accept these arguments based on the law. This issue is an important factor that increases the tension between the two countries.

7. Declining French Influence in Africa: France has historically had an effective colonial presence in Africa. However, in recent years, African countries have completed their independence processes and struggled for independence against French influence. With the decline of France's influence in Africa, Turkey's growing influence in Africa has increased the rivalry between the two countries. In particular, conflicts of interest in Libya and Sub-Saharan Africa affect France-Turkey relations.

8. Situation in Syria: While Turkey supports opposition groups and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria, France has supported opposition groups against the Assad regime. Turkey's operations against Kurdish groups in Syria have also been criticized by France. Nevertheless, these Kurdish groups infiltrated from Syria into Turkey and carried out terrorist acts. This situation grants Turkey the right to intervene based on the principle of reciprocity in accordance with international law.

9. Libya Crisis: France and Turkey have supported different sides and clashed in Libya. While Turkey supported the legitimate government officially recognized by the UN and elected by the people, France supported the Libyan National Army led by General Khalifa Haftar and criticized Turkey's military presence in Libya.

10. Algerian War of Independence and Turkey's Attitude: The Algerian War of Independence stands out as an important struggle against France's colonial policies. Turkey supported Algeria's struggle for independence and criticized France's colonialist policies in Algeria. This situation was not welcomed by France.

11. The occupied territories of Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh: Turkey has unconditionally supported the brotherly state of Azerbaijan in its war for the liberation of its territories occupied since 1994 with the rhetoric of "one lineage, two homelands", and has announced its strong political support to the whole world in addition to military technologies and logistical support. France has constantly criticized this situation and has taken part in the opposing front by supporting Armenia.

As can be seen, Turkish-French relations are seriously complex and antagonism, so to speak, is inevitable. With the title we will introduce below, Turkey has now become a foreign agent in the French perspective.

New Caledonia Independence Movements

An interesting report was broadcasted in a French radio station about the rebellion against France in New Caledonia.

(https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240518-france-openly-suspects-turkiye-azerbaijan-of-conspiring-to-stir-unrest-in-french-overseas-territory/)

According to this report, the rebellion in Caledonia was fueled by the Intelligence Units of Turkey and Azerbaijan. That was the interpretation of the French press.

Let's start by summarizing what is happening in Caledonia. New Caledonia is an island in the South Pacific where France maintains its colonial presence. Recently, a rebellion broke out here and France sent its troops here to put down the rebellion. French troops are stationed at the ports and the airport. They declared a state of emergency in the region. The clashes have been going on for days and there are casualties. It is known that there are hundreds of wounded. This island has been French territory since the 1800s. In the post-colonial period, they made serious efforts to stay here. But a considerable number of the people of the region no longer want France here. In 1998, an agreement was signed between France and the new Colonia and Paris had to grant the region more political autonomy. According to this, the electoral roll was to be limited to the residents at the time. So the voter lists have not been updated in this region since 1998. They didn't want the French, who were constantly coming and settling in the region, to have a say in the administration. That's why they signed this agreement. Because the voter lists are not updated, new settlers cannot vote. And in the intervening 26 years, more than forty thousand French people have settled on the island. This is a very serious number, because the population of the island is already three hundred thousand. That's why if the French settlers vote, pro-French policies will be supported, and if that happens, the groups that are trying for independence will lose all hope. Because there have been three independence referendums in the region since the 1998 agreement. The first two were won by the pro-French side by a very small margin. Things could have changed in the last referendum. This referendum was held in December 2021. Pro-independence parties asked for the referendum to be postponed due to the pandemic. Because they could not work. But their request for postponement was not accepted and they boycotted the referendum. As a result, the referendum did not result in a decision for independence again. So they have hope, but France's new decision completely ends this hope. Because according to the decision, the French who have lived in the region for ten years will now have the right to vote. Of course, if tens of thousands of French who settled on the island gain the right to vote, there is no longer any possibility for them to gain independence through a referendum. So French colonialism will continue in the region forever.

So how was this issue connected with the intelligence services of Turkey and Azerbaijan? For this, let's go back to the news story and the meeting mentioned at the beginning. What happened in this meeting? 

Azerbaijan invited separatists from the French overseas territories of Martinique, French Guiana, New Caledonia and French Polynesia to Baku for a conference in July 2023. At the meeting, the "Baku Initiative Group" was created, whose aim is defined as supporting "French liberation and anti-colonial movements". This week, the group issued a statement condemning the French Parliament's proposed amendment to the Constitution of New Caledonia that would allow foreigners who settled in the territory at least 10 years ago to vote in elections. The meeting is called Decolonization, the awakening of the Renaissance. When we say decolonization, the content of the meeting already emerges. Important figures gave important speeches at this conference. The importance of ending decolonization was emphasized at every opportunity and at the end of the event the participants wrote a letter to the President of France, referring to the United Nations General Assembly resolutions on decolonization. More than sixty years have passed since these resolutions and you are still continuing colonization. It was mentioned that the people in these regions did not want France. On the return of the meeting, riots broke out in New Caledonia. 

The reasons justifying this for Turkey and Azerbaijan have been mentioned above. But recently, there is a more important reason. This is France's activities supporting terrorism in the Zangezur region. Because in recent months, especially since the anti-terrorist operation carried out by Azerbaijan, France has started to accumulate terrorists in this region and started to support terrorist activities in the region in every sense. The biggest need of terrorist groups operating in the Zangezur region is of course money. This funding is supplied to them by the Armenian lobby residing in France. Not only does France fail to curb these activities, but it also provides them with substantial support. The salaries of all these terrorists who are currently receiving training in camps in the Zangezur region come from Europe. Especially from France. It is already impossible for Armenia to pay these salaries due to the economic difficulties it is going through. It is not difficult to understand that France is the source of this money. There is also the support they give to Armenia in diplomacy, which is much more important than the financial support they give to terrorist organizations. In other words, Turkey and Azerbaijan had to teach France a lesson and it seems that this lesson was given through New Caledonia.

Read More