Alwaght- While the Syrian developments with takeover of power by the rebel groups benefited a number of regional and international players rather than the Syrian people themselves, there is no doubt that no side is as excited as Turkey about these developments since they open the doors of luck to Ankara's bankrupt Middle Eastern policy for the Turkish leaders to once again think about their shattered dream of establishing neo-Ottoman Empire and in this context consider themselves a regional superpower and international power.
This can be obviously seen in the triumphant stances and arrogant boasting of Ankara's leaders in their speeches and interviews.
While Erdogan's lack of public display of the benefits of an aggressive foreign policy in the Arab world for the Turkish economy until recently caused his party to show its weakest result in the municipal elections in the last 20 years due to a decline in popularity caused by economic inefficiency, the rapid fall in the value of the lira, rising unemployment, and rampant inflation, the Turkish president, as always, resorted to populist measures based on a neo-Ottoman approach to incite the Islamist and nationalist masses, one of the clearest examples of which was changing the status of the Hagia Sophia from a museum to a mosque.
The Turkish leaders consider themselves the true heirs of the Ottoman Empire, and the dream of returning to the glory of the empire is very strong among a large part of the elites and even Turkish citizens. An evidence is the high popularity of Turkish drama with historical settings related to the era of the Ottoman sultans, such as Ertugrul - the founding father of the Ottoman Empire. The Hagia Sophia Mosque is also the main symbol of the Ottoman victory over the Byzantine Empire in 1453.
However, with the rapid change in Syria situation and the highly unexpected seizure of Damascus by Turkish-affiliated forces, the symbolic neo-Ottoman positions and movements of the Turkish authorities have now taken on a different color and flavor. For example, Erdogan, on January 7, considered what he called the "Syrian revolution" to contain a "historic opportunity" for Turkey.
Or, in another case, one could point to the increased visits of senior government officials, including Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz, to the tomb of Ertugrul, the father of Ottoman I.
The original tomb of Ertugrul was built by his son Ottoman but was renovated by Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the late 19th century. The Turkish military has recently deployed honor guards in Ottoman uniform at Ertugrul's tomb.
In a recent symbolic speech, Yilmaz said: "We look up to the sky here and wave our flag freely, and we see a country flourishing under the shadow of our flag... They made the right strategic choices and built a state with strong roots. We must understand their principles of governance well in order to restore justice to the modern order."
Meanwhile, other officials, such as the Turkish minister of transport, have spoken of realizing Sultan Abdul Hamid II's dream of connecting Turkey to the Hejaz via Damascus by rail, a symbol of Ankara's neo-Ottomanist view of developments in Syria.
Now, the latest positions based on this type of domineering view have been taken by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan by generalizing the developments in Syria to the entire situation in the region. He points out where Iran's policy in Syria has gone wrong, and declares the Islamic Republic's foreign policy approach in supporting resistance groups to be costly, destabilizing, and in need of change.
In an interview with Aljazeera, he answered a question about Syria developments' impact on Iran's regional position, adding that Iran has been pursuing its regional policy of supporting militants in the region for a long time, which is a high-risk management policy. This policy, according to him, has brought Iran some success, but it has cost more to maintain these successes. "To maintain its successes and victories in Iraq and Syria, Iran had to spend more."
He further claimed that he told Iranian officials that they have to change this policy since even if it brings successes to Iran, it at the same time has heavy structural burdon on Iran and the region in the long run. He continued that new developments have taught Iran a big lesson.
These remarks by the Turkish FM, which have also been met with a reaction from the Iranian foreign ministry, bear the signs of blame-shifting to shrug off the destabilizing effects of Turkey's neo-Ottoman policies on the situation in Syria and Iraq over the past decade. Therefore, in comparing the reality of Iran's principled regional policy and Turkey's neo-Ottoman approach, a few points are worth mentioning:
First point: Just contrary to the overbearing and expansionist regional policy of Turkey, the policy of Iran-led Axis of Resistance in the region is anti-imperialist and assists regional countries and nations, especially the Palestinians, to liberate themselves from the Israeli occupation and American political dominance.
This dual situation has been fully revealed in the past few months of developments in Palestine and the region after Hamas’s Operation Al-Aqsa Storm of October 7. Iran and other resistance fronts stood with full force and at human, financial and military cost alongside the struggle and resistance of Gaza and Palestine, and from Lebanon to Yemen Iran's allies put pressure on the Israel and the West to stop the crimes and massacares. On the other hand, Turkey, which always claims to support the Palestinians, kept the oil flowing to the Israeli ports alongside its ally Azerbaijan. Various reports even showed how Turkey continued business with Israel through Palestinian ports under control of Palestinian Authority. Then in Syria, with assistance of Israel and the US, Turkey toppled government of President Bashar al-Assad who was enemy of Israel and historic supporter of the Palestinians and is now making no move to end Israeli occupation of large part of southern Syria because in neo-Ottoman mentality, regional influence is meant to rebuild Turkey's dominance that essentially conflicts with existence of independent, powerful, and sovereign countries in the vicinity of Turkey.
The occupation of large parts of Syria and Iraq and the Turkish authorities' talk of re-annexing Aleppo and Mosul are no secret to political observers and analysts. However, what the Turkish FM calls the high cost of supporting resistance groups is the same characteristic of the task-oriented thinking of the Iranian Islamic Revolution's discourse in terms of international and regional issues that has given it credibility and respect among the oppressed nations of the region and countries opposed to Trump's dictates and Israeli criminality.
Second point: The Turkish top diplomat implicitly labeled Iran's foreign policy as destabilizing, while just contrary to Ankara's neo-Ottoman vision, in Tehran's approach, aim never justifies the means. In this relation, we should remind Fidan, who over the past decade masterminded Turkey's security policy under management of National Intelligence Organization (MIT), that Turkey caused bloodshed and displacement in Syria during Syrian civil war by deploying terrorists to Syria and turning into a corridor providing passage for terrorists to Syria from around the world. In the middle of internal conflict, Turkey purchased oil from ISIS terrorist group through Cihan Port, providing millions of dollar to terrorists to destabilize the region.
In the Karabakh crisis, Turkey used the Idlib-based takfiri terrorists to fight alongside Azerbaijani forces against Armenia, stirring another crisis in the region. However, in all these crises, the Islamic Republic of Iran's approach was to maintain regional stability, defend the territorial integrity of its neighbors, and effectively combat the spread of terrorism.
Third point: Just against Fidan's remarks and the neo-Ottoman view dominating the Turkish foreign policy, resistance groups are not Iran's proxies. Rather, they are governments and movements that have united their ranks based on the religious, political, and spiritual thoughts of Iran's late and present leaders Imam Khomeini and Imam Khamenei to liberate Palestine, end Israeli occupation in Syria and Lebanon, counter overbearing interventions of the US, and establish justice and freedom.
