Connect with us

Diplomacy

Envoy Tom Barrack urges Israel to embrace Türkiye as key to regional stability

Published

on

Tom Barrack, US Ambassador and Special Envoy for Syria, outlined a transformative vision for regional diplomacy at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, asserting that Israel’s most strategic path forward lies in a fundamental realignment with Türkiye.

Speaking during a panel at the forum, Barrack described a United States that has achieved energy independence and is now signaling a programmatic shift in its Middle East policy. He characterized the current American stance as telling the region, “We love you, we are with you, but we now have a new doctrine.”

Barrack identified this framework as the “Donroe Doctrine,” which he defined as an extension of “America First.” This doctrine, he explained, dictates that US concerns are primarily centered on the Western Hemisphere. Amid global “pain and restlessness,” Barrack noted that the current administration is skeptical of international frameworks. “Forget multilateral organizations,” Barrack said. “I have a boss who cannot spell the word ‘multilateral’.”

Detailing the presidential approach to diplomacy, Barrack said that if his superior faces an issue with a world leader, he simply calls them to strike a deal. Should negotiations fail, he applies tariffs. This shift indicates a move away from global multilateralism toward a landscape of bilateralism, sending a clear message to the world: “Every region must begin to fend for itself.” Barrack characterized this as a matter of parity, stating, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Turning to Lebanon, Barrack noted the absence of a census since 1938 and offered an assessment of the Shiite population. He suggested that Lebanese Sunnis, who constitute the majority of the Lebanese armed forces, as well as Palestinian and Syrian refugees, would be unlikely to engage in fratricidal conflict, particularly while Israel is conducting strikes against them. This environment, he argued, only reinforces the rationale for Hezbollah’s existence as a defensive shield against Israel. He contended that the ultimate solution to such instability must be rooted in fundamental prosperity.

Barrack emphasized that when a sovereign nation like Iran supports a militia, that force cannot be eliminated through military attrition alone—a philosophy he applied globally. He argued that stability must begin with individual and familial prosperity, eventually scaling up to the tribe and the broader society. This focus on local economic well-being is the reason, Barrack claimed, that his “boss” believes certain responsibilities should be left to the region itself.

He cited the Abraham Accords as a primary answer to regional challenges and described the US involvement in Syria as an experiment alongside Türkiye, which he characterized as a vital partner. Barrack lauded Türkiye as the only “real economy” in the heart of a complex region, describing it as a true nation defined by its people, resources, and military might. While Türkiye is the second-largest supporter of NATO, Barrack noted it is also one of the alliance’s most relevant and critical engines.

Barrack addressed the shift in global logistics, noting that the “Portsmouth Strait” and the Çanakkale Strait (Dardanelles) demonstrate that traditional maritime laws face modern challenges. He argued that the alliance must find a way to merge converging perspectives through a “harmony of interests” where individuals benefit. On the subject of religion, he called for mutual respect and the freedom for all to practice their faith, observing that such a state of affairs does not currently exist. He lamented a similar division in the US between those who believe the country should have a Christian identity and other minority faiths.

During the panel, the moderator noted that diplomacy is the only viable alternative to a cycle of war and pointed out the significant decline in trade and diplomatic relations between Türkiye and Israel. When asked about Israel’s current military posturing and whether it signaled a new cycle of conflict or a failure of diplomacy, Barrack offered his personal analysis.

“This region respects only one thing: power,” Barrack said. He described President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as an “incredible leader” and stated that Benjamin Netanyahu is doing what he believes is best for his country. Barrack warned that failing to project strength results in “living in a dream world,” citing Syria as a prime example. He argued that Syria’s internal logic persists because of a “strong, powerful, and courageous leader” who has directed the country’s course, even if observers disagree with his perspectives.

Barrack characterized the heightened rhetoric between Erdoğan and Netanyahu as “merely rhetoric.” He noted that newspapers in Tel Aviv might depict a “modern Ottoman Empire” stretching from Vienna to the Maldives, while papers in Istanbul might show a “Greater Israel” with similar reach. He dismissed these as competing narratives of conquest.

Addressing energy security, Barrack stated that the “energy world” no longer views ships as the cheapest or most flexible method for transport due to inherent vulnerabilities. While ships can be diverted from the Arabian Gulf to Indonesia in the event of a conflict, pipelines lack that flexibility. However, he noted that pipelines are currently operating at only 30% capacity because the global focus has shifted from production to security. This represents a transition from a “just-in-time” logistics model to a “just-in-case” philosophy.

Barrack highlighted that critical infrastructure, including fiber optic cables, data, and resources, now flows through Türkiye. He suggested that just as Israel has aligned with Abu Dhabi and potentially Saudi Arabia, its ultimate prosperity depends on aligning with Türkiye. “Türkiye is not a country to be trifled with,” he said, adding that he expects the current hostile rhetoric to eventually dissipate.

Barrack defended the effectiveness of “benevolent monarchies” and “monarchical republics” in the Gulf, arguing that these strong leadership regimes are what currently work in the region. He contended that democratic experiments like the Arab Spring had failed, and countries targeted for human rights or democratic reforms had largely struggled.

He emphasized that Israel must align its interests with these “strong civilizations” and the Gulf. Mentioning Syria, he noted it as one of the world’s oldest civilizations where Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived side-by-side for centuries without conflict.

Barrack stated that he had shared these views with Israeli officials. While acknowledging that their current tactical moves might be correct from their perspective, he questioned the long-term strategy. He criticized the nature of current ceasefire agreements, specifically a 2024 mechanism where Israel retains the right to strike if it unilaterally deems itself under threat. He also noted that UNIFIL has spent 40 years and $10 billion in Lebanon without stopping conflict, and that war resumed shortly after the latest agreement due to side arrangements made with the Biden administration.

When asked about President Erdoğan’s proposal for an international stability force in Gaza and Israel’s rejection of the idea, Barrack offered a personal recommendation. “The smartest thing Israel can do is to encourage and embrace Türkiye’s entry into that forum,” he said.

He argued that Türkiye’s refusal to designate Hamas as a “foreign terrorist organization” is precisely what makes them a necessary mediator. He asked, “Who are the intermediaries to talk to?” He noted that while the US possesses absolute air, sea, and land dominance in the region, it does not possess “the hearts and souls of the people.”

Barrack revealed that during President Trump’s first term, the US relied on Türkiye’s unique access. He cited an instance where Trump called Erdoğan to request intervention with Hamas leaders before a peace agreement could be finalized. He credited Erdoğan, Hakan Fidan, and İbrahim Kalın with successfully bringing those leaders to the table. Barrack argued that if Türkiye had followed the US in blacklisting Hamas, such mediation would have been impossible. He concluded that including Türkiye in the Gaza process could help prevent atrocities and violations, as Türkiye “speaks the language” of the region.

Addressing Syria’s lack of retaliation against Israeli strikes, Barrack argued that the Syrian government under the El-Sharra regime has shown remarkable restraint and an openness to non-aggression. He stated that the Syrian leadership has repeatedly expressed a desire to avoid war and work toward normalization.

Barrack noted that Netanyahu’s stance that “everything changed after October 7” has rendered previous border agreements—from 1967 and 1974—irrelevant to current Israeli policy. He described Syria’s decision to stay out of the current war as a “brilliant move,” despite constant Israeli incursions against convoys.

Barrack revealed he had personally managed five meetings between Syrian Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani and Ron Dermer, representing Netanyahu. He stated that while the process “evaporated” after coming very close to a breakthrough, a foundation for a “fusion” remains. “The Syrians have shown tremendous patience,” Barrack said, adding that he believes a stage of non-aggression and normalization will be reached “sooner than one might think.”

Diplomacy

Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel

Published

on

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei strongly criticized Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s recent statements comparing Iran’s regional actions to those of Israel, calling the comparison “astonishing and incorrect” during his weekly press conference.

In a comprehensive briefing on Monday, Baghaei addressed a wide range of foreign policy developments and regional security matters, including relations with Türkiye, the current state of diplomatic understandings with the United States, and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Hakan Fidan’s comparison is astonishing and incorrect”

When asked about Fidan’s assertions regarding Iran and his comparison of Iranian actions to those of the Israeli government, Baghaei sharply rejected the assessment.

“It is astonishing that a figure of Mr. Fidan’s standing would make such an unwarranted comparison,” Baghaei said. “He knows very well that the Israeli regime is expansionist by nature and seeks to harm the entire region, including Türkiye. How they arrived at such a bizarre comparison remains a major question for us.”

Baghaei asserted that Iran maintains no proxy forces in the region and argued that Israel represents the only true proxy entity in the Middle East. “We ask our Turkish friends to align their analyses with existing realities and to avoid repeating analyses that serve the exploitative interests of the Israeli regime,” the spokesperson added.

The remarks follow recent statements by Fidan, in which he addressed the ongoing conflict involving Hezbollah and Hamas, describing them as Iranian proxies in the region.

“We need to return to a situation where the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation is fully recognized,” Fidan had stated. “Iran has long claimed to pursue a preventive security policy by maintaining proxies in these countries, just as the Israelis occupy the rest of the region as part of their own security.”

“The Islamabad Agreement has entered a crisis phase”

Responding to a question regarding the status of the Islamabad Agreement, Baghaei stated: “There is no doubt that this agreement has entered a crisis phase.”

While emphasizing that Iran approaches all negotiations with seriousness and precision, and fulfills its commitments in good faith once an agreement is reached, Baghaei accused the opposing party of failing to honor its pledges.

“They were so eager to breach the agreement that they did not even allow the one-month period specified in Article 5 regarding the Strait of Hormuz to run its course. They began backsliding from the very first days,” Baghaei said. “Looking at the 14 articles of the memorandum of understanding, the Americans dismantled different components of the agreement within this short timeframe. We have maintained from the beginning that it is a matter of ‘commitment for commitment.’ As long as the other party fulfills its obligations, we will remain committed to ours.”

“We reject the IAEA’s request to access damaged facilities”

Asked about the request by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi for inspectors to return to Iran and visit damaged nuclear facilities, Baghaei delivered a flat rejection, stating that the request would not be granted.

Addressing separate reports regarding satellite imagery of nuclear facility reconstruction, Baghaei noted that he had not yet seen the satellite images in question and therefore declined to comment.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to be threatened by the US”

Commenting on maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz and allegations that the United States is providing military escorts to 20 vessels, Baghaei reiterated Iran’s opposition to the presence of extra-regional forces.

Baghaei stated that regional security can only be achieved without foreign intervention, through consultative mechanisms among regional countries. He added that the US military presence is a source of insecurity in the region.

“We will not allow the Strait of Hormuz to become an area of threat against Iran’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “We made genuine efforts to ensure navigation security, but the US was the party that undermined the process. The claims regarding vessel escorts demonstrate that the US is continuing its interventionist and aggressive policies in the region.”

Regarding the interpretation of Article 5 of the memorandum of understanding, Baghaei stated that the text is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.

He noted that provisions designating the management of the strait to Iran, in consultation with Oman, were included in the text to protect Iranian interests. He added that the US is attempting to establish parallel routes by provoking regional countries, which he warned causes environmental issues and jeopardizes maritime safety.

“The declaration by the three European countries is null and void”

Referring to a joint declaration issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Baghaei dismissed the statement as entirely invalid, accusing the European nations of attempting to distort facts.

He stated that the actions of the US and Israel are the source of instability and harm in both the region and the wider world, adding that such declarations do not contribute to any resolution.

Addressing claims made by the French Foreign Minister, Baghaei added that French officials should cease attempting to assume roles in matters that do not concern them.

“We have not conditioned cooperation with Afghanistan on recognition”

Baghaei provided details on a recent visit to Afghanistan by Alireza Jalalzadeh, the Deputy Foreign Minister for Consular Affairs, noting that discussions were conducted within the framework of consular affairs and people-to-people relations.

Highlighting that Iran shares a border of more than 900 kilometers with Afghanistan, hosts a large number of Afghan migrants, and maintains extensive commercial ties, Baghaei said: “We have not conditioned the official recognition of the Afghan administration on the cooperation necessary for the interests of both countries. The recognition process is a legal procedure, and a decision on this matter will be made when the time comes.”

“We do not make decisions on behalf of Lebanon”

Rejecting allegations that Iran is interfering in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Oman, Baghaei said: “We do not make decisions on behalf of anyone. The inclusion of Lebanon’s name in the memorandum of understanding demonstrates Iran’s sense of responsibility toward maintaining international security. In the first article of the text, we emphasized the need to end the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. This is not a matter of decision-making; the decision belongs to the Lebanese people.”

Addressing international pressure regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, Baghaei stated that the Lebanese people are best positioned to understand the value of the resistance’s weapons in protecting their sovereignty, and that any decision on the matter rests solely with them.

“Trump’s claims are false”

Baghaei denied claims made by former US President Donald Trump regarding Iran’s conduct during nuclear negotiations.

“Lying has become a behavioral pattern and an addiction for the US,” Baghaei said. “The talks held in Muscat on Saturday focused exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz. We attempted to establish a mechanism to ensure the safe passage of vessels through Omani mediation, but this outcome was not reached due to pressure exerted on Oman.”

He added that alleged assassination plots against Trump were never a subject of negotiation.

“The death of Lindsey Graham will not grieve free people”

When asked to comment on the death of US Senator Lindsey Graham, Baghaei remarked:

“The Angel of Death is just. One cannot expect the peoples of the region to mourn a figure who built his life philosophy on aggression, war, and terror, and who boasted of being the greatest supporter of genocide. The death of this aggressive senator will not grieve the heart of any free person.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030

Published

on

The military and political leadership of NATO sees no evidence that Russia is preparing for a potential attack on the Baltic states by 2030, according to a report by The Times, citing a senior alliance source.

“I see absolutely no sign that Russia is interested in engaging in any conflict with NATO,” the high-ranking source told the newspaper. The official added that they had no intention of speculating on the date of a potential conflict, as some other officials within the alliance have done.

The Times noted that rhetoric suggesting an open military conflict between NATO and Russia could begin in 2030 is primarily being used to mobilize the resources of the alliance’s member states. The report stated that this framing aims to encourage members to meet a defense spending target set at 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. Speaking to the newspaper on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Martin O’Donnell, spokesperson for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said that allies currently have a “window of opportunity” to build up the capabilities already agreed upon.

Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has previously stated that the militarization of Europe would require Russia to take additional measures to guarantee its national security.

As the implications of these developments continue to play out in the military arena, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda announced on July 9 that NATO leadership has converted the mandate of the Baltic air policing mission from air patrol to a combat footing.

The day before this decision, leaders attending the NATO summit in Ankara pointed to the “long-term threat Russia poses to Euro-Atlantic security and stability” in a joint declaration.

NATO has repeatedly expressed concerns over a potential conflict with Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged member states not to be “naive” about threats coming from Russia and to increase their defense spending. Similarly, the commander of the German Army, Christian Freuding, asserted on June 12 that his country must “be ready for a Russian attack” by 2029 or sooner, stating, “We must be ready for war.”

In contrast, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko claimed in a June 22 interview with the Izvestia newspaper that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military conflict with Russia on the horizon of 2030. Grushko noted that from a military perspective, there is now little difference between NATO and the EU regarding aggressive ambitions toward Moscow, and that their main objective is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The Moscow administration has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of attacking Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that there are no geopolitical, economic, or military reasons to fight the alliance. Nevertheless, Putin has also stated that “all NATO countries are virtually at war with Russia.”

Last year, representatives of NATO countries approved a declaration agreeing to raise military spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. Under this target, 3.5% of spending is projected to go directly to the military budget, while 1.5% is to be allocated indirectly to defense through cybersecurity and the modernization of highways.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns

Published

on

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has announced a sweeping structural overhaul of the government, confirming that a new prime minister will soon take office.

Following the announcement, the Ukrainian leader held a series of meetings over a two-and-a-half-hour period with potential candidates positioned to succeed Yulia Sviridenko as prime minister.

“Political strategy is changing”

Writing on his Telegram channel, Zelenskyy announced that the structure of the cabinet of ministers will change and that Sviridenko, who is stepping down from her post, will be assigned to a new role.

The Ukrainian president stated that the country is renewing its political strategy. Under the new approach, specific individuals with extensive experience will be put in charge of each priority foreign policy direction to implement agreements reached at the leadership level and to meet the expectations of the Ukrainian people.

Approximately one hour after Zelenskyy’s statement, Sviridenko confirmed her departure from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine via a message on social media.

Thanking the president for his high valuation of her work, Sviridenko stated that she and Zelenskyy had discussed future steps.

Sviridenko began her career in the Ukrainian government in 2019 as Deputy Minister of Economy. Between 2020 and 2021, she served as deputy head of the presidential office, during which time she participated in negotiations regarding the Donbas.

In November 2021, she assumed control of economic management as First Deputy Prime Minister. In the spring of 2025, she signed a resource agreement with the US on behalf of Ukraine.

Zelenksyy proposed that Sviridenko lead the government in July 2025, and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, approved her candidacy with 262 votes in a session held on July 17, 2025.

Prior to Sviridenko, Denys Shmyhal had led the cabinet since March 2020. He currently serves as the Minister of Energy.

Priority targets of the new cabinet established

Zelenskyy outlined the primary areas of focus for the renewed government, listing relations with the US—specifically licensing agreements for the production of Patriot systems and security cooperation—as top priorities.

Other core objectives include the European anti-ballistic missile project, the European Union accession process, relations with neighboring states—particularly Poland and Hungary—cooperation with the Middle East, the Gulf countries, and China, as well as relations with international organizations.

The Ukrainian leader also stressed the need to strengthen operations along the front lines and border regions, increase weapons supplies, complete winter preparations, accelerate the transformation of state-owned enterprises, and implement agreements reached with partners regarding the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Who could succeed Sviridenko as prime minister?

The last major reshuffle in the Ukrainian government took place a year ago, with Sviridenko assuming the premiership in July 2025.

Under Ukrainian law, the candidate for prime minister must be proposed by the majority coalition in the Verkhovna Rada.

Once appointed, the prime minister submits the majority of the cabinet members to parliament for approval.

Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated that the only legitimate power in Ukraine is the Verkhovna Rada. According to Putin’s assessment, the only authority qualified to participate in peace talks is the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, asserting that Zelenskyy lacks legitimacy and therefore has no authority to sign any document.

According to a report by the Ukrainska Pravda newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, potential candidates being considered for the premiership include:

  • Sergiy Koretskyy, Chairman of the Board of Naftogaz and Director of Ukrnafta
  • Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Energy
  • Mykhailo Fedorov, Minister of Defense
  • Ihor Terekhov, Mayor of Kharkiv

Zelenskyy announced that he met with all of these officials, as well as Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko, during the day.

Sources familiar with the matter who spoke to RBC-Ukraine stated that the president’s decision to renew the government came as a surprise to many. The sources informing the publication also put forward Koretskyy’s name for the premiership.

Sources speaking to Bloomberg also pointed to Koretskyy alongside Shmyhal. The agency reported that both Koretskyy and Shmyhal possess extensive experience in the energy sector, which partially explains their candidacy to succeed Sviridenko.

Meanwhile, Verkhovna Rada Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak reported that the parliamentary vote on the prime minister’s resignation could take place on July 13 or 14.

Zheleznyak stated that following this vote, the entire government will function in an interim capacity, with Shmyhal temporarily leading the administration in his capacity as deputy prime minister.

According to information shared by Zheleznyak, Sviridenko will become Ukraine’s new ambassador to the US. The Financial Times also reported, citing two sources, that the outgoing prime minister will be appointed to this post.

Zelenskyy stated that he had offered Sviridenko the opportunity to head a new and important direction in relations with a key partner, though he did not share specific details regarding which country or organization this would involve.

Subsequently, a report by the Interfax-Ukraine agency, citing sources, stated that Olga Stefanishyna, who currently serves as Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, wishes to end her diplomatic service due to personal reasons.

Stefanishyna has held the post for less than a year, with Zelenskyy having signed the decree for her appointment in August 2025.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey