Diplomacy
Restrictions on exports from Turkey to Israel: Important, but must be backed up by diplomatic measures
The Turkish Ministry of Trade has decided to impose export restrictions on 54 product groups against Israel, which continues its attacks on Palestine. We spoke to Emir Aşnas, a researcher and writer, about the decision and Israel’s reaction to it.
Turkey’s trade with Israel has long been a subject of debate due to Israel’s operations in Gaza since October. Following criticism from within the country, the Ministry of Trade took action and imposed export restrictions on 54 product groups to Israel.
The first reaction to Ankara’s decision came from Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz. In a statement on the social media platform, Katz used the following statements in his post, in which he referred to President Tayyip Erdoğan:
Israel will ask US to impose sanctions
“Erdogan is once again sacrificing the economic interests of the Turkish people for the sake of his support for the Hamas murderers who are raping, murdering and desecrating the bodies of women, girls and adults in Gaza and burning children alive. Israel will not give in to violence and blackmail, will not tolerate unilateral violations of trade agreements and will take parallel measures against Turkey that will damage its economy. We will ask our friends in the United States to draw up another list of products that Israel will prevent Turkey from exporting, to contact US organisations, to stop investments in Turkey and to prevent the import of products from Turkey. Congress will investigate violations of the boycott laws and impose sanctions on Turkey accordingly”.
‘A total export ban is not possible’
Emir Aşnas, a researcher and writer specialising in international trade and investment, public administration and commercial diplomacy, explained the difference between an export restriction and an export ban: “A restriction can take different forms. For example, a certain product may be allowed to be exported within a certain quota, i.e. up to a certain amount, and the amount above that may not be allowed. In the case of a ban, the export of that good may be prohibited altogether. Again, the restriction can be for a certain period of time; in a prohibition, the export of that good is stopped indefinitely.”
More importantly, Aşnas pointed out that it is not possible to ban exports completely and indefinitely within the framework of GATT-WTO (World Trade Organisation) agreements and rules, reminding that both Turkey and Israel are WTO members.
Aşnas explained that the legislation on the application of the restriction has not yet been published in the Official Gazette and said, “Therefore, we do not yet have a clear idea about the scope, principles, duration and implementation methods of this application. At this stage, it is possible to make some predictions based on the official statement of the Ministry of Trade. In this context, we understand that Turkey has suspended the export to Israel of 54 products and product groups listed in the Ministry of Trade’s statement until further notice”.
‘Technical definition of banned goods should be made’
Aşnas provided the following information on how the restriction decision will be implemented in practice: “The Ministry of Trade will issue the relevant legislation, and the customs tariff statistical items will be determined and announced for the technical description and definition of the products subject to the restriction, along with the principles of implementation. In addition, the customs department of the Ministry of Trade will not approve customs declarations for the export of these goods to Israel, and thus the exports will not take place”.
However, he also pointed out that “it is of course possible for the goods in question to be registered with our customs as being destined for another destination and then shipped to Israel from that destination”.
Aşnas pointed out that in order to have a complete idea of how the restriction decision will affect Turkey’s exports to Israel, the technical definition of the goods whose exports will be restricted and the customs tariff statistical items should be determined, and said, “I think the relevant units of the Ministry of Trade are currently carrying out this work. Otherwise, there cannot be a sound application”.
A blow to Israel’s iron and steel imports
Aşnas gave the following information about the product groups announced to be restricted
“Among the products and product groups listed in the Ministry of Trade’s announcement, a significant portion of iron-steel and ferrous metals and products – and even metalworking machinery and chemicals used in metal processing – will be subject to the restriction. Exports of metals and products account for the largest share (over 20 per cent) of Turkey’s exports to Israel by sector. Moreover, Turkey is Israel’s first and most important supplier, especially in the iron and steel sector.”
“However, it can be seen that automotive products (main and sub-industry), which are the second largest sector of Turkey’s exports to Israel, are not or only partially included in this restriction. The list also includes many products and product groups for the chemical and construction sectors. When this list is analysed, it is expected that Turkey’s exports to Israel will be significantly restricted. However, as I have said before, it would be appropriate to wait for the technical definition of the goods within the scope of the restriction in order to make a clearer and more precise judgement on this issue”.
‘The decision seems to have been taken in haste’
Aşnas said it was clear that the decision on the restriction was taken in reaction and in haste, saying, “Otherwise, legal arrangements should have been made on this issue,” and continued, “The second point is that some products that have a significant share in exports to Israel (especially the automotive industry) are excluded from the list; In other words, it is understood that the metal, chemical and construction materials sectors that can be used ‘for military purposes’, which have attracted the most public reaction in the formation of the list, are to be ‘compulsorily’ included, and otherwise an attempt is being made to be selective according to the situation of the sectors. ”
Aşnas said that the Trade Ministry’s statement, “In fact, our country has not authorised and does not authorise the sale of any products or services that can be used for military purposes to Israel for a long time”, is understood to have been written in a “rush of guilt” and in order to ease the reactions of Turkish public opinion on the issue.
Commenting on the Trade Ministry’s statement that the export restrictions were based on UN resolutions and International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, Mr Aşnas said: “The UN Security Council resolutions cited, for example, have nothing to do with exports to Israel. They are about allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, not blocking it. However, one of the resolutions referred to by the Department of Commerce is the injunction issued by the ICJ on 26 January 2024 in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel. Of course, this raises the legitimate question of why such a decision has been delayed until today. It is also an important question why Turkey, perhaps the most assertive country in the world on the Palestinian issue, has not itself filed a case with the ICJ.
Aşnas gave the following assessment of whether these export restrictions, which will be temporary until a ceasefire is implemented in Gaza, will be sufficient:
“It is understood that although it is important in terms of the products covered, it is insufficient and the arbitrariness will be seen more clearly after the legal and technical regulations on this issue are finalised. It can be said that this export restriction decision, which was announced hastily and without legal and technical arrangements, is aimed at appeasing the increasing reactions of the Turkish public opinion rather than fulfilling the ICJ decision, and that this export restriction decision, which is not supported by diplomatic/political measures, is a tactical and temporary step”.
The product groups for which the Ministry of Trade has decided to restrict exports to Israel are as follows:
1- Aluminium profiles
2- Aluminium wires
3- Paints
4- Copper profiles, rods and wires
5- Concrete mixers6- Steel tubes and fittings
7- Steel wire rod
8- Steel containers and tanks
9- Steel bridge components10 – Steel towers11- Steel profiles
12- Cement
13- Cement, concrete or artificial stone building blocks and slabs14- All iron and steel building materials15- All iron and steel wire
16- Excavators
17- Electrical cables
18- Electrical panels
19- Tiles
20 – Fibre optic cables and electric conductors21 – Forklifts22 – Granite
23 – Ropes and cables24- Hardware products25 – Hydraulic oils
26 – Rebar
27 – Construction machinery
28 – Building insulation
29 – Glass used in construction
30 – Chemical compounds
31 – Chemical fertilisers
32 – Clinker
33 – Buckets, scoops, shovels, clamps and hooks
34 – Sulphur
35 – Mineral oils
36 – Roller chains
37 – Marble
38 – Metalworking machinery
39 – Chemicals used in metalworking
40 – Mineral fertilisers
41 – Motor oils
42 – Pallets
43 – Plastic pipes
44 – Sandwich panels
45 – Ceramics
46 – Solvent paints
47 – Wire drawing machines
48 – Sawing machines
49 – Bricks
50 – Aircraft gasoline and kerosene
51 – Paints
52 – Cranes
53 – Adhesives and glues
54- Flat steel products
Diplomacy
Iran rejects Turkish foreign minister’s comparison of regional policy to Israel
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.”
Diplomacy
NATO leadership sees no evidence of Russian preparations for attack on Baltics by 2030
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.
Diplomacy
Zelenskyy announces sweeping Ukrainian cabinet shakeup as Prime Minister Sviridenko resigns
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.
-
America2 weeks agoAnthropic withdraws covert China user tracking feature after online backlash
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany’s BSW proposes cooperation with AfD to break political ‘firewall’
-
Europe1 week agoUK diplomatic, NHS, and local government credentials put up for sale on darknet
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEuropean NATO members accelerate plans to replace departing US military assets
-
Russia1 week agoGreek shipowners secure $3.8 billion transporting Russian oil despite G7 sanctions pressure
-
Middle East1 week agoOil market recovery toward pre-war levels erodes Iran’s leverage over Strait of Hormuz
-
Diplomacy1 week agoFrance eases opposition to Turkish SAMP/T air defense acquisition, sources say
-
Asia1 week agoChina launches submarine missile into Pacific, triggering alarm in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand
