In an extensive analytical interview conducted for the Harici digital news platform, retired Brigadier General Professor Fahri Erenel provided a comprehensive assessment of shifting global security dynamics, the structural limitations of NATO, regional conflict vectors in the Middle East, and the strategic calculus governing US, Israeli, and European defense postures.<\/p>\n
Erenel, who serves as a faculty member at Istanbul Aydin University, argued that the persistent turbulence across the Middle East\u2014marked by ongoing hostilities involving Israel, Iran, and various non-state actors\u2014must be understood through the lens of domestic economic imperatives and political survival strategies, particularly within the United States. He noted that despite diplomatic interventions and post-summit declarations, the underlying drivers of regional instability remain largely unaddressed.<\/p>\n
“Trump is executing a wartime economy strategy”<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluating the strategic behavior of Washington and the vacillating rhetoric surrounding potential military interventions, Erenel asserted that the US administration under Donald Trump is leveraging controlled geopolitical tension to stimulate domestic economic output. Drawing explicitly on international political economy theory, Erenel stated, “As Charles Kindleberger clearly articulated, maintaining global primacy carries immense costs. The US has sustained the burden of being a dominant power for decades, but the conflict with Iran revealed a critical shift: traditional allies did not immediately offer unqualified support to Trump’s military calls.”<\/p>\n Erenel contended that the frequent shifts in US messaging\u2014alternating between aggressive threats of bombardment and sudden overtures toward diplomatic resolution\u2014serve specific domestic market functions. “Trump is executing a wartime economy strategy,” Erenel stated. “By keeping markets on edge, talking up severe military action one day and impending negotiations the next, the administration influences global energy markets and drives up oil prices. This is a calculated attempt to address a massive US current account deficit approaching $40 billion and to spur domestic employment ahead of upcoming elections.”<\/p>\n Comparing current US industrial policy to the economic mobilization observed prior to direct US entry into the Second World War, Erenel emphasized that heightened global security risks directly benefit defense contractors and key industrial sectors. “During the World War years, American industry achieved full employment by supplying European belligerents long before deploying its own troops,” he explained. “Today, we see defense enterprise valuations surging alongside selective automotive and high-tech manufacturing partnerships focused on artificial intelligence and advanced air defense systems. The continuous consumption of munitions in regional theaters forces defense supply chains to run at maximum capacity, creating jobs and driving domestic spending within the US economy.”<\/p>\n “European nations face severe logistical and structural barriers”<\/strong><\/p>\n Addressing the evolution of transatlantic security structures, Erenel expressed deep skepticism regarding the operational viability of initiatives dubbed “NATO 3.0” and European strategic autonomy. While recent alliance summits highlighted a transition from qualitative readiness toward quantitative buildup, Erenel argued that European defense integration remains severely constrained by deep-seated structural fragmentation, industrial dependency, and inadequate infrastructure.<\/p>\n “The concept of NATO 3.0 represents a narrative shift rather than a fundamental realignment of military capability,” Erenel said. “European nations face severe logistical and structural barriers that prevent the rapid deployment of heavy forces. For instance, while key allies like the US, Germany, and the UK rely on specific main battle tank platforms, European NATO members collectively operate 14 distinct tank variants utilizing up to 168 different types of ammunition. Standardizing logistics across such a fragmented inventory is an extraordinary challenge.”<\/p>\n Erenel further highlighted critical physical infrastructure deficits across the European continent, noting that bridges and transit corridors built for lighter vehicle loads cannot support modern 60-ton armored formations. “During recent exercises, heavy units encountered immediate bottlenecks at cross-border transit points, such as the German-Hungarian frontier, simply because the underlying infrastructure could not support their tonnage,” he observed. “European proposals to allocate a fraction of defense budgets to dual-use infrastructure reflect a belated realization that advanced hardware is ineffective if it cannot be mobilized. Given these constraints, together with the political refusal of several member states to drastically increase spending, Europe will remain heavily dependent on US military capacity for the foreseeable future.”<\/p>\n In contrast, Erenel pointed to T\u00fcrkiye’s established manufacturing base and alignment with NATO standardized cataloging since 1952. He noted that as European stockpiles of critical ordnance\u2014such as 155mm artillery shells\u2014dwindle due to sustained high-intensity warfare in Eastern Europe, Turkish industrial capacity stands out as a vital operational asset for alliance readiness.<\/p>\n “Washington seeks a low-intensity, controlled escalation strategy”<\/strong><\/p>\n Turning to the confrontation between the United States and Iran, Erenel detailed the operational constraints preventing a full-scale ground invasion of Iranian territory, while warning that targeted actions could focus on critical peripheral vulnerabilities. “A full-scale ground campaign penetrating into the Iranian heartland is militarily cost-prohibitive and politically untenable for Washington,” Erenel stated. “An airborne or amphibious assault toward major population centers would result in catastrophic casualties, far exceeding acceptable thresholds for the American public.”<\/p>\n Instead, Erenel outlined a strategy of sustained pressure directed at Iran’s economically and ethnically sensitive border regions. “Washington seeks a low-intensity, controlled escalation strategy designed to maintain psychological and economic friction,” he explained. “If external forces seek to project physical control, the primary axis of vulnerability lies in regions like Khuzestan, the Strait of Hormuz periphery, and Sistan-Baluchestan. The Sistan-Baluchestan corridor, bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan, represents Iran’s exposed flank. Operating in tandem with internal socio-economic pressures and active insurgent elements such as PJAK in the northwest, selective external pressure aims to fragment state coherence without requiring deep territorial occupation.”<\/p>\n Erenel added that sustained economic isolation, combined with targeted strikes on energy infrastructure and dual-use logistics, exacerbates internal political divisions within Tehran. He noted visible friction between hardline factions, notably within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and moderate elements favoring diplomatic compromise. However, he emphasized that hardline security structures maintain decisive operational control over strategic decision-making.<\/p>\n “Israel is pursuing a peripheral containment strategy”<\/strong><\/p>\n Evaluating the diplomatic and military posture of Israel, Erenel dismissed the notion of a fundamental strategic rift between Washington and Tel Aviv, characterizing public disagreements as tactical theater designed for domestic audiences. “The apparent friction between top US officials and Israeli leadership reflects political maneuvering rather than a structural divergence,” Erenel asserted. “Both leaderships are managing precarious domestic political landscapes ahead of major electoral cycles.”<\/p>\n Erenel warned of expanding Israeli strategic activity in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically highlighting Cyprus as a central pillar of Tel Aviv’s long-term security matrix. “Israel is pursuing a peripheral containment strategy, expanding its operational depth far beyond its immediate land borders,” Erenel stated. “Historical and geopolitical imperatives drive Tel Aviv’s focus on Cyprus. Because Israel lacks geographical depth and possesses limited maritime forces relative to regional landmasses, it views the island of Cyprus as an essential forward operating node.”<\/p>\n Erenel detailed the steady accumulation of Israeli real estate acquisitions, intelligence installations, and military training agreements across both the northern and southern sectors of Cyprus. “Through significant land purchases, infrastructure investments, and joint security arrangements, Israel is securing a forward position in the Eastern Mediterranean,” he stated. “The installation of advanced radar systems on the Troodos Mountains and joint intelligence initiatives with the Greek Cypriot administration directly impact regional equilibrium. From a strategic standpoint, this alignment\u2014linking Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot administration under the umbrella of shared opposition to Ankara\u2014constitutes a deliberate attempt to encircle T\u00fcrkiye from the south.”<\/p>\n Concluding his assessment, Erenel emphasized that T\u00fcrkiye must take proactive countermeasures to safeguard its maritime rights and military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He urged the formal adoption of comprehensive maritime domain legislation and called for the continued enhancement of Turkish naval and air capabilities based in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. “T\u00fcrkiye remains the indispensable power in the region,” Erenel concluded. “In response to shifting alliances and forward deployments in Cyprus, maintaining robust forward defenses, establishing permanent naval infrastructure, and protecting the integrity of the Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland) framework are absolute strategic necessities.”<\/p>\n