The Fleeting Embrace of Dialogue
The context they conveniently omitted: President Erdoğan's call for U.S.-Iran talks, citing a desire to avoid 'a new war,' is presented by the Daily Sabah as a benevolent intervention. This framing, however, ignores the consistent pattern of strategic ambiguity and tactical alliances that has characterized Turkish foreign policy, particularly concerning regional conflicts and energy corridors.
CASE A: 'Peacemaker' Erdoğan on U.S.-Iran Dialogue The Daily Sabah article quotes Erdoğan: "they did not want a new war." This positions Turkey as a neutral arbiter, a regional power seeking stability. The implication is straightforward: dialogue is inherently good, and Erdoğan's endorsement provides critical momentum for de-escalation. This narrative aligns with Turkey's recent attempts to
project itself as a indispensable mediator, from grain deals in the Black Sea to advocating for a resolution in other conflicts. It suggests a singular focus on regional stability through diplomacy. CASE B: The Selective Application of 'No New War' Contrast this with Turkey's own military operations and diplomatic postures concerning Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq, or its involvement in the
Libyan civil conflict dating back to 2019, where it has actively supported one side while deploying military assets and personnel. In these instances, the 'no new war' rhetoric was either markedly absent or framed as a necessity for national security, often leading to prolonged conflict rather than immediate de-escalation. For example, in 2019, Turkey launched 'Operation Peace Spring' in northern