By Halil Karaveli

This opinion piece was concurrently published in The Financial Times. Read the original piece here.

By arresting opposition mayors, the president is following the playbook of his hero Adnan Menderes — and inviting chaos

A protester in Istanbul this month displays an image of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the city’s mayor whose arrest in March prompted the biggest demonstrations in Turkey in more than a decade © Yasin Akgul/AFP/Getty Images

On July 5, Turkish police detained the mayors of Adana, Adiyaman and Antalya on corruption charges, which they deny. They were subsequently arrested. On July 4, the former mayor of Izmir, Turkey’s third-largest city, and the local head of the opposition Republican People’s party (CHP) were arrested too. 

The CHP carried the municipal elections in March 2024. With nearly 38 per cent of the votes, the party — which was founded by Turkey’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — became the country’s leading party in terms of vote share for the first time since 1977. Of Turkey’s 81 provinces, the CHP won 35. It wrested 10 provinces from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s conservative Justice and 

Development party (AKP). According to the polls, the CHP would carry a national election if it were held today. 

Erdoğan’s response has been to launch an unprecedented crackdown. So far, 17 CHP mayors have been arrested. The arrest of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, in March sparked the biggest demonstrations in Turkey in more than a decade — and a market downturn. On Wednesday, he was sentenced to 20 months in prison on charges of insulting a prosecutor. 

İmamoğlu called the latest crackdown “a coup against democracy”. Erdoğan 

defended it, alleging that the “CHP is mired in corruption”. He told the CHP to abstain from protests and disingenuously called on it to wait for the verdicts of the “independent judiciary”. 

It’s now clear that Erdoğan is implementing a blueprint to demoralise and disable the CHP. But it’s equally clear that the CHP has no intention of yielding. 

On July 6, CHP leader Özgür Özel exhorted Erdoğan to “come to his senses”, 

vowing to mobilise mass protests on the scale of Egypt’s Tahrir Square protests in 2011. On July 7, the public prosecutor of Ankara launched an investigation into Özel — whose parliamentary immunity stands to be revoked — on accusations of “inciting crime”, “threatening public officials” and “insulting the president”. 

Erdoğan can deploy the might of the state against opponents. He’s also 

emboldened by the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK) that began disarming on July 11. Yet his autocratic model is unsustainable. 

The president hopes to forge an alliance with the Kurds, and secure re-election. But the pro-Kurdish People’s Democracy and Equality (DEM) party recognises that the crackdown on the CHP undermines the prospects of reconciliation and has denounced it. 

Erdoğan enjoyed widespread popular legitimacy when he had secularist military officers arrested in purges between 2008 and 2014 — as well as when followers of the cleric Fethullah Gülen were purged after a 2016 coup attempt and when he targeted the Kurdish political movement. Today, the majority, including a 

significant proportion of Erdoğan’s own base, disapproves of the arrests, and views the allegations of corruption as politically motivated fabrication. 

Erdoğan pretends that his electoral majority gives him licence to trample on 

democratic and civil liberties. During the Gezi protests against public land seizures in 2013, he said that “democracy is the ballot box, period”. Now, the ballot box itself is ignored. For the first time, that has put Erdoğan on a collision course with a broad majority that won’t passively acquiesce. 

Ominously, Turkish history is repeating itself. In the late 1950s another 

democratically elected conservative Turkish leader, who also pretended to embody popular will, tried to disable the CHP. After his party lost significant ground to the CHP in elections, Prime Minister Adnan Menderes — who is, not coincidentally, Erdoğan’s political hero — responded by jailing journalists and bringing criminal charges against CHP members of parliament. 

The attempt to criminalise the opposition led to protests, and the oppression that the Menderes government unleashed threw Turkey into a deep crisis. In 1960, that government was ousted in a coup by military officers acting outside the chain of command. By abolishing democracy, Erdoğan is also inviting a chaotic end to his rule. 

Halil Karaveli is a senior fellow with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the author of Why Turkey is Authoritarian: From Atatürk to Erdoğan.

 

By Halil Karaveli

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and Israel’s demonstration of its crushing military superiority, has added renewed urgency to the Turkish efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Kurds. More than anything else, Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance with Israel. Co-opting the Kurds is both a national security imperative and a necessary condition for the perpetuation of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s regime. The end of the PKK and of the conflict that has plagued Turkey for four decades may well revive Erdoğan’s political fortunes. But the question remains if societal reconciliation can be achieved when reforms for the Kurds are coupled with oppressive measures against the main opposition party. And the Kurds have reason to ask how much they can trust a democratization that is granted from above by a state that could renege on it when it no longer suits its interests.

                                       Image courtesy of Flickr

BACKGROUND: On June 17, Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the far right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the key partner of Erdoğan, claimed that “Israel’s political and strategic ambition is to encircle Anatolia and to prevent, on behalf of its patron, the realization of the goal of a Turkey without terrorism.” The latter is a reference to the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that Bahçeli initiated in 2024 while the “patron” of Israel refers, presumably, to the United States.

On October 22, 2024, Bahçeli stunned the country by suggesting that Abdullah Öcalan – the leader of the outlawed PKK which Öcalan founded in 1978 and that has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984 – should be granted parole if he renounces violence and disbands the organization. On February 27, Öcalan called on the PKK to dissolve and lay down its arms. On May 22, the PKK announced its dissolution. The organization is expected to begin handing over its weapons in early July.

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and Israel’s demonstration of its crushing military superiority, has added renewed urgency to the Turkish efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Kurds. Ankara has become increasingly worried that regional turmoil could stoke domestic instability. Above all, Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance with Israel. Last November Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar described the Kurdish people as victims of Turkish and Iranian oppression and Israel’s “natural ally” and said that Israel should strengthen its ties with them. Some Kurds are indeed fantasizing about Israeli-Kurdish hegemony in the Middle East.

In October 2024, the pro-PKK newspaper Yeni Özgür Politika republished a section of Öcalan’s Manifesto for Democratic Civilization, written more than a decade ago, in which he suggested that the PKK could align with the United States and Israel against Turkey. That prescription was at odds with the traditionally anti-Israel and anti-American thinking that informs the leftist tradition in Turkey from which the PKK sprang; however, U.S. military-political and Israeli political support for the PKK’s offshoots in Syria during the last decade has changed Kurdish perceptions. Today Öcalan advocates for an alliance with Turkey, but it’s by no means clear that the PKK is fully on the same page as its founding leader. On June 17, Selahattin Demirtaş, the imprisoned former co-chair of Peoples’ Democracy party (HDP) – the DEM Party’s predecessor – was compelled to warn fellow Kurds, as it would seem, against the temptation of “imperialist schemes” and said that such “moves will end with disaster.” Demirtaş pledged that “We are going to stand united as the society of Turkey and if need be sacrifice our lives in the defense of our common fatherland.”

In April, Öcalan reportedly told a visiting delegation from the pro-Kurdish, left-wing Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party that “Netanyahu and Trump want to make Israel the hegemonic power in the Middle East. After Gaza, Lebanon, Syria it’s going to be the turn of Iran and Turkey. The Kurds are absolutely crucial for the realization of this scheme. Whoever succeeds in attaching the strategic position of the Kurds to itself will acquire the superiority in the Middle East.”

Erdoğan and Bahçeli subscribe to the same view; they believe that Israel, as the new hegemonic power in the Middle East represents a threat to Turkish interests and that it will – as Israeli official statements indeed suggest –exploit Turkey’s ethnic divisions. Three weeks ahead of his appeal to Öcalan in October 2024, Bahçeli explained, “When we call for peace in the world, we must also secure peace in our own country.” In an address to parliament the same month, Erdoğan emphasized the need to “fortify the home front” in the face of “Israeli aggression.”

IMPLICATIONS: As Bahçeli’s statement on June 17 about Israel seeking to “encircle Anatolia” makes clear, the Turkish leadership fears an Israeli alliance with the Kurds in Syria – and with the Kurds in Iran, the only group that responded positively to the Israeli exhortation to the Iranian people during the 12-day war to rise up and overthrow the Islamic republic.

In the weeks after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria last year, senior Turkish officials repeatedly emphasized their wish to see the PKK’s offshoot, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) disbanded. In December, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the elimination of the group as Ankara’s “strategic objective,” calling on Syria’s new leaders to dismantle the YPG, expel its commanders and restore central control of all Syrian territory. None of this has happened. The PKK’s affiliates remain in control over northern and northeastern Syria; with an estimated 80 to 100 000 armed militants and backed by the United States, the Syrian offshoot of the PKK retains a position of unmatched military strength and has not committed to disband and disarm.

Statements last year by Fidan suggested that Turkey would undertake an invasion of Rojava, the autonomous Kurdish region of Syria, if the new regime in Damascus failed to take action on its own. Ankara’s best hope today is to be able to co-opt the Syrian Kurds, allowing it to contain Israel’s influence. That in turn requires that Turkey first reaches an accommodation with its own Kurdish citizens, releases Kurdish political prisoners like Demirtaş and commits to respecting the democratic rights of the Kurds.

Turkey has a history of turning toward democracy in the face of perceived threats to its national security. In the 1940s, the authoritarian president İsmet İnönü recognized that Turkey, threatened by the Soviet Union, needed to be fully accepted by the West for its own protection. İnönü agreed to hold a free election in 1950 and duly resigned when he lost. At the turn of this century, a push for membership in the European Union prompted successive Turkish governments to implement liberal reforms required for its entry. It’s a very different story now.

On March 19, Ekrem İmamoğlu – the mayor of Istanbul and Erdoğan’s main rival – was detained by police in a dawn raid; he was later formally charged with corruption and suspended from his post as mayor. İmamoğlu’s arrest sparked the biggest demonstrations in Turkey in more than a decade. Yet, notwithstanding the outpouring of public support, İmamoğlu has – to all intents and purposes – been removed from the presidential equation.

Özgür Özel, the leader of the main opposition, center-left Republican People’s Party (CHP) whose members have endorsed İmamoğlu as the party’s presidential candidate, quipped that “the home front isn’t fortified by treating the opposition as the enemy.” The imprisoned Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş called on the government to put an end to political harassments, pointing out that such practices “don’t contribute to fortifying the home front.” Öcalan is reported to have said that the peace process won’t succeed without the CHP. The pro-Kurdish DEM Party has stood by the CHP, condemning the arrest of İmamoğlu as an assault on democracy.

However, a progressive alliance of the CHP and the DEM Party remains elusive. The DEM Party is optimistic that its aspirations – notably enshrining Kurdish cultural and language rights in the constitution – are eventually going to be accommodated, in return for which the pro-Kurdish party may decide to assist Erdoğan’s reelection. That would require amending the Turkish constitution – which does not allow for a third presidential term – or calling a snap election.

The ruling coalition of Erdoğan’s Islamic conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Bahçeli’s MHP lacks the necessary parliamentary majority for both alternatives, making a grand bargain with the DEM Party its likely objective.

CONCLUSION: Co-opting the Kurds is both a national security imperative and a necessary condition for the perpetuation of the right-wing authoritarian Erdoğan-Bahçeli regime. The peace process enjoys broad popular support and the dissolution and disarmament of the PKK is likely going to boost Erdoğan’s standing. The end of the PKK and of the conflict that has plagued Turkey for four decades may well revive Erdoğan’s political fortunes.

But the question remains if societal reconciliation can be achieved when reforms for the Kurds are coupled with oppressive measures against the main opposition party. And the Kurds have reason to ask how much they can trust a democratization that is granted from above by a state that could renege on it when it no longer suits its interests.

Halil Karaveli is a Senior Fellow with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center and the Editor of the Turkey Analyst. He is the author of Why Turkey is Authoritarian: From Atatürk to Erdoğan (Pluto Press)

By Barçın Yinanç

Competing visions for the future of post-Assad Syria has further deteriorated the already strained Turkish-Israeli relations. While Turkey’s clout in Syria stands in the way of Israel’s efforts to fragment Syria and undermine its territorial integrity, Israel’s actions disrupt Turkey’s strategy of a unified Syria. As a result both perceive each other as posing a threat to their respective national interests. Ankara will seek Washington’s support for crisis management and President Recep Tayip Erdoğan will use his good rapport with President Donald Trump to keep the tension from spiraling into a direct military confrontation with Israel. The fragile detente between Turkey and Israel will have to be monitored closely by the United States.

BACKGROUND: The fall of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024, has opened a new confrontation line between Turkey and Israel, pitting Syria’s two neighbors against each other. On April 9, 2025, Azerbaijan hosted Turkish and Israeli officials for talks to ease the tension in Syria. Turkish Defense Ministry officials informed that the first technical talks were held in Baku to set up a de-confliction mechanism to avoid potential clashes or misunderstandings over military operations in Syria. 

The end of the decades-long Assad regime was an unintended consequence of Israel’s military strategy following Hamas’ deadly attack on October 7, 2023. The Israeli army dealt a serious blow to Iran’s proxies in Syria, which unexpectedly led to the takeover of Damascus by opposition forces. The Islamist Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) spearheaded the offensive of the rebel forces, whose leader, Ahmet al-Sharaa, eventually became the country’s new, transitional leader. Al-Sharaa’s jihadist past and his affinity to Turkey, confirmed by the visit of the Turkish Intelligence Chief İbranim Kalın to Damascus only four days after the takeover, rang alarm bells in Israel. As early as January 10, 2025, an Israeli government commission released a warning that Syria could become the stage for a direct conflict between Turkey and Israel.A Turkey-oriented Syria ruled by Sunni Islamists could pose a greater threat to Israel than a Syria allied with Iran, the report of the so-called Nagel Commission, chaired by a former Israeli National Security Council head, concluded. The day Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia, the Israeli army moved units into several locations in a buffer zone that separates the Israeli side of the Golan Heights from the Syrian side of the border. Meanwhile, the Israeli air force has launched several offensives, striking hundreds of military targets to destroy the Syrian military assets, hitting strategic weapon stockpiles to stop “them from falling into the hands of the extremists.”Turkey maintained a rather restrained rhetoric even at that stage, avoiding harsh accusations against the Israeli government. “Israel has developed a precautionary package based on the worst possible scenario in Syria. As Israel is not sure about where the new administration (in Syria) will stand, it has endorsed a strategy; one which is very dangerous,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said in mid-December, adding that Ankara asked Israel, via intermediaries, to stop bombing.Al-Sharaa’s assurances early on that Damascus does not want any conflict with Israel and that the new regime will not let Syria be used as a launch-pad for attacks fell on deaf ears in Israel. Official statements that Israel will support Kurdish groups in northern Syria and the Druze minority in the south created an additional irritant at a time when Ankara threatened military action against the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northern Syria.The Democratic Union Party (PYD), as well as the YPG, which makes up the backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), are seen by Turkey as offshoots of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), but talks between the SDF and Damascus under U.S. mediation forced Turkey to refrain from military action in northeast Syria. As Turkey has embarked on a new peace process to solve the decades-long Kurdish problem, Ankara is waiting to see how the talks between Damascus and the SDG will proceed.The risk of confrontation between Turkey and Israel heightened following news about Turkish-Syrian military cooperation. While Turkish defense ministry officials insisted that the cooperation aimed at training the Syrian army, some media outlets known to have good connections to the Turkish government reported about plans to deploy forces in bases in Syria. One media outlet claimed that Turkey “has begun efforts to take control of Tiyas air base, also known as T4, and is preparing to deploy air defense systems there.”Within a few days following these reports, Israel bombed the sites and destroyed the T4 airport. The Israeli press reported that the strikes were meant to be a message to Turkey to stop its military expansion in Syria. Since Assad’s fall there have been more than 750 Israeli air and artillery strikes and more than 230 ground incursions. The day Israel carried out the air operation against the T 4 airport, Turkish foreign minister Fidan told an international outlet Turkey did not want a confrontation with Israel in Syria. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on April 7 and watched the U.S. president shower Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with praise in front of the cameras. Trump said he could help mediate between the two leaders, while he asked Netanyahu to be “reasonable.” When it was revealed two days later that the two countries' officials met for de-conflicting talks, Washington was said to have encouraged the two capitals to de-escalate.

IMPLICATIONS: Had Hamas’ deadly October 7 attack not taken place, Ankara was preparing to host Netanyahu. Having missed the chance of mending fences with the previous Israeli government, which included more moderate forces, Erdoğan had decided to go ahead with normalization even though Netanyahu’s new cabinet included hawkish, ultra-right wing parties.  But following October 7, the envoys were called back; Ankara even terminated officially all trade with Israel, although the Turkish opposition claims that the economic relations continue to be pursued indirectly.

Turkey sees Israel’s post-October 7 strategy as both inhuman in terms of the suffering and death in Gaza and as extremely dangerous for the region. Yet while President Trump’s plans to depopulate Gaza were met with harsh criticism by Foreign Minister Fidan, it is worth noting that some pro-government pundits voiced the possibility of migration for Gazans under the Islamic terminology ‘hijrah.” And ironically, Israel’s attacks against Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Syria in the latter case played into the hands of Turkey, since it led to the unintended consequence of the collapse of the regime in Damascus.

Assad’s fall potentially opened the door for the return of more than three million Syrian refugees in Turkey and Ankara looks forward to reaping the economic benefits of the reconstruction of Syria. And more importantly, the YPG, which controlled north eastern Syria, faced the risk of losing its territorial and economic gains. Yet Israel’s stance on Syria disrupts all of Turkey’s plans. The two countries stand diametrically opposed on both the Palestinian problem and Syria’s future.  However, the stakes in Syria are higher for Turkey compared to the Palestinian question. In fact, many in Turkey would question whether the Palestinian problem is a national cause. Developments in Syria, on the other hand, directly affect Turkey’s national interests.

With a 911 km land border, Syria’s stability is extremely critical for Turkey, and the solution of the Kurdish problem will depend on the talks between Syria’s new rulers and the Kurdish factions in the country. Ankara is firmly opposed to the federal solution that the Syrian Kurds favor; it fears that it would encourage similar aspirations among Turkey’s Kurds, and holds that regional stability will benefit from a unified Syria. Israel sees it differently; it’s no secret that Israel wants a weak and fragmented Syria. Israel’s policy is based on its calculation that a divided Syria is the best guarantee for its security while a united Syria could eventually pose a threat.

CONCLUSIONS: Competing visions for the future of post-Assad Syria has further deteriorated the already strained Turkish-Israeli relations. While Turkey’s clout in Syria stands in the way of Israel’s efforts to fragment Syria and undermine its territorial integrity, Israel’s actions disrupt Turkey’s strategy of a unified Syria. As a result both perceive each other as posing a threat to their respective national interests.

While a full-scale war between Turkey and Israel is highly unlikely, a misunderstanding or an accident spiraling into a military clash cannot be excluded. Turkish officials have repeatedly indicated that Turkey won’t remain idle if Israel continues its military incursions and have warned that Israel’s interferences in the sectarian conflicts in Syria – notably Israel’s siding with the Druze minority against the government in Damascus – risk exacerbating the internal turmoil. In addition, a potential Israeli involvement in the dialogue between Damascus and the SDF would be viewed as provocative by Ankara.

Convinced that Syria’s new rulers are under Turkey’s influence, President Trump appears to have no problem with Turkey’s clout in the country. Trump has met al-Sharaa during his visit to the Gulf and announced his decision to lift US sanctions on Syria. By contrast, Netanyahu will try to use his leverage over Washington to keep Syria weak and block any step that will help Syria’s new rulers consolidate their power. Ankara will seek Washington’s support for crisis management and Erdoğan will use his good rapport with Trump to keep the tension from spiraling into a direct military confrontation with Israel.

The fragile detente between Turkey and Israel will have to be monitored closely by the United States.

AUTHOR BIO: Barçın Yinanç is a foreign policy commentator at the Turkish news site t24

By Emil Avdaliani

Armenia and Turkey are itching closer to full restoration of bilateral relations. While the normalization process remains vulnerable to external pressures and domestic political constraints, the factors driving the engagement today are structural, and both parties clearly recognize the benefits of full restoration. However, this outcome will nonetheless require strong political leadership and a shift in domestic public opinion in both countries – none of which are guaranteed. The most likely outcome is a pattern of managed normalization, slow, cautious, and transactional. Under this model, Turkey and Armenia would gradually deepen technical cooperation, possibly culminating in consular-level relations and partial border reopening, particularly for commercial traffic.

Photo source: iravaban.net

IMPLICATIONS: The normalization with Armenia opens new avenues for regional connectivity. Turkish policymakers view the South Caucasus as a gateway to Central Asia, the Caspian region, and potentially China via the Middle Corridor—a logistics and trade route that bypasses Russia and Iran. In this context, improved relations with Armenia could facilitate the development of multimodal transport infrastructure and integrate it further into EU-Asia connectivity. 

The reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border would not only benefit Armenia’s trade and connectivity with the broader region, but would also offer Turkish businesses access to new markets in Armenia and potentially further into the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). As a member of Russia-led EAEU, Armenia would enable eastern Turkish provinces like Kars and Iğdır to benefit from cross-border trade, transit infrastructure, and logistics services. 

While Turkey has announced its readiness to finalize the improvement of relations with Armenia, it has also signaled that Yerevan will first have to conclude a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. Recent statements do indeed suggest that the two countries are close to signing a peace agreement. Baku and Yerevan have confirmed that the work on the document has been concluded and that the two sides are closer than ever to reaching a historic agreement. However, there are still disagreements about the corridor through Armenia and the Armenian constitution, which calls for unification with Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Nevertheless, Baku and Yerevan have taken major steps to toward the peace agreement which in turn would open the door to Turkey to pursue bilateral engagement with Yerevan without prejudicing its strategic relationship with its ally Azerbaijan. Arguably, once a peace deal has been reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the efforts to reopen the Armenia-Turkey border and restore diplomatic ties will be accelerated.

Yet political, psychological, and logistical barriers will still have to be overcome. While Baku has officially refrained from opposing the Turkey-Armenia talks, it maintains significant leverage over the process. Turkish policymakers are traditionally sensitive to Azerbaijani perceptions and have repeatedly stated that normalization with Armenia will not come at the expense of their ties with Baku. This creates a structural ceiling for Turkish diplomatic engagement, one that is unlikely to be breached unless Armenia and Azerbaijan reach a final peace settlement that clarifies the status of the Zangezur Corridor and other contentious issues.

Domestic political dynamics in both Turkey and Armenia further complicate the picture. In both capitals, members of the political elites continue to harbor skepticism toward bilateral engagement. In Yerevan in particular, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faces domestic constraints. While he has demonstrated willingness to explore normalization, his domestic political opposition accuses him of capitulation to Turkey and Azerbaijan, particularly in the wake of the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Deficient infrastructure poses an additional challenge. Even if the two sides agree to reopen borders or launch joint trade initiatives, new physical infrastructure will be necessary to facilitate such interaction. Decades of closed borders have resulted in minimal customs cooperation, and underdeveloped trade logistics. Reviving these systems is going to require significant investment, time, and coordinated planning.

CONCLUSIONS: The emerging dialogue between Turkey and Armenia is not the result of spontaneous goodwill, but rather of shifts in the regional power balance coupled with economic imperatives. In comparison with previous attempts to improve relations, this time practical steps have been made, aided by geopolitical situation in the region. Over the next months, several plausible scenarios could emerge. The most likely outcome is a pattern of managed normalization—slow, cautious, and transactional. Under this model, Turkey and Armenia would gradually deepen technical cooperation, possibly culminating in consular-level relations and partial border reopening, particularly for commercial traffic. This would allow both governments to claim progress without provoking political backlash or over-committing to full diplomatic recognition. Such a path could potentially be underpinned by parallel Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations or even formats which would include other regional actors.

A more optimistic scenario would involve a formal diplomatic breakthrough following a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This would remove the principal strategic obstacle from Turkey’s calculus and could lead to the exchange of ambassadors, the full reopening of land borders, and large-scale investment in regional infrastructure. In this context, Turkey could position itself as an economic gateway for Armenia helping it to break its isolation and attract diversified foreign capital. 

Overall, the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus is favorable to a definitive improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations and the two parties clearly recognize the benefits of full restoration. However, this outcome will nonetheless require strong political leadership and a shift in domestic public opinion in both countries – none of which are guaranteed.

AUTHOR BIO: Emil Avdaliani is a professor of international relations at the European University in Tbilisi, Georgia, and a scholar of Silk Roads. He can be reached on Twitter/X at @emilavdaliani. 

By Michael Tanchum

With record-breaking arms exports globally, Turkey’s growing market share in the Arab monarchies holds the potential to greatly expand Ankara’s role as a security provider across the Middle East and North Africa.  At the same time, Turkey faces growing competition from Israel and India, which have significantly expanded their own weapons sales to the Arab monarchies, notably the UAE and Morocco. Deepening defense cooperation in ways that Turkey has not, Israel and India have engaged in the co-development of weapons systems with Arab defense firms and have established local weapons manufacturing in the Arab world. The next phase in the competition for the MENA weapons market share, as well as the regional geopolitical clout that accompanies it, could be determined by Saudi Arabia, raising Ankara’s geopolitical stakes in securing a sizable purchase of Turkish weapons by Riyadh.