It seems that while the Kurdish card will be forming one side of the new equation being established in the Middle East, the other side will be formed by the ISIL card. The conflict between Kurdish-ISIL at Kobane was composed of the staging of a regional equation in a micro scale, rather than a local crisis. Of course, the reasoning, conspiracy theories and strategic assumptions on these types of developments will not be sufficient to explain everything. Such statements can transform your own position into a tool of legitimization after talking over all the possibilities anyway.

A reading, which reduces the history, humanistic aspect and the cultural depth of the geography to geopolitical and geostrategic argument by disregarding them, is always uniplanar and deceptive. It doesn’t mean that the effect of the synthetic aspect of the strategic accounts, which exclude the geography, communities and their history, are to be belittled. It only means this; the core dynamics, which are indicative within the long stream of history, are too deep and multidimensional to be downgraded to a power conflict.

By taking this frame into account, the new equation, which is taking form in the Middle East, is signaling that they are trying to manipulate the domestic dynamics according to the global actors’ objective of the regional dynamics. There is no doubt that the powers, which had experienced colonization and invasion for over a century, perceive that developing a strategy over the inexistent elements will not be successful. And even if it becomes successful, it won’t be permanent. It’s being understood that the US, who had invaded Iraq with simple excuses, is not going to leave as if nothing had happened. Because the long-term strategic objectives, which were the justification for the invasion, are still preserving their validity.

The meaning behind the establishment of bases in the region by the old exhausted colonist Britannia, as if implying a return to the conditions centuries ago, has a more symbolical value than a military one.

The footsteps of the intentions, which will turn the ethnic and sect differentiation and the richness of the Middle East into a project that will give place to a deep conflict, can be heard. Because of the plans of both the US and Europe-centric vectorial powers over the Kurds, Turkey is being included to the equation directly as a side. The problem is related with the question “Which side, who wants to play the Kurdish card, has a stronger hand?” And “To what extent can the respondents read it correctly and mobilize the domestic dynamics?” Only by reading the developments correctly from their side and as a regional issue and taking necessary steps at the right time, Turkey can transform them into an intraregional acquisition.

However, as an international problem, in which many different components are interfering, this is the geocultural and geostrategic field, where the exterritorial forces’ different interests are mostly concentrated. It’s clear that the exterritorial actors, which see themselves in an indicative power, are not fond of Turkey’s “intention” to become one of the indicative actors in the developments in the region. In the Kurdish issue, it was intended for Turkey to be pushed to two different fields in the region. At first, Turkey had been pushed to the field by being encouraged to interfere in the developments in Syria at the beginning. However, it could be even said that the ones, who had encouraged Turkey, had preferred to stay as observers in a short time and maintained an attitude like “waiting for Turkey to learn their lesson”. The situation in Syria, which had turned into a civil war, is apparent to everyone.

Secondly, it is also related with Syria; however, in a separate context, Turkey is intended to be included to the conflict without interfering in the region. ISIL, which almost stepped in like a third partner in Iraq, had become a strategic failure line, where they were tested against international powers rather than the elements in the region, and hereby taking some certain policies as hostages. It is being expected from the enthusiasm, which is increasing domestically, to re-incline towards the Middle East to transform into a regional strategy, whose beginning and ending, objectives and tools are perfectly designated. What could be more natural than a country like Turkey, whose position and power is clear, or any other state in the region to have such a vision?

The recent developments had unfolded a distorted balance problem between Turkey’s intention, potential and strategy. Nowadays, the coalition led by US is forcing Turkey to certain demands, which will alienate Turkey’s relation with the region by ripping it from the historic and cultural platform and turn it into a part of an operation. While the civil war in Syria, which is factionalizing and alienating Turkey over the Sunni- Shi’ite, Sunni-Alevist conflict, is still ongoing, the developments in Iraq are compelling a more complex interference. This time, rather than the Sunni-Shiah polarization, Turkey is being compelled to become a Sunni side against the Sunnis, who are kept hostage by ISIL. So, Turkey is trying to be pushed to the position of a country, which has a Middle East plan and ambition; thus fights against the Shi’ite in Syria and Sunnis in Iraq, and has a dispute with everyone.

The ones, who are keeping Turkey’s big playmaker capacity in their hands, rather than its weaknesses and mistakes, are being indicative in the formation of this strategic conspiracy. The matter, with which the UK Prime Minister and possibly others are persistently persuading American top senior administrators, is the matter leading Turkey to the front against ISIL, which had become the source of all evil. It’s clear that the increase in news about the names of Turkish intelligence officers that died in Iraq and Iraq’s terror connection, during these critical visits, are part of the diplomatic negotiation elements.

You can’t possibly sit down and observe the happenings in the nearby geography, where the cards are being reshuffled and things had stirred this much.

However, you are required to designate the chance of interfering with the developments and the legitimacy elements perfectly. The difference between nostalgia and literalism, and dream and chance is similar to the difference between having an ideal and being a daydreamer.

�lgili Yaz�larDünya, English, Siyaset