Yörük: Behind Trump’s praise, a warning for Erdoğan

Dr. Zafer Yörük warns that Donald Trump’s remarks about Erdoğan should raise alarm within the government, rather than be seen as a diplomatic success.

Israel last week launched airstrikes on Syria’s T4 Airbase and surrounding areas in the Palmyra region, where Turkey was reportedly preparing to establish a military base. A series of statements by Israeli officials and reports in the Israeli press signaled the possibility of a new round of conflict. In response, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan attempted to defuse tensions by stating, “We do not wish to come face to face with Israel.”

Meanwhile, in Washington, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu echoed a similar tone during his meeting with United States President Donald Trump. What drew particular attention, however, were Trump’s comments about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Though framed in glowing praise, the real implications of Trump’s words remain uncertain.

In Turkey, Trump’s remarks have been interpreted by many as implicit support for the country’s ongoing anti-democratic practices.

Assessing the latest meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, political scientist Dr. Zafer Yörük emphasized that Erdoğan himself should have been present at the table where he was being discussed. Recalling a well-known saying in diplomatic circles, Yörük said: "If you can’t find your name on the guest list for a diplomatic dinner, check the menu. The Trump–Netanyahu meeting can be seen as exactly that kind of dinner. They made it very clear to the world what, or who, was on the menu."

Dr. Yörük also responded to our questions regarding recent regional developments.

The recent confrontation between Turkey and Israel in Syria began with a statement from Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who declared, “We do not wish to come face to face with Israel.” This was soon followed by a similarly conciliatory statement from Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu after his meeting with former United States President Donald Trump. But what lies at the root of this growing tension between the two states?

The fall of the Assad regime made it unmistakably clear that Syria, since its founding, had functioned as a kind of 'buffer state' between Turkey and Israel. With the Syrian state's collapse, the two powers have effectively become neighbors, both in geographic proximity and through the physical contact of military forces. In his White House speech, Netanyahu even began using the term 'neighbor' to refer to Turkey—signaling a shift in perspective. While he did not fully spell out what he expected from this new neighbor, he made clear what he did not expect.

In areas such as Aleppo and northwest Syria, Turkey’s presence, at least partially military, is now seen as a fact on the ground. More importantly, Turkey’s influence over the leadership of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which has taken control of parts of Syria, is reportedly acknowledged, even appreciated, by the United States, as Trump himself noted. However, any move beyond this tacitly accepted presence has been met with caution, even veiled warnings.

On the other hand, Turkey appears to have accepted the current arrangement east of the Euphrates as a form of internal resolution within Syria. However, Ankara has also shown interest in expanding its reach further south. The most recent attempt involved a proposed deployment of F-16 fighter jets and Russian-made S-400 missile systems to the T4 Airbase near Palmyra, a plan that was still in its conceptual phase when it was thwarted by Israeli airstrikes.

Additionally, there have been expressions of interest from pro-government opinion leaders in Ankara about extending Turkish influence into the Latakia region under the pretext of protecting 'Turkic kin.' Some have even suggested a claim to guardianship over the local Alawite population. Yet, it is well known that Turkey-backed militias, especially those of Central Asian and Caucasian origin, played a significant role in the most recent massacres of Alawites in the region. Through this latest meeting, the leaders of Israel and the United States (US) sent a clear signal to President Erdoğan: they are fully aware of his expansionist ambitions and are warning him to reconsider.

Trump made some interesting remarks about Erdoğan during his meeting with Netanyahu. He said he would resolve the hostility between the two countries and also made a series of complimentary statements about Erdoğan. So, in your opinion, how might Trump’s positive words about Erdoğan reflect on the ground?

It was not appropriate for a meeting in which Turkey and its president were the top item on the agenda to take place in the absence of that country and its president. In other words, there should have been a trilateral meeting between Netanyahu, Erdoğan, and Trump. The fact that this did not happen should cause concern, not joy, on the side of Turkey and Erdoğan.

Because there is a famous diplomatic joke: 'If you can’t find your name on the guest list for a diplomatic dinner, check the menu.' We can think of the Trump–Netanyahu meeting as exactly that kind of dinner. They openly declared to the whole world wha, or who, was on the menu. In this picture, it would be accurate to read those words of praise in the sauce or the seasoning of the meal.

In summary, Erdoğan and Turkey were laid out on the table in the Oval Office by Netanyahu and Trump. The results of the surgery, the treatment, and the prescription details were shared with the global public to the extent deemed appropriate, while the more private parts were probably delivered directly to the 'patient.'

In the statements, Trump’s praise for Erdoğan was especially highlighted, but he also made a brief remark: “We had our pastor, and we got him back.” Trump follows his own political path, but these statements also resemble the classic carrot-and-stick policy of the United States. How do you interpret the details of Trump’s remarks in this context?

Trump used the phrase 'being smart' several times. In Turkish, this has the tone of a 'mafia-style' piece of advice or warning, and in the context in which he used it, the English carries the same meaning. I interpreted Trump’s discourse as follows: 'Erdoğan was smart, agile, and capable enough to realize that he needed to return Pastor Brunson; and he has recently shown that he has not lost those qualities by ‘conquering’ Syria through HTS. Therefore, what is now expected from Erdoğan is to avoid acting against the concerns expressed by Israel.' That is the true meaning and intention of those words, plain and simple. In any case, Israel has already issued its warning by bombing the T4 Airbase with its jets.

United States Democratic Senator Chris Murphy claimed that Erdoğan carried out the operation against Imamoğlu under Trump’s influence. Naturally, Trump’s statements were interpreted in this light. In your opinion, do Trump’s remarks strengthen this claim?

It is significant that this widely discussed claim has now been echoed by Senator Murphy. The leadership of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) is also beginning to voice it. The United States responded to the Imamoğlu operation by saying, 'This is Turkey’s internal affair.' It would be naïve to interpret this as a sign that the American administration respects the sovereignty of other nations. Respect for other states or for international law? Hardly. We are talking about Trump who, just the other day, published a message saying, 'Freedom for Marine Le Pen!' in response to her corruption conviction by French courts.

Whether or not the claim of explicit approval is true, what we see is that Erdoğan’s move against Imamoğlu was met with tacit acceptance, perhaps even implicit support, from Washington (and from London). After all, it would be unreasonable to expect a far-right leader like Trump to express concern over the imprisonment of a social democratic figure in Turkey. And even if he had made such a statement, its sincerity would have been questionable. From the perspective of Trump and the techno-fascist–MAGA-style clique around him, Erdoğan may be seen as a pilot case of someone who comes to power through democracy only to dismantle it from within. Indeed, Trump’s own circle has already begun discussions about a 'third presidential term.'

More broadly speaking, for both the United States administration and other Western governments, as well as for multilateral political structures like the European Union, the continuation and stability of Erdoğan’s rule seems to be viewed as a rational and necessary choice. This impression is shaped not only by the critical geopolitical context and the refugee agreement, but also by the diplomatic weakness of the Turkish opposition. As with every moment of instability faced by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), a political communication gap between the CHP and the West, particularly concerning positions on Ukraine, Syria, and the refugee deal, has once again become visible. In the face of uncertainty and instability, the preference appears to be to continue with Erdoğan and the AKP.