The US Administration under Bush Junior, and under the Neoconservatives, had sought to spread democracy in the Middle East by force. It waged wars, some of which are still raging to this day (Afghanistan and Iraq), and made enemies of many friends. But it was confronted with fierce resistance, making the “wise ones” in the Republican and Democratic parties meet in an attempt to change its policies and return to its friends, preferring stability under tyranny to chaos, the outcome of which no one can predict, especially in areas vital to the US economy and to Western interests. Thus the Baker-Hamilton study was published, returning the White House to its former methods of dealing with the allies it needs in order to confront its enemies. Things changed under Obama, as did the circumstances surrounding them. The futility of the wars was confirmed, leading to the decision to withdraw from Iraq (at the end of this year) and from Afghanistan. Thus began the struggle to fill the vacuum such a withdrawal would result in. Conflict between the United States and Pakistan nearly reached the extent of rupture of relations, and there are attempts today to resolve the disagreements between the two. Conflict also emerged in the Middle East between the major powers in the region, and between some of them and the United States. It is within such a framework that one can place the change in Turkey's politics, from the “zero problems” approach to Ankara putting itself forward as the sole regional superpower, and to it intervening in Arab affairs (in Egypt and in Syria) in order to direct the Arab Spring towards “Islamist democracy”, a model which Washington has come to view as a way out of the crisis. It is a model that is not hostile to the West, and is in fact its ally, and one that meets the aspirations of the peoples demanding freedom. It was only natural for Turkey to clash with other countries, and most prominently with Iran, a country that is trying to spread another model of Islamist rule, which it asserts to be democratic and not opposed to Sharia Law, in addition to being in tune with the history of the peoples of the region, as well as unconnected to the West and hostile to Israel. Those two Islamist models of rule, and the attempts to spread them in the Arab and Muslim region, are confronted with centuries-old sectarian disputes, in addition to nationalist trends that view the two regional powers and their Islamist regimes of rule as cover for nationalist ambitions which neither Ankara nor Tehran conceal. As for Washington, it is allied with “democratic Islam” and seeks to form a force that would fill the vacuum and confront Iran's ambitions by dismantling the alliance between Iran, Syria and Iraq. For this it is relying on Turkey, which has taken upon itself to change things in Syria, making use of additional pressure on Tehran and Damascus, while waiting for the outcome of what takes place in the two defiant capitals. And if the situation does not settle down, Ankara and other capitals will have to manage the chaos in the region. Such chaos will drown the Middle East in destructive wars that renew tyranny and chase away freedom.
