Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu is moving from Damascus to Baghdad to Cairo and to Tehran, to mediate among Arab states whose conflicts have reached the level of diplomatic estrangement and who have threatened to resort to the Security Council. He also worked as a mediator between these states and Iran, which is accused of exporting its ideas to the Arab world. He does not hesitate to adopt Iran's point of view in its negotiations with Europe and the United Sates over its nuclear program. Let us not forget, of course, Ankara's leading role in the unofficial negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv, and its stand on the Israeli war on Gaza. In fact, the move of the new preacher of neo-Ottomanism confirms that Turkey has completed a historical reconciliation with itself, and is seeking to consolidate it with its surroundings, which used to consist of states that were affiliated with Istanbul. Most importantly, Turkey has overcome its previous differences with its historical enemy, i.e. Iran, which has turned into the enemy of Arabs. Ankara refused to engage in polemics with the Iranian regime for many reasons, including the fact that Turkey does not entirely yield to the US policies, knows how to address it from the position of an ally, and how to undertake independent positions. Besides, Turkey is not afraid of exporting the revolution. In this regard, we recall its rejection to use its territory to wage a war on Iraq. In return, we find that Arab governments and people are going back to their previous history and religious ideologies. Even those governments that claim democracy and modernity soon resort to hiding behind the guise of religion, in order to blackmail jihadists and gain their legitimacy from the unseen. As for the people, they are deceived into thinking they are conquering deprivation and poverty by also resorting to the unseen or to terrorism. After overcoming the complex of its sultanate history, the Islamo-secular Turkey started, to seek the formation of a regional axis with Iran and Syria, thus bypassing the sectarian, ethnic, and historical conflict. However, this attempt collided with a domestic rejection that surfaced in the media and some research centers controlled by those who belong to the extremist left or the more extremist right, such as the Nationalist Movement Party led by Devlet Bahçeli or the Republican People's Party led by Deniz Baykal, as well those who go too far in their liberalism and want to establish an axis of Turkey, Germany, France, and Israel (since it is the only democracy in the Middle East), in order to consolidate their European belonging. In the region, this attempt collapses with the rejection or reservation of Arab states that consider themselves entitled to address the region's affairs. These states consider that Syria will be the weak party in this new axis, which seeks to fill the gap after the American withdrawal from Iraq. But the Arab indifference, which reached the level of letting the Americans and Israelis negotiate on our behalf and that of the Palestinians, in order to determine the fate of their future and that of the region, and wait for the Israeli strike against Iran – in the hope of curbing its aspirations – complicates the problem and makes the conflicts even more intense. In fact, there should be an Arab axis because the Middle East issues are mostly Arab ones, but without the illusion of defending a non-existent power and the illusion of the partnership with allies of the weak including the United States.
