Harsh Rhetoric And Fragile Balances: A Measured Reflection On Allegations Against Turkey – OpEd

An article published by the Greece-based newspaper Ekathimerini, which employs exceptionally strong language when addressing Türkiye's current political leadership and regional posture, warrants careful and sober examination. The tone and framing adopted in the piece raise concerns not only within Türkiye but also from the perspective of regional diplomacy, as such rhetoric risks deepening tensions rather than contributing to constructive dialogue.¹

At the outset, it should be noted that discourse which equates a country's political direction or governing authority with terrorist organizations relies less on analytical assessment and more on political polemics. In the field of international relations, such language is generally regarded as an example of excessive rhetoric aimed at shaping perceptions rather than offering evidence-based critique. This approach inevitably weakens the credibility and analytical value of the argument.²

Over the past decade, Türkiye has endured numerous attacks by extremist organizations and has paid a significant human and security cost in countering them. International documents and assessments by NATO, the United Nations, and the European Union have consistently recognized Türkiye as an active participant in efforts against ISIS and other radical groups.³ In this context, portraying the country as ideologically aligned with such organizations overlooks both official policy positions and documented operational realities.

The Syrian conflict, frequently referenced in such criticisms, presents a particularly complex picture. It is a multi-layered war involving global and regional actors whose alliances and priorities have evolved over time. Simplifying this environment by assigning exclusive or absolute responsibility to a single state risks obscuring the broader dynamics at play. Türkiye's policies have been shaped by immediate border security concerns, unprecedented migration pressures, and longstanding sensitivities regarding territorial integrity.⁴⁵ Evaluations that fail to account for these factors remain, by necessity, incomplete.

Another noteworthy aspect of the article is its reliance on historical and ideological analogies that fall outside established diplomatic norms. International legal and diplomatic scholarship generally holds that such comparisons, especially when emotionally charged, tend to reinforce polarization rather than facilitate conflict resolution.⁶ Far from clarifying disagreements, this style of argumentation often narrows the space for rational debate.

Türkiye's foreign policy choices, regional engagements, and public rhetoric are legitimate subjects of international scrutiny and criticism. However, for such criticism to be effective and meaningful, it must be grounded in proportionate language, verifiable evidence, and mutual respect. When these elements are absent, commentary risks being perceived less as analysis and more as advocacy or political messaging, limiting its impact on informed audiences.

At a time when the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean face heightened instability, the region would benefit more from approaches that encourage dialogue and understanding rather than rigid labeling and confrontational narratives. This responsibility rests not only with political actors, but also with those who shape public discourse through media and commentary.

References

1. "Erdogan 'is ISIS at heart and a jihadist at soul'", Ekathimerini, available at: https://www.ekathimerini.com/in-depth/interviews-in-depth/1292654/erdogan-is-isis-at-heart-and-a-jihadist-at-soul/
2. Stephen M. Walt, International Relations: One World, Many Theories, Foreign Policy.
3. NATO, United Nations Security Council, and European Union counter-terrorism reports on ISIS.
4. International Crisis Group, Syria's Conflict: A Multilevel War.
5. UNHCR and IOM reports on migration and border security pressures affecting Türkiye.
6. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy; European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) analyses on diplomatic language and conflict dynamics.