“If I was on Iran’s place, I would test a nuclear weapon in the desert”

West Asia is living tectonic shifts at all of its corners, from the Palestine conflict over the Iranian-Israeli tensions, from Turkish-Iraqi agreements to rapprochement between Ankara and Damascus and its repercussions in the Ukraine conflict.

We asked Ismail Hakkı Pekin, retired lieutenant-general of the Turkish Armed Forces and former Head of Intelligence at the General Staff, on his evaluations.

Let us begin with the recent security agreement between Türkiye and Iraq. How do you evaluate this?

This agreement follows continued diplomatic efforts, for instance with the visit of Turkish President Erdoğan to Baghdad in April, where several agreements had already been signed. On August 15, a bilateral High-Level meeting followed. And now came the visit of Iraqi foreign minister to Ankara.

Türkiye advanced fight against PKK by incorporating Iraq

From my point of view, there are a number of achievements here. Firstly, the PKK has become a prohibited organization, this is a great success. This comes in a context where the Iraqi government is being pressured from all sides, from the American side as well as from the Iranian side. Organizations connected to the PKK are also pressuring the Iraqi government.

In that circumstances, the Iraqi central government needed to get some space and Turkey made this step forward. Türkiye’s demand was to prolong the security corridor starting from Syria to Iraq and the border of Iran. Now the Iraqi government has started to consider the PKK as an illegal organization, and it has even prohibited 3 political parties connected to it. Baghdad also confiscated property belonging to the PKK.

In exchange, Türkiye has permitted that the military base of Bashiqa will be operated jointly between Ankara and Baghdad. It will be a joint training center. Besides, there will be another coordination center established in Baghdad which will not only deal with the threat of terror but also with human trafficking and drug trafficking.

Hence, in these difficult circumstances, Türkiye received some important concessions from the Iraqi government and provided some agreements in exchange.

This has been a good step forward. It is not an easy task to eliminate the PKK terror organization. But with this agreement, Türkiye has included Iraq into its own struggle against terror. What is now necessary is to include the situation in the region between Iraq and Syria, the Shenghal region. If that area is controlled, then the PKK’s cross-border operations will be stopped, and the corridor of security will be established.

I think both sides Ankara and Baghdad are pretty happy with the agreement Türkiye has made some achievements, and it has started to compliment its security agreements with other agreements in regard to economy exports and transportation. This is an intelligent approach.

Now similar agreements are needed with Syria. Actually, also with Iran and even with Russia. Russia is now busy on its own territory, but still Türkiye needs to cooperate with Russia 2 in order to establish new balances of power in the region and force the West and the United States out. The goal needs to be to establish strong central governments.

Demanding a new constitution for Syria makes situation “unsolvable”

How do you evaluate the Turkish minister of defense Yaşar Güler’s demand that Syria needs to establish a new constitution before Turkey pulls out its troops from Syrian soil?

I think the time is running out for Türkiye and also for Syria. Such an agreement on a new constitution is very difficult. Türkiye cooperates with the Free Syrian Army, which Syria considers a terrorist organization. These forces are also present in Idleb. Syria and Russia are pressuring to force them out.

Now demanding a new constitution with a room for these armed forces while the Americans also demand a place in that constitution for the Kurds makes the situation very complicated and unsolvable. To get a solution, a side needs to open a lock so that the process can continue.

I think what’s necessary is that both sides Türkiye and Syria advance where they agree and for instance discuss a joint protection of the border. Maybe Turkish military remains here a while longer, but ensures security together with Syrian forces. Most importantly, we need a strong Syrian central government and a Syria that is in peace.

From the Turkish point of view, the most important matters are security of the border the security inside areas close to the border and logistical connections within Syria that needs to be opened up.

I would like to come to another topic. We see that attacks occur from the US and Israeli side simultaneously against Russia and Iran. Do you think that the United States and Israel are applying a joint strategy against both of these countries?

Now let me put this that way Russia is a big country and so is the United States these two countries do not fight each other directly, but they are in indirect conflicts. The United States supports Ukraine together with the entire W while Russia cooperates with Iran.

At the same time, while they are in conflict, they do conduct backstage talks. For instance, in recently in Qatar, both sides held talks about energy and other critical global issues. Hence, they maintain communication despite the war.

The United States tried to corner Russia by using the war and also weaken China simultaneously. Did they achieve their goal? No, they didn’t. On the other side Russia China and also Iran are forced to act together because Iran for instance is an important country in the Caucasus and Russia needs its support.

Similarly, the US fight against Hamas strengthens Iran’s and Russia’s hand in the region. That’s why Russia openly supports Hamas. Generally speaking, Russia, China, Iran, Hamas and so on, that is the collective East acts in a way separately in different regions of the world but for the same goal: to change the US controlled world order.

Ukrainian offensive in Kursk makes “no military sense”

As you are talking about Russia, I would like to ask you how you see the offensive of Ukraine in the Kursk region.

The recent Ukrainian offensive does not make any sense in terms of military advance, it is an entirely political step to me. It seems to have been undertaken to pleasure some people to pleasure the United States. Give wants to demonstrate that it achieves advance in exchange for all the weapons it has received.

Militarily speaking they have advanced approximately 30 kilometers now the question is where the supplies for the soldiers come from how ammunition will be transported to the region. These are all problems that are unsolved until now. And remember the most valuable resource our soldiers are men capable to fight Ukraine has a lot of weapons, but it has no soldiers. Now, they have pursued this offensive with approximately 10,000 soldiers that is 3 pretty gates and an air offensive brigade. They have 600 armored vehicles and some air defense systems.

As far as we can judge, they don’t use aviation or helicopters. This is militarily an unwise operation that is not sustainable.

Russia on the other side was trying to finish this war fast, but it seems that now the conflict will endure longer, and peace will come later. Especially the bombing of the nuclear plant in Zaporizhia will delay an agreement.

Simultaneously, the Ukrainians have abundant frontline in the South and East, where now the Russians are advancing. And here it seems to me that Russian experience is on display.

I would like to return to the Middle East. Do you see any difference or conflicts between the strategies of the United States and Israel?

I don’t see a great difference here. The United States wants Israel to act more carefully. Generally speaking, the United States has a broader and more strategic perspective that includes for instance the situation in the South Caucasus with Armenia that includes Iran and certain processes on the road here. At the same time, the US acknowledges that they are not ready for a Great War in the region. They state that they don’t have the necessary weapons and deployment here. Therefore, the US acts primarily tactically and then strategically.

Netanyahu on the other side is acting in a more unprepared way because he is only focused on Israel and also on his personal political future. Therefore, he’s asking himself how to lighten up the regional fire, how to broaden the conflicts and how to save his political future thanks to that.

Do you think that Netanyahu wants to pull Iran into an open conflict?

Yes, I do think so. Netanyahu made the provocation with the killing of honey and with the bombing of the nuclear plant.

But Iran is acting wisely. I am being asked how Iran will respond. If I were in Iran’s place, I would probably either assassinate Netanyahu or do another thing. Iran most probably has already developed a nuclear weapon. If I were Iran, I would test this weapon somewhere in the desert where it causes no harm. Then everybody would know Tehran has the real power.

Right now, Iran is acting very carefully and probably waiting for the outcome of the ceasefire negotiations. They are trying to proceed without too much escalation, carefully.