Turkey Between Functional Role and the Illusion of Readiness

 Turkey Between Functional Role and the Illusion of Readiness

By Dr. Hussein Yamani

Writer and Researcher in International Economic Relations

The most dangerous tools of colonialism are not those that appear in the form of direct occupation, nor those that explicitly raise its banners. Rather, perhaps the most dangerous are those that succeed in appearing as an alternative, granting peoples a ray of hope, and leaving an impression in their souls that there is a coming power that will carry the banner, unite the ranks, and restore the presence of the Ummah.

Colonialism, in our reading of its political behavior, does not treat peoples as silent masses. Rather, it studies the dynamics of societies, their psychologies, and their aspirations, seeking the points of strength and weakness in the collective consciousness. It fully realizes that if the doors of hope are closed to peoples and if they realize they are alone facing their reality, they may search on their own for a new path. An independent leadership might emerge among them, carrying a real project and departing from the paths imposed upon them.

And right here lies the danger of the illusion of an alternative.

Turkey is one of the tools of colonialism, and this is a fact dictated by the reality of its policies and its role. It is used to absorb the energies of Muslims, contain their anger, and prevent the emergence of an independent Islamic leadership that could depart from the Zionist American line.

Unfortunately, some still harbor the illusion since long ago that Turkey is preparing to lead the Ummah. Yes, it is preparing, but only to absorb the anger of Muslims further through speeches, slogans, and stances that suggest strength, while its real role remains governed by its function within the colonial system.

When peoples feel that there is someone who will carry the banner for them, that there is a state preparing to lead the Ummah, and that a regional power will come one day to unite Muslims and confront their opponents, the search for a real alternative might cease. Hope pinned on an external power becomes a means to delay true political and intellectual birth within the Ummah.

From this angle, the debate over the Turkish role can be understood from a different perspective.

Some see Turkey as a state preparing to lead the Ummah, interpreting its political discourse, media positions, and some regional moves as precursors to a great coming project. However, the most important question is not what Turkey says, but rather: toward which political system is it moving? And what are the limits of its ability to make an independent decision when its interests conflict with the will of major powers?

Slogans alone do not create leadership, passionate speeches do not create independence, and temporary stances are not enough to prove the existence of an independent historical project.

True leadership is not measured by the loudness of the voice, but by the ability of the decision to remain independent.

Here the painful paradox appears: the state may seem in its discourse as if it is advancing toward carrying the banner, while its practical policies reveal that it moves within boundaries drawn for it, and that it cannot cross the lines set by the international system within which it operates.

Therefore, the problem is not that Turkey talks about strength, nor that some of its positions may seem more confrontational than others. The problem lies in turning these appearances into evidence of a liberation project whose premises and outcomes have not been proven.

The Ummah does not need someone to convince it that they will carry the banner; rather, it needs a project that is actually capable of carrying it.

If colonialism is capable of reading the behavior of peoples, it realizes very well that its most dangerous moment is the moment the Ummah transitions from waiting for a savior to forging its own project by itself. For this reason, keeping peoples in a state of perpetual waiting may be more effective than directly suppressing them.

For the Ummah to wait for a certain state to act, to interpret every political speech as the beginning of a renaissance, and to pin its hopes on external transformations instead of building its consciousness and independent project, all of that might turn into a state of political paralysis wrapped in hope.

Here we must pay attention to the difference between true hope and political illusion.

True hope drives a person to act, whereas illusion drives them to wait.

True hope builds, whereas illusion consumes time.

True hope makes the Ummah the master of its decisions, whereas illusion makes it observe others while waiting for them to decide its fate.

From this perspective, the question about Turkey should not be an emotional one: Will it lead the Ummah or not? Instead, it should be an analytical question: Does Turkey possess an independent project capable of transcending the system within which it moves, or does its regional role, however strong it may seem, remain governed by balances and rules larger than itself?

A state that wants to carry a new banner cannot merely change its discourse. It must change its position, possess its own decision making power, and bear the cost of independence when independence becomes costly.

As for raising slogans on one hand, and then returning in crucial files to the limits of the same international system on the other hand, this is not leadership in the historical sense. At best, it is crisis management within the existing system.

This is the bitter reality that we must face without falsification or illusions: the image may be stronger than the truth, the discourse may be more independent than the decision, and the state may seem as if it is walking toward carrying the banner, while in reality it is walking inside the path drawn for it.

Therefore, we should not be deceived by the image, nor enslaved by slogans, nor turn wishes into facts before events prove them.

The future of the Ummah should not be built on waiting for a certain state, nor on interpreting political speech, nor on creating a regional hero from whom peoples expect action they themselves have not taken.

Rather, the future begins when the Ummah regains its consciousness, reads reality as it is, and distinguishes between who possesses the decision and who possesses the discourse, and between who leads the path and who merely moves within it.

The recent Zionist targeting of the Abu al Duhur military airport in northern Syria near the Turkish border carries geopolitical dimensions that exceed mere field shelling. Zionist strategy demonstrated a clear desire to impose red lines preventing the rehabilitation of Syrian military capabilities or the expansion of any competing regional influence. In response, the Turkish reaction materialized through political statements and positions wrapped in diplomacy and caution, clearly showing that Ankara cannot depart from the path of the colonizer.

In the end, the reference that never changes remains the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace be upon him. In them lies the scale of guidance, and in them is what helps distinguish between truth and illusion, and between insight and attachment to wishes.

It is not enough to ask: Who will carry the banner?

Rather, we must ask before that: Which banner? Which project? Who holds the decision? And where does the road lead us?

Nations are not born from waiting for others; rather, they are born when they possess their consciousness, know their reality, and bear responsibility for their future.

And Allah is behind the purpose, and our last prayer is: Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.

This article is in the path of Allah.

And our final prayer is: All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.​ .