New Middle East: Administrable Chaos

Turkey is an economic and socio-cultural force in the Middle East. However, the Syrian war clearly shows that Turkey is not a military power in the region.
 
A political power not backed by military power has limited influence in the Middle East. Turkish foreign policy is traditionally timid. It does not like taking risks; it is fearful of making mistakes. It would not be right to go back to the former timid policies, calling to the bold steps made in the last decade a total mistake. There is no such thing as indecisiveness in politics. For this reason, Turkey's Middle East policies should be revised in reference to the changing dynamics of the region. The support of the Western powers for the coup in Egypt, the ongoing clashes between the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and al-Nusra Front along the Turkish-Syrian border, the emergence of clashes between opposition groups in Syria and the advancements by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad make it necessary for Ankara to take another look at the Middle East.
 
Until recently, Ankara was fearful of Arabs and Kurds, but it no longer sees the Middle East through the lens of this phobia. For this reason, PYD leader Salih Muslim's visit to İstanbul is a constructive step toward the re-establishment of peace in the Middle East. We need greater dialogue, understanding and appreciation in the region. The Middle East cannot be read through a single sect, religion or ethnicity. The Middle East is changing and will keep changing. During this process, Turkey needs to revisit its policies.
 
The war in Syria has been going on for two-and-a-half years. At the beginning, it was argued that the Assad administration would be defeated in three to six months. Ankara believed that the war would be over in a very short time and that Syria would be restructured. This did not happen. We realized that the rules of the game were different. The scenario had been written differently. What is desired for Syria is not a new administration; what is desired is the total collapse of the country so that it can no longer be a threat to Israel.
 
If we draw up guidelines for understanding the Middle East, we need to include two elements. First, the Middle East is being redesigned based on concerns over Israeli security. Second, safe access to energy resources and their marketing in the world is a priority in the new setting.
 
If we look at how the Middle East has changed since 2000, we realize that Iraq, which was one of the most notable countries in terms of being a threat to Israeli security, is no longer a threat. Yet the drilling for and transportation of Iraqi oil continues without interruption. Secondly, Syria is also no longer a threat to Israeli security. Additionally, Egypt has been brought under control by a military coup.
 
The new Middle East is being redesigned with sustainable or administrable chaos. This seeks the installation of weak central administrations and divisions into different ethnic, religious and sectarian camps. In this setting, between 10 and 100 people will be killed on a daily basis by undefined and unknown perpetrators. This describes daily life in the desired model country. This model was first implemented in Lebanon and then in Iraq in the aftermath of 2003. It is being successfully implemented. Now Syria is being redesigned based on this model.
 
Political parties in the Middle East are based on the sectarian, ethnic and religious identities and references. Because religions other than Islam and ethnicities other than Arab have declined in the Middle East, mono-ethnic and religious structures have emerged over the last two decades. For this reason, the main sphere of clashes and chaos is designed to occur along sectarian lines rather than across religious or ethnic divisions. This is what Turkey should take into account. The potential for the spillover of sectarian polarization into Turkey has already been somewhat seen in the aftermath of the Gezi Park protests.