Erdoğan’s Islamist Rhetoric Contradicts His Policies

Erdoğan’s Islamist Rhetoric Contradicts His Policies


For years, the regime of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has sought to portray itself as a defender of the Islamic world. In numerous speeches, Erdoğan has expressed solidarity with Palestine and the Gaza Strip, voiced support for the rights of Muslims, and presented Turkey as an independent and influential power in the Islamic world. However, “the Turkish government has never taken concrete steps regarding Palestine.” Yet politics cannot be judged solely on the basis of rhetoric; the true political dimension of a government’s decisions becomes apparent when its political and economic interests conflict with its declared intentions.

Against this background, the current position of the Turkish government toward Iran raises serious questions about this contradiction.

On the one hand, the Turkish government publicly expresses solidarity with Muslims throughout the Islamic world; on the other, it maintains political and economic relations with the United States and Israeli countries whose exploitative actions directly affect Iran and other countries in the region. The case of Bank Mellat and the situation of Iranian citizens’ bank accounts in Turkey clearly illustrate this issue.

The cancellation of Bank Mellat’s license came amid increasing U.S. pressure on Iran’s financial networks. On September 18, 2026, Turkey’s Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA) revoked the license of Bank Mellat’s Istanbul branch. In an official statement, Turkey justified the decision by citing banking regulations, concerns regarding depositors’ rights, and the security and stability of the financial system. However, the statement did not explicitly refer to U.S. sanctions.

Yet only a few weeks earlier, the United States had sanctioned a Turkish investment bank and two of its branches over suspected links to Iranian financial networks.

Therefore, the closure of an Iranian bank in Turkey is not merely a political maneuver; it also reflects Turkey’s approach to external pressure and its relationship with Iran, a predominantly Muslim country. When a country portrays itself politically as a champion of Islamic unity while simultaneously suspending the economic and financial activities of an Iranian bank and imposing further restrictions on its financial relations with Iran, a clear contradiction emerges between political rhetoric and political practice.

This issue is particularly significant given Turkey’s relationship with the United States. Ankara is a NATO member and maintains extensive defense and economic relations with Washington. Negotiations between the two countries in recent years have resulted in agreements involving trade, the defense industry, military aircraft, and economic cooperation. The meeting between Erdoğan and Trump in Washington further strengthened defense and trade cooperation, including the purchase of American aircraft.

The same contradiction can be seen in Turkey’s relations with Israel. On the one hand, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has adopted a strong political stance against Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip and has reportedly suspended trade relations with Israel. On the other hand, every bullet fired at the people of Gaza speaks more loudly than any political rhetoric, while overt and covert support for Israel—particularly through Turkey and Azerbaijan—is revealed by the transfer of Azerbaijani oil to Israel through the port of Ceyhan. Therefore, in this context, claims of having severed relations with Israel cannot be judged solely on the basis of official statements; energy and trade routes passing through regional infrastructure must also be examined. The relationship between the two sides over the years has not been based solely on political rhetoric.

Therefore, the main problem with the ruling Justice and Development Party lies not only in its rhetoric and official statements concerning Palestine, the Islamic world, and Iran, but also in its practical decisions. When economic interests, military relations, international pressure, and the global financial system are at stake, political slogans can reveal a contradiction with political reality.

It is worth emphasizing: the Islamic world is not merely a collection of hollow statements and declarations. It does not need harsh and emotional rhetoric; it needs reality, unity, and brotherly solidarity. Therefore, the most important question today is not whether Turkey will maintain its relations with the United States or sign agreements with other countries, but why the gap between the political claims of the Justice and Development regime and its practical decisions regarding Iran and other Muslim countries is growing.

Ultimately, one question remains: Is the Islamic world a political principle of the Justice and Development regime, or merely a part of its political discourse?


Author: Gouya Roshan
All Rights Reserved






 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Enemy May Become a Cause of Good, If God Wills

History Will Not Forget the Silence of Muslim Countries

The first forgiveness we must seek is from our own self