Gouya Roshan From Darkness to Light

Madmen Are Not Always in Asylums Sometimes I look at the world and ask myself: perhaps our definition of “madness” is wrong? For years, we have thought that a mad person is someone who talks to themselves in the street, behaves strangely, or is hospitalized in a psychiatric institution. But if we set that definition aside and look at politics, a strange question arises: Could some of the most dangerous madness in the world be taking place precisely behind political desks bearing national flags? Imagine this: a person is sitting behind a desk, wearing a suit and tie, giving a speech, smiling, and speaking in a completely serious tone about “the future of the nation.” Then, with a few signatures, a few orders, and a few decisions, they change the lives of millions of people, start a war, impose sanctions on a country, push an economy to the brink of collapse, displace millions, and sometimes bring the world within a few steps of a major catastrophe. Then they sit there calmly and say: “T...

The Distinction Between Saddam and Other Criminals I am not defending Saddam Hussein in this article. Because Saddam Hussein was a criminal. He was an enemy of the people of Iraq, especially the Kurds; the people of Iraq suffered deep wounds during his rule; wounds that can be seen in their souls, their bodies, and the memory of their history. Therefore, I do not defend Saddam or any other dictator. But I have a question: What role do the criminals who today stand behind the official podiums of the world and speak about peace, freedom, human rights, and the future of humanity play? Is a crime only a crime when it is committed by the other side? Do the same acts suddenly acquire a different nature when they are committed by an allied country? Is a bomb dropped by an allied aircraft a “military operation”? But if the same bomb is dropped by the opposing side, is it considered a crime? Does a child who is killed in a modern country have more value than a child who is killed in a tradition...

Please, Don’t Save Us Sometimes I genuinely don’t know whether I should laugh at the world’s politicians or curse them! Every day, someone in a perfectly pressed suit stands behind a podium and, with an expression as if they have just become the ultimate authority on the entire world, says: “We went to war for the security of our people.” Excellent! Just out of curiosity:  where exactly are the people? Because it is strange; every time a war begins, missiles head toward people’s homes, while the very people who started the war are usually safely tucked away somewhere very secure! They see war on a map; people watch war from the windows of their homes. They talk about “victory”; people are looking for a safe place to stay. They say: “Casualties are inevitable.” Yes, of course! Just one little point: The inevitable casualties are usually not your family! And how interesting that in today’s political culture, our bomb is always called “defense,” while the enemy’s bomb is always called...

  Women of Turkey; Victims of a Television Stereotype I lived in Turkey for many years. I interacted with different families, sat in their homes, met many women, and formed deep friendships with some of them. Perhaps that is why watching certain Turkish TV series is not merely entertainment for me; sometimes, it is genuinely disturbing. My problem is not with why a woman cheats in a series. Infidelity, like many other human behaviors, can be the subject of a story. Art is not supposed to portray only good people and desirable behavior. The problem begins when  female infidelity, jealousy, competition among women, and unhealthy emotional relationships are repeatedly used as major elements of the story. When this image appears in one or two series, it can simply be considered part of a story. But when the same pattern is repeated, and those series are broadcast in different countries and languages, the issue is no longer merely about a story. For a viewer who has never lived in ...

A Spark Can Set the World on Fire History has repeatedly shown that a small event can be the beginning of a major crisis. The assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne in 1914 was only a single gunshot, but that shot led to the First World War, a war that claimed the lives of millions of people. Today, the world is in a situation where political, economic, and military conflicts are like a barrel of gunpowder, requiring only a single spark to explode. At present, the conflict between Russia and the West in the war in Ukraine, the disputes between China and the United States over Taiwan and the South China Sea, the war between Iran and Israel, the genocide of the Palestinian people, the systematic killing of the people of Yemen, the killing and persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, the civil war in Sudan, the war and tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, Israel’s attack on Syria, and the poverty and injustice caused by regional power struggles and arms races have all creat...

Sit in your place.  In a political system, immunity can be necessary to guarantee the position and continuity of government. However, when it becomes a shield against accountability, its meaning changes. It no longer simply means protecting a position; it means creating a distance between a decision and its consequences. The greater this distance becomes, the more political responsibility is weakened. Those who make decisions but do not directly experience their consequences may gradually stop seeing war as a human catastrophe and instead view it as an instrument of foreign policy, a military option, or a bargaining tool. At this stage, the individual moves from being a “decision-maker” to becoming someone who “bears the cost of the decision.” Immunity does not eliminate responsibility overnight; rather, it gradually erodes it within the realm of power. When a leader can repeatedly make decisions and place the burden of their consequences on others, accountability gradually turns...

Saudi Arabia: Years of Anxiety Labeled as “Hostility” As an analyst, I believe it is my duty to examine the facts as objectively and impartially as possible, without any personal bias. However, sometimes the difference between analysis and prediction becomes apparent only with the passage of time. In 2010, I wrote an article about Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s growing influence in the Arab world. On the surface, the article focused on Turkey and Erdoğan; but at a deeper level, it revealed something else: the changing balance of power in the Middle East and the concerns of some countries in the region about Iran’s growing influence and power. At the time, the exact reasons for this anxiety were not clear to me. Was it hostility? Was it fear? Was it competition? Or was it something deeper? Today, sixteen years later, I can define it precisely: I have been concerned about Iran. I have been concerned about the circumstances arising from this country becoming a threat to Middle Eastern countries a...