عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Efforts to End Kurdish Militant Conflict in Türkiye Face Syria Test

Türkiye's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Ozgur Ozel and pro-Kurdish Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) officials Pervin Buldan, Ahmet Turk and Sirri Sureyya Onder, stand for a picture flanked by other Republican People's Party officials, as they meet at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, Türkiye, January 7, 2025. Dogusan Ozer/Republican People's Party/Handout via REUTERS
Türkiye's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Ozgur Ozel and pro-Kurdish Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) officials Pervin Buldan, Ahmet Turk and Sirri Sureyya Onder, stand for a picture flanked by other Republican People's Party officials, as they meet at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, Türkiye, January 7, 2025. Dogusan Ozer/Republican People's Party/Handout via REUTERS
TT
TT

Efforts to End Kurdish Militant Conflict in Türkiye Face Syria Test

Türkiye's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Ozgur Ozel and pro-Kurdish Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) officials Pervin Buldan, Ahmet Turk and Sirri Sureyya Onder, stand for a picture flanked by other Republican People's Party officials, as they meet at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, Türkiye, January 7, 2025. Dogusan Ozer/Republican People's Party/Handout via REUTERS
Türkiye's main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) leader Ozgur Ozel and pro-Kurdish Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) officials Pervin Buldan, Ahmet Turk and Sirri Sureyya Onder, stand for a picture flanked by other Republican People's Party officials, as they meet at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, Türkiye, January 7, 2025. Dogusan Ozer/Republican People's Party/Handout via REUTERS

Talks aimed at ending a 40-year-old militant conflict have fostered peace hopes in Türkiye but the precarious situation of Kurdish forces in Syria and uncertainty about Ankara's intentions have left many Kurds anxious about the path ahead.
Abdullah Ocalan, jailed head of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militant group, has been cited as indicating a willingness to call on the PKK to lay down arms in a peace process to end the insurgency he launched against NATO-member Türkiye in 1984.
The conflict has killed more than 40,000 people, stunted development in the mainly Kurdish southeast and caused deep political divisions.
Türkiye's pro-Kurdish DEM Party met Ocalan in late December and has since held talks with other parties including President Tayyip Erdogan's AK Party (AKP), to discuss Ocalan's proposal, with both sides describing the talks as "positive". Two DEM sources told Reuters the party is now set to visit Ocalan again as soon as Jan. 15 in his prison on northwest Türkiye's Imrali island, where the 75-year-old has been held since 1999. They expect that meeting to yield a concrete plan for peace talks.
"We expect the process to take shape and a clear roadmap to be determined to establish the legal framework in the second meeting with Ocalan," DEM Party parliamentary group deputy chair Gulistan Kilic Kocyigit told Reuters. DEM is the third-largest party in parliament.
It was unclear what Ocalan would seek in any deal but DEM quoted him as referring to efforts for a "democratic transformation" in Türkiye. Kurds have long sought more political and cultural rights, and economic support. DEM also demands Ocalan's release. The dynamics of any peace process have been transformed by the toppling of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, leaving Syrian Kurdish forces on the back foot with Türkiye-backed forces ranged against them and the new rulers in Damascus friendly with Ankara. Türkiye has warned it could mount a cross-border military offensive into northern Syria against the Kurdish YPG militia unless they disband. It says they are terrorists and part of the PKK but they are also allied with the United States in the fight against ISIS, complicating the issue further.
For now it is unclear how the fall of Assad could affect the prospects of the PKK laying down arms. A leading PKK figure indicated in an interview this week that the group supported Ocalan's efforts but did not comment on the disarmament issue. The leader of the Syrian Kurdish forces has proposed that foreign fighters, including from the PKK, would leave Syria as part of a deal with Türkiye to avoid further conflict in the country.
"POINTING GUNS AND TALKING PEACE"
Kocyigit said that managing a peace process in Türkiye against this background was the biggest test for Ankara.
"You cannot point guns at the Kurds in (Syria's) Kobani and talk about peace in Türkiye," she said. "The Kurdish issue is a complex issue. It should be addressed not only with Türkiye's internal dynamics but also with its international dimensions."
Türkiye should accept that Kurds have a say in the future of Syria, she added.
Ankara has said little about the talks with Ocalan, launched after a proposal by Erdogan's main ally in October, but a major AKP figure spoke optimistically after meeting a DEM delegation.
"We see everyone's good-willed effort to contribute to the process," AKP's Abdullah Guler said on Tuesday, adding the goal was to resolve the issue this year. "The process ahead will lead to completely different developments that we never expected."
He did not specify what these developments were, but another AKP MP said a climate for the PKK to lay down arms may be in place by February. Asked if there could be an amnesty for PKK members, Guler said a general amnesty was not on the agenda.
The leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party, Ozgur Ozel, said a parliamentary commission should be set up with all parties to address the problems faced by Kurds.
In the southeast, Kurds are skeptical about peace prospects after past failures. That uncertainty is reflected in opinion surveys. A recent SAMER poll of some 1,400 people, conducted in the southeast and major Turkish cities, showed that only 27% of respondents expected the original call for Ocalan to end the conflict to evolve into a peace process.
The last peace talks collapsed in 2015, triggering a surge in violence and a crackdown on pro-Kurdish party members. Guler said the current process would in no way resemble those talks a decade ago, saying the situation had changed.
ERDOGAN'S STANCE IS CRUCIAL
Key to boosting confidence in the peace process would be an expression of support from Erdogan, according to DEM's Kocyigit.
"His direct confirmation that he is involved in the process would make a world of difference. If he openly expresses this support, social support would increase rapidly," she said.
Erdogan has so far kept up his hardline rhetoric against the PKK, saying after a cabinet meeting this week that "those who choose violence will be buried with their weapons" and repeating his oft-used warning of military action against Syrian Kurdish forces: "We may come suddenly one night".
Erdogan said he believed that "ultimately brotherhood, unity, togetherness and peace will win" while warning that if this path is blocked, "we will not hesitate to use the iron fist of our state wrapped in a velvet glove."
The importance of Erdogan's comments was also stressed by Yuksel Genc, coordinator of the Diyarbakir-based pollster SAMER.
"The harsh rhetoric of Erdogan and his circle is preventing a revival of feelings of trust in the new process (among Kurds) on the street," she said, noting concerns among many Kurds about what would happen to Kurds in Syria. Domestically, Ankara has signaled a will to deal with the Kurdish issue, unveiling last month a $14 billion development plan aimed at reducing the economic gap between the southeast and the rest of Türkiye.
An end to conflict would be widely welcomed across Türkiye, but the government faces a balancing act given the widespread enmity among most Turks towards Ocalan and the PKK after four decades of bloodshed, with many opposing peace talks.
"I definitely do not support it. I am not in favor of such bargaining or talks. I consider this as a disrespect to our martyrs and their families," Mehmet Naci Armagan, who works in the tourism sector, said in Istanbul.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

How Have US Presidents Tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserves During War?

GILLETT, TEXAS - MARCH 11: Pump jacks operate in a field on March 11, 2026 in Gillett, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP
GILLETT, TEXAS - MARCH 11: Pump jacks operate in a field on March 11, 2026 in Gillett, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP
TT
TT

How Have US Presidents Tapped Strategic Petroleum Reserves During War?

GILLETT, TEXAS - MARCH 11: Pump jacks operate in a field on March 11, 2026 in Gillett, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP
GILLETT, TEXAS - MARCH 11: Pump jacks operate in a field on March 11, 2026 in Gillett, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images/AFP

The US plans to release 172 million barrels of oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, more than 40% of a wider release coordinated with allies, to help dampen prices spiked by supply disruptions from the US-Israeli war on Iran.

The US sale, announced late on Wednesday, is part of a 400-million-barrel release by members of the International Energy Agency. The US Department of Energy said the US drawdown would begin next week and take about four months.

The SPR currently holds about 415 million barrels, most of which is high sulfur, or sour ‌crude, that US ‌refineries are geared to process. The crude is ‌held ⁠underground in hollowed-out salt ⁠caverns on the coasts of Texas and Louisiana that can store 714 million barrels.

Here is how US presidents have tapped the SPR in times of war:

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE

In March 2022, the month after Russia invaded Ukraine, former President Joe Biden ordered the release of 180 million barrels over six months - the largest sale ever from the emergency stash. Biden, ⁠and later President Donald Trump, slowly bought some oil ‌to replenish the reserves, but little ‌has been added back as Congress needs to provide more money to ‌do so.

LIBYA CIVIL WAR

In ⁠June 2011, former ⁠President Barack Obama ordered the release of 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve to offset disruptions to global markets from civil war in oil producer Libya. That sale was coordinated with the Paris-based IEA, resulting in an additional 30-million-barrel release from other member countries.

OPERATION DESERT STORM

In 1990-1991, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, former President George H. W. Bush sold about 21 million barrels in two phases. In October 1990, the US ordered a 3.9-million-barrel test sale. In January 1991, after US and allied warplanes began attacks against Baghdad and other military targets in OPEC-member Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm, Bush ordered the sale of 34 million barrels, of which half was sold.

Features

How Trump and his Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to War

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
TT
TT

How Trump and his Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to War

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out. Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Mark Mazzetti, Tyler Pager, Edward Wong

On Feb. 18, as President Trump weighed whether to launch military attacks on Iran, Chris Wright, the energy secretary, told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in energy markets.

Even during the Israeli and US strikes against Iran last June, Wright said, there had been little disruption in the markets. “Oil prices blipped up and then went back down,” he said.

Some of Trump’s other advisers shared similar views in private, dismissing warnings that — the second time around — Iran might wage economic warfare by closing shipping lanes carrying roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply.

The extent of that miscalculation was laid bare in recent days, as Iran threatened to fire at commercial oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic choke point through which all ships must pass on their way out of the Arabian Gulf.

In response to the Iranian threats, commercial shipping has come to a standstill in the Gulf, oil prices have spiked, and the Trump administration has scrambled to find ways to tamp down an economic crisis that has triggered higher gasoline prices for Americans.

The episode is emblematic of how much Trump and his advisers misjudged how Iran would respond to a conflict that the government in Tehran sees as an existential threat.

Iran has responded far more aggressively than it did during last June’s 12-day war, firing barrages of missiles and drones at US military bases, cities in Arab nations across the Middle East, and on Israeli population centers.

US officials have had to adjust plans on the fly, from hastily ordering the evacuation of embassies to developing policy proposals to reduce gas prices.

After Trump administration officials gave a closed-door briefing to lawmakers on Tuesday, Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said on social media that the administration had no plan for the Strait of Hormuz and did “not know how to get it safely back open.”

Inside the administration, some officials are growing pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to finish the war. But they have been careful not to express that directly to the president, who has repeatedly declared that the military operation is a complete success.

Trump has laid out maximalist goals like insisting that Iran name a leader who will submit to him, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have described narrower and more tactical objectives that could provide an off-ramp in the near term.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration “had a strong game plan” before the war broke out, and vowed that oil prices would drop after it ended.

“The purposeful disruption in the oil market by the Iranian regime is short term, and necessary for the long-term gain of wiping out these terrorists and the threat they pose to America and the world,” she said in a statement.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen US officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations.

‘Show Some Guts’

Hegseth acknowledged on Tuesday that Iran’s ferocious response against its neighbors caught the Pentagon somewhat off guard. But he insisted that Iran’s actions were backfiring.

“I can’t say that we anticipated necessarily that’s exactly how they would react, but we knew it was a possibility,” Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference. “I think it was a demonstration of the desperation of the regime.”

Trump has displayed growing frustration over how the war is disrupting the oil supply, telling Fox News that oil tanker crews should “show some guts” and sail through the Strait of Hormuz.

Some military advisers did warn before the war that Iran could launch an aggressive campaign in response, and would view the US-Israeli attack as a threat to its existence. But other advisers remained confident that killing Iran’s senior leadership would lead to more pragmatic leaders taking over who might bring an end to the war.

When Trump was briefed about risks that oil prices could rise in the event of war, he acknowledged the possibility but downplayed it as a short-term concern that should not overshadow the mission to decapitate the Iranian regime. He directed Wright and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to work on developing options for a potential spike in prices.

But the president did not speak publicly about these options — including political risk insurance backed by the US government, and the potential of US Navy escorts — until more than 48 hours after the conflict started. The escorts have not yet taken place.

As the conflict has roiled global markets, Republicans in Washington have grown concerned about rising oil prices damaging their efforts to sell an economic agenda to voters ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump, both publicly and privately, has been arguing that Venezuelan oil could help solve any shocks coming from the Iran war. The administration announced on Tuesday a new refinery in Texas that officials said could help increase oil supply, ensuring that Iran does not cause any long-term damage to oil markets.

A Potential Off-Ramp

Trump has said both that the war could go on for more than a month and that it was “very complete, pretty much.” He also said the United States would “go forward more determined than ever.”

Rubio and Hegseth, however, appear to have coordinated their messaging for now on three discrete goals that they began laying out in public remarks on Monday and Tuesday.

“The goals of this mission are clear,” Rubio said at a State Department event on Monday before Trump held his own news conference. “It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles, both by destroying their missiles and their launchers; destroy the factories that make these missiles; and destroy their navy.”

The State Department even laid out the three goals in bullet-point fashion, and highlighted a video clip of Rubio stating them on an official social media account.

The presentation by Rubio, who is also the White House national security adviser, appeared to be setting the stage for the president to bring an end to the war sooner rather than later. In his news conference, Trump boasted of how the US military had already destroyed Iran’s ballistic missile capability and its navy. But he also warned of even more aggressive action if Iranian leaders tried to cut off the world’s energy supply.

Matthew Pottinger, who was a deputy national security adviser in the first Trump administration, said in an interview that Mr. Trump had indicated he could decide to pursue ambitions war goals that would take weeks at least.

“In his press conference, I could hear him circling back to a rationale for fighting a bit longer given that the regime is still signaling it won’t be deterred and is still trying to control the Strait of Hormuz,” said Pottinger, now the chair of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group that advocates a close US partnership with Israel and confrontation with Iran.

“He doesn’t want to have to fight a ‘sequel’ war,” Pottinger added.

The search for pathways out of the war has gained urgency since the weekend, as global oil prices surge and as the United States burns through costly munitions.

Pentagon officials said in recent closed-door briefings on Capitol Hill that the military used up $5.6 billion of munitions in the first two days of the war alone, according to three congressional officials. That is a far larger amount and munitions burn rate than had been publicly disclosed. The Washington Post reported on the figure on Monday.

Iranian officials have remained defiant, saying they will use their leverage over the world’s oil supply to force the United States and Israel to blink.

“Strait of Hormuz will either be a Strait of peace and prosperity for all,” Ali Larijani, Iran’s top national security official, said in a social media post on Tuesday. “Or it will be a Strait of defeat and suffering for warmongers.”

The New York Times

Features

Saudi Flag Narrative Centers on Justice, Security

Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
TT
TT

Saudi Flag Narrative Centers on Justice, Security

Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)
Saudi flag’s profound symbolism reflects unity, justice, strength and prosperity (SPA)

Ensuring a certain level of security is not difficult for any state, regardless of its system of governance. Security, understood here as the preservation of order, can exist under many political systems. History shows that numerous authoritarian governments have succeeded in imposing strict security on their societies.

The real question, however, lies not in the existence of security but in its nature and its source. The issue is whether the desired security is that of authority imposed by force, or that of justice arising from a system of values and a fair legal order.

Security under authoritarian systems is often superficial, enforced through mechanisms of control, surveillance and punishment. It is inherently fragile because it relies on fear rather than consent, and deterrence rather than justice. Such security remains vulnerable to disruption at the first shift in the balance of power or legitimacy, as many historical examples demonstrate.

By contrast, another form of security is more stable and enduring, the security that stems from justice. This emerges when society believes that the rule governing it is fair and that the authority enforcing it is subject to a higher reference rather than an unchecked will.

National flags often reflect a country’s identity, principles and values, as well as the orientation of its political or intellectual systems. They may also contain symbols carrying religious, historical or cultural significance.

The flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands apart not only for its color and symbols but also for its meanings and implications. It reflects the state’s deep-rooted history, embodies its identity and represents the values and principles on which it was founded.

Saudi Flag Day, observed annually on March 11, highlights the close bond between Saudis and their national banner and reflects their pride in their identity.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz has said that celebrating Flag Day affirms pride in national identity and in the flag’s historical symbolism and deep meanings that embody the country’s constants and represent a source of pride in its history.

He has also said that the Saudi state was founded by its forefathers on the principles of monotheism, justice and unity under one banner, a foundation that brought security and prosperity.

Saudi researcher and historian Dr. Abdullah Al-Munif said the Saudi flag is not merely a sovereign symbol of the state but also an expression that carries deep significance for the state’s philosophy and vision for life and society.

“The green color, which symbolizes Islam and prosperity, reflects support for a state founded on an Islamic approach with a commitment to justice and to spreading security in its comprehensive sense,” he said.

“The phrase ‘There is no god but God, Muhammad is the Messenger of God’, inscribed in Arabic, highlights the enduring foundation upon which the state stands and affirms its commitment to an approach that does not deviate from this reference as a basic guide for governance and politics.”

He added that the sword, which symbolizes strength and the pursuit of justice, reflects the state’s effort to protect the path it believes is right, with the aim of spreading justice and establishing security across the country.

“These three elements are not merely formal components but form a precise equation linking justice and security in a cause-and-effect relationship,” he said.

“The Islamic approach represents the spiritual and social foundations of the state that seeks to achieve justice and stability, ensure security and provide an environment suitable for promoting what is right.”

In this sense, the Saudi flag becomes a symbol of the dynamic interaction among the components of the state. The state seeks to achieve security as a necessity for establishing and spreading what is right, while also pursuing justice and stability as the basis for comprehensive security and sustainable prosperity.

The Saudi flag can therefore be read historically as more than a sovereign symbol. It symbolizes the state’s vision. The three elements that compose it, the green color, the inscription and the sword, reflect a precise equation between justice and security in a cause-and-effect relationship.

Legal expert Dr. Fahd Al-Tarisi said the phrase at the center of the flag represents the system’s supreme reference.

“It is a clear declaration that the justice on which governance is based is not the product of a temporary political will but rests on a fixed religious reference,” he said.

“The presence of this phrase at the center of the flag therefore means that law and justice derive their source from a higher system of values rather than from political authority alone.”

He added that the sword placed beneath the phrase does not symbolize violence or domination but rather the authority to enforce justice.

“Every legal system needs power to protect it and ensure respect for it, otherwise it remains merely text,” he said. “The sword therefore symbolizes the power that protects the principle, not the power that replaces it.”

He said the placement of the sword beneath the phrase reflects a symbolic order in which power serves justice rather than replacing it.

The green color that fills the flag, historically associated in Islamic culture with calm, stability and reassurance, can symbolize the social security that emerges when justice prevails in political and legal systems.

In this reading, the symbolism of the Saudi flag presents a clear equation: the reference establishes justice, power protects that justice, and from this arises the security and stability of society.

This distinction highlights two types of security: the security of authority, imposed by force and often present in authoritarian systems, and the security of justice, which arises naturally when the rules governing society are fair and enjoy moral and legal legitimacy.

Within this framework, the symbolic structure of the Saudi flag presents a clear vision of the state. Security is not the starting point but the result. The cause that leads to it is justice protected by legitimate power within a stable reference.

In that sense, the flag becomes more than a national emblem. It becomes a visual expression of a philosophy of governance that sees true stability not as something built on fear but as the outcome of justice that produces security.

For Saudis, the flag reflects the needs and aspirations of the Saudi citizen, summarized in the values of justice, stability, security and prosperity.

In celebrating Flag Day, Saudis celebrate a nation that sees its strength in unity, a leadership that places service to its people among its top priorities, and a banner under which people and leadership have stood together for centuries.