Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1843743697-scaled

Neocons take aim at Turkey

Hawks pushing for war and regime change in Iran have formed a new group to challenge Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Prominent neoconservatives and other hawks have set their sights on Turkey, announcing a new Washington-based group “in response to Turkey’s recent turn away from democracy and toward authoritarianism” on Thursday.

The Turkey Democracy Project states that its mission is to “inform a policy towards Turkey that opposes its destabilizing behavior, supports genuine democratic reform, and holds the forces of corruption and oppression within Turkey to account.”

“For the better part of the last century, Turkey was a reliable ally and a model in the region of liberal ideals and cultural freedom,” the group says on its website. “But in recent years, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has dramatically altered Turkey’s position in the international community and its status as a free and liberal democracy.”

Turkey has been a U.S. ally since the end of World War II, but its democratic record is spotty. The Turkish military has overthrown several democratically-elected governments, and parts of the country have been under on-and-off martial law since the Kurdish uprising of the 1980s.

The Turkey Democracy Project includes several prominent members of United Against Nuclear Iran, a group whose members have called for the U.S.-led overthrow of the Iranian government, as well as the hawkish former White House national security adviser John Bolton.

The new anti-Turkey group is headed by UANI chief executive Mark Wallace. Its members include UANI chairman Joe Lieberman, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, retired Bush administration counterterrorism official Frances Townsend, career U.S. diplomat Alejandro Wolff, retired CIA officer Robert Richer and former UANI senior advisor Norman Roule.

UANI megadonor Thomas Kaplan helped co-found Justice for Kurds, another group dedicated to pushing back on Turkey’s influence. Kaplan is not listed as a member of the Turkey Democracy Project.

The creation of the Turkey Democracy Project is the latest sign that Ankara has shifted from a favored ally of U.S. hawks to one of their major bugbears. It would not be the first time American hawks turned on a former U.S. sidekick; in the 1980s and 1990s, Republican administrations went from backing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran to pushing for a U.S.-led regime change campaign against him.

Turkey had long served as the eastern flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a key outpost for U.S. operations in the Middle East. The Turkish military purchased $16.6 billion in American weapons from the end of the Cold War to 2021, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute arms trade database.

But the Erdoğan government has run afoul of Washington in recent years. It has picked fights with European allies over energy resources, bought Russian missiles, taken a hardline stance against Israel, and allowed U.S. rivals to evade economic sanctions.

The most dramatic confrontation took place in October 2019. While the Trump administration had hoped to enlist Turkey as a partner in the Syrian civil war, Turkey instead attacked U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, creating a humanitarian crisis and embarrassing the United States.

Bolton, who left the White House shortly before the crisis unfolded, had taken an antagonistic stance towards both Turkey and the Kurds. In his memoirs, he compared Erdoğan to Italian fascist leader Benito “Mussolini speaking from his Rome balcony,” but also called left-wing Kurdish fighters a “terrorist group.”

With his new Turkey-focused group, Bolton is softening his tone on the Turkish state’s opponents.

“In addition to persecuting those Kurds who live within Turkey’s borders, Erdogan has attacked Kurdish targets in Syria and Iraq,” the Turkey Democracy Project states. “Turkey is also targeting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — the United States’ most reliable partner in Syria and the coalition most responsible for the demise of ISIS.”


ANKARA, TURKEY - 24 OCTOBER 2020: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Photo: Nuno21 via shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.