Would Atatürk have entered this war?

First of all, let us state this:

If Atatürk were here, he would not have allowed the Middle East to reach this state.

The date was August 2, 1990.

The First Gulf War. First, Iraq invaded Kuwait, then America entered Iraq. The President of the time, Özal, immediately joined the war on America's side, saying "I will put in one and take back three," but the bill for the war, after Iraq, fell to us.

The support Özal gave to America surprised even the Americans.

If Atatürk were here, neither could Iraq have entered Qatar, nor could America have entered Iraq.

Atatürk was already against every form of imperialism. He would have seen the future and established a "Middle East Pact."

Like the Saadabad Pact.

America had started its business of seizing, changing, and transforming the Middle East with Iraq. The occupation of Iraq had remained incomplete in 1990. It had to dismantle Iraq. It could not carry out this operation from the south. It had to do it from the north. The US needed Turkey to occupy Iraq. It had the Turkish government of that time prepare a motion (permission) for a ground operation to be carried out into Iraq through Turkish territory. The motion was rejected in the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey) on March 1, 2003.

This motion went down in history as the "March 1st Motion."

The TBMM had rejected the motion, but America still entered Iraq using Turkish territory and succeeded in capturing Saddam. Because the government of the time had gradually allowed America to enter through Turkish territory.

If Atatürk were here, he would not have allowed it.

America captured Saddam. It dismantled Iraq.

But this was not enough. Starting from Egypt in 2011, it declared the "Arab Spring" in Arab and Middle Eastern countries. But this was not a spring; it was a storm. The leaders in Middle Eastern countries were toppled one by one with America's incitement of Arab societies.

Turkey took its place alongside America.

America and Europe entered Libya, and Gaddafi and his family were massacred. The State of Libya was destroyed, and its lands were partitioned.

If Atatürk were here, he would have supported Libya, not America.

In those same days, protests had also begun in Syria, again with America's incitement. The Armed Radical Islamic organization called the Free Syrian Army (FSA), supported by America and Turkey, was sent to Northern Syria in July 2011. With their deployment, the protests in Aleppo and Damascus turned into a civil war.

Assad used force, and all these protesters and anti-Assad individuals migrated.

When Turkey, at America's request, let the FSA into Syria, approximately 10 million Syrians also entered Turkey. Because America had previously had the mines on the Turkey-Syria border line cleared by Turkey through Israeli companies. Borders were no longer an obstacle.

If Atatürk were here, he would neither have cleared those mines, nor supported radical armed organizations like the FSA, nor interfered in Syria's internal affairs.

He would have given advice to both Saddam and Assad to abandon the single-man regime and transition to a democratic regime as soon as possible.

But he would not have let America interfere in the affairs of this region.

We have come to the present day.

As a result of these events, Syria and Iraq were torn apart. North African countries were also partitioned. The Arabs were silenced and intimidated; now it is Iran's turn.

America, with Israel's support, wants to enter Iran.

Turkey is supporting America. Not just today, but since Özal, governments in Turkey have always supported America. Only Ecevit did not support it, and they toppled him immediately.

What I mean is,

After Atatürk and İnönü, the wrong policy was followed in foreign policy. And the result: huge economic bills, heavy costs, and economic crises for Turkey. Everything served America's interests, not Turkey's. And the Turkish people paid the bill for this.

Why? Because if you only remember Atatürk when you are in a tight spot or when it suits you, this is the result. Atatürk's foreign policy is the door opening to peace in the Middle East.

Not a door that is opened when you are in a tight spot.

For one thing, Atatürk did not want single-man regimes in the Middle East. Look at the adjustment Atatürk gave to the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, who came to Turkey in 1934 on this matter.

Look at the words Atatürk said to Syrian Prime Minister Jamil Mardam in Ankara on December 21-22, 1937.

Look at the Balkan Pact and the Saadabad Pact that Atatürk established.

It remains as fresh as if it were yesterday. Do not say "what are these," research and read them.

Furthermore, by saving Anatolia, Atatürk actually saved the entire East and Middle East at the same time. Atatürk said to the Azerbaijani Ambassador Ibrahim Abilov in 1921;

"As the map hanging on the wall shows, Anatolia is in a position that the entire Asia, which is the world of the oppressed, has pushed forward towards the world of oppression. They want to tear Anatolia apart. But gentlemen, the sole target of these attacks is not just and only Anatolia. The general target of these attacks is the entire East."

In other words, he was saying that by defending Anatolia, we are not just defending Anatolian lands. We are defending the entire East.

So what happened? With Özal, did Anatolia fall in favor of America? Yes, it did. Therefore, Ankara fell. The policy of "Peace at Home, Peace in the World," which was Atatürk's and Ankara's policy and the insurance of the East, fell. Thanks to whom? Thanks to pro-American politicians.

When Anatolia fell, the entire East and the Middle East fell.

If the Saadabad Pact or the strategy that Atatürk wrote in Ankara had not fallen, the Middle East would not have fallen. The Islamic world would not have fallen. It would not be in such helplessness.

This is how it should be read. One must look at the general target. America's real target is China. That is the general target. Atatürk's saying that the fall of Anatolia meant the fall of Syria, Iraq, and Iran, that is, the East. In the final target, it meant the fall of China.

Can you understand Atatürk's greatness and foresight now? When the man said, "The attacks on Anatolia are not limited to Anatolia, the general target is the East," he meant exactly these days.

Oh great Atatürk, you saw a hundred years ahead, but those of today cannot even see what is in front of them.

Finally;

In short, when we say "if Atatürk were here," we of course know that Atatürk would not have lived until these days.

But if Atatürk's policies had lived, this war would not have broken out. Neither America nor Europe could have entered this region.

Atatürk, who saw the Balkan War, the First World War, the War of Independence, and especially the Second World War 14 years in advance, and who said as early as 1925 that "the Treaty of Versailles is far from protecting world peace," would have easily seen this war coming and taken the necessary precautions in time.

Therefore, if Atatürk were here, there would be no America or British in this region. They could not be.

They wouldn't even be mentioned.