A peace plan or a psychological operation?

Whenever the word "peace" is uttered in the Middle East, anyone whose life is intertwined with foreign policy first pays attention to how that text emerged, rather than the text itself.

In the diplomacy conducted in this geography, procedure is often prioritized, while substance is pushed somewhat into the background.

You could also call this a marketing strategy to sell it to the public.

In fact, the 15-point plan that we have been discussing for two days, which is said to have been presented by the US to Iran, is exactly such a document.

The way it was leaked to the press is just as significant as its substance, that is, its points.

Because this plan was not announced as an official diplomatic text. It was first served to the US press. Then, it found resonance in the region.

At the hottest moment of the conflicts, the whole world held its breath, trying to understand and make sense of these reports.

Let us strongly emphasize that the first sources to bring the main framework of the plan to the public were The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

Subsequently, the Israeli press and Gulf-based media quickly circulated this information. The issue was thoroughly stirred up on social media, and there was almost no one left who did not express an opinion.

If such critical news appears, especially in The New York Times, one must stop and think, and then ask the following question: Is this really a leak, or is it a controlled release aimed at a specific purpose?

Or is there really an information leak, or is a meticulously thought-out and planned psychological operation being carried out?

Let's be honest: in international relations, a "leak" is rarely just pure information sharing. On the contrary, it is, in the literal sense of the word, a planned communication strategy. And the power brokers in Washington apply this strategy very well.

Especially when it comes to global powers like the US, every critical text that hits the press has a timing, a target audience, and a purpose.

It is very clear that this plan was also circulated through a similar mechanism.

That is, there is no official statement but there are detailed points; there is no full confirmation but it is based on strong sources.

A classic pulse-check...

In fact, Washington has tested several things at once with this method.

What will be Iran's first reflex?

How will the international public react?

Will allies accept this framework?

So, there is not just a plan; there is a communication engineering that is as important as the plan itself.

Let's return to Donald Trump.

Although his political style is often presented as "improvisational," it actually has a line. He creates uncertainty, increases pressure, and then puts forward the solution in his own mind.

So, let's not just look at his bizarre statements and immediately say he is crazy and anything he does is expected.

Continuing; we can say that the way this plan was leaked aligns with this strategy.

First, the crisis was deepened. Then, military options were kept on the agenda. Then, the "peace plan" was served to the press.

It is very clear that we are in a process of perception management rather than diplomacy.

When we look at the leaked points, we see that Iran's three main powers are being targeted:

Its nuclear capacity, missile program, and regional influence.

These three headings are the backbone of Iran's deterrence system. Therefore, it is possible to say that this is much more than a technical agreement.

Let's not beat around the bush; Trump is intent on rewriting the strategic character of a state like Iran. He must be thinking that this is how he will control the valve of the oil going to China.

But there is a critical detail here:

These points are not being discussed for the first time. Similar demands have come to the agenda before. However, the difference this time is that these demands are being put forward with the label of a "peace plan."

During the Trump era, the language of US foreign policy changed, but its goal did not. In the past, countries were invaded, regimes were changed, and a new order was established to serve US interests.

Today, however, pressure comes first, the political behavior of the target country's people is changed, and they are drawn into the system.

The Iran plan is a concrete example of this.

The US does not want to destroy Iran; its only concern is to transform it! But the issue is that this transformation is intended to be carried out not through negotiations between equals, but within a process where the strong sets the rules.

The timing of the plan's appearance in the press is also remarkable.

While tension is rising on the ground, while Iranian missiles are hitting Israel's lifelines, and while tension in the region is at its peak; it is at this exact point that the "peace plan" comes to the agenda. It is obvious that this is an effort to gain a position by using the crisis.

Let's put on our reading glasses and take a look at the possible contingency plans.

It is necessary to read the picture that will emerge if this plan is implemented correctly.

If Iran weakens, Israel will feel safer and will be able to move comfortably in the Middle East, and expand its sphere of influence.

Gulf countries will be relieved, and the balance of power in Iraq and Syria will change.

But will this picture bring peace to the region?

Or will it just change the distribution of power?

When balances change in the Middle East, it is often not stability, but new lines of tension that emerge. Recent history is full of examples of this. For this reason, no sane person would want Iran to become a geopolitical black hole.

In this process, Turkey's position is also extremely critical. Ankara cannot remain outside this plan. But it is not really possible to make a prediction today about how it will take part in it.

The government's relationship with the US, its neighborly ties with Iran, energy dependencies, regional security, etc., all enter this equation with many unknowns at the same time.

But to express it in one sentence in its main outlines, we can say that it is highly probable that the government in Turkey will be forced to play the role assigned to it in a scenario written by someone else.

On the other hand, Iran's harsh reaction to the plan... This is not surprising at all.

Because it eliminates its nuclear capacity, limits its missile power, and weakens its regional influence. Giving these up would not just be a policy change for Iran. For Tehran, this is also a matter of regime security.

Before concluding the article, let us also underline that the plan is at the same time a message given to the region.

In short, let us end our article by saying that the US is not changing the rules that will perpetuate its imperialist mentality, but only updating its method. This does not truly promise peace, but only presents a more sophisticated form of domination.