'Mission Impossible'

Bahçeli's infatuation with Öcalan brought to my mind the unforgettable opening scene of “Mission Impossible”—known in Turkey as Görevimiz Tehlike—from the film series Hollywood produced to imprint the image of the “Heroic American” into the minds of people around the world.

Viewers, especially Tom Cruise fans, will surely remember it.

A cassette—or as technology advanced, a CD, DVD, and so on—and later, hologram messages of unclear origin, would deliver a secret mission to Agent Ethan Hunt, providing critical information. That mysterious voice would begin with, “Good morning, Mr. Hunt. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…” followed by the details, and then the classic closing:

“As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will self-destruct in five seconds.”

Then the screen would go black, a thin wisp of smoke would rise from that gadget—whatever it was—the recording would vanish, and only the cold tension of a major operation would remain.

Before Bahçeli began laying the stones for the road to the hell we are living in today, there were not many who questioned him. But the moment he threw himself into the fray, declaring “I am Kara Murat...” to ensure Öcalan’s release, the nature of the situation changed.

That is why, after every statement Bahçeli makes, this scene from Mission Impossible inevitably comes to my mind.

However, what is self-destructing here is not a recording device, but the institutional structure, the decades-old political memory, the “ideological backbone,” and the “historical discourse” upon which Turkish nationalism supposedly rests.

For years, Bahçeli conducted politics with the rhetoric of an “uncompromising fight against terror,” emerging as the leader of a movement that defined “Turkish nationalism” through security-oriented reflexes.

Then, whatever happened, he suddenly opened the door to a very heavy historical rupture. It is not an ordinary political shift for a political line that yesterday said “there can be no negotiation with terrorists” to now be discussing concepts like “status,” “right to hope,” “peace process,” and “coordination of politicization” for the terrorist leader.

Let us underline this with a thick pen.

This means that the MHP is directly questioning, or even denying, its own reason for existence.

We have already been discussing this for a year and a half. We have simply repeated what everyone already knows.

However, that “status” issue he recently blurted out seems likely to emerge at a much more troublesome point.

Let us try to explain it as best we can.

For years, he had fortified his base by saying, “The state does not take a step back, does not bargain with terror, and does not grant political legitimacy to armed threats.”

It appears that he is now preoccupied with placing the leader of a bloody terrorist organization into a political equation.

In the Mission Impossible films, those messages were destroyed to protect against foreign enemies; here, the founding codes of nationalist politics are being dismantled not from the outside, but from within.

Moreover, we can see that this dismantling is not an ordinary political maneuver.

It is as if a controlled ideological liquidation process is underway. To speak more plainly, it is an operation of integration into an Islamist-Kurdish structure, just as their imperialist masters desire.

It is the next stage of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis understanding imposed on the people of my country with the 1980 military coup...

Some movements do not just suffer defeat in elections and vanish from history. The countdown can begin for them the moment they deny their own reason for being.

The political identity that the MHP meticulously built for years was shaped by the rhetoric it highlighted at martyrs' funerals, the anger it raised in public squares, and a harsh political language centered on “homeland-nation-state.” Today, the fact that the same movement is opening a discussion on a new “political role” for the PKK leader must certainly be analyzed in the future from the perspective of political psychology.

Presenting a figure who was called a “baby killer” yesterday as an “actor who will contribute to the process” today creates a massive contradiction in the public mind.

This contradiction has shaken not only the MHP base but also the broad masses in Turkey who carry nationalist reflexes. Because there is not just a political transformation here; we can see that the state’s fundamental security paradigm is also being attempted to be changed.

Let us put on our reading glasses again.

It is as clear as day that this is not a process carried out to end terror, but a quest to establish a new regime balance by politicizing terror. An effort for a structural change toward an Islamist-Kurdish federation!

Read carefully between the lines of the statements made by the government and its masters across the Atlantic!

Let us underline that the term “politicization” is not an ordinary word. This concept contains legitimacy, representation, and political agency... In other words, the issue is not just laying down arms; it is also the transfer of organizational memory into the political sphere; that is exactly the point that disturbs a significant segment of society.

We are at a moment of historical rupture.

In the recent political memory of the Republic of Turkey, the PKK was not defined merely as an armed organization. It was also defined as a matter of survival that affects social psychology, the demographics of cities, border security, foreign policy, and state reflexes.

Raising the question of “what status should he attain?” for the leader of a structure that has cost tens of thousands of lives has opened not only security policy but also the state’s founding paradigm to debate.

Now, let us take a deep breath and ask:

What happens if terror in Turkey is removed from the security sphere and moved to the center of politics?

That is where the trouble begins!

If armed struggle turns into a tool that produces political gains years later, it will undoubtedly affect all radical movements that may emerge in the future beyond the current structure; let no one have any doubt about that.

“If you wage an armed struggle for long enough, you can sit at the table at the end of the day.”

That is the critical perspective.

In other words, the perception that whoever takes up arms can gain political legitimacy drags the country into a pit of fire; let us warn you now and make our note in history.

The answer to the question of whether violence produces political legitimacy is of critical importance. If the people of my country are led to the conviction that “things that cannot be achieved through democratic politics can be achieved after an armed struggle,” then a much larger and more dangerous door is opened for the future of the country.

It seems that from now on, we will be discussing not only a terror problem but also the historical consequences that the politicization of terror will bring.

The external side of the issue is also troublesome!

The picture in the Middle East is changing. Northern Iraq is shifting to a different axis. The future of de facto structures in Syria remains ambiguous.

The US’s strategic calculations in the region continue.

In such an equation, the Kurdish issue has become part of regional engineering beyond the heading of domestic politics.

In short, Turkey is not facing just a terror threat today; we are facing a multi-layered siege aimed at transforming the state’s reason.

Where terror is politicized, the state weakens, the nation fragments, and common belonging erodes.

In other words, the danger ahead is not to be underestimated, let us say, and put a period to it.