7227 | 15 March 2026 | 18:52

My advice to Bulgarian friends and allies is to be extremely careful when it comes to getting involved in such a conflict, emphasizes the professor in an interview for BTV

The world is going through its most dangerous period since the end of World War II. This was stated by former Turkish prime minister and longtime architect of Turkish foreign policy Ahmet Davutoglu in an exclusive interview for "120 minutes" with Svetoslav Ivanov on bTV.

 According to him, the international system is entering an era of "systemic earthquake," in which several global crises are intertwined.

 "200 dollars per barrel." This is the price that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard threatened with this week. In response, just a few days ago, an unprecedented 32 countries agreed to release 400 million barrels from their strategic reserves - enough to cover four days of global consumption. What is Turkey's position - the country with the largest army in Europe within NATO. Ahmet Davutoglu is a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister of Turkey. At the beginning of the new millennium, his book "Strategic Depth" was considered in diplomatic circles as the architecture of Turkey's contemporary foreign policy. In the last decade, Ahmet Davutoglu has appeared twice on the show "120 minutes".

 The last interview was in one of the most dramatic moments, while he was prime minister - days after the shooting down of a Russian military plane by Turkish Air Force. A decade later, the world is once again on the verge of a major crisis.

 Ahmet Davutoglu - on the Persian Gulf, the United States, Iran, military threats, our region, and the new geopolitics.

 - Professor, a direct question. Is the current situation more dangerous compared to everything that has happened in the last decade?

 According to me, we are currently going through the most risky and dangerous period. In fact, after the end of the Cold War, there were many crises. In my latest book, published by Cambridge, I warned that a world of constant earthquakes is coming. In 1991, there was a geopolitical earthquake, in 2001 we went through a security earthquake after 9/11. The third was the financial crisis of 2008, and the fourth was the Arab Spring. After all of this, we are facing a "Systemic Earthquake".

 This is the title of an article I wrote in 2017 (during the first term of Trump), which later turned into the book "The Earthquake in World Order".

 However, today, we are facing not just one, but several interrelated crises. This is the most dangerous situation since World War II. We know when it started and when it ended. We are now in the era of ongoing conflicts in different parts of the world, shaking all international norms, organizations, and geo-political balances. In order to overcome crises, we also need international norms and institutions. At the moment, we have neither.

  - Just two months ago, did you think we were on the brink of a huge conflict in the Persian Gulf and the air sirens would even sound in "Incirlik", one of the most important military bases in the region?

 - Actually, I was expecting it. And I warned that the storm would begin. In Turkey, in several of my parliamentary speeches, I warned our government to be prepared for a major crisis around us. In fact, just two days before the talks in Oman between the United States and Iran were due to begin, the Iranian ambassador invited me and delivered a message from President Masoud Pezeshkian. He wanted my opinion and analysis on how to approach these nuclear negotiations.

 As you know, in 2010 I was a mediator between the United States and Iran - when we signed the agreement between Turkey, Iran, and Brazil. This was a very important historical turning point.

 My proposal - which, as the ambassador told me, was delivered to the Iranian president - was for them to stay at the negotiating table permanently and under no circumstances to leave it. I told them, "If you leave the negotiations or if they break down, Israel and the United States will strike."

 Why did I expect this?

 Because I know the way of thinking of the elite - let's call it strategic elite, although in fact it is not really strategic. In Washington and Tel Aviv, this is considered a crucial moment in history. I am currently writing a new article - "From geopolitics to theopolitics".

 Theopolitics means the theological justification of war. Unfortunately, certain Zionist circles in Washington and around Benjamin Netanyahu believe that this is the time of Armageddon. For geopoliticians or people with strategic thinking, this is nonsense, but it is the mentality of these elites.

 And I was very concerned. In fact, it all started with the Abraham Accords during Donald Trump's first term. Israel's strategic goal was to create a conflict between the Gulf countries and Iran.

 From this point of view, as well as from the recent military deployments around the Gulf - the signals for such a strike were very clear. Such a massive military concentration and similar attitude are difficult to end without war.

 - Professor Davutoglu, a question related to the current situation. If ballistic missiles continue to target Turkey, what reaction can we expect from Ankara?

 - I am closely monitoring the situation. Although I am not currently in power, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the head of intelligence - as well as many of the people who implement these policies, are my colleagues and friends. Some of them have even been my students.

 That is why I am closely following the developments with great concern. Turkey's strategic planning has always been very rational. "We do not act based on emotions or feelings. We act based on strategic rationality.

 Turkey is a member of NATO. Therefore, Iran is well aware that if it attacks Turkey, it will not be a war between Iran and Turkey - something that both sides would want to avoid, but a war between Iran and NATO. For now, NATO is not directly involved.

 Certain member states support the operation - for example, the United Kingdom and France supported the United States. But other NATO member countries, such as Spain and Norway, have been very reserved and openly critical of this operation.

 Therefore, I am sure that Iran does not want this conflict to turn into a war between Iran and NATO. My concern is different - that the Iranian administration may no longer have full control over everything in the country."

 We saw that there are agents of Mossad, as well as possibly representatives of other intelligence services or even uncontrolled groups in Iran. The country does not have a clearly defined unified command chain. It is rather a mosaic of different command structures - the so-called mosaic warfare.

 One uncontrolled missile reaching Turkish territory can lead to a serious catastrophe.

 So far, the Turkish government has been very successful in controlling the situation when two or three missiles tried to reach Turkish airspace. I am convinced that our government will continue to act very rationally and strive to avoid any war between Turkey and Iran. And I am sure that Iran does not want such a scenario either.

 Since 1639, the border between Turkey and Iran has not changed and there has been no war between the two countries. There is a strategic rationality between us.

 I do not expect such an attack to be the result of an official decision by the Iranian leadership, but rather the actions of uncontrolled groups.

 Therefore, intelligence cooperation between Turkey and Iran, as well as between Turkey and the United States, is necessary. Turkey must be very careful in both channels, as only one channel will not be enough to control and limit the crisis.

 One of Turkey's major achievements under Ismet Inonu was the preservation of neutrality during World War II. Can the current crisis deviate Turkey from this historic line of neutrality?

 - Yes. In fact, this is a tradition in Turkish foreign policy. During the Second World War, the policy of neutrality was very successful.

 But at that time, the war was between global alliances. Today, however, we have a regional confrontation. On the first day of the war - when it started on February 28th - I made a statement and proposed 12 steps that Turkey should take. I said that our country should follow a policy of active neutrality, not just neutrality.

 What does active neutrality mean? It means that Turkey should remain neutral between the two sides in the conflict. But when I say "between the two sides", I mean between Iran and the United States, as well as between Iran and the countries of the Persian Gulf. Turkey cannot be neutral between Iran and Israel, because Israel is the aggressor. Israel has committed genocide.

 Active neutrality means for Turkey to stay at a distance from the conflict itself, but at the same time try to resolve the crisis. During World War II, we did not have such an opportunity for mediation due to the global nature of the confrontation.

 However, today Turkey must play an effective mediating role between all parties - especially between Iran and the Gulf states, as well as between Iran and the United States. Therefore, the current situation is even more risky, but at the same time it places a great responsibility on Turkish politicians and diplomats to try to find a solution.

 In fact, over the past 24-25 years, Turkey has implemented such a policy several times. For example, during the American attack on Iraq in 2003. At that time, I was the chief advisor to the president. There were different opinions in Turkey and many people supported the idea of the country joining the coalition with the United States and allowing American troops to pass through Turkish territory to attack Iraq. I was strongly against it. I said then, "Okay, Turkey is an ally of the United States. But that doesn't mean we have an obligation to participate in an attack on a neighboring country."

 I acted as a mediator in Lebanon during the election of a new president. Together with Qatar, we were able to assist in the election of Michel Suleiman. It was a successful mediation mission.

 Later, in 2008, when Russia attacked Georgia, the world was shocked. But on the same day, we, together with Prime Minister Erdogan, went to Tbilisi and Moscow and proposed the creation of a Caucasus Pact for Stability. I believe this was a successful example.

 Turkey does not allow the American fleet to pass through the Bosphorus over a certain tonnage. But at the same time, our commanding officer of the Navy had a very important meeting with his Russian colleague in the middle of the Black Sea.

 There, we clearly told the Russians that we are against the separation of Georgia. But we also stated that we will not allow the American fleet to enter the Black Sea. It was an extremely critical moment.

 This is the active neutrality that I am talking about.

 Not just neutrality where you observe events and wait to see what will happen. The "wait and see" policy will not work today.

 We have to be active in diplomacy. And we have to be very, very careful in military matters.

 - Professor Davutoglu, Bulgaria, as you know, is simultaneously a member of NATO, a Black Sea state, and is very close to these active conflicts. In such a crisis, what role should countries like Bulgaria play?

 - Bulgaria is a member of NATO. Therefore, any decision the country makes should be discussed and coordinated within the Alliance. The major mistake of the United States, and a truly serious mistake, was that they did not first define what the ultimate outcome of this war would be.

 Without a clear strategic framework, they assumed that the Iranian regime would collapse. In addition, they did not consult with anyone. Neither with NATO, nor with Turkey, nor even - in my opinion - with the United Kingdom and France.

 This is how they started the war. In fact, the war was started by Israel, and the United States followed this war. And then everyone expected us all to become a part of it. But this is not allied behavior. To be an ally means to consult before a crisis - to discuss the situation and develop a strategic plan.

 There may now be pressure within NATO from the United States for everyone to stand together, especially if there is an attack against Turkey or another member state. But even this is misleading, because President Donald Trump himself undermines the role and mission of NATO.

 Remember the war in 2003. At that time, many Eastern European countries supported the American intervention in Iraq, even though it was not their war. If there is a similar request now, my advice to Bulgarian friends is for them to act as I would want Turkey to act - to pursue a policy of active neutrality.

 "If specific requests are made to individual countries within NATO, I am sure that Turkey, as well as countries like Spain or Norway, will ask the key question: how did this war start?

 I publicly proposed to Turkish political leaders to ask a few questions to the American administration. Why did you start this war? What is the final outcome? Why did you not inform allies and countries that will pay a high price for this crisis?

 Without a clear end to the war, no country should get involved in this game. That is why my advice to Bulgarian friends and allies is to be extremely careful when it comes to participation in such a conflict.

 - In this sense, Iran is activating its so-called oil weapon, pushing up global oil prices." What consequences do you expect for Turkey, for Bulgaria, for Europe? - The situation today becomes even more alarming due to the American attack on the Iranian island of Harq - the main terminal for oil exports.

 I am certain that oil prices will rise. And this will create a serious energy issue for countries like Turkey and Bulgaria, which do not have enough of their own energy resources. Therefore, it is necessary - first and foremost at an internal level - to have a political and economic management of the crisis. I said this in Turkey when advising the government. There should be a plan for every possible scenario. We should not be caught off guard by a major oil crisis, which could also lead to internal instability in many countries.

 The financial infrastructure of the countries must be strengthened. The reserves must also be strengthened. During the war in Ukraine, we saw that one of the main problems was the shortage of food. The Strait of Hormuz is crucial for oil supplies. But if the crisis deepens, it could lead to a food crisis as many trade routes could be blocked.

 Therefore, countries like Turkey and Bulgaria must prepare for emergencies.

 - Professor Davutoglu, historians often say that crises reveal the future. In two sentences - what future do you see at the moment?

 - Of course, when we talk about the future, we must distinguish between the immediate future and the long-term perspective. But what I see today is the biggest risk of transitioning from geopolitics to something else. It is possible to negotiate the geopolitical ambitions of a country. Talks can be held, compromises can be sought.

 Someone may give something, another may receive something - this is how agreements are reached. But when it comes to thinking along the lines of Armageddon, there is no basis for negotiations. If you listen to the statements of Israeli politicians, and sometimes even representatives of the Pentagon, you will hear religious and messianic references.

 The risk is that if this logic spreads, we will find ourselves in a situation similar to a "clash of civilizations", which we have been trying to avoid so far. At the same time, there is another trend.

 And here I am more optimistic. A growing global public consciousness is emerging in the world against this type of adventurous, almost missionary strategy. Let me give you an example. After the events in Gaza, we created the initiative "Global Conscience Initiative". It involves Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian leaders - statesmen, Nobel laureates, journalists, international lawyers, UN representatives.

 Around 100 people joined this initiative. Last Monday, together with Richard Falk - a renowned international lawyer and former UN special rapporteur for Palestine - we sent a petition condemning the killing of schoolgirls in Minab.

 The result was impressive. In just 24 hours, 106 former presidents, prime ministers, ministers, and Nobel laureates - including Mohammed ElBaradei - supported the initiative. In just 48 hours, we released a joint statement. This shows that a global consciousness is emerging.

 The most dangerous scenario is if such a theologically-driven geopolitics begins to displace rational strategic thinking. If rationality disappears, the consequences will be catastrophic. A critical moment may come this autumn - in October and November of this year - when there will be mid-term elections for Congress and the Senate in the United States.

 The American political elite must find the courage to oppose this type of messianic approach. I am moderately optimistic because for the first time, public opinion in the US seems to be more critical of Donald Trump's policies. Support for his decisions is around 20%, and even close to half of his supporters are against this war. That is why today we are witnessing a very dynamic competition between two tendencies. On one side - politicians who follow a dangerous logic of confrontation. On the other - people who defend universal values, human rights and the principles of international law.

 We must all support this second trend, because the first one can lead the world to a true catastrophe.

 And finally, I want to make one appeal. I made this appeal in the last few days to President Erdogan and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who showed great dignity in this crisis.

 In 2005, Turkey and Spain created the "Alliance of Civilizations" initiative, precisely in response to the tension after September 11 and the war in Iraq. It has become a platform within the UN system.

 Now is the time to convene a new summit of the "Alliance of Civilizations". Turkey and Spain can be co-chairs of such an initiative, but all world leaders must be invited. - Thank you for participating. - Thank you.

 Source: bTV