The Second World War ended on 2 September 1945. On that very same day, a new one began. It was called the 'Cold War'. It featured a bloc formed by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, pitted against a bloc that claimed, "Hitler is defeated, but now there is the threat of communism," presenting itself as the "Free World" fighting against communism. The leader of this bloc had been Britain before the war; by the end, it was the USA. The greatest power of the capitalist world, which entered the conflict at the last moment and preached that it was the true victor through a narrative woven around the "legend of the Normandy landings".

This new war was called 'cold', yet it began with hot conflict. The war that started in Korea in 1950 and lasted for three years was intended to 'collapse the Soviet Union before it could grow stronger'—the very power that had ensured the defeat of Nazi Germany and its allies. It resulted in the division of Korea into two. Its importance for us, however, is that it led to Turkey joining NATO. The "Article 5" that we are discussing so much now, due to the missile reportedly fired from Iran and directed towards Turkey, is the lifeblood of that NATO. The rule that "an attack against one member shall be considered an attack against all members" and will be met collectively. The very article that made the USA the 'master of the world' in the post-war order...

The process of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, and the new situation where the Cold War was declared over, caused the USA to push Article 5 to the bottom of the "matters to be mindful of" list in international relations—just as it did with many other rules that had previously acted as constraints. Military operations were carried out in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and many countries across Africa, the Balkans, and Latin America without seeking Article 5 or any other specific condition. While initially there was a pretence of seeking legitimacy from NATO and the UN, after Yugoslavia, no one bothered with international law. The USA—almost always accompanied by Britain—signed off on numerous operations that suspended international law. It became capable of launching attacks against any force in any country perceived as contrary to US hegemony. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, this escalated further. Massacres were perpetrated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

They took thousands of lives.

Of course, they also lost their own soldiers against the resistance. These soldier casualties were often the most significant 'obstacle' creating pressure upon them. Although 'axis shifts' were mentioned during the terms of different presidents like Reagan, the Bush duo, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, the main target remained the same: China, the rising economic power of the post-Cold War world, and those seen as its allies! The rise of this country was the primary threat to US hegemony and its quest to be the sole great exploiter of the world's resources. In most of the US attacks mentioned above, the real justification is this power struggle. It is not the freedom of Iraqis or Afghans. Just as it is not the freedom of Iranians now. However, while they continued their own operations and the massacres they deemed acceptable—like those Israel carries out in Palestine—they never cast NATO aside. A prominent recent example was the Ukraine-Russia war. NATO was needed! This time against Russia; a NATO that, years later, is being expanded, reformatted, and kept on its path.

Now, at the point we have reached with the attack directed at Iran, we have arrived at a place that makes even non-leftist writers produce articles saying, "It turns out communism was the bolt that held the world together." *

In truth, there has been little change in Turkey's role as the 'low-cost soldier' since the Korean War. Back then, our 'manpower' was praised by US officials themselves, who referred to them as "23-cent soldiers". Today, when the occasion arises, it is praised as the "frontline protective power" of a NATO renewed around Ukraine!

In the conditions following the 15 July coup attempt, scenes were created of a country that "also negotiates with Russia" and can even "buy S-400s if necessary". However, looking at the praise heaped upon NATO over the ammunition fragment that fell in Hatay Dörtyol, we can see that these examples were merely extraordinary instances within the general narrative. Anomalies that do not change the general status quo... If members of the government, who were praised while the S-400s were being bought, now turn around and lecture Iran by asking 'What do you have to oppose with?', it is because the state seen as 'normal' is still "NATO-ism". No people, either domestically or abroad, have ever seen any benefit from NATO-ism.

It is clear who needs NATO; the 'those in need' are saying it quite openly.

*Yusuf Ziya Cömert, Karar, 2 March 2026.