Will Trump burn the boat the US has eaten bread from for 40 years?

We had said that the cauldrons in the Gulf were apparently being boiled again for Iran, but that in reality it was not clear who would be scalded in these cauldrons.

Because many times before, in cauldrons likewise apparently boiled for Iran, either the people of Afghanistan, or the people of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, or the people of Syria or Yemen were sacrificed, and in the end Iran always came out the winner.

We do not covet Iran's gains; let it gain even more. But what is thought-provoking is that for Iran to gain more, the Islamic world inevitably has to pay great prices.

Meanwhile, Iran's gain is in no way reflected on the Iranian people.

As Iran gains positions in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, with the help of US policies as well, the Iranian people grow poorer, grow politically weaker, and the power of the Islamic tradition that Iran represents erodes further. The Iranian Islamic Revolution, from a certain point on, turns exclusively into the property of a ruling elite that does not care about its people at all. What is buried is the ideals and values of the Islamic Revolution.

Yesterday our colleague İbrahim Karagül also wrote, pointing to the global economy behind the fact that Iran has never come face to face directly with either the US or Israel until now. Of course we do not want their conflict; if only they would really never clash, never fight. If only everyone in the Middle East truly valued peace and sincerely strove for it. But this is the case. While seeming to clash, they actually feed on one another, they feed terribly on this enmity.

We are of course not saying that there is an official or secret agreement between them. We are of course not saying that the US, Iran and Israel sat down and concocted this sham fight, similar to the secret agreement at the Yalta Conference between the US and the USSR in the Cold War years. What we are trying to say is that both have benefited from the cold war between Iran and the US for 40 years, whereas the Islamic world as a whole has lost.

Above all Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan are the losers of this Cold War. Here, of course, first and foremost, those who feel the Iranian threat most and apply for US help to take measures against it are losing. Because the US runs to nobody's aid. The US style of politics is not to end threats but to benefit from them, to conduct its politics through them. The ISIS threat is like that, and the Iranian threat is like that.

Republican members of the US Congress are complaining to the White House that they cannot understand its policy on Iran and have not been informed at all about it. Thereupon, it was announced by the Congress secretariat that at Tuesday's Senate session Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Danford and Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan would brief the Senate on this matter.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Chris Van Hollen, powerful members of Congress, wrote a letter warning that the policy Trump has recently been pursuing on Iran could take Iran back to all the areas from which it withdrew in the nuclear deal and that things would be set back more than necessary. That is, within the US too there is serious internal pressure that this policy change is not in the US interest.

So it is thought that this time the US threat to Iran is serious. It is said that the US is preparing to deploy 120 thousand soldiers to the region. If these soldiers are really going to fight against Iran, we can say there is a radical change in US politics. Does this mean a retreat from an enmity that has until now fed the US and Iran quite well together?

How does Trump actually want to be a hero by ending in one stroke a politics based on the Iran threat, which past US presidents saw as a kind of goose that lays golden eggs? Was it because they were, in his words about them, "stupid" that past US presidents did not do this?

This story is somewhat reminiscent of the story of a father who practiced as a lawyer for many years and, as he grew old, handed over his business to his son, a law school graduate, and withdrew to rest. The son takes over the business with great enthusiasm and quickly concludes one by one the cases his father had left unfinished. One day he comes to his father with great good news and says: "Dear father, I won and concluded the case you could not finish for 15 years," and his father sighs and says: "Oh, my son who thinks himself clever, do you think I did not finish that case because I could not? We earned our bread from that case for 15 years; you finished it in one stroke and burned our breadwinning boat, and you have no idea."

Now there is a president in the White House who regards all his predecessors as "stupid." There is a US president who has resolved to end a case, the Iran threat, that the presidents he calls stupid have earned their bread from for 40 years.

Incidentally, the metaphor of "the cauldron boiling" is an old Safavid saying. It is rumored that Shah Ismail killed his captives or those he wished to punish by scalding them in cauldrons. That is why, with cauldrons that began to be boiled from morning, it was a matter of curiosity among the people who would be scalded: For whom are the cauldrons boiling?

Today the Gulf and the whole Middle East have become the cauldron; for whom is this cauldron heated, who will be put in it and boiled, is not at all clear?