President Abdullah Gül's visit to Iran

President Abdullah Gül's visit to Iran took on a special meaning in the midst of the winds of revolution and change that began in Tunisia and continued in Egypt, and whose effects and consequences seem set to grow and multiply ever further.

Türkiye, both its people and the highest level of its state, had expressed its support and sympathy for this change. With this support having found particularly special echoes in Egypt, it could not be possible for a presidential-level visit to Iran to be free of the effect of those echoes. One of the events that made the timing of the visit more meaningful was the panic created among the Iranian security forces by the large-scale march that the opposition in Tehran had previously announced they would hold on February 14 to express their support for the change in Egypt.

This panic made itself felt from beginning to end of the Tehran leg of the visit. Abdullah Gül's visit to Iran took place with a heavy agenda, but this subject, though not on the official agenda, formed one of the important agenda items in all the talks. At the press conference held at the end of the first meeting with Ahmadinejad, in response to a question about the popular movements in the Middle East, President Gül answered by referring to the manifesto-like words he had spoken in 2003 in his speech at the Islamic Conference meeting, also held in Tehran. His words, in the sense of "If the rulers of countries do not lead change, the peoples inevitably will, so we must keep our ears wide open to the demands of the people," although they had found their meaning sufficiently in the Iranian environment, were most probably assumed by Iranian officials to have been said for Egypt. In contrast to this warning of President Gül's, made before the cameras and yet one that anyone who wished could avoid taking personally, we learned that at all later levels he did not neglect his friendly warnings about the importance of listening to the demands of the people.

Truly, even this alone deserves special attention to the special status Türkiye has won on international platforms. This place, won particularly through the personal qualities and styles of the Gül, Erdoğan and Davutoğlu trio, is increasingly giving Türkiye's international relations a privileged place as a special form of actorship. Words that could not normally be accepted from any other foreign statesman can be received with friendly goodwill, without any ulterior motive being sought, when heard from the Turkish President, Prime Minister or Foreign Minister. Leaving aside the reactions shown to what the American ambassador has said about Türkiye these days, imagine, if you like, what kind of response it would find in Turkish public opinion if even the US president said similar things...

I thought about a similar comparison in the way the President and his convoy were greeted by the people in Tabriz. Abdullah Gül was greeted on both sides of all the roads he passed by crowds gathered entirely spontaneously, under intense displays of affection and with shouts of "Long live Türkiye!" In his column Cengiz Çandar pointed out that in a similar situation a crowd shouting "Long live Iran" could not be found in Türkiye. Çandar, though, interpreted this "Long live Türkiye" slogan as an expression of other things that the masses could not say, that is, a criticism of and protest against the administration in Tehran, which is certainly right. A large share of the intense sympathy toward Türkiye comes from a dissatisfaction with their own administration. That is why it must be noted that the goodwill toward Türkiye is not very healthy and involves a reactiveness whose direction of development is unclear. That is why Gül made his warnings in a very open and friendly style: This cannot go on like this...

The Islamic Republic of Iran itself came about 32 years ago as a popular movement, and those who brought it about are now facing a similar popular uprising and are busy taking measures against it. This is truly a very tragic situation. That it has been forgotten in such a short time that such obstructions cannot be a measure against the opposition growing and developing even further is a complete tragedy.

As soon as I found a chance among the meetings that fell to our share on the trip, I went to the Revolution Square where the demonstrations were held. I covered the distance from our hotel to Revolution Square in half an hour on foot, and when I reached Revolution Street leading to the Square, I found myself amid crowds on both sides that made walking difficult, but the largest part of this crowd was made up of the security forces in all sorts of uniforms. From those dressed Robocop-style to motorcycle units, from soldiers to plainclothes police and of course to the Basij, the sight of crowded police deployments immediately moving against the slightest gathering on the sidewalks and roughly dispersing it was a very painful one. Seeing so many police together truly does one no good. We learned that the friend who guided our group of academics and who has been continuing his work in Tehran for some time was caught taking photos with his mobile phone in the square. When our contact with this friend, who was to take us to meet Cihan Aktaş, was cut, it became a separate grief, of course, that we had gone all the way to Tehran and not been able to see Ms. Cihan.

The odd thing is that just three days earlier another gathering attended by some 4 million people had taken place in Tehran. This is also a clear sign that a change to take place in Iran will certainly follow a very different path from the one in Egypt and Tunisia.

We will continue with our impressions of Iran.