کیهان برزگر

SummaryThis article first examines Erdogan's intellectual views against the background of his Muslim Brotherhood and then analyses the reasons for the change in Turkish strategies in the Middle East. The Middle East has always played an important role in the regional security strategies of Turkey and the Erdogan government. In the last two decades, Erdogan's special perceptual psychological characteristics as well as his personality and ambitions have led to the strengthening of Turkey's position in the Middle East region. In 2021-2023, Turkey faces new economic, security and domestic challenges that need to be analyzed. In this article, we have analyzed this topic using secondary data in an explanatory-analytical way. The main question is: What influence does Erdogan's Muslim Brotherhood have on Turkey's strategic policy in the Middle East region?The results of the study show that Erdogan's personality cult and the Muslim Brotherhood's desire to lead the Islamic world have led to the promotion of Turkey's position in the Middle East region on an abstract level. On a concrete level, this has led to a chaotic domestic political and economic situation as well as national security crises that have forced him to adopt a new policy towards Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Erdogan's new policy is in contrast to his policy following the developments in the Arab world. The evolution of Erdogan's views in the Middle East promises a return to the principle of "zero problems with neighbors".Keywords: Erdogan, Turkey, Middle East, Justice and Development Party, Muslim Brotherhood and foreign policy.

The importance of the historical study of the Russian and Ottoman neighborhood policy lies in the fact that, in addition to the importance of these two countries in geographical, social, cultural, political and economic dimensions, a large number of Iran's neighboring countries were somehow under the control of these two empires before independence. In this research, the historical process of Iran's relations with these two important neighboring countries has been studied using the descriptive method and discourse analysis of Lacla and Moufe with the approach of historical institutionalism. The results show that during the lifetime of the Ottoman Empire until the disintegration of this empire, coinciding with the Safavid to Qajar governments, we witness two neighboring discourses. The discourse of the first period, the discourse of structural divergence, later with the change of political, economic and social geography and the requirements of the world system, this discourse turns into the discourse of minimal convergence. The discourse of "structural divergence" was formed on the centrality of the neighborhood policy based on the tyranny of the kingdom. The discourse signs of structural divergence included geographical dominance, expansion of religious ideology, political divergence, economic divergence, and world trade. The minimal convergence discourse is based on the centrality of the political signifier based on the court's understanding of global realities. The semantic system of this discourse is based on the main signs of acknowledging the existence of the neighboring country, the unbalanced weight of different aspects of the relations between the two countries, and the continuation of divergence alongside convergence. However, in comparison, the central sign of the discourse of the neighborhood with Russia is tsarist imprudence and court tyranny, and the main signs are passivity against Russia's expansionism, "military weakness in exercising territorial sovereignty, weakness in attracting the Iranian peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus, and giving in to disgraceful agreements." they give. With the formation of the Soviet Union and the beginning of a new discourse, Russian expansionism in Iran in its territorial form ended and the chapter of ideological confrontations between communism and capitalism began. The discourse of Iran's neighborhood policy with the Ottomans and Russia is like two pieces of a puzzle that are both complementary and effective on each other's growth. If Iran's neighborhood policy regarding Russia and Ottomans had the same importance for Iran's ruling body, it is possible that a different historical path would have been established for the region and Iran.