Thursday, April 2nd 2026
In our previous article, we analyzed the conflict between the USA, Israel and Iran from the perspective of the “end of the holy time”. Let’s continue from there, including the Turkey factor in this model.
Every religious tradition considers the process of divine revelation as a turning point in the meaning of history. In this aspect, history can be read at two different levels of consciousness: “pre-revelation” and “post-revelation”. This division also gives clarity to our analysis.
Each religion, after the revelation given to it, starts a historical cycle and, with the conviction that there will be nothing fundamentally new in life, where it begins to wait for the end of history. But this “end” may actually be a new beginning.
For Jews, Christians and Muslims, this historical cycle begins at different times, because each revelation carries within it a thousand-year continuity.
For this reason, those who have completed the cycle of revelation earlier are even more inclined to hasten the wait for the end of history. In Muslim societies there are doomsday visions, but states usually do not base their policies on these scenarios. The situation is different in some Shia currents, as we mentioned before.
This creates differences in the strategic approach of the actors: some try to accelerate the end, some prepare for it and some others postpone it. Therefore, international relations should be analyzed within the framework of the “Theory of the Multitemporal International System”.
The approach of the “strategy of sacred time” treats the tension between the USA, Israel and Iran not simply as a military conflict, but as a clash of theological perceptions of time and messianic objectives.
This approach shows that we are dealing with a triangle of actors who act not only according to a rational political logic, but also according to a “sacred calendar”. Their strategies collide in accordance with the eschatological expectations of their religious systems, while Turkey appears as a factor trying to maintain a rational balance in this theological “chess game”.
End-time perception: pushes Israel and evangelical segments in the US to prepare the conditions for the coming of the Messiah and the construction of the Third Temple while pushing Iran to manage chaos and resistance to accelerate the coming of the 12th Imam (Mahdi), through the concept of the “Velayat of the Faqih”.
The USA supports Israel not only as a strategic ally, but also because a powerful evangelical part in the USA sees the existence of Israel as a condition for their religious salvation. For this block, “time” is measured by the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. Decisions such as the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital are interpreted as steps to speed up this “sacred schedule”.
On the other hand, Iran puts its own concept of “sacred time” in front of this western “messianic calendar”. Its presence in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen is not only a geopolitical influence, but also part of a “holy march”. Israel is seen as an “evil” figure, while the war is conceived more as a test of faith than as a simple military confrontation.
If the current conflict between these actors escalates into a general war, supported by ground operations, then the expectations of apocalyptic events such as Armageddon or the “Great Melhama” can be activated.
In such a scenario: international security, energy control and economic stability may take a backseat, while “establishing the truth” becomes a strategic priority. Diplomacy becomes only a tool to buy time, while nuclear weapons can no longer be seen as means of prevention, but as instruments leading to an apocalyptic end.
However, the behavior of these actors cannot be fully explained by theological motives alone. But it is undeniable that eschatological narratives play an important role in legitimizing and orienting strategic decisions.
Turkey’s lack of eschatological expectations: advantage or danger?
Turkey is neither involved in the “apocalyptic push” of the US-Israel axis nor in Iran’s “Mahdi-focused” eschatological calendar. This secular approach makes Ankara one of the most rational and predictable actors in the region. But, at the same time, it also creates the risk that, within the “sacred chronology” of its rivals, Turkey’s actions will be perceived as a “strategic deviation” or as a “secular obstacle that must be overcome”. This geographical contact takes Turkey beyond the role of a purely rational actor, turning it into a direct target of “holy” strategies and a key node of the battle for survival.
Turkey’s foreign policy: “Rational brakes”
Turkey does not act according to a sacred calendar, but on the basis of national interests and regional stability. With a secular geopolitical approach, it faces concrete issues such as: energy corridors, border security and refugee flows. Meanwhile, the movements of its rivals, based on “prophecies”, materialize as real threats to Turkey. Instead of a classic “mediator” role, Turkey follows a strategy of “closing spaces” (denial area). So instead of engaging in a messianic conflict, it aims to block its expansion by creating a safety belt. In this aspect, Turkey is not only a balancing actor, but also an “intertemporal buffer actor”, standing between different logics of time (theological and historical). This makes it one of the most indispensable states in the region. The alignment of interests between systems such as Greenwich and Candilli (as symbols of global and local time) can give Turkey a power beyond expectations in the fields of finance, energy and trade. However, such a potential also carries great risks.
For the USA and Israel: Turkey is seen as a “secular obstacle that must be obeyed” as well as the biggest political and military barrier before theological expansion. For this reason, there is a tendency for it to be influenced through financial and military pressure.
For Iran: Turkey’s neutrality prevents the Iranian strategy of creating a “holy chaos” through Shiite-Sunni polarization from finding full support in the Sunni world.
For the countries of the region: Turkey is presented as a “security umbrella” and as a middle model, where they can take refuge in the face of messianic extremism. The clash between the US-Israeli effort to build a “divine kingdom” and Iran’s resistance based on the Mahdi concept is essentially a race towards the “end of time”. In this context, the fact that Turkey does not have an eschatological target makes it both: the biggest target of this conflict and one of the only possible solutions. Turkey follows a policy that does not expect “sacred time”, but aims to manage “historical time”, acting as a rational balancer.
Possible war scenarios and consequences
The current multi-temporal structure makes conflicts different from classical wars. Three main scenarios can be envisaged for a possible clash between the US, Israel and Iran:
“Controlled Chaos” (most likely): Limited conflicts, use of proxy forces and economic war. In this scenario: Iran survives, Israel’s security increases, US avoids direct involvement.
“Regional war”: Involvement of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq leads to major energy and migration crises.
“Major rupture”: (low risk but critical)
Direct US/Israel–Iran war, with consequences that could shake the entire global system.
Fact. that Turkey does not act on an eschatological basis creates important opportunities for it, such as: to play a mediating role, to become a key node of energy and trade and to remain a balancing power even in conditions of chaos. However, there are also concrete risks, such as: security pressure through Syria and Iraq, economic impacts and waves of migration. The current conflict should not only be seen as a geopolitical clash, but also as a confrontation of different perceptions of time. In this battle of “sacred time”, Turkey is not an actor that dictates time, but an actor that balances it. Although it is aware that states can use religious narratives for political purposes, Turkey always builds its strategic position on the basis of national interests.
In this analysis, we tried to read geopolitical tensions not only from a military or economic perspective, but also through differences in the perception of time and the strategies that stem from them.
Turkey’s potential role in this context, as well as the contribution that this approach can make to the theory of international relations, were treated relying on the tension between “sacred time” and “historical time”.
Even though in the Turkish tradition there are beliefs about the end of time, they are never included in national or international strategic objectives. In this respect, Turkey is not an actor that accelerates or sacralizes time, but an actor that balances it, delaying the breakdown of the international system.
This places Turkey simultaneously in the roles of a possible target, a balancing force and as a central element in a new theoretical approach in international relations.
The “Theory of the Multitemporal International System” builds an original model that places the factors of trust, power and time in a common framework. It enables the analysis of international actors through their temporal strategies, the tools they use and the systemic objectives they pursue.
This theory not only helps to understand the current crisis, but also opens a new conceptual perspective for analyzing future conflicts.
We use cookies to improve the experience and display advertisements (Google AdSense).
By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the use of cookies according to
Privacy Policy
and
Cookies Policy.
You can reject non-necessary cookies by clicking “Reject”.
Source: prizrenpost
