How the U.S., through NATO, is advancing Turkey’s Antichrist Agenda

By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

When it comes to the 28 member countries in NATO, the interests of one are being served at the expense of the others; that one nation is Turkey. By furthering Turkey’s agenda, NATO is endangering the national security of the remaining 27, though many of them seem willing to go right along with it. Turkey, meanwhile, continues to reap membership awards. U.S. foreign policy – under the Barack Obama administration – has been in solidarity with Turkey at every turn. This explains why NATO has as well.

Barack Obama and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Barack Obama and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In 2011, with the backing of both Turkey and the U.S., NATO facilitated the demise of Libya’s Muammar Ghadafi.

Today, Libya’s recently ousted Prime Minister Ali Zeidan is warning that his country may soon become an Al-Qaeda base for operations in Europe.

“Libya could be a base for al-Qaeda for any operation to Italy, to Britain, to France, to Spain, to Morocco, to everywhere. Weapons are everywhere, ammunition is everywhere.”

Save for Morocco, every one of those nations mentioned are member countries of NATO. As such, NATO seems to be working against its own interests in Libya by putting the security of member nations at greater risk. Perhaps NATO is doing so but one of its most powerful member countries – Turkey – is not. There is only one NATO country whose interests are served by the rise of al-Qaeda and that nation is Turkey.


According to Al-Akhbar English, Zeidan stated that the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was behind his removal. In 2012, published the translated contents of a document dated August 30, 2011 in which a member of al-Qaeda named Abdel Hakim Belhaj was put in charge of “all international embassies” in Tripoli, to include the U.S. embassy.

Belhaj: al-Qaeda 'brother' in charge of Security for U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from 2011-2012.

Belhaj: al-Qaeda ‘brother’ in charge of Security for U.S. Embassy in Tripoli from 2011-2012.

In supporting the ouster of Gadhafi, both the Obama administration and Turkey also supported what filled (and continues to fill) the leadership vacuum there – the Muslim Brotherhood.

Check out this interview with Lawrence Freeman of the Executive Intelligence Review in which he says Libya is being run by al-Qaeda and that NATO’s policy in Syria is a continuation of the policy in Libya:

In that exchange, Freeman points to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as being the man behind such policies. Whether true or not, such a scenario would mean that as a leader of one of NATO’s member countries, Blair was working against the interests of his own nation. However, it would also mean that NATO has been working in the interests of one of its other member countries – Turkey.

While Blair did resign as PM four years prior to the Arab Spring, in 2012, he remained an apologist for the influx of Muslim immigrants in the U.K. The rise of Muslim populations in Europe are a threat to every NATO country except one – Turkey.

Like Blair, even George W. Bush seemed content with embracing a pro-Turkey position years after leaving office. The former U.S. President advocated an embrace of the ‘Arab Spring’. Any guesses which NATO member country benefits from such a position?

Tony Blair: Still an apologist for policies that have aided Turkey.

Tony Blair: Still an apologist for policies that have aided Turkey.

Contrast U.S. treatment of Libya with how it has dealt with Egypt under Obama. Again, member countries of NATO – especially the U.S. and Turkey – have been working against the national interests of the U.S. and for the interests of Turkey.

When the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohammed Mursi fell last year, Turkey’s Erdogan was crushed. He even cried on national television. The Obama State Department called for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders from jail. reported on the trip to Egypt by Senators Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) and John McCain (RINO-AZ), who were essentially emissaries for Obama to do the same.

Again, it’s obvious that the U.S. leadership has been working against American interests in Egypt while Turkey has been working in its own interests there. In so doing, the U.S. and Turkey are working toward the same goals. The common membership each shares is that of NATO. When looking at U.S. policy through the lens of nationalism, that makes no sense. However, when operating from a premise that says Turkey’s influence as a member country of NATO is greater than anyone wants to admit, it makes perfect sense because if any NATO country is benefiting from a pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy, it’s Turkey.

In 2011, Senators McCain, Graham, and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) traveled to Turkey and met with Erdogan. Graham referred to Turkey as a “great democracy” and promised “good relations” between Turkey and the U.S.

McCain meets with Erdogan in 2011.

McCain meets with Erdogan in 2011.

The role Turkey has played and continues to play in both Egypt and Libya has prophetic significance, as seen in Daniel 11:

42 He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 43 He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels. – Daniel 11: 42-43

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ouster from power in Egypt last year is not the final word. In fact, Turkey is home to many of that group’s leaders today who have parked in Turkey to take another crack at Egypt in the future.

As the two member countries of the NATO with the largest military personnel, the United States and Turkey are joined at the hip. Together, the U.S. and Turkey comprise more than 50 percent of NATO’s forces.

The problem is that in 1952, when Turkey joined NATO, it was America’s biggest Middle Eastern ally after Israel. In the years since Recep Tayyip Erdogan rose to power in 2002, Turkey’s status as an ally should have been deteriorating in direct proportion to its Islamization. In 2014, it should be considered an enemy of NATO, not a member. Despite the easy-to-see desire of Turkey’s leaders for a return of the Ottoman Empire, NATO continues to do Turkey’s bidding. One look at the positions taken by member nations during the ‘Arab Spring’ clearly shows Turkey’s agenda has gotten top priority.

In an article by Cinar Kiper that appeared in the Atlantic, terms like “neo-Ottomanism” and “Otto-philia” are words used to describe the stealth way in which Turkey is covertly morphing ever so slowly into an overtly Islamic fundamentalist empire.

One analyst describes what’s going on inside Turkey is an…

“…unfolding (of) neo-Ottomanism that is pragmatically using “Islamization,” both of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s legacy internally and Turkey ’s foreign policy regionally, as a tool to revive the Ottoman Empire that once was.”

In a 2011 interview Erdogan gave to TIME Magazine, he said it was “out of the question” to “deny” the “legacy of the Ottoman empire”.

Erdogan denies Armenian genocide but wants to remember the Ottomans who committed it.

Erdogan denies Armenian genocide but wants to remember the Ottomans who committed it.


Yet, quite absurdly, Erdogan has consistently denied the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman empire whose history he doesn’t want to deny. Earlier this year, while in Berlin, the Turkish prime minister was urged by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to own up to his country’s history of genocide. In response, Erdogan said:

“You are forcing us to accept something we have not done.”

Erdogan’s penchant for outlandish comments and lies notwithstanding, Turkey has been able to maintain the perception that it is the same Turkey that joined NATO.

Working against the interests of your own nation is treason; working for the interests of your nation is patriotism. When it comes to the policies of NATO in the Middle East, Erdogan is working for the interests of his country, which makes him an Ottoman patriot. Other NATO member countries are working against their own interests by facilitating Turkey’s.

Within two weeks of the failed trip to Egypt by Graham, McCain, and Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Syria had become the new focus of intense international attention when reports of a chemical weapons attack launched by Bashar al-Assad began to surface. Obama administration officials and NATO adopted the pro-Turkey position of supporting Muslim Brotherhood rebels. As chronicled, attempts to blame Assad for the attack were debunked by evidence that it was the rebels who were responsible.

Despite this evidence, several foreign policy ‘experts’ from the U.S. – including Karl Rove – implored Obama to attack Syria’s Assad. Once again, such action would have been in the best interests of Turkey, not the U.S. or Europe.

As has uncovered, the unspeakable atrocities that have taken place in Syria – to include human slaughterhouses and mass beheadings of Christians have come at the hands of the rebels.

The only NATO country that has shown a history – despite Erdogan’s denials – of committing mass genocide against Christians, is Turkey. As reported recently, secret emails and audio recordings show that Turkey is behind much of the genocide taking place inside Syria, to include the massacre of 80 Armenian Christians in the Syrian city of Kessab.

Davutoglu: Problem with killing terrorists; no problem with terrorists slaughtering innocents.

Davutoglu: Problem with killing terrorists; no problem with terrorists slaughtering innocents.

One of the men purported to be on the recordings is Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. Though Davutoglu has demonstrate no concern for the safety of Christians, he exhibited great concern for the more than 500 Muslim Brotherhood members who were sentenced to death in Egypt, saying:

“This decision shows the consequences of the military coup in Egypt. This shows how the coup authorities in Egypt are against democracy and far away from rights.”

Such support for terrorists coupled with sanctioned atrocities committed against Christians cannot be seen as being in the national interest of any NATO nation, with the exception of one – Turkey.

In Article 13 of the NATO Treaty, it states that any member country “may cease to be a Party” to the Treaty with a one year notice. Do not look for Turkey to renounce its membership any time soon.

It has 27 member countries wrapped around its finger.

The ultimate goal has been designed long ago. Here is a video from 1994 that every American should see. Yes, that is Erdogan in the front row:


, , ,