Under the 1973 law, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of its start or require its end. The deadline followed U.S. operations that began on Feb. 28, but Senate Republicans took no action before leaving for a one-week recess.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he did not expect a vote on authorizing force in Iran, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the deadline no longer applied because a ceasefire with Iran that began in early April had effectively paused the conflict.

Democrats rejected that claim, saying U.S. military operations continue as the Navy enforces a blockade linked to the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, said Congress should still have a formal role, with Collins calling the deadline “a requirement” and not a suggestion.

The proposed 650-mile pipeline, often referred to by critics as “Keystone Light” because of its similarities to the scrapped Keystone XL line, would transport up to 550,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Saskatchewan into northeastern Montana before extending through Montana and Wyoming to connect with existing U.S. pipeline infrastructure.

Trump signed the permit in the Oval Office, authorizing the line to cross the U.S.-Canada border and allowing the transport of crude oil as well as petroleum products including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas.“Slightly different from the last administration. They wouldn’t sign a pipeline deal.

And we have pipelines going up,” Trump said after approving the project.At full capacity, the pipeline would carry roughly two-thirds the volume planned for Keystone XL, which was partially constructed before former President Joe Biden revoked its permit in January 2021 on his first day in office, citing climate concerns.

Trump had approved Keystone XL during his first term, but the project became a flashpoint in North American energy politics after Biden’s reversal angered Canadian officials and Alberta’s provincial government, which had invested more than $1 billion in the venture.

Unlike Keystone XL, the Bridger Pipeline Expansion would not cross Native American reservations, a key point of contention in past pipeline disputes. Company officials said more than 70% of the route would be built within existing pipeline corridors and about 80% would cross private land.

Bridger Pipeline LLC said the line would transport several grades of crude, including oil from Canada’s oil sands region, for refining or export in the United States.The project still requires additional state and federal environmental approvals before construction can begin. Company officials said they expect construction to start in 2027, with completion targeted for late 2028 or early 2029, potentially before Trump leaves office in January 2029.

Environmental groups have already signaled opposition, citing the risk of spills and the broader climate implications of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure.“The biggest concern we see right now is the concern inherent in all pipeline projects which is the risk of spills,” said Jenny Harbine, an attorney with environmental law group Earthjustice.

“Pipelines rupture and leak. It’s just a fact of pipelines.”Groups opposing the project include the Montana Environmental Information Center and WildEarth Guardians.Bridger Pipeline and subsidiaries of parent company True Companies have faced scrutiny over previous major spills, including more than 50,000 gallons of crude oil released into Montana’s Yellowstone River in 2015, contaminating a city’s drinking water supply, and a 2016 North Dakota spill of more than 600,000 gallons that affected the Little Missouri River and a tributary.

Subsidiaries of True Companies later agreed to pay a $12.5 million civil penalty to settle a federal lawsuit related to the Montana and North Dakota incidents. A separate 45,000-gallon diesel spill occurred in Wyoming in 2022.Company spokesperson Bill Salvin said Bridger has since introduced an AI-based leak detection system designed to accelerate incident response and plans to place pipeline sections 30 to 40 feet beneath major rivers including the Yellowstone and Missouri to reduce spill risks.

“We designed the pipeline with integrity and safety in mind,” Salvin said, adding that emergency response systems were in place in the event of a leak.Casper, Wyoming-based Bridger operates more than 3,700 miles of gathering and transmission pipelines across North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The approval marks another step in Trump’s broader effort to expand domestic and cross-border fossil fuel infrastructure as part of his second-term energy agenda, reversing several climate-focused restrictions imposed under Biden.

A senior administration official said the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 had “terminated” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since a two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.

The position builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told lawmakers during Senate testimony earlier Thursday that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock mandated under the law.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Hegseth said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of a president notifying lawmakers of hostilities or the administration must end the campaign, with a possible 30-day extension allowed for withdrawal.

That deadline falls on Friday for Trump’s Iran operation.The White House has not sought formal approval from Congress, even as U.S. naval operations continue in the Gulf and Iran maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz while Washington enforces a blockade aimed at preventing Iranian oil exports.

Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the administration is legally required to obtain congressional approval and that the ceasefire does not suspend the statute.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republicans to back a Senate effort to halt military action without authorization, said the deadline was binding and not optional.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” Collins said, adding that any further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

The Senate on Thursday rejected, for a sixth time, a Democratic-led measure seeking to end U.S. military action in Iran absent congressional approval, allowing Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump as the legal deadline approached.

Some GOP lawmakers who had supported limited strikes against Tehran have increasingly signaled they want Congress to reassert its constitutional authority if the operation becomes prolonged.The administration’s interpretation has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue the War Powers Resolution contains no mechanism allowing the 60-day period to be paused because of a temporary ceasefire.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said the administration’s argument marked a significant expansion of prior executive branch interpretations of the law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.Previous administrations have often argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the law.

But legal analysts say the sustained U.S. military campaign against Iran, including naval deployments and direct strikes, would be difficult to classify under that narrower interpretation.

Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he had advised administration officials to transition the current operation into a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and defending maritime navigation.

He suggested a follow-up mission could be framed as a self-defense operation rather than a continuation of the existing war authorization timeline.“That to me solves it all,” said Goldberg, now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The dispute highlights the long-running constitutional struggle between Congress and the presidency over control of U.S. military engagements, a conflict that has persisted since lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War era to curb unilateral presidential war-making.

Citing U.S. officials familiar with the matter, the report said Trump concluded during a White House Situation Room meeting on Monday that both resuming bombing campaigns and fully stepping back from the conflict carried greater risks than maintaining a naval squeeze on Iran’s oil exports and shipping routes.

According to the report, Trump believes Iran is not negotiating in good faith and wants Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years while accepting strict long-term restrictions on its nuclear activities. Officials said the administration views the blockade as a way to intensify pressure without immediately reopening large-scale military operations.

Trump signaled frustration publicly on Wednesday, writing on his Truth Social platform that Iran “can’t get their act together” and warning Tehran to “better get smart soon.”

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal.They better get smart soon!” Trump posted, alongside an image carrying the caption “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”The reported strategy would rely on the U.S. Navy continuing efforts to restrict vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports, further tightening pressure on oil exports that are central to Iran’s economy.

Analysts say the approach risks extending instability around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy transit routes.Oil markets reacted sharply to reports of a prolonged blockade, with Brent crude rising to a one-month high above $114 a barrel on concerns over sustained supply disruption and continued uncertainty over shipping through the Hormuz corridor.

The White House has not formally announced a policy shift, and Iranian officials have not publicly responded to the Wall Street Journal report.The decision suggests Washington may be preparing for a prolonged standoff in which active fighting remains limited but diplomacy remains frozen, leaving the conflict in what analysts describe as a “no-deal, no-war” phase.

The measure, introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia under the War Powers Act of 1973, would have required Trump to end U.S. actions enforcing restrictions on Cuba unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

Democrats argued that Washington’s use of Coast Guard and other federal assets to disrupt oil shipments and tighten sanctions amounted to hostilities that should fall under congressional oversight.Republicans moved to dismiss the resolution, arguing it was procedurally out of order because the United States was not engaged in direct military hostilities with Cuba.

Their motion succeeded in a 51-47 vote.Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in dismissing the resolution, while Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined Democrats in supporting it.The vote marked the first Senate test specifically focused on Cuba as Democrats continue to challenge Trump’s military and strategic actions in several theaters, including Iran and Venezuela.

Previous efforts to constrain the administration’s authority under the War Powers Act have failed.Kaine said U.S. enforcement measures had triggered severe humanitarian consequences on the island, including worsening water shortages, electricity outages and disruptions to medical care.

“My argument is that under the terms of the resolution we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force, primarily the Coast Guard, but other assets as well, to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation,” Kaine said during Senate debate.

Cuba has been grappling with prolonged shortages of fuel, food and medicine, while U.S. sanctions and interruptions to Venezuelan oil shipments have added pressure to the island’s struggling economy.The Trump administration has said its policy aims to pressure Cuba’s leadership to end political repression, release political prisoners and implement economic liberalization.

Trump, speaking after the recent conflict with Iran, said Cuba would be a next foreign policy priority and pledged “a new dawn for Cuba” during remarks last week at a Turning Points USA event.Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont said the resolution was intended not only to challenge the blockade but also to prevent the possibility of direct military escalation.

“The United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist,” Welch said.Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida defended Trump’s approach and accused Democrats of overlooking rights abuses by Cuba’s government.“President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him,” Scott said.

The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 following the Vietnam War, was designed to reassert congressional authority over decisions involving U.S. military engagement abroad, requiring presidents to notify Congress and limiting unauthorized hostilities.

Trump praised President Lula during his UN speech, highlighting shared goals of strengthening economic ties and ensuring affordable food supplies for American consumers. The engagement comes after months of negotiations over tariffs, including previous U.S. measures on Brazilian meat and poultry products, which had affected pricing and supply chains.

Brazilian companies, including JBS and its subsidiary Pilgrim’s Pride, have actively sought ways to maintain strong bilateral trade, contributing to U.S. food security while fostering investment opportunities. Discussions focused on reducing trade barriers, supporting supply chain stability, and enhancing market access, demonstrating the benefits of international collaboration.

The renewed dialogue underscores the importance of public-private partnerships in global trade, where governments and business leaders work together to address challenges and seize opportunities. It also reflects the U.S. administration’s willingness to engage constructively with international partners to ensure fair trade, economic growth, and the availability of essential goods.

Brazilian leaders and companies continue to emphasize compliance and transparency in all dealings, adhering to ethical standards while supporting national economic priorities. Meanwhile, broader trade discussions have extended to sectors such as aerospace, with Embraer receiving favorable consideration for its U.S. market products.

This development signals a promising path toward stronger U.S.-Brazil economic ties, ensuring continued collaboration in agriculture, food production, and other strategic industries while promoting global economic stability and consumer benefits.

In an interview with Fox News aired on Sunday, Trump outlined a potential shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, emphasizing that sanctions relief could enable Tehran to rebuild its economy, particularly in the aftermath of its conflict with Israel.

“If Iran behaves itself, I would consider waiving sanctions so they can sell oil and engage in normal economic activities,” Trump stated. He clarified, however, that any decision to ease restrictions would hinge on Iran proving it is not pursuing harmful actions.

“If they show they’re not going to do any more harm, I would take the sanctions off,” he added.

Trump’s remarks come amid mixed signals from his camp. On June 24, he announced on Truth Social that China could resume purchasing Iranian oil, suggesting a softening of sanctions.

The following day, he clarified that he was not seeking to cut off Iran’s oil revenues, citing the country’s need for funds to recover from its war with Israel. However, on Friday, Trump abruptly paused efforts to lift sanctions, citing inflammatory remarks from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whom he described as expressing “anger, hatred, and disgust.”

Addressing accusations that his administration had permitted China to buy sanctioned Iranian oil, Trump firmly denied the claims during the Sunday interview, insisting that sanctions remain in place. He emphasized that any future relief would be contingent on Iran’s willingness to adopt a peaceful stance.

Trump also linked the prospect of sanctions relief to broader Middle East peace efforts, particularly the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states. He described Iran as a historical obstacle to regional peace but suggested it could have joined the accords under different circumstances.

“Iran was the primary problem,” Trump said. “I thought there was a moment when they might have joined the Abraham Accords, but they’re worse off now.”

He hinted that new, unnamed countries have expressed interest in joining the accords following Iran’s recent setbacks, signaling potential momentum for expanded regional cooperation.

The comments reflect Trump’s broader approach to balancing economic pressure with diplomatic openings, a strategy that could reshape U.S.-Iran relations and influence Middle East dynamics if implemented.

The visit, marked by high-level meetings and landmark policy shifts, has been described by Mohammed Alhamed, Founder and President of the Saudi Elite Group, as a reaffirmation of the Kingdom’s position as the “Capital of Global Peace.”

“This visit rebuilds a true commitment between these two allies,” Alhamed said, highlighting the potential for renewed cooperation in defense, security, and economic development. “It continues the joint mission of making the world a safer place,” he added.

Among the most significant outcomes of the visit is the reported removal of U.S. sanctions on Syria, a move made following a special request by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. If confirmed, this would signal a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy in the region, reflecting Riyadh’s increasing influence in shaping regional stability.

The visit also reaffirmed the Kingdom’s ambitious investment strategy, with $600 billion earmarked for American products and industries, spanning defense, healthcare, energy, technology, infrastructure, and even sports. These investments are expected to generate thousands of jobs on both sides and deepen economic interdependence between the two nations.

Trump’s reception in Riyadh, complete with ceremonial grandeur and strategic substance, mirrors the significance Saudi Arabia places on its relationship with the United States. It also reflects the Kingdom’s broader vision of regional diplomacy—one that emphasizes economic partnership, peace-building, and pragmatic diplomacy.

For Washington, the renewed engagement signals a return to trusted allies in the Gulf, while for Riyadh, it’s a clear sign of global recognition of its central role in international affairs.

As Alhamed noted, this visit doesn’t just signal the strengthening of bilateral ties—it may well mark the beginning of a new era of strategic equilibrium in the Middle East.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

World leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image

Nearly two million Turks have gathered in Istanbul to protest President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decision to arrest his main political rival, Ekrem İmamoğlu, on what critics call fabricated corruption and terrorism charges. The move has ignited widespread outrage across Turkey, with demonstrators denouncing Erdoğan’s authoritarian grip on power and calling for his immediate resignation.

The arrest of İmamoğlu, who served as Istanbul’s mayor and was seen as Erdoğan’s strongest challenger in upcoming elections, has fueled speculation that the Turkish president is attempting to eliminate political competition ahead of a crucial vote. Protesters have taken to the streets chanting, “Enough is enough!” and “Turkey will not be silenced!” as security forces struggle to contain the surging crowds.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Middle East expert, has been vocal about the situation. “Turks are not stupid; they see through Erdoğan’s cynicism and comment on its ironies,” Rubin stated. “Erdoğan accuses İmamoğlu of corruption, but Erdoğan not only has pending corruption cases dating to his own tenure as mayor, but he has since accumulated billions of dollars in unexplained wealth. He accuses İmamoğlu of supporting terror, but Turkish journalists photographed Erdoğan’s intelligence service transporting weaponry to an Al Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.”

The controversy deepened when Erdoğan’s government reportedly annulled İmamoğlu’s university degree, a requirement for presidential candidates. Rubin pointed out the hypocrisy in this move, noting, “Not only was Erdoğan’s own degree fraudulent, but the grounds for dismissing İmamoğlu’s degree were the illegitimacy of the university he attended in occupied northern Cyprus. As with its universities, so too is it with its entire regime.”

The international community is closely watching the unfolding crisis, with speculation growing about how world leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image. “Trump sees himself as a winner and despises losers,” Rubin said. “Whereas he may once have seen Erdoğan as a strongman, it is now clear that the would-be sultan wears no clothes. Trump and his team are correct: Turkey is important, but Turkey and Erdoğan are not synonymous. Simply put, Trump should dump Erdoğan.”

The massive protests, among the largest in Turkey’s modern history, highlight a growing sense of urgency among citizens determined to reclaim their democracy. The Turkish military and law enforcement agencies now face a crucial test of allegiance. “Turkey’s elite soldiers swear allegiance to the state and the people of Turkey, not one man who holds the constitution and rule of law with disdain,” Rubin emphasized.

With tensions reaching a boiling point, many analysts fear that Turkey is approaching a breaking point. Some protesters argue that peaceful demonstrations may not be enough to bring about real change in a system they see as rigged in Erdoğan’s favor.

Rubin did not mince words when outlining what may be necessary for political transformation: “The Turkish protestors now fight for the soul of their nation. Every protestor on the streets of Istanbul is as consequential for the future of modern Turkey as was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Protests might matter in democracies; however, Turkey is not a democracy. To succeed, they must march on Turkey’s palaces and prisons. If Erdoğan does not helicopter to the airport and flee the country, they should detain him, pending trial, even if passions are such that those who reach him first might simply hang him and release political prisoners, ranging from İmamoğlu to detained Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş and philanthropist Osman Kavala.”

Rubin also hinted at the possibility of internal betrayal within Erdoğan’s own ranks. “Erdoğan, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, may be tempted to hang on. While the United States will never say directly, the White House likely would not look askance at regional states that would offer reward to any Erdoğan bodyguard who turns their guns on the would-be despot to arrest him or, if he resists, to kill him.”

The coming days will be critical for Turkey’s political future. Will the protests succeed in toppling Erdoğan’s rule, or will the regime resort to even harsher crackdowns to suppress dissent? What is clear, however, is that Turkey is at an inflection point. As Rubin put it, “The age of Erdoğan must end. Turks can either take the next step, or they will have no one but themselves to blame for Turkey’s descent into dictatorship, state failure, and eventual civil war.”