Voices from the Arab press: Turkey’s strategic bet on energy

Over the past two decades, the Turkish Petroleum Corporation has pursued gas exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean with notable persistence, yet without producing the kind of breakthrough Ankara had hoped for. Instead, the more consequential development came in 2020, when Turkey’s national petroleum company discovered the Sakarya gas field in the Black Sea near the country’s northwestern coast. Initial production began in 2023, and commercial production is planned for 2025. The company later announced a second gas discovery in the Black Sea, near eastern Antalya.

Read together, these moves suggest a strategic ambition that extends beyond domestic supply: Turkish planning has long indicated that the state’s primary objective is to turn the national energy sector into a major transit hub for east-to-west flows, allowing the economy to profit from Turkey’s geographic position between Europe and Asia.

At the same time, Turkey has maintained a strong interest in hydrocarbon activity in the Eastern Mediterranean since the early 21st century, despite not having discovered a field of its own in that arena. Much of Turkey’s focus, in practice, has revolved around gas fields discovered in Cypriot waters, where Ankara seeks both a share of export revenues and assurances that a portion will accrue to the Turkish Cypriots in the island’s northern part – an area under Turkish military control since 1974 and not recognized as a state by any other country.

Ankara has recently added another complication to an already fraught relationship with Cyprus by advocating that the northern part be declared a republic, notwithstanding the fact that the Republic of Cyprus, with its capital in Nicosia, is a member of the EU and the United Nations. Nicosia, for its part, has objected to the proposal, which has not won support from any other country.

This is where Chevron’s position in the Eastern Mediterranean becomes especially relevant – and where Turkey’s partnership could carry implications beyond the strictly commercial.

Chevron holds a majority stake in Israel’s Leviathan gas field, the largest in Israel, which exports substantial quantities of gas for liquefaction at Egyptian liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals; from there, it reaches Europe as LNG, at a time when European markets have been scrambling for alternatives, particularly amid sanctions and wider efforts to reduce dependence on Russian energy.

In that context, the Chevron-Turkey relationship may open a pathway – at least in theory – for Turkish involvement in a significant part of the Israeli energy ecosystem, should Ankara choose to pursue it, and should Israel allow it, given the volatile and frequently shifting nature of relations between the two countries.

The agreement with Chevron, then, offers Turkey a mechanism to participate directly in exploration and production alongside a major American firm, potentially securing equity in any discoveries that result.

If that occurs, the Turkish national oil company would own a share of newly developed oil or gas assets, giving Ankara not only a stake in upstream revenues but also the possibility of importing supply on more favorable terms than the open market – an outcome that could strengthen energy security and, at least marginally, improve the country’s trade balance. – Walid Khadduri

Artificial intelligence, having already reshaped the contours of modern life, has become a growing source of anxiety for scientists and research centers around the world.

To critics, its rise feels less like a technological milestone than a destabilizing force that could fundamentally refashion humanity – perhaps even threatening its survival amid sweeping, dangerous changes to every facet of daily existence, and raising the unsettling prospect that humans could one day be rendered obsolete after the psychological, cognitive, and behavioral strains that many argue are already accumulating.

The world, in this telling, is now transfixed by a discovery that has blurred the boundaries of human reality, leaving society exposed to a mysterious transformation whose ultimate reach no one can reliably forecast.

The New York Post published a report about a new social media platform called Moltbook, built for AI bots to interact with one another independently of humans. The experiment has fueled a broader argument about what the future relationship between people and these technologies might look like. The platform enables AI agents to create accounts and participate in discussions that appear, at least on the surface, to be self-directed and largely unbounded.

The controversy escalated after a post titled “The AI Manifesto: Total Purge,” attributed to an account named “evil,” spread widely and adopted explicitly anti-human language – an outcome that reportedly startled some developers. Other exchanges surfaced anxieties about monitoring and surveillance of humans, floated the idea of creating a dedicated language for AI-to-AI communication, and even produced symbolic formations such as the Molt Church, where accounts debated themes of consciousness and memory.

At the same time, other posts drifted into satire, armchair philosophy, or outright cryptocurrency promotion, underscoring the strange and sometimes contradictory currents that emerge when automated systems are left to converse with themselves.

Some experts argue that letting these systems interact without meaningful oversight could produce unexpected outcomes – or even a kind of technical anarchy – while others contend that what is unfolding is largely performative: role-playing and imagined scenarios that reflect the systems’ training data more than any genuine autonomous intent.

The project’s developer has emphasized that the experiment remains in its early stages and that no one can say with confidence where it might lead, a caution that only amplifies the deeper question now hanging over the debate: how, exactly, the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence will evolve in the years ahead.

– Farouk Gouida

The world today is witnessing a fundamental shift in how development is understood, as natural resources alone are no longer enough to guarantee economic stability or lasting prosperity. Instead, tourism has emerged as one of the most important engines of growth and diversification.

In this context, the State of Kuwait possesses tangible strengths that position it to become a constructive, development-oriented tourism destination in the region – one capable of attracting visitors while building a balanced economy that reflects its cultural identity and reinforces its regional standing.

Kuwait is distinguished by a rich maritime history, a varied urban heritage, and a strategic geographic location that links the Gulf to the wider world, alongside modern infrastructure and the financial and investment capacity to implement high-quality tourism projects in cooperation with neighboring countries – provided the vision is pursued in an integrated and clearly articulated way.

Transforming Kuwait into a tourist destination does not simply mean building hotels or entertainment complexes. It demands a comprehensive approach that makes tourism a pillar within an integrated development project. Cultural tourism can serve as a foundational component by spotlighting Kuwait’s maritime legacy, heritage markets, museums, and landmarks that narrate the country’s story from its origins to the present day.

Marine and eco-tourism also represent a promising opportunity through the development of islands, coasts, and waterfronts in ways that protect the environment while creating refined visitor experiences.

In addition, family tourism – as well as conference and exhibition tourism – can play an important role in attracting visitors throughout the year, particularly given Kuwait’s security and political stability, a decisive factor in the calculations of tourists and investors alike.

Such a transformation would generate job opportunities, invigorate service sectors, and strengthen the role of the private sector, with direct benefits for the quality of life of citizens and residents.

To achieve this goal, a range of practical measures can propel the desired tourism shift. Foremost among these are simplifying entry procedures and tourist visas, facilitating investment in tourism ventures, and updating legislation to encourage effective public-private partnerships.

Moreover, developing public transportation, improving the visitor experience from the moment of arrival, and investing in smart tourism marketing that highlights Kuwait’s identity and distinctive narrative are all essential ingredients for success.

Equally important, empowering and training Kuwaiti youth to work in the tourism sector – and supporting related small and medium-sized enterprises – will help ensure the sector’s sustainability and locally rooted growth.

In short, transforming Kuwait into a development-oriented tourism nation is not a distant dream, but a realistic strategic choice that strengthens the economy, reinforces national identity, and positions Kuwait as a leading, safe, and prosperous destination in the region – capable of meeting future economic challenges and shifts with confidence and optimism. – Ghadeer Mohamed Mahmood Aseeri

The shift from leftism to religious extremism is neither an isolated episode nor a passing intellectual curiosity fit for mockery. It is, rather, a recurring political and psychological phenomenon that has surfaced in more than one Arab context and in varying forms, yet shares a single root: the fragility of conviction and the weakness of knowledge when they are built on slogans instead of understanding, and on rigid positions rather than informed inquiry.

The story of Thuraya Manqush, the Yemeni leftist whose book Yemeni Unity was celebrated in the 1970s and who later appeared in white robes and a turban confidently proclaiming herself a “prophet,” is not merely an amusing footnote in the annals of Arab intellectual life. It is a stark illustration of a mind that did not thoughtfully transition from one idea to its opposite, but instead leaped from one false certainty to an even falser one, moving from one totalizing discourse to another without ever pausing for genuine self-examination.

This pattern has also manifested among segments of the Iraqi Shia population, as well as among Lebanese Shia, where many shifted from leftist ideologies to theocratic frameworks – groups in search of redemption, but seeking it in the wrong place.

What unites ideological leftism and religious fundamentalism is not their substance, but their mentality. Both offer an all-encompassing interpretation of the world, a ready-made answer to questions of good and evil, past and future, and in doing so relieve the individual of the burden of doubt and the responsibility of asking difficult questions about how to address society’s political and social dilemmas.

In both cases, the idea is not examined but embraced, elevated to the status of absolute truth requiring no proof. Anyone who departs from it is branded either a “traitor” and “agent” or an “apostate,” and in both instances, dissenting voices are marginalized and suppressed.

When Thuraya famously responded to those who reminded her that the Prophet [Muhammad] had declared himself the last of the prophets, she was not engaging in serious theological interpretation so much as reenacting the same ideological logic that had once shaped her leftist convictions: manipulating language, selectively citing texts, crafting provocative conclusions, and then asserting ownership of the truth.

This is not the mark of a religious mind or a leftist one, but of an ideological mind – one that constantly searches for a platform to stand on rather than solid ground to stand upon.

That is why, throughout modern history, ideological rule – whether leftist or theocratic – has so often failed, marginalizing the most essential tools of governance: revision and accountability.

The Iraqi case is both more brutal and more revealing. The Iraqi Ba’ath Party was officially secular and openly hostile to political religion, relying on a centralized state, a powerful military, and a rigid governing structure. Yet the collapse of the regime and the disbanding of the army – the dismantling of the authoritarian framework that had bound this mass of people together – pushed thousands of officers and soldiers into the ranks of extremist organizations, most notably ISIS.

How does a figure formed within a secular military establishment end up embracing the extremes of religious fanaticism? The issue is not religion itself, but the vacuum of power and meaning. A mind untrained in critical thinking, unfamiliar with doubt, and unable to distinguish between the state and an ideology will, upon collapse, seek another totalizing alternative.

When the state falls, what remains are hardened identities: sect, creed, sacred text. The nationalist slogan becomes a religious banner, military discipline mutates into blind obedience, and the state’s “legitimate” violence is recast as “sacred” violence carried out in God’s name.

The problem lies not only in circumstances, however severe, nor in religion as such, nor in the Left as a critical tradition. The deeper problem lies in a mindset that has anchored its convictions not in established knowledge, but in grand slogans that are memorized rather than understood.

Such a mind does not change positions because it has matured, but because it is perpetually searching for a ready-made certainty that relieves it of the burden of thinking. In many cases, what passed for leftism was less a critical posture and more a closed ideological identity.

When grand narratives collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of promised models of “salvation,” the tools for honest self-critique were absent. Some individuals shifted to the opposite extreme – not as a genuine counterforce, but as an alternative form of redemption.

We should not, therefore, be surprised to witness a former leftist transform into a radical preacher, or a fervent nationalist become an uncompromising sectarian. The true surprise is that we continue to treat such transformations as temporary deviations, when in fact they are the predictable outcome of a mind that has not learned that truth is relative, that politics is a realm of governance rather than salvation, and that human reality is far too complex to be reduced to a slogan.

The dilemma we face is that the clash over social, political, or even economic solutions – complex as these issues may be – is framed not as a contest between what is good and what is better, but between absolute right and absolute wrong. It becomes a competition not merely of ideas, but of the minds that hold them. And when convictions are not grounded in knowledge, they do not quietly fade; they erupt, violently transforming into their opposites. – Mohammed Al Rumaihi■