The Hejaz Railway: Ottoman Legacy, Wartime Ruin, and a 21st-Century Renaissance

The Vatican’s recent announcement that Pope Leo will make his first overseas visit to Türkiye has drawn both religious and political attention worldwide. Though officially described as a pilgrimage rather than a diplomatic mission, the visit is expected to have profound implications for relations between the Christian and Muslim worlds, for Türkiye’s regional standing, and for the long-standing question of minority rights across the Eastern Mediterranean.

A Will Honored: Pope Francis’ Final Wish

According to Vatican sources, Pope Leo’s decision to visit Türkiye stems from the late Pope Francis’ will, in which he expressed a desire to travel to the country to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the Council of İznik—known in the Christian world as the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Pope Francis reportedly wrote that if he could not undertake the pilgrimage himself, his successor should “make the journey of unity and peace” in his stead.

Thus, the new pontiff’s first foreign destination will not be a European capital or Latin American shrine, but İznik—the historic city of Nicaea, located near Bursa in northwestern Türkiye. For the Catholic Church, this gesture carries enormous spiritual weight, while for Türkiye it represents a unique opportunity to reaffirm its role as a bridge between civilizations.

The Council of İznik: The Birth of Christian Orthodoxy

The Council of İznik, convened in 325 AD by Emperor Constantine the Great, was the first ecumenical council in Christian history. It brought together bishops from across the Roman Empire to settle theological disputes threatening the unity of the early Church.

Most notably, the council produced the Nicene Creed, a declaration of faith that established the core doctrines of Christianity—including the belief in the Trinity and the divine nature of Jesus Christ. The gathering was also significant for defining canonical rules and for its decisions on the calculation of Easter, among other matters.

The council’s outcomes effectively shaped the foundations of Christian orthodoxy, marking İznik as one of the most sacred sites in Christendom. Today, the ruins of the ancient St. Sophia of Nicaea Church stand as a silent witness to that defining moment in religious history. For the Vatican, returning to İznik seven centuries after the council is both a tribute to its enduring legacy and a symbol of Christian unity.

Religious Diplomacy in the Heart of Türkiye

Pope Leo’s itinerary, though not yet finalized, is expected to include visits to Ankara and İstanbul, where he will meet with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as the spiritual leaders of Türkiye’s various Christian denominations—including the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, and Chaldean Catholic patriarchs.

Among these encounters, however, the most symbolically charged will undoubtedly be his meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew I at the Fener Patriarchate in İstanbul.

The two men—the heads of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches—represent branches of Christianity that have been divided since the Great Schism of 1054. A meeting in Türkiye, where both faiths once flourished side by side for centuries, carries the promise of renewed dialogue.

For the Vatican, such engagement continues the spirit of reconciliation initiated by Pope Paul VI’s meeting with Patriarch Athenagoras in 1964. For Türkiye, hosting this encounter reinforces its image as a tolerant, pluralist country that respects all faiths and traditions.

The Washington Connection: Erdoğan, Trump, and the Heybeliada Seminary

Pope Leo’s upcoming visit also coincides with renewed international discussion of one of the most enduring religious issues in Türkiye—the Heybeliada (Halki) Seminary.

During President Erdoğan’s recent visit to Washington, President Donald Trump brought up the subject after being approached by Patriarch Bartholomew and senior representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church, who had visited the White House days earlier. The Patriarch reportedly asked President Trump to convey to President Erdoğan the plea that Türkiye reopen the seminary, which has been closed for decades.

Located on Heybeliada (Halki) Island in the Sea of Marmara, the seminary was founded in 1844 within the Monastery of the Holy Trinity. For more than a century, it served as the principal theological school of the Patriarchate, training generations of Orthodox clergy from across the world.

However, in 1971, a Turkish constitutional court ruling requiring all higher education institutions to be affiliated with the state led to the closure of private religious schools, including Heybeliada. Since then, the Patriarchate has repeatedly petitioned for its reopening, arguing that without it, the Orthodox Church faces a shortage of trained clergy.

Türkiye, for its part, has tied the issue to a broader question of reciprocity—namely, the treatment of the Turkish Muslim minority in Greece. Turkish officials have stated that they are open to discussing the reopening of the seminary if Athens takes meaningful steps to improve conditions for Muslims in Western Thrace and respects their rights under the Lausanne Treaty.

During the Washington meeting, President Erdoğan responded favorably, promising to “look into the matter carefully” and to “discuss it directly with Patriarch Bartholomew” upon his return to Türkiye.

Given this background, it would be reasonable to expect that Pope Leo will also raise the issue during his talks in Ankara and İstanbul. His intervention could lend moral weight to ongoing negotiations, especially if framed as a gesture toward broader interfaith reconciliation.

Christian Minorities in Türkiye and Syria

Beyond the seminary, the new pope is expected to address the status of Christian minorities in Türkiye and, perhaps more urgently, in Syria.

Türkiye is home to some of the world’s oldest Christian communities—Armenians, Syriacs, Chaldeans, and Greek Orthodox—many of whom have lived continuously on Anatolian soil since the early centuries of the faith. While their numbers have declined over time, the Turkish state in recent years has sought to improve their status through property restitution, restoration of churches and monasteries, and expanded cultural freedoms.

Nevertheless, the Vatican and Orthodox circles remain concerned about the fate of Christians in war-torn Syria, where years of conflict have devastated ancient communities. Pope Leo’s message is expected to be one of compassion and protection—urging Türkiye, as the region’s most stable and influential Muslim-majority nation, to play a leading role in safeguarding these populations.

Ankara, in turn, is likely to emphasize that its humanitarian policies already extend across religious lines. Turkish officials will point to the country’s acceptance of millions of Syrian refugees regardless of faith, and its reconstruction efforts in northern Syria that include rebuilding churches and schools.

This presents an opportunity for Türkiye to highlight its commitment not only to its own Christian citizens but also to the broader Christian presence in the Middle East, positioning itself as a responsible regional power that protects diversity rather than suppresses it.

The Reciprocal Question: Muslims in Greece

Yet, as in past dialogues with the Vatican and the Orthodox Church, Türkiye is expected to raise a reciprocal concern: the treatment of the Turkish Muslim minority in Greece, particularly in Western Thrace.

Ankara argues that while it continues to safeguard the rights of its Christian minorities, Greece has failed to reciprocate. The estimated 120,000-300.000 (various figures are given by Greece and Türkiye) strong Muslim community in Western Thrace faces limitations on religious leadership, education, and property management.

Greek authorities refuse to recognize them as an ethnic “Turkish minority,” labeling them instead as “Greek Muslims.” This, Türkiye contends, denies the community’s cultural identity and violates international norms.

Furthermore, the election of religious leaders (muftis) is restricted, with the Greek state appointing officials instead of allowing communities to choose their own representatives. Muslim foundations have faced property confiscations and financial restrictions, and Turkish-language education remains limited beyond primary school.

Türkiye’s position is that genuine interfaith fairness must be mutual. If the West expects Türkiye to reopen the Heybeliada Seminary and ensure broader rights for Christian institutions, then Greece should likewise expand freedoms for its Muslim citizens.

During his meetings with Pope Leo and Patriarch Bartholomew, President Erdoğan is expected to urge them to use their moral influence to encourage Athens toward greater tolerance and equality.

Balancing Faith and Diplomacy

This dynamic reflects a delicate balancing act between faith, politics, and diplomacy. Türkiye, long portrayed in Western media as a secular yet predominantly Muslim state, could use this opportunity to project a new image—one of inclusive nationalism and intercultural coexistence.

The papal visit offers Ankara a rare chance to display this modern identity on a global stage. By welcoming the Pope and the Orthodox Patriarch (maybe together, maybe at another date) Türkiye underscores its historical role as the meeting point of Christianity and Islam.

For the Vatican, meanwhile, the journey symbolizes continuity with Pope Francis’ legacy—a reaffirmation of the Church’s commitment to dialogue, peace, and reconciliation. Pope Leo’s presence in İznik, the cradle of Christian orthodoxy, will be a powerful reminder that the roots of Christianity run deep in the lands of present-day Türkiye.

A Shared Future: Turning History Into Opportunity

Ultimately, Pope Leo’s visit to Türkiye represents more than a symbolic act of devotion. It carries the potential to reshape interreligious and interstate relations across the region.

If approached constructively, this occasion could advance several interconnected goals:

• The reopening of the Heybeliada Seminary, resolving one of the oldest disputes between Ankara and the Patriarchate;
• A renewed commitment to protect Christian minorities in Türkiye and Syria;
• The recognition of Muslim minority rights in Greece on equal terms;
• And a strengthened dialogue between the Vatican, the Orthodox Church, and the Turkish state.

Such outcomes would not only heal old wounds but also establish a foundation for cooperation between the Christian and Muslim worlds, a much-needed development at a time of rising polarization.

A Golden Opportunity

As preparations will start, optimism will cautiously build in diplomatic circles that this visit could serve as a golden opportunity—a moment to mend divides that have lingered for centuries.

Türkiye, the Vatican, and the Orthodox Church all stand to gain from a successful encounter: the Vatican by reaffirming its universal mission; the Patriarchate by securing tangible progress for Orthodox institutions; and Türkiye by demonstrating that its secular republic can harmonize faith and governance in a spirit of equality, not to mention securing the rights of the Turkish minority in Greece.

If all sides come well prepared, Pope Leo’s journey to İznik and Türkiye could echo through history as more than a tribute to the past—it could mark the beginning of a new era of mutual respect and coexistence between nations and faiths that share more in common than they often realize.

Guest Writer: Soli Özel

“But we must not lose sight of the much larger consequence of Trump’s victory: it decisively shifts the idea of who is a normal American… Trump has moved American politics away from parties and toward movements, away from process and toward performance.” (Fintan O’Toole)

The second Trump administration is taking the world by storm. At home and abroad, it has attacked institutions as well as the established norms, patterns, and rules. The United States has begun to dissociate itself from the rest of the world, throwing any pretensions to care about the problems of others or the importance of its soft power. Dismantling a whole array of organizations, the hegemonic power of the world order has opened space for its rivals to fill the void left by its withdrawal without any clear indication of how it means to maintain its influence, except by the use or the threat of the use of force. At the same time, the administration has had to find out the hard way the limits of its economic power as the tariff cascade of “liberation day” turned into an embarrassment and an unnecessary exposure of the United States’ vulnerabilities, particularly to China’s economic retaliation.

Possibly far more consequential for the world are the domestic developments in terms of the redistribution of power in the United States’ economic order, whereby the technology corporations would be the ascending force, and the nature of its polity. This is consequential for the contest between democracies and autocracies because the United States is the standard bearer for many things political and economic internationally. The speed of the autocratic turn there is emboldening authoritarians everywhere and deepening the crisis of democracy worldwide.

How did it come to this? Very few people imagined that the institutional order in the United States would cave in so rapidly. Powerful actors in the body politic, the economic realm, and the media have chosen the path of least or no resistance when confronted with the wrath of the executive. One conclusion one can draw from the success of the Blitzkrieg against the established order is that US executive power is overwhelming and that the functioning of the separation of powers necessitates more than the formal arrangements between the branches. It requires respect for intangible norms, for liberal democratic codes of conduct and propriety of behavior. It is also clear that the much-celebrated institutions as the would-be protectors of democratic principles can crumble easily when faced with a determined executive.

The Trajectory  of Trumpism and Trump

One need not fall into a deterministic trap and judge the ascent of Don-ald Trump and the movement that bears his name as inevitable. There were plenty of occasions when a different approach to politics and more humility in self-assessment by the elites could have turned the tide.

Contingency is the essence of history, however strong structural causes and currents may be. Agency does matter and Trump’s agency managed to pull victory from the jaws of defeat between 2021 and 2024. In power for a second time, his rule gives new urgency to Benjamin Franklin’s caution about the regime of the newly founded state at the end of the Philadelphia Convention: “A Republic if you can keep it.”

Trump rode a wave of discontent that grew stronger by the year and whose roots were planted in the mid-1970s, if not earlier, as US manufacturing started to lose ground to competition from abroad and, eventually, manufacturing jobs became scarcer and wages stagnated. Economic hardships faced by those who were in one fashion or another victims of roaring globalization, and the growing estrangement between the more locally planted working classes and the cosmopolitan liberal elites that translated into a furious Kulturkampf (particularly over issues related to women’s empowerment, race, and gender) prepared the ground for a shake-up in American politics. For example, even part of the economically globalist elites concluded by the presidential election of 2016 that some degree of protectionism and even the adoption of industrial policy would be expedient to protect American economic power.

Trumpism had many antecedents as well. There has always been in the American body politic a consistent illiberal/antiliberal vein that was only defeated by the end of the Second World War, when the previously insulated country ascended to international hegemony. Even then, in the liberal era of the Cold War, American conservatism was alive and well. But it was under attack, subdued, and certainly not ascendant.

Trump is probably the unlikeliest of personalities to articulate and to amplify the deep resentment of the mostly less educated white American males who felt they were being left behind. Their discontent first gained an organizational home in the Tea Party movement that gradually redefined the Republican Party and culminated in the success of 2016. As Tim Alberta notes, “The revolt was near. Not everyone could see it—and not all those who did took it seriously. Trump saw it. He took it seriously. And he became its voice, as the unlikeliest of insurgents, the commercial tycoon who cheated the little guy, who employed illegal workers, who made his products               overseas, and who enhanced his inherited fortune through scams and fixers and lawsuits, railing against a shredded social contract from the gilded penthouse of his Manhattan skyscraper.”

All this is true, but Trump has also exhibited a high degree of consistency in his political and economic views. As early as 1987, he paid $100,000 to publish in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe an open letter excoriating US leadership, defense spending, and economic policy with views that were considered marginal. The basic tenets of Trump’s worldview have not changed since. What makes his second term different and more dangerous for the “Republic” is that he now has a blindly loyal movement behind him, an intellectual fount, and powerful corporate support. He now knows how to wield the enormous power of the executive branch, unchallenged by the Republican majority in Congress, and scornful of rules, norms, and legalities.

As Jennifer Miller argues, Trump has a well-articulated mercantilist ideology. For him, its allies have taken advantage of the United States economically. To reverse this, an economically aggressive, protectionist, and interventionist state in areas such as trade is needed. Yet, this activist state should disappear when it comes to taxes and regulating the economy domestically. Finally, as Fintan O’Toole points out, the state of affairs Trump decries could be reversed by political will, by a strong and determined leader. No doubt Trump sees himself as that leader. At the same time, the countries that took advantage of American foolishness and weak leadership (Japan in the 1980s and China later) should carry on underwriting American profligacy. Hence their capital and their investments in the economy are welcome.

For all his complaints about the ways the United States has been exploited economically by the world and his promises that he will bring manufacturing back to the country to help blue-collar workers, Trump’s economic policies have been consistently in favor of the very rich. Meanwhile, his voter base relies on government loans and programs to access healthcare and other essential services that are now in jeopardy. Neither Trump, nor his vice president or any of the cabinet members have much, if anything, to say about income inequality. In fact, the administration’s budget, which the Republicans in Congress support, will exacerbate the inequalities in society. It will lift the meager protections offered particularly to the poor by the federal government, whose capacity has been considerably diminished by the cuts to and closures of many of its services and agencies. This could be a recipe for future social instability.

That a shake-up of the “administrative state” was necessary is a valid thought. But destroying its capacity, undermining the rule of law, defunding research, and belittling science, intellectual freedom, and international cooperation ill suit a functioning capitalist democracy. Given the vulnerabilities of the United States related to its dysfunctional educational system, blocking the migration of even qualified people threatens its future in terms of innovation and scientific accomplishments, and hence economic growth and technological superiority.

The challenge for the United

States’ people, ruling classes, and politics will be to reverse this direction and to use the destructive attack on the “administrative state” as an opportunity to start anew and to build a better-functioning one. Whether or not they have the wherewithal to do this may well be the key to keeping the “Republic” democratic.