Could there be a foreign policy stuck between those who say "Let him go" and "Let him rot in prison" regarding pastor Brunson?

Or, who can think that they hold the power to determine Turkey's foreign policy and with what reason?

We have been beaten down for months over a pastor. U.S. President Donald Trump, who is winking at the 100 million bloc votes of the Evangelicals ahead of the November elections, mentioned pastor Andrew Brunson's name at every opportunity and mentioning what a good man of religion he is, he talked about "working hard” for his return home.

Pastor Brunson, who was under arrest for about two years - including house arrest - was found guilty by the court. He was sentenced. His penalty was offset by his state of arrest and he was released. He flew to the U.S.

There is nothing we can say about those are talking about the issue outside Turkey. Nor can we say anything about the U.S. administration turning this into an internal policy issue. But there is benefit in saying a few things regarding the voices rising from within.

Let us first say this:

Brunson was found guilty according to a decision taken by the Turkish judiciary and condemned.

In other words, he was not released based on "the lack of evidence, et cetera." He was sentenced by the court to three years, one month and 15 days in prison.

Second, it was not possible to prove all the claims regarding Brunson. This does not mean that the claims made against him are not true. But they could not be proved.

One reason why they could not be proved is that the secret witnesses altered their statements. We can criticize the trials in Turkey here. Our right to criticize is reserved.

Third, the whole world saw what Brunson meant to the U.S. There is almost no American administrator left who did not wave a finger at Turkey. The number of Americans who did not make threats is scarce.

So, what happened? The Turkish ruling negated all those finger-pointings and threats. It found the pastor guilty and sentenced him.

Fourth, the U.S. made an absurd decision regarding two of our ministers (Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu and Justice Minister Abdülhamit Gül) with the pastor excuse. Turkey did not stand back from passing down the sentence.

Fifth, we all know such cases become politicized and that such "men" do things beyond their capacity.

Hence, politicians have done what is necessary in terms of what politics needed to do in accordance with Turkey's interests - and the judiciary did what it had to. This is all.

And lastly, the matter of the extradition of the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETÖ)’s ringleader, which Turkey brought up on the agenda during pastor Brunson's arrest period, is today sitting in the U.S.'s lap. There is an investigation in the U.S. about FETÖ. As for the issue of Halkbank's former Deputy Manager Hakan Atilla, even looking at what he is being accused of and tells us something.

In a nutshell, Turkey declared to its so-called strategic partner, under whose yoke it has been for years, that it is behind the July 15, 2016 coup attempt and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorist organization, by saying, "Got you!"

It did this not only with the pastor but also the U.S.'s "local" staff member at its Istanbul Consulate General.

What I mean is, the U.S. efforts to weaken the state and the government through the pastor issue is in vain. Because what needs to be done was done as much was needed, to the extent that it could be done.

Do not pay attention to Trump saying, "I thank President Erdoğan for all his help." This is nothing other than a message he is giving to his own country ahead of the November elections.

So, becoming independent is not so easy now, is it?

It seems that the final stage in the discussion regarding the main opposition Republican People's Party's (CHP) İş Bank shares has been reached. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan touched on this topic once more in Kayseri. He said, "We are bringing the bill draft to the Parliament." He also made a reminder, "Thanks to the MHP [National Movement Party], they announced that they would also be giving support."

Everybody knows that Atatürk's shares in İş Bank do not belong to the CHP but to the people. The CHP knows this too, of course.

The CHP, which has an active role in the decision-making mechanism there through the executive board members it appointed, has an impact on İş Bank's subsidiaries as well.

Let's bring the topic here and stop:

What impact could the CHP have on İş Bank's subsidiaries? For example, on Şişecam?

How much impact could the CHP have on recruitments to the money and capital flows there?

I guess all this will be frequently discussed as the draft has reached Parliament.

Try to consider İş Bank’s shares from this perspective for once.

Look and see what will be revealed!