I lost count of how many articles arguing "the end of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has arrived" were published in respected foreign policy pages last year.Generally the political analysts evaluate a set of criteria and examine the actors' goals and motivations, the strengths and weaknesses of their strategies, their capabilities as well as the society in which they live, the culture, values and ideologies and the impact of those elements on the issue. But it seems the use of wishful thinking and minor observation are substituted for those when it comes to Turkey.Many people tried to explain the dynamics of Turkey to those convinced analysts who are talking to only the elite circles of Turkey, observing secular neighborhoods alone and believing in the power of a U.S.-based "twisted cleric" who attempted to overthrow the Erdoğan government. Those were obviously the major reasons why they are missing the whole picture. Obviously the failure was inevitable.But recently things are becoming more interesting. Last week, when the men with masks and firearms in their hands appeared in the Okmeydanı district of Istanbul, some analysts were encouraging them to fight while some journalists were saying that they sympathized with them on their Twitter accounts.Well, if the analysts argue they know Turkey a bit, they should have known that unrest in this neighborhood has occurred periodically since the 1990s. Considering they claim to follow Turkey closely, they should have seen that the members and social media accounts of active terrorist organizations such as the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP/C) have already announced that the armed and masked men clashing with the police on the streets were their fellows.If the "Turkey experts" study Turkey a bit, they would be informed of what the DHKP/C really is. If their interest in Turkey didn't begin after falling under the spell of the Gezi events, they would have remembered at least that the group carried out a suicide attack on the U.S. Embassy in Ankara just four months before they fell in love with Gezi even if they have no idea about the organization's long past of suicide bombings targeting Western officials as well as Turks.Is it OK for them to call that group to fight in order to bring the end of Erdoğan? Is it "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of approach that gives their failed "Erdoğan's era is over" arguments one last chance? Wouldn't that make them look like they can work with any group even if they like bombing Western embassies in order to achieve a single goal? Isn't it a serious problem in the long run?I can't tell those Turkey analysts what they should do. But let me say that the shiny polish of the Gezi events is peeling off and they are barking up the wrong tree. The terrorist groups, which have revived in parallel with the Syrian uprising, are lowering their human shields and the truth is becoming visible. It is not about environment, corruption or riot police, it never was. It is all about regional politics. If you can't still see it, I think you are not good at analyzing Turkey and maybe it's time to move on.