Looking across the landscape of media coverage in the United States since the violent attempted coup on July 15th, one finds an almost uniform negativity toward the elected government, and repeated expressions of concern with regard to post-coup national security policies than concern over the victims of the coup itself – a fact which most Turkish citizens find deeply disturbing.

There is an especially strong resistance among the U.S. policy community to accept that Fethullah Gülen’s secretive organization masterminded the coup, despite all the evidence showing his involvement. By and large, they have preferred to believe Gülen’s claims that he is the leader of a peaceful, educational movement which is being unfairly persecuted by the Turkish government.

In order to see across this huge gap in perspectives and understanding, it is necessary to look to the views of experienced diplomats, those who have seen Gülen’s penetration of state institutions first hand, but who also understand why relations have deteriorated between Ankara and Washington.

Writing in Hurriyet, columnist Mustafa Akyol highlights the recent interviews of former US Ambassador James Jeffrey as among the most important views we should be listening to in order to bridge this gap of understanding:

For practical purposes, let me highlight some of the key points that Jeffrey made. The first was what he described as the “high likelihood” of the common Turkish view — that the coup was mainly a Gülenist operation. This looks unfathomable to some Americans who see the Gülen community merely through its legal, visible and likeable side. But as Jeffrey pointed out:

“The Gülen movement has some infiltration at the least in the military that I am aware of. They of course had extreme infiltration into the police and judiciary earlier. I saw that when I was in Turkey previously, particularly in the Sledgehammer case, [the National Intelligence Organization head] Hakan Fidan case, and the corruption cases in 2013. It is very clear that significant segment of the bureaucracy in Turkey were infiltrated and had their allegiance to a movement, not a state. That of course is absolutely unacceptable and extremely dangerous. It highly likely that it led to the [attempted] coup.”

If the Gülenist involvement in the coup seems so plausible, why do so many American officials or media commentators seem to dismiss this side of the story, and focus on President Erdoğan’s authoritarianism as the only Turkish phenomenon that matters?

Jeffrey gave an accurate answer to this question as well, in my view. He said the reason for this is simply the overall dislike of President Tayyip Erdoğan in DC. This dislike has complicated reasons, he also explained, which sometimes leads to unfair attitudes. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is far more authoritarian and much less legitimate than Erdoğan, for example, but for some cynical reason he has a better reputation in Washington.

Read Akyol’s full column here.