Turkey and the question of military intervention

Many have now come to the conclusion that the question of Turkish military intervention in Syria is merely a matter of time, perhaps even days or hours. As long as the Turkish government has broken off all of its ties with the Syrian regime and calls for either its departure or demise, it will begin to implement its policy of giving chances. Turkey has clearly marked its red lines and voiced what it is not willing to put up with a second time. Perhaps the clearest example that proved that Turkish military intervention in Syria is imminent was the moment when the Turkish and Saudi governments both stated that they were willing to carry out a land invasion in Syria. There had also been talks of Saudi jets reaching Turkish airspace. Soon after, Turkey announced its position on the Russian-American agreement with regards to the Syrian ceasefire by saying that it was prepared to intervene in Syria via land invasion.

The question then becomes: Why have we fallen on the possibility of Turkish military intervention in Syria? In an effort to answer this question, one must consider all of the factors and reasons behind this, the most important of which is: the lack of a decision on the part of the UN Security Council to militarily intervene in Syria. Both the United States and NATO have all been trying to avoid military intervention in Syria for many reasons, though many of them have to do with Barack Obama’s foreign policy and the US’s lack of response to Turkey and Saudi Arabia’s preconditions for a coalition that will carry out a ground invasion in Syria. Turkey’s precondition for a ground invasion is that it has to be a decision that is supported by the UN Security Council because there is a fear that any intervention might lead to a military confrontation with Russia, which would not benefit Syria, especially since Russia and Iran have pledged their support for the Syrian regime.

There are those who believe that these reasons are not cause enough to justify the lack of military intervention and they believe this for a number of reasons: the Turkish conviction that the need to resolve the Syrian crisis has become more important than not intervening with the looming shadow of growing Kurdish expansion in Northern Syria and its potential domino effect into Turkey in light of the renewed war between the Turkish government and the PKK. There is also the growing sense of concern in light of the increasing number of explosions in Turkish cities. The Syrian regime is now the biggest winner when it comes to the ceasefire as it is outlined by the recent Russian-American agreement, which considers the Syrian Army one of the main forces combatting terrorism.

The agreement has failed to extend the terms of the ceasefire to groups like Daesh and Al-Nusra, which are considered terrorist organisations by the United Nations. Such an agreement will undoubtedly work against Turkey’s strategic policy towards the Syrian crisis both in terms of affecting militias that are backed by Turkey and in terms forcing Turkey to abide by the conditions of the ceasefire in its treatment of Syrian Kurdish groups along its borders. Syrian Kurds tend to support the aspirations of Turkish Kurds. In any case, it appears as though Turkey might itself facing a new (sovereign) Kurdish region along its southern borders after today, which would undoubtedly continue to support the aspirations of Kurdish Turks.

One can find that there are multiple examples in history of instances of Turkish military intervention, despite the complications preventing its intervention in Syria. What I am referring to here is the Turkish military invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974 during the reign of the founder of Turkish political Islam, Necmettin Erbakan, Erdogan’s teacher. Today’s Turkey, which has tied its decisions to the United States, is the same Turkey that invaded Cyprus once upon a time without American approval. It is the same Turkey that found itself in the midst of a political confrontation with the European Union in regards to the Cypriot situation.

Whatever the case, it should be said that the question of Turkish intervention in Syria is no longer aligned with the former’s internal or external interests, especially now that Russia’s interference is the main factor influencing the West’s policy towards the crisis. After all, Turkey was among the first to vote in favour of the US-Russian agreement for a ceasefire in Syria.

Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, 1 March 2016.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.