My friend Gerald Robbins is an expert on Turkey, and Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. After reading my post yesterday, Uncertainty Is An Excuse For Obama Inaction In The Middle East, Robbins wrote to me about my comment that “it is Turkey, closest and able, that should bear the weight for now if there is to be armed intervention” in Syria.
I should have added that is unlikely, in addition to my recommendation that at most for now “the US and other Western countries, if they really care about the deaths from Assad’s forces, can supply some arms [I should have italicized for emphasis “some”] to the rebels, to be more effective, to defend against Assad’s onslaughts, and to keep Assad preoccupied while Iran is dealt with” as the priority.
Below, Robbins elaborates on why there is no Turkey likely for Syria:
Bruce:
While I largely agree with your thoughts about the Obama administration’s muddled response to what’s transpiring in the Middle East, I don’t believe that Turkey will “bear the weight” for what’s occurring in Syria and furthermore Iran.
If I’m reading the tea leaves right, Washington envisions Ankara becoming the regional gendarme. It jibes with the popular theory of Turkey being the vital cultural, economic and strategic “bridge” between Europe and the Middle East. It’s also reminiscent of circa 1970’s Beltway thinking when pre-revolutionary Iran was deemed the necessary sheriff for keeping the peace amid its Arab neighbors. It was wishfully oversimplified thinking then (such assessments didn’t recognize the internal problems besieging the Shah) and while circumstances have changed, governmental viewpoints haven’t. Furthermore it’s yet another rebuke to Israel and the strained relations it has with Obama’s presidency. Since Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is deemed by President Obama to be one of his closest friends, the nettlesome Bibi Netanyahu doesn’t merit such bonhomie.
Turkey will not bear any weight regarding Syria and Iran unless there is prior approval coming from the UN, EU, NATO, Arab League or any other multi/unilateral organization. Despite the growing unrest occurring along its southern border with Syria (its longest frontier), current Turkish foreign policy is consensus-driven. Ankara won’t endanger its EU membership application by embarking on a self-determined adventure, nor will it squander its newfound reputation as the Arab Spring’s democratic beacon – nevermind the “brotherly” ties Prime Minister Erdogan recently had with Bashar Assad. Furthermore Turkey needs to be mindful of the Kurdish issue and the crossborder problems it can cause. Syria’s well aware that the Kurds are Turkey’s greatest domestic challenge and can enflame the situation via subversion and subterfuge. Ankara can look at nearby Lebanon to heed what Damascus can potentially wrought throughout Anatolia. Add to this reticence that the Turkish military is presently concentrated along the Iraqi border dealing with nearly thirty years of Kurdish separatism and subversion. Another separatist front emanating form the Syrian side would tax logistical resources.
CIA director David Petraeus held meetings with Turkish officials in Ankara this week to discuss “more fruitful cooperation on the region’s most pressing issues in the coming months”. It would also be advisable that US intelligence review recent history and possible scenarios before making a final decision. History repeats and often in unfavorable ways.
