Turkey ….. It is necessary to have a dose of deterrence

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The Turkish message has been received in Lebanon through raising the flags in the supportive march for the Minister Ashraf Rifi in order to reveal the identity of the regional sponsor of  the minister who broke away with Al Mustaqbal Movement, but away from the Lebanese presidential details neither Rifi nor the Turks have the ability to effectively influence its course. This message shows that Turkey is a regional player in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, in addition to the Turkish role in Palestine and the Egyptian Turkish estrangement, that was followed by the Turkish sponsorship of the subversive actions of the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian security towards Libya, which means that the Turkish positioning after the big clash with Russia and then normalizing the relations with it and the searching for a new ceiling of the Turkish role did not lead to a Turkish understanding that is able to absorb the new balances.

The Turkish insistence on troublemaking across the Syrian and the Iraqi gates militarily contrasts fundamentally the destination which was drawn by the Turkish defeat in front of Russia and the acceptance of its conditions to go on in normalizing the relations. It indicates to the Turkish attempt of testing by fire the limits which on their basis it can draw the new Turkish regional role. Through the Turkish current speech including its Ottoman language for a country that is supposed to work according to the rules of the International Law it grants itself the right of the military intervention, the positioning and playing roles which it draws for itself into the international borders of another sovereign country. What the Turks said about the interpretation of what they are doing in Syria and Iraq without the consent of the governments of the two countries does not resemble but an American forgotten and extinct speech since the US occupation of Iraq and from outside the United Nations and the International Law , a speech abandoned by the Americans in the stages of the recognition  of the failure of their military choice in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this was translated by the intervention in Libya and the refrain from the UN mandate of the direct intervention in Syria.

There is no opportunity for applying the Turkish speech and there are no possibilities to make settlements with it under the Turkish feeling of tactic spaces, which they suggest that they are strategy in the Syrian and Iraqi geographies. On the basis of this suggestion the Turks tested the geography of the western of Euphrates in Syria as a field for the military tempering since they are areas outside the borders which was drawn by Washington and which it tries to grasp a legitimacy for them from the Syrian country from the gate of the US Russian understanding, as well as the Turks tempered in the eastern of Tigris in Iraq for the same consideration, because the US drawn area between the courses of the two rivers was covered by the international coalition in the war on ISIS in Iraq. It is not a secret what the Turks are doing by linking their role by breaking up their relations with ISIS in Iraq and with Al Nusra front in Syria with getting Syrian-Iraqi consent on this Turkish role, without taking into consideration that the Americans are betting on Al Nusra and ISIS, but according to other demands that are related mainly to the future of the Syrian-Iraqi borders not to the Turkish aspirations which temper in a fragile geography temporarily, because it thinks that it will become under light and fire together after resolving Aleppo by the Syrians and resolving Mosul by the Iraqis, and because the Americans will no longer be  able to grant the cover to Ankara and they will find Moscow raising the red card against them.

he value of the Syrian deterrent position of the Turkish tempering regarding Aleppo’s battle and the threat of dropping the aircrafts converges the value of the Iraqi position by refusing the form of the fabricated settlement which the US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter wanted to pass it, which means that the political confrontation which might be military at any moment against the Turkish incursion in Syria and Iraq, especially after the tendency of forming a resistance in these two countries to treat this incursion as an occupation is met by the preparation of the Syrian Kurds to engage in it, by regaining their relation with the Syrian country which is ready to support this resistance in Syria, while the popular crowd prepares to launch this resistance in Iraq. In both cases this resistance will receive sponsorship, auspices, and cover from the Syrian and Iraqi governments.

The coordination and the integration of the efforts between the two governments and armies in Syria and Iraq is continuing since it is the main current task in confronting what surpasses the Turkish demolition, then the preparation for the risks associated with the war on ISIS which plans to a regressive fight from the main countries on the banks of Euphrates and Tigris rivers to the vast spaces between the two rivers. This plan gets an American coverage, where Washington is satisfied with the glitter of getting rid of ISIS in Mosul preceded by Tikrit on the course of the Tigris River and Ramadi on the course of Euphrates River in Iraq, and in Raqqa and Deir Al Zour on the banks of the Euphrates River in Syria, It aspires to manage a long war on ISIS in the Mesopotamia, because this war will grant it the desired opportunity to negotiate on what it aspires to as security privileges in each of Syria and Iraq.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,