Ramez Homsi *

A scenario that is beyond the realm of conventional expectations is currently being discussed in light of the rapidly evolving events in both Lebanon and northern Syria. There is a growing perception that Turkey, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, may be poised to betray the Syrian opposition, in a manner similar to how Iran and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad treated Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In light of the reported intention of "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham" to attack Aleppo, there have been suggestions that reinforcements may be forthcoming for the Syrian army. Meanwhile, Turkey has reinforced certain points in northern Syria.

It appears that Turkey will refrain from intervening in the event of an attack by the Syrian army with Russian air cover to control Idlib, while its role will be to prevent the National Army factions in northern Syria from supporting "Hayat Tahrir al-Sham".

This suggests that Erdogan is willing to sacrifice Idlib as a means of facilitating reconciliation with Assad, particularly in light of the demonstrations that have occurred in these areas following his statements about his intention to reconcile with Assad.

The situation describing involves complex regional dynamics and strategic shifts that could be interpreted as Turkey reevaluating its stance towards the Syrian opposition, potentially aligning more closely with the interests of Assad's regime and its allies. Here's an analysis based on the context provided:

Strategic Realignments: Turkey's initial involvement in the Syrian civil war was marked by support for various opposition groups against Bashar al-Assad's government. However, over time, Turkey's priorities have shifted, focusing more on combating Kurdish forces (seen by Turkey as an extension of the PKK) and securing its borders rather than regime change in Syria.

Betrayal or Pragmatic Diplomacy?: Whether Turkey's actions can be labeled as "betrayal" depends heavily on one's perspective. From the viewpoint of some Syrian opposition groups, any form of reconciliation or cooperation with Assad's regime could indeed be seen as a betrayal, especially given Turkey's previous support. However, from a geopolitical standpoint, nations often shift alliances and strategies based on evolving interests:

Idlib's Strategic Importance: Idlib remains one of the last strongholds of the opposition and various jihadist groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. If Turkey were to allow or not actively prevent an Assad-backed offensive in Idlib, this could be part of a broader strategy to normalize relations with Syria and by extension, with Russia and Iran, which back Assad.

Turkey's Security Concerns: Turkey has faced significant security challenges due to the refugee crisis and the presence of armed groups near its borders. A controlled offensive in Idlib, where Turkey restrains certain factions, might serve to mitigate these security risks by reducing the power of opposition and radical groups, albeit at the cost of its initial anti-Assad stance.

Regional Politics and Hezbollah's Precedent: Iran and Assad using Hezbollah as a proxy and then as a key player in saving the regime can be seen as somewhat analogous, but with key differences. Hezbollah was always closely aligned with Iran's and Syria's strategic goals, whereas Turkey's relationship with the Syrian opposition was more of a strategic alignment against a common enemy (Assad at the time).

If Turkey does pivot, it's less about using the opposition as a proxy and more about redefining its strategic interests in the region.

Public Sentiment and Political Moves: The demonstrations in Idlib against Erdogan's hints at reconciliation with Assad indicate a significant public sentiment against such moves, highlighting the domestic risks Erdogan faces in Turkey and within the opposition-held areas in Syria.

In conclusion, while some might interpret Turkey's potential strategic shifts as a betrayal of the Syrian opposition, from a realpolitik perspective, it could be viewed as Turkey adapting to the changing landscape of regional power dynamics, focusing on its national security interests, and seeking to resolve the prolonged conflict on terms that might now be more acceptable to Assad, Russia, and indirectly, Iran. However, such moves are fraught with moral and ethical criticisms, especially from those who once saw Turkey as their protector against Assad's regime.

* Strategic Media Consultant & Investigative Journalist | Navigating the Complexities of Middle East Politics | Your Trusted Source for Media Insights

Share

Comments

Add your comment