Playing with Scorpions: Turkey and the Syrian rebels

Every nation that plays with scorpions gets stung by them.

Since the fall of the Shah of Iran, jihadist rebels have been the US' main proxy force in the Middle-East. In the 1980's, the US helped fund the mujahideen to overthrow the Communist regime in Afghanistan. During the Arab Spring, jihadist rebels were used in the wars in Libya and Syria to defeat regime forces.

But during each of these wars the jihadist rebels ended up turning on their main backer - the United States - and her allied nations. Funding the mujahideen in Afghanistan was largely responsible for 9-11 and directly resulted in the rise of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban, the regime dominant in Afghanistan from the 1990's until now, allied with Al-Qaeda and turned its weapons on neighbouring Pakistan, who largely smuggled rebels next door.

But Libya and Syria in the early 2010's were a particularly worrying combination. After the overthrow of Moammar Al-Qaddafi, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton organised the plunder of Libya and sent Qaddafi's large munitions reserves and jihadist rebels from Libya into Syria, via Turkey. This resulted in an increasing amount of bloodshed in Syria and also contributed to the drastic rise of ISIS in neighbouring Iraq, next door. To borrow a phrase from Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, "Terrorism is like a scorpion, if you put it in your pocket, it will sting you."

For Turkey, the worst may be yet to come. Since the Russian intervention in 2015, Syrian rebels have been defeated, province by province, and moved into Idlib, a Syrian province bordering Turkey. As Russian, Iranian and Syrian forces defeat the rebels in Idlib, more and more of these rebels are finding themselves in Turkey. The attempted coup in 2016 against Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan highlights the level of instability faced by Turkey through its support of jihadist rebels.

But intriguingly, Turkey has decided to double down on its jihadist approach. It has decided not to turn on the Syrian rebels within its own borders and is, instead, using the Syrian rebels to further its own geostrategic aims. This has largely nullified the jihadist threat to Turkey - at least for now.

Turkey has been using the rebels to invade Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria, greatly weakening the United States' influence there. But once Russia has liberated the remaining half of Idlib from Syrian rebels and once the United States has withdrawn its troops from eastern Syria, Russia and Syria will not tolerate the remaining Syrian rebel presence in Kurdish areas, and will move to push Turkey out of Syria.

Fortunately for Turkey, the arrangement in Syria has not been one-sided. Both Presidents Putin and Erdogan have their own strategies involving compromise in Syria for larger geostrategic goals. For Russia, Turkish cooperation in Syria means that Turkey will have a freer hand in intervening in both Libya and Yemen. These interventions give the defeated rebels another destination that doesn't involve instability in Turkey from Syria.

For the United States, turning a blind eye to Turkish malevolence in Libya and Yemen has distinct advantages. Jihadist rebels used in Libya not only increases the likelihood for stability in Turkey; it also means that, although Israel would lose an Arab ally in Haftar, Egypt would be forced to remain dependent on the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the face of a Libya strongly supported by Turkey.

In Yemen, Turkey-backed rebels from Syria and Libya would very likely take Sana'a from the Houthis, which would give the US a key win over Iran in the region. Even in the likelihood that the rebels would turn on the UAE in Southern Yemen and, as in Libya, weaken Arab autocracy, the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be forced more than ever to back US interests in Iraq and help drive Iran out of Iraq for good.

However, there is one major problem for the United States in letting Libya and Yemen fall into Turkish hands. Even should the US gain more hegemony in driving Iraq away from Iran, Saudi Arabia would be very likely to erupt in instability, pitting the rebels Saudi Arabia once funded in Syria against its own Mohammed Bin Salman. In the ensuing chaos, Saudi Arabia would become as unrecognizable as Syria has been, and the US and Israel in particular would see the true colours of Turkey at last.

Will Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia recalculate their views on Bashar Al-Assad?

The rumbling of the Turkish war machine in support of the GNA in Libya is likely to have an increasingly profound impact on the region.

Chief among these is in Syria. In a previous article it has already been suggested that a Russian-Turkish grand bargain is in the works, giving Turkey Libya and in exchange Syria and Russia being allowed to clear Idlib of rebels loosely backed by Turkey:

https://jwaverforgotten.blogspot.com/2020/05/libyas-place-in-cold-war-2.html

Should this grand bargain between Turkey and Russia be fulfilled, Egypt's Abdul Feteh As-Sisi would be unable to invade eastern Libya to support his ally, Haftar Al-Khalifa, as he would receive no support from Russia and only lip-service from the United States. This would have an impact not only on Egypt, but on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as well, who have previously backed Haftar.

This autocratic Sunni wing of the Middle-East - Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt - would be caught on the back foot and would have to shift its regional alliances to counter the growing Turkish threat. First and foremost, they would be more likely to turn their attention to Syria and change their collective stance on Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

Although at differing stages Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have called for President Assad to step down, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have had regime changes in favour of the UAE's autocratic policy. For Egypt, Abdul Feteh As-Sisi coming to power restored Egyptian ties with Syria. For Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has at times suggested that President Assad could stay in power, provided that there were a reduction in Iranian influence.

Iranian influence is waning in the region largely due to President Trump's approach to the regime. Wide-scale protests in Lebanon and Iraq show that US sanctions on Iran are working and, eventually, point to regime change unfavourable to Iran at least in Iraq. Because of this, the nations of the autocratic wing of the Middle-East might be more concerned with containing Turkey than containing Iran.

For Egypt, this lends itself to a military solution in Syria, on the side of Russia and Syria and against Turkey. Correspondingly, for Saudi Arabia and the UAE, this would mean defending Egypt's military moves diplomatically from potential United States' sanctions.

The reason President Sisi would want to intervene in Syria would be to show to its people that, in some way, it is prepared to defeat Turkish influence in the Middle-East. In fact, it is even likely that Russian President Vladimir Putin is well aware that a Turkish-controlled Libya would propel the autocratic wing of the Sunni Middle-East to align more closely with its own vision for Syria.

This realignment would seal the fate of the Syrian rebels in Idlib. Egypt would lend Bashar Al-Assad the legitimacy he needs to return to a member of the Arab League, and Egypt would also be intervening in a war nearing its end, rather than beginning a new war to its west in Libya. It would also show Israel that President Sisi is not merely a puppet and is capable of fighting with pro-Palestinian nations like Syria.

But most of all, it would be an important distraction for Egypt from Libya being controlled by a Turkish ally. Egypt would also reap the rewards of humiliating Turkey in a war more and more likely to be won by Russia and President Assad.

Turkey's bold gamble

President Erdogan is threatening war with the United States' backed Kurds "in a matter of days."

The risks are high for Turkey in carrying out an offensive, but they are much higher if they do not. The YPG is the Syrian arm of the PKK, whose purpose is to bring down the Turkish government, allow the Kurds to break from Turkey and create their own state. If Turkey does not carry out this offensive, they will be left with an insurgency that stretches over the majority of their southern border.

It is entirely possible that in the Astana talks, the condition for the Russians and Iranians halting an advance on Idlib was a military incursion by Turkey into part of north-eastern Syria, held by the Kurds and the US. Though the terrorist hoard in Idlib poses grave security threats to Russia, Iran and Syria, a US/Kurdish presence in Syria poses an existential threat to Turkey, Iran and Syria. For Turkey, the threat is more immediate and military in nature; for Iran and Syria, the threat is financial, not military. North-eastern Syria holds much of Syria's oil - should Syria and Iran fail to obtain this oil, both economies will be doomed to break - something the US is counting on in its Iran containment policy.

But Russia - with the help of Turkey, Iran and Syria - holds almost all of the cards in Syria. This is why the offensive on Idlib has stalled in favour of a Turkish offensive in north-eastern Syria: Idlib will inevitably fall back into Syrian government hands, but not before Turkey tears territorial gains from the US and YPG for its own use.

https://ahvalnews.com/turkey-syria/turkey-will-carry-out-military-offensive-ne-syria-expert-says

According to an expert on Ahval news, should Erdogan go ahead with his military offensive, the likely target is Tel Abyad. Unlike Kobane or Qamishli, the population in the area surrounding Tel Abyad is 80% Arab, does not have much of a US presence and additionally would split the two YPG-held Kurdish enclaves in half: Kobane and Qamishli. It is a powder keg which would either result in complete Kurdish and US capitulation, or a bitter fight which would destroy Turkish-US ties.

https://www.tolonews.com/business/first-export-shipment-set-lapis-lazuli-route

What is worse for the US is Turkey has just agreed to being a major player in a new economic corridor for Afghanistan. The Lapiz Lazuli route will see large portions of Afghan goods pass through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia to Turkey, and from Turkey onwards to Europe. This is geostrategy at its best: Turkey helping the US where they need it more - Afghanistan - then threaten their interests we're they need it less - Syria.

Ironically, Turkey is helping Trump supporters who have long complained about being stuck in Syria and want the United States to withdraw. To a large percentage of supporters, President Trump's Syria policy betrays the America First slogan he ran on. Should Turkey force the United States to withdraw from Syria, such a rebuke will force the Trump Administration to better calculate their foreign policy in the future.

Idlib: the Battle of Berlin in Syria

Turkey, Iran and Russia failed to reach a deal on Idlib's fate earlier in the week in a conference in Tehran.

Iran, Russia and Syria are all poised to throw their might into what will likely be the hardest and bloodiest battle of the war. It will also be the last significant battle in the Syrian civil war.

In this battle, the Syrian Arab Army, backed by the Russian air force and Iran, will seek to clear out Idlib of all "terrorists" left in Syria. These terrorists range from those affiliated with Al-Qaeda and those part of the National Liberation Front, supported by Turkey.

What is likely to happen?

1) Al-Qaeda in Syria will be obliterated. One of the outcomes reached from the Tehran conference was the designation of Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham as a terrorist organization by Turkey. This group, previously affiliated with Al-Qaeda, will therefore receive no protection from anyone on the ground - except perhaps the US, following a chemical attack purported by the Syrian government.

2) Turkey will cooperate closer with Russia and Iran than ever. Though the Idlib operations will strain and test the Astana Peace Process, Turkey is highly unlikely to make good on its threat to withdraw from it. Instead, cooperation will be paramount and more essential than ever.

3) Rebels allied to National Liberation Front may be moved from Idlib to fight another day. Though Hayat Tahrir ash-Sham and Al-Qaeda will be obliterated in Idlib, the rebels who have allied themselves to Turkey and the National Liberation Front may indeed be moved from Idlib to elsewhere in a Turkish-Russian-brokered deal. Either they will go to Turkish-occupied Syria or to Turkey directly. Yet instead of being sent home, these rebels are likely to fight in the next stage of the conflict.

4) War between the United States and Turkey will begin. The differences of policy between Washington and Ankara will be more apparent than ever. For Turkey, it is damage control for a Syria policy gone horribly wrong; for the United States, it will be using the north-eastern part of Syria as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Russia.

With the destruction of Idlib as a deconfliction zone, Turkey would have no choice but to turn on the United States to shore up its position for the end of the Syrian war. In this way, after the battle for Idlib, rebels allied to the National Liberation Front may be used by Turkey to fight the Kurds and the Americans in north-eastern Syria, especially should the Iranians and the Syrians be unable to wage war with the Americans directly.

5) The Americans will be forced out of Syria. After the battle for Idlib, should the Syrians or the Iranians attack across the east of the Euphrates, the United States would not hesitate to decimate their forces as they did to the Russian mercenaries 12 months ago. But the Turks, allied with the remnants of the Syrian Opposition, will not be so easily swayed. Though the United States and Turkey have been allied for decades, their differences over the Kurds in Syria will end their alliance and pit them against each other. Turkey and the United States will go to war with each other in Syria, and the Americans will be forced out - very likely by President Trump himself.

6) Syrians will be especially grateful. Russia taming the Turkish juggernaut to help kick the US out of Syria, while also freeing Idlib from the control of jihadists, will leave Syrians very grateful to Russia for years to come. Idlib is the last part of heavily populated Syria to be in the hands of the Opposition - once Idlib province is retaken, governance will be restored in all major urban areas of Syria and Syria will be rebuilt by Russia, China, Iran and Turkey.

Washington Swamp wants to leave Afghanistan, escalate Syria

President Donald Trump has been battling the Establishment in Washington, to "drain the swamp." In foreign policy, his record has been mixed.

The US staying in Syria after the destruction of ISIS has been, undoubtedly, orchestrated by the Washington Swamp - it is highly unlikely that the President supported the move. But, to Trump's credit, he has stopped the funding of Salafi terrorism in Syria and has instead pinned his hopes on the Syrian Kurds.

But the Swamp is still not satisfied. It would prefer to see Bashar Al-Assad removed and a "democratic government" put in its place, like those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. That such a move would require war with Russia, Syria and Iran is of little concern to the Washington Establishment.

The reason we know that the Establishment would prefer Bashar Al-Assad removed from office is because many Establishment candidates in the 2016 election - Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton - ran on a platform of a "no-fly-zone" in Syria which, according to most experts, includes regime change in Syria and war with Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs

Not only so - but nearly all Establishment Media worldwide has been pushing the false narrative that Bashar Al-Assad's forces are mass-murderers, and the rebels who fight against them are largely freedom fighters. This narrative is so terribly false as it is dangerous, and has given the international community a false picture of what is happening on the ground.

However, though the Establishment wants to escalate war in Syria, it also wants to pull out of Afghanistan. US forces have been in Afghanistan for nearly 17 years and, unlike in Iraq, have never been pulled out of the country. While President, Barrack Obama tried to withdraw troops from Afghanistan - only for the Taliban to seize large amounts of territory and ramp up its insurgency. A complete pullout from Afghanistan would be a disaster for the US.

What escalating Syria and withdrawal from Afghanistan have in common is that both moves would benefit terrorism. Since the 1980's, Afghanistan has been the centre of the Al-Qaeda network and, despite pressure from the international community, the Taliban is still closely allied to Al-Qaeda. In Syria, the main military opposition to Bashar Al-Assad is Al-Qaeda fighters in Idlib.

Of the two conflicts, it is Syria rather than Afghanistan which the US should pull out of and it is Afghanistan which should be escalated. Thankfully, in Afghanistan, President Trump has escalated the conflict, but withdrawal from Syria is still unaccomplished.

But with Turkey given the green light by Russia to invade Kurdish Afrin, it is more likely than ever before that Turkey and the US will go to war in north-eastern Syria. And should that happen, it would be the US, not Turkey, that would be forced to withdraw from Syria.

Turkish invasion into Kurdish Afrin just the beginning

Today, Turkey launched the long-anticipated operation into the northwestern Syrian province of Afrin, a small part of the enormous territory held by the Syrian Kurds. But this operation is just the beginning of larger scaled operations in northern Syria by the Turkish military.

The Syrian Kurds greatly threaten President Erdogan's hold over Turkey, so much so that, with the entry of Russia into the war, President Erdogan has been forced into recalculating his Syrian policy. Though publicly denouncing Bashar Al-Assad and demanding his removal from office, privately, Turkish opposition to Assad has softened considerably.

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201701281050105764-turkey-syria-russia-iran/

Today, it is US policy, not Russian policy, that directly threatens Turkish interest in the region, and that because the US is funding the Syrian Kurds after the destruction of ISIS in Syria. Though Bashar Al-Assad is secular and not Islamist, he leads the Syrian Arab Republic, which favours the Arabs over the Kurds. But the US-supported "Syrian Democratic Forces" are largely Kurdish, and many of these fighters are allied to the YPG, which has been waging war against the Turkish government for decades.

Sentiment in Turkey is perhaps best expressed by MP Metin Kulunk: "Syria will become a second Vietnam for the US." This sentiment will likely embolden President Erdogan into not only launching an invasion of Afrin, but also to take control of Manbij and force the Syrian Kurds to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201711161059157430-syria-second-vietnam-for-us/

Turkish ambition may not be limited to west of the Euphrates, either. Neither Russia, Syria nor Iran are thrilled with a long-term US presence in northeastern Syria. They see, rightly, that this undermines the territorial sovereignty of Syria, but any attacks on the northeastern enclave by Russia, Syria or Iran would be seen as an act of war on the US.

Turkey, on the other hand, is a NATO ally. Turkish occupation of territory controlled by the Syrian Kurds, though further damaging US-Turkish relations, would hardly result in a conflict between the two nations. It would force the US into abandoning the Syrian Kurds and making an exit strategy from Syria, which is a shared goal of Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey.

As the Turks seek to remove the US-Kurdish presence from Syria, this may give Russia, the Syrian government and Iran the green light they need to invade the rebel-held province of Idlib. Idlib is largely under the control of Al-Qaeda, but has also served as a dumping ground for rebels from other regions in Syria. With the US-Kurdish threat to Turkey and Syria removed, Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iran would be able to quietly negotiate for the Syrian government to militarily recapture Idlib.

Such an outcome would mean that the US would be humiliated for its ambitions in Syria, and Turkish control of Kurdish Syria would help Turkey save face for having lost Al-Qaeda-held Idlib to the Syrian government. With Turkey firmly controlling northern Syria and the rest of Syria in the hands of Bashar Al-Assad, no further roadblocks would exist for Turkey, Russia, Syria and Iran to seriously negotiate a political settlement for the ending of the Syrian civil war.

Breaking News: Al-Qaeda has officially taken over the Syrian Opposition

As of 29th of August 2017, Al-Qaeda in Syria, rebranded as "Hayat Tahrir Ash-Sham," has taken over Idlib and kicked out rival Ahrar Ash-Sham.

Whereas before other rebels were working with Al-Qaeda, now Al-Qaeda has taken them over. And with the fall of Islamic State in Syria, Tahrir Ash-Sham taunts the Syrian Government with yet another terrorist hub in its territory.

Talks are still ongoing between Turkey, Iran and Russia about creating a fourth de-escalation zone in Idlib Province. But with the Trump Administration backing away from the Syrian quagmire and issuing stiff warnings to Tahrir Ash-Sham, the Syrian Government may be poised to strike at the heart of the Islamist Revolution of Syria.

But Russian priority is still ISIS. Until ISIS is dealt lasting defeat in eastern Syria, Russia will not give permission for Bashar Al-Assad to unleash his forces against Idlib. Until then, Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven and a large army ready for the next battle.