John Jefferson
Turkey has taken complete charge of the situation in Syria following the downfall of former president Bashar al-Assad, per comments made from the ground to The American Conservative. While many of the disclosures should not necessarily be a cause of worry for the United States and its allies, some pertaining to ISIS do warrant concern. It res to be seen whether president Donald Trump is willing to adapt a policy which thus far appears to have given a stamp of approval to an outsized Turkish role in Syria.
According to a well-informed source, who spoke to TAC on condition of anonymity, Turkey has become the ultimate decision-maker in Damascus. The source says that Turkish intelligence has effectively established a major hub in the heart of the Syrian capital, where it is overseeing and even intervening in the daily functions of the post-Assad Syrian state.
“The fourth floor of the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus is now in the hands of the Turkish intelligence,” he said. “They have transformed it into a major base for them in Damascus”.
Turkish agents, the source explained, were even involved in the day to day activities of president Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abou Mohammad al-Jolani, who had previously led the Al Qaeda–affiliated Nusra Front and has close ties with Turkey.
“Meetings with any foreign official or even Syrian figures from Jolani’s government take place upon the approval of Turkish intelligence officers; they play a direct role in planning and organizing meetings and talks between Jolani and domestic and foreign parties,” the source said.
What is most worrisome from a Western standpoint is that Ankara—as per the source—is also employing the services of extremists, some of whom were previously affiliated with ISIS: “A large number of Syrian and non-Syrian Takfiris [a term commonly used when describing Salafi-Jihadi groups like ISIS] have been transferred to Damascus by Turkish officers to help the Turks.”
These elements, the source explained, include “those who have a history as members of ISIS” and are being used to “take control of Damascus.”
That Turkey would employ former ISIS members is plausible; Ankara has flirted with the terrorist group in the past. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is said to have given his personal approval to seek the assistance of former militants from the terror organization against Syrian Kurds. Turkey’s border with Syria served as effectively a state-sanctioned transit route for those seeking to join the ranks of ISIS.
Statements coming out of Ankara pledging to fight the terrorist group in post-Assad Syria do not suffice to alleviate concerns. During the reign of the former regime in Damascus, Turkish officials spoke of taking the fight to ISIS after the organization conducted deadly attacks on Turkish soil. In practice, however, Ankara was more focused on what it perceived as the more dangerous threat from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
That Turkey may pursue a similar approach this time round cannot be ruled out, especially given that PKK forces—otherwise known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—are still an organised independent paramilitary entity in the post-Assad era. Ankara may rely on the former ISIS fighters in particular against the Kurds, taking advantage of the animosity that exists between the two sides.
In other words, former ISIS fighters will likely be eager to seek revenge against the SDF which was instrumental to the fall of the terrorist group in Syria, and therefore may be seen as a valuable asset by Turkey, at least in the short term.
This goes against what should be Washington’s primary interest in Syria: preventing an ISIS or ISIS-like comeback, which would pose a grave threat to American regional interests and even national security. If anything, the ISIS threat to the security of the United States has grown more acute, as evidenced by a New Year’s truck attack in New Orleans in which an ISIS-inspired individual killed fourteen people.
This only increases the urgency of the situation and must give pause to the Trump administration’s thinking towards Syria. Allowing Turkey free reign in that country is likely to increase the odds of a dangerous Salafi-jihadi threat metastasizing once again in the heart of the Middle East. This will only lead to more pressure on Trump to increase—rather than end—American military presence in Syria and the wider region, and upend any hopes he may have of pursuing a foreign policy that will not be disturbed by the turbulence of the Middle East.
An ISIS-style comeback also threatens to tarnish Trump’s own legacy, given that his first term saw the fall of the terror group’s caliphate and the killing of its “golden-era leader” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Against this backdrop caution is warranted in Washington regarding its policy towards Syria. If Turkey is the one calling the shots and at the same time employing the services of former ISIS militants, this undercuts the sincerity of Sharaa’s statements of reassurance that Syria under his rule will not pose an external threat.
The United States would be better served by continuing to abstain from establishing diplomatic ties with Damascus under its new regime, at least for the time being.
American interests will also be better served more broadly by recognizing that Turkey’s rise as a regional hegemon at the expense of Iran need not necessarily be a good thing, notwithstanding the fact that Ankara is a NATO ally. Erdogan has not hidden his desire to return to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire and probably perceives Trump’s embracement of Turkish guardianship over Syria as a golden opportunity to expand his regional clout. Trump should make sure this does not occur at the expense of American interests.
There are those in Trump II who came of in the era of the 9/11 attacks and the Global War on Terror. Such individuals like Vice President JD Vance and likely Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard may yet convince Trump against embracing an outsized Turkish role, be it in Syria or the wider region.
Read the full article here