<html>
<body>
<font size=4><b>Why Turkey won't go to war with Syria <br>
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has yet to understand the new deal
struck between Russia and the US. <br><br>
</b></font><font size=3>Last Modified: 06 Jul 2012 11:45<br>
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/20127581333324728.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/07/20127581333324728.html</a>
<br><br>
<br>
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan never saw it coming.
<br><br>
He knew he was in trouble when the Pentagon
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577497081567553846.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews">
leaked</a> that the Turkish Phantom RF-4E shot down last week by Syrian
anti-aircraft artillery happened off the Syrian coastline, directly
contradicting Erdogan's account, who claimed it happened in international
air space. <br><br>
And it got worse; Moscow, via Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov,
<a href="http://en.ria.ru/world/20120630/174333287.html">offered</a>
"objective radar data" as proof. <br><br>
There was not much to do except change the subject. That's when Ankara
introduced a <i>de facto</i> buffer zone of four miles (6.4km) along the
Syrian-Turkish border - now enforced by F-16s taking off from NATO's
Incirlik base at regular intervals.<br><br>
Ankara also dispatched tanks, missile batteries and heavy artillery to
the 500 mile (800km) border, right after Erdogan
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/20126271837381879.html">
effectively </a>branded Syria "a hostile state". <br><br>
What next? Shock and awe? Hold your (neo-Ottoman) horses. <br><br>
<b>Lord Balfour, I presume?</b> <br><br>
The immediate future of Syria was
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2012/07/2012628142225151490.html">
designed in Geneva recently</a>, in one more of those absurdist
"international community" plays when the US, Britain, France,
Turkey and the Gulf Cooperation Council's Qatar and Kuwait sat down to
devise a "peaceful solution" for the Syrian drama, even though
most of them are reportedly weaponising the opposition to Damascus.
<br><br>
One would be excused to believe it was all back to the Balfour
Declaration days, when foreign powers would decide the fate of a country
without the merest consultation of its people, who, by the way, never
asked them to do it on their behalf. <br><br>
Anyway, in a nutshell: there won't be a NATO war on Syria - at least for
now. Beyond the fact that Lavrov routinely eats US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton for breakfast, Russia wins - for now. <br><br>
Predictably, Moscow won't force regime change on Assad; it fears the
follow-up to be the absolute collapse of Syrian state machinery, with
cataclysmic consequences. Washington's position boils down to accepting a
very weak, but not necessarily out, Assad. <br><br>
The problem is the interpretation of "mutual consent", on which
a "transitional government" in Syria would be based - the vague
formulation that emerged in Geneva. For the Obama administration, this
means Assad has to go. For Moscow - and, crucially, for Beijing - this
means the transition must include Assad. <br><br>
Expect major fireworks dancing around the interpretation. Because a case
can be made that the new "no-fly zone" over Libya - turned by
NATO into a 30,000-sortie bombing campaign - will become Syria's
"transitional government", based on "mutual consent".
<br><br>
One thing is certain: nothing happens before the US presidential election
in November. This means that for the next five months or so Moscow will
be trying to extract some sort of "transitional government"
from the bickering Syrian players. Afterwards, all bets are off. A
Washington under Mitt Romney may well order NATO to attack in early 2013.
<br><br>
A case can be made that a Putin-Obama or US-Russia deal may have been
reached even before Geneva. <br><br>
Russia has
<a href="http://rt.com/politics/nato-transit-russia-afghanistan-059/">
eased up</a> on NATO in Afghanistan. Then there was the highly
choreographed move of the US offering a formal apology and Pakistan duly
accepting it - thus
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/07/201275915696842.html">
reopening </a>NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan. <br><br>
It's crucial to keep in mind that Pakistan is an observer and inevitable
future full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) - run
by China and Russia, both BRICS members highly interested in seeing the
US and NATO out of Afghanistan for good. <br><br>
The "price" paid by Washington is, of course, to go easy on
Damascus - at least for now. There is not much Erdogan can do about it;
he really was not in the loop.<br><br>
<b>Keep the division of labour intact<br><br>
</b>So here's the perverse essence of Geneva: the (foreign) players
agreed to disagree - and to hell with Syrian civilians caught in the
civil war crossfire. <br><br>
In the absence of a NATO attack, the question is how the Assad system may
be able to contain or win what is, by all practical purposes, a
foreign-sponsored civil war. <br><br>
Yes, because the division of labour will remain intact. Turkey will keep
offering the logistical base for mercenaries coming from
"liberated" Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Lebanon. The House of
Saud will keep coming up with the cash to weaponise them. And Washington,
London and Paris will keep fine-tuning the tactics in what remains the
long, simmering foreplay for a NATO attack on Damascus. <br><br>
Even though the armed Syrian opposition does not control anything
remotely significant inside Syria, expect the mercenaries reportedly
weaponised by the House of Saud and Qatar to become even more ruthless.
Expect the not-exactly-Free Syrian Army to keep mounting operations for
months, if not years. A key point is whether enough supply lines will
remain in place - if not from Jordan, certainly from Turkey and Lebanon.
<br><br>
Damascus may not have the power to strike the top Western actors in this
drama. But it can certainly wreak havoc among the supporting actors - as
in Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, Turkey. <br><br>
Jordan, the weak link, a wobbly regime at best, has already closed off
supply lines. Hezbollah sooner or later will do something about the
Lebanese routes. Erdogan sooner or later will have to get real about what
was decided in Geneva. <br><br>
Moreover, one can't forget that Saudi Arabia would be willing to fight
only to the last dead American; it won't risk Saudis to fight Syrians.
<br><br>
As for red alerts about Saudi troops getting closer to southern Syria
through Jordan, that's a joke. The House of Saud military couldn't even
defeat the ragtag
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/06/2012630195727807952.html">
Houthi rebels </a>in neighbouring Yemen. <br><br>
A final juicy point. The Russian naval base at
<a href="http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/russia-preparing-send-two-amphibious-assault-ships-syrian-port-tartus">
Tartus </a>- approximately a mere 55 miles (90km) away from where the
Panthom RF-4E was shot down - now has its radar on 24/7. And it takes
just a single Russian warship anchored in Syrian waters to send the
message; if anyone comes up with funny ideas, just look at what happened
to
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2008/08/2008810225659470997.html">
Georgia in 2008</a>. <br><br>
<b>Time to shuffle those cards</b> <br><br>
Erdogan has very few cards left to play, if any. Assad, in
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/07/201273142230371284.html">
an interview </a>with Turkey's <i>Cumhuriyet</i> newspaper, regretted
"100 per cent" the downing of the RF-4E, and argued, "the
plane was flying in an area previously used by Israel's air
force".<br><br>
The fact remains that impulsive Erdogan got an apology from wily Assad.
By contrast, after
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html">
the Mavi Marmara disaster</a>, Erdogan didn't even get an unpeeled banana
from Israel. <br><br>
The real suicidal scenario would be for Erdogan to order another F4-style
provocation and then declare war on Damascus on behalf of the
not-exactly-Free Syrian Army. It won't happen. Damascus has already
proved it is deploying a decent air defence network. <br><br>
Every self-respecting military analyst knows that war on Syria will be
light years away from previous "piece of cake" Iraq and Libya
operations. NATO commanders, for all their ineptitude, know they could
easily collect full armouries of bloody noses.<br><br>
As for the Turkish military, their supreme obsession is the Kurds in
Anatolia, not Assad. They do receive some US military assistance. But
what they really crave is an army of US drones to be unleashed over
Anatolia. <br><br>
Turkey routinely crosses into Northern Iraq targeting Kurdish PKK
guerrillas accused of
<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/turkish-planes-troops-attack-iraq-kurds/story-e6frf7lf-1226171895227">
killing
</a>
<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/turkish-planes-troops-attack-iraq-kurds/story-e6frf7lf-1226171895227">
Turkish security forces. </a> Now, guerrillas based in Turkey are
reportedly crossing the border into Syria and killing Syrian security
forces, and even civilians. It would be too much to force Ankara to admit
its hypocrisy. <br><br>
Erdogan, anyway, should proceed with extreme caution. His rough tactics
are isolating him; more than
<a href="http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/137522/most-turks-oppose-taking-">
two-thirds</a> of Turkish public opinion is against an attack on Syria.
<br><br>
It's come to the point that Turkish magazine <i>Radikal
</i>
<a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/06/lonely-man-of-middle-east.html">
asked </a>their readers whether Turkey should be a model for the new
Middle East. Turkey used to be "the sick man of Europe"; now
Turkey is "becoming the lonely man of the Middle East", says
the article. <br><br>
<b>It's a gas, gas, gas</b> <br><br>
Most of all, Erdogan simply cannot afford to antagonise Russia. There are
at least 100,000 Russians in Syria - doing everything from building dams
to advising on the operation of those defence systems. <br><br>
And then there's the inescapable Pipelineistan angle. Turkey happens to
be Gazprom's second-largest customer. Erdogan can't afford to
<a href="http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/gazprom-warns-turkey-on-gas-deal.aspx?pageID=238&nID=24422&NewsCatID=348">
antagonise </a>Gazprom. The whole Turkish energy security architecture
depends on gas from Russia - and Iran. Crucially, one year ago a $10bn
Pipelineistan deal was
<a href="http://openoil.net/2012/03/28/syrias-transit-future-all-pipelines-lead-to-damascus/">
clinched </a>between Iran, Iraq and Syria for a natural gas pipeline from
Iran's giant South Pars field to Iraq, Syria and further on towards
Turkey and eventually connecting to Europe. <br><br>
During the past 12 months, with Syria plunging into civil war, key
players stopped talking about it. Not anymore. Any self-respecting
analyst in Brussels admits that the EU's supreme paranoia is to be a
hostage of Gazprom. The Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline would be essential
to diversify Europe's energy supplies away from Russia. <br><br>
For the US and the EU, this is the real game, and if it takes two or more
years of Assad in power, so be it. And it must be done in a way that does
not fully antagonise Russia. That's where reassurances in Geneva to
Russia keeping its interests intact in a post-Assad Syria come in.
<br><br>
No eyebrows should be raised. This is how ultra-hardcore geopolitics is
played behind closed doors. It remains to be seen whether Erdogan will
get the message.<br><br>
<b><i>Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for </i>Asia Times<i>. His
latest book is named </i>Obama Does Globalistan<i> (Nimble Books,
2009).<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</i></b></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>