Speaking to the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Rahmat Haji Mineh elaborated on Turkey’s initial goals in Syria and said: “Turkey’s policy since the beginning of the Syrian crisis so far has witnessed changes in the scope of objectives and the means of achieving these goals. We can consider this transformation from regime change in Syria to the creation of a safe zone in the north of the country. In this respect, Turkey’s tools shifted from political and diplomatic solution to using proxy groups and military operations.

Turkey’s Goals Change after Failing to Reach Primary Aims

He noted the important point in this development was Turkey’s failure to achieve its original goals and a gradual shift in these goals to maintain its influence in the future of Syria. “Turkey, which initially entered the Syrian crisis with unrealistic and inaccurate calculations, now considers an exit from this crisis without a tangible achievement: a political setback that could have negative implications for Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party.”

He said: “Turkish leaders, especially in the early developments of 2011 Arab Spring when they saw the spread of their influence in other countries and their soft power was welcomed, they thought that conditions were also ripe in Syria to spread its political influence. But the field realities appeared to be contrary to what Turkey imagined. Thus Ankara not only failed to achieve its strategic goals of a regime change in Syria, but also faced new challenges, including an 8-month break in diplomatic relations with Russia after it shot down a Russian Sukhoi in 2015, empowerment of Syrian Kurds and their emergence as an anti-ISIS force and differences with America and the West over the Kurdish issue.

In assessing the extent to which Turkey has achieved its goals in Syria, he explained: “Turkey’s policies of intervening in Syrian internal affairs to increase its influence through various political and military tools, at the level of bilateral relations, turned the good policy-based relations with Syria into a relationship based on hostility. In addition, Ankara’s border transit route and economic and trade relations with Damascus in the past decades became a security relationship. In the meantime at a higher level, this has created a challenge in Turkey’s relations with its traditional allies, the Westerners and NATO members.”

Turkey’s Failure to Meet Primary Goals in Syria, and Emergence of New Challenges

Haji Mineh noted that Turkey’s entry into the Syrian crisis has not only failed to meet its original goals but has also posed new challenges.

He added that the new challenges facing Turkey have also changed its foreign policy goals and tools. In this regard, the most important change in Turkey’s neighborly approach is the use of hard power rather than soft power, a prominent example of which is Turkey’s use of force in launching transboundary attacks on Syrian Kurds under the pretext of threatening its national security which are in stark contrast to Turkey’s previous policy of minimizing problems with neighbors. This is a sign of Turkey’s instrumental approach to soft power.

Ankara-Brussels Agreement Turkey’s Pressure Lever on Europe

Regarding the point weather the Turkish operation in Syria could be used as leverage against Europe to achieve a series of Ankara’s demands, the analyst said:

“What Turkey was pursuing regionally at the outset of the Syrian crisis was to strengthen its strategic position in the Middle East and its positive impact on its EU membership process. But the crisis proceeded contrary to the aspirations of the Neo-Ottomanism and posed the challenges of refugees and displaced Syrians at its domestic level against Turkey.

Haji Mineh said: At first, the two sides tried to settle the issue through the Ankara-Brussels bilateral agreement, but in continuation due to escalation of the differences and non-implementation of the deal Turkey tried to use it as pressure leverage against Europe. That is whenever Europeans criticized Turkey’s behavior in the face of military attacks on Syria, Ankara would threaten to open its door to flows of refugees into Europe.

He added that the current situation on one hand has posed the practical policy of Europe against Turkey with conservatism and on the other hand has intensified their rhetoric against Ankara, including the sharp criticism by the French President of Turkey’s military and logistical movements in northern Syria, which sparked a war of words between the two leaders.

He pointed to the US position on Turkey’s actions in Syria and noted: There is division in US foreign policy towards Turkey. On the one hand stand the US government and Trump and on the other the Congress where US representatives and senators are clearly opposed to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria, as well as Turkish military operations on Syrian soil.

Serious Challenges in US-Turkish Relations

He pointed out that there are serious challenges in US-Turkish relations now, pointing out the differences between Ankara and Washington regarding the purchase of the S400 missile system from Russia, the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, as well as the Syrian Kurds. The two countries differ on these issues, but the US policy of relative sympathy, especially from Trump, seems to aim at preventing Turkey from making a full turn from the West to Russia. What Turkey has been trying to use as a lever of pressure in relation to Western countries, and to some extent to advance its policies.

“There are two things to consider in this regard: one for declarative purposes and the other for secret purposes,” the professor of international relations said. Turkey has repeatedly stated that it has no long-term goals in Syria and no plans to stay in Syria, but the plans indicate an attempt to consolidate its power in Syria. More importantly, it is structurally pursued by the use of proxy forces that will have negative consequences later on.

In the long run, however, this Turkish military presence on Syrian soil will not be sustainable due to legal reasons (including conflict with the UN Charter and the principles of refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, Article 2, Section 4, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, Article 2, Section 7),for economic reasons (such as security costs for Turkey) and for domestic political reasons such as criticism and opposition from domestic parties, including regional opposition to Turkey’s military policies that lead to a change in the balance of power in the region, as well as transboundary reasons such as challenges to the European Union and NATO.