Amin Saikal | Australian National University | Dec 17, 2024

The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has opened a new front for geopolitical competition in the Middle East.
Now, however, instead of Iran and Russia playing the most influential roles in Syria, Israel and Turkey see an opportunity to advance their conflicting national and regional security interests.
Under their respective leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, relations between the two countries have deteriorated sharply in recent years. This sets the stage for a bitter showdown over Syria.
A new rivalry is emerging
Turkey is widely reported to have backed the offensive led by the Sunni rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), to drive Assad from power, thus backstabbing Syria’s traditional allies, Iran and Russia.
Tehran has intimated that without Turkey’s support, HTS would have been unable to achieve its blistering takeover.
Now, with Assad gone, Erdo?an is believed to be positioning himself as de facto leader of the Sunni Muslim world. He also wants Turkey to be one of the dominant powers in the region.
Erdo?an has said if the Ottoman Empire had been divided in a different way following its defeat in the First World war, several Syrian cities, including Aleppo and Damascus, would have likely been part of modern-day Turkey.
Turkey immediately reopened its embassy in Damascus after Assad’s fall and offered help to HTS in shaping the country’s new Islamist order.
As part of this, Erdo?an has opposed any concession by HTS to the US-backed Kurdish minority in Syria’s northeast, which he regards as supporters of the Kurdish separatists in Turkey.
Meanwhile, Israel has taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria to advance its territorial and security ambitions. It has launched a land incursion into the Syrian side of the strategic Golan Heights and has executed a massive bombardment of Syria’s military assets across the country.
Israel’s foreign minister said destroying these assets – which included ammunition depots, fighter jets, missiles and chemical weapons storage facilities – was necessary to ensure they didn’t fall into the “hands of extremists” that could pose a threat to the Jewish state.
Turkey sees Israel’s recent actions in Syria and the occupied Golan Heights as a land grab. Israel’s actions have also been denounced by Arab countries, who demand Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected.
Israel is clearly concerned about the rise to power of an Islamist group and the transformation of Syria into a jihadist state.
This is despite the fact that HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa (also known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) has signalled he does not want conflict with Israel. He’s also pledged not to allow any groups to use Syria for attacks on Israel.
At the same time, al-Sharaa has called for the withdrawal of Israel from Syrian territory according to a 1974 agreement that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur war.
Bitter foes
Erdo?an, Turkey’s moderate Islamist president, has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of Israel. But tensions have significantly escalated between the two sides since the start of the Gaza war.
Erdo?an has called for an Arab-Islamic front to stop what he’s called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza. He has equally berated Israel’s invasion of Lebanon earlier this year.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has lashed out at Erdo?an over the years. He has called him a “joke” and “dictator” whose jails are full journalists and political prisoners. He has also accused of Erdo?an of committing a “genocide” of the Kurdish people.
Washington, which is allied to both Turkey and Israel, has launched intense diplomatic efforts to ensure that HTS moves Syria in a favourable direction. It is keen to see a post-Assad system of governance aligned with America’s interests.
These interests include HTS’ support for America’s Kurdish allies in northeast Syria and the continued presence of 1,000 American troops in the country. The US also wants HTS to continue to prevent the Islamic State terror group from regaining strength.
The US will also have to manage the emerging geopolitical rivalry between Israel and Turkey in Syria.
Some observers have not ruled out the possibility of an Israeli-Turkish military showdown, should Israel turn what it calls its temporary occupation of the demilitarised zone on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights into a permanent territorial acquisition.
This is not to say a war between them is imminent. But their clashing interests and the breadth of mutual hostility has certainly reached a new level.
Iran’s loss could be costly
For Iran, Assad’s ouster means the loss of a critical ally in its predominantly Shia “axis of resistance” against Israel and the United States.
The Iranian regime had worked hard to build this network over the last 45 years as a fundamental part of its national and wider security. It had propped up Assad’s minority Alawite dictatorship over the Sunni majority population in Syria at the cost of some US$30 billion (A$47 billion) since the popular uprising against Assad began in 2011.
And with Assad now gone, Iran is deprived of a vital land and air bridge to one of its key proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Assad regime’s sudden demise is now causing soul searching in Tehran about the wisdom of its regional strategy – and whether it will have any significant role at all in the new Syria. This seems unlikely, as al-Sharaa (the leader of HTS) has declared his disdain for both Iran and Hezbollah.
Al-Sharaa has prioritised the establishment of a publicly mandated Islamist government and Syria’s reconstruction and national unity over a conflict with Israel, Iran’s arch enemy. This will no doubt lead to contention with the hardliners and reformists in Iran.
Only time will tell how all of this will play out. At this stage, the future of Syria and the region hangs in the balance. And much depends on whether HTS leaders will move to set up an all-inclusive political system and unite a Balkanised Syria.
Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hi, EvRe. You said,
I haven’t measured these actors with any “snakity” index; but I do expect Turkey to ultimately attack Israel (and lose). Meanwhile, Iran will probably get royally beaten up by Israel.
https://static.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/QT-snake-BEFUN-2.jpg?impolicy=Medium_Widthonly&w=700
I agree with @Adam D. Erdogan is OBSESSED with the Kurds and doesn’t see any difference between the Kurdish people and the violent PKK. He does indeed appear poised to destroy them. The US may be their only lifeline at this time.
Erdogan has had fantasies of being the regional hegemon for years. He has no problem invading wherever he can, and his goal is an Islamic caliphate, with him at the head.
At the same time, the US has been in the regime change business for more than a century, mostly unbeknownst to Americans. It is the US that created ISIS also unbeknownst to Americans.
Israel has good justification for attempting to protect her borders from jihadist incursions. While Al Jolani says he has no interest in attacking Israel, that is what he says now. We don’t know what he’ll say next year. After what Israel has experienced over the past several decades, Israel is wise to pre-empt potential attacks with generous border zones that can be definitively protected without harm coming to Israelis when they return home in the north.
Erdogan doesn’t have fear of a genocidal group at his doorstep. He IS the genocidal one himself. He has less justification for what he has done and for what he plans to do to the Kurds and in terms of trying to annex parts of Northern Syria into Turkey.
I do not know if it will come to actual physical warfare between Turkey and Israel. However, Erdogan has heaped criticism of Netanyahu and Israel for many years now. He has a clear hatred of Israel and of Jews.
He is a manipulative operator who plays various heads of state against others, and cannot be trusted by any of them.
Some dictators live a long time, bringing pain to their people for many years. Others have a shorter shelf life. It’s difficult for me to imagine a country that would want to have any kind of partnership with Erdogan’s Turkey despite what Mike Doran says. Erdogan is as much a snake as the mullahs of Iran.
The battle between good and evil never ends.
I think Turkey’s objectives go beyond destroying the Kurdish militias in Syria. I think they T want either to exterminate the Kurds or force them to assimilate into Turkey.