Turkey's 'Spring of Peace' could become a winter of war in Syria

Kaveh Afrasiabi

Turkey cannot foment insecurity inside Syria while expecting greater security for itself

Smoke rises from the Syrian border town of Ras al-Ain as it is pictured from the Turkish town of Ceylanpinar in Sanliurfa province, Turkey on 9 October (Reuters)

Turkey's President Recep Tayyib Erdogan has embarked on a dangerous gambit in Syria with the blessing of the United States that in all likelihood will backfire on Turkey and augment its own insecurity, let alone Syria's.

Turkey's interventionism in neighbouring Syria – under the twin, and highly questionable, rationale of preventing a "terror corridor" across the 900-plus kilometre border with Syria and creating a "safe zone" to repatriate millions of Syrian refugees – is, indeed, tantamount to partial nation-building.

Turkey's plan

Unveiled with much fanfare at this year's UN summit, the plan is to seize a large chunk of Syrian territory “stretching 460 kilometres”, according to the Turkish official press, encompassing most - if not all - of the Kurdish-controlled area, including the important M4 highway connecting eastern and western Syria.  

If successful, this would put Turkey in control of most of Syria's oil and gas resources, presently in the hands of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), not to mention water sources and some of Syria's best agricultural land.

The 'Spring of Peace Operation' is a follow up to the 2018 Afrin campaign achieved with the help of Arab proxies committing countless atrocities against the local population

Of course, this is not the first time that a country invades another cloaked in noble intentions, recalling the US's "Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussain's 1980 invasion of Iran in part ostensibly to "liberate" the Iranian Arabs in Khuzestan, where most of Iran's oil is located. 

The “Spring of Peace Operation” is a follow up to the 2018 Afrin campaign – that was achieved with the help of proxies committing countless atrocities against the local population, many of whom were subjected to "forced displacement" according to rights organisations.

But, by all indication, the Afrin offensive, which resulted in the flight of hundreds of thousands of civilians, was a dress rehearsal for the main show that has begun with the Turkish military incursions at Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad. 

Two American observation posts were vacated this week as a sign of Trump's green light to Turkey's invasion, after the US had convinced the Kurds to remove their fortifications in August as a gesture of their concessions to Turkey.

No US Syria withdrawal

First, despite the green light, the US is not about to close shop in Syria and allocate its role to Turkey altogether.  

There are still approximately 18 US bases and operation points in northern Syria, including two air bases, and there is no indication that the US military has any intention of fulfilling Trump's much-trumpeted withdrawal plan. Indeed the latter is a "smoke and mirrors" shell game that, simultaneously, satisfies the impeachment-threatened US president's desire to deflect from his domestic problems.

There is no indication that the US military has any intention of fulfilling Trump's trumpeted withdrawal plan

As a result, today we are no closer to witnessing an actual US withdrawal from Syria - despite the compliant US media hype - than we were last December when Trump made his initial withdrawal announcement, which prompted similar howls of outrage and the resignation of then defense secretary James Mattis.

In fact, through his congressional and other proxies, such as former UN envoy Nikki Haley, the Trump administration has backpedalled its recent green light in the name of saving the endangered Kurds, thus procuring a timely justification for continued illegal occupation of parts of Syria, by precipitating an essentially self-created crisis.  

An American soldier walks near a Turkish military vehicle during a joint US-Turkey patrol, near Tal Abyad, Syria on 8 September (Reuters)

After all, Trump has repeatedly gone on record stating that defeating the menace of the Islamic State group (IS) has been the US's sole intention in Syria, a presence which is now re-scripted as for the defence of the Kurds, who are publicly bemoaning of America's "stab in the back".

Excelling in the art of irony and self-contradiction, this is an American administration that operates on parallel tracks in Syria, and has no qualm about any signs of inconsistency, although the main thrust of keeping a military lever in Syria indefinitely, inherited from the Obama administration, is unchanged.

Islamic State ghosts

Second, a principal flaw in Turkey's Syria policy is that it ignores the fact that security is a two-way process. Turkey cannot foment insecurity inside Syria while expecting greater security for itself.  

These factions have little or no allegiance to Turkey and are in tactical alliance with it, while harbouring their own ambitions. Turkey's “safe zone” promises to be a safe haven, and a launching pad, against Damascus by the various anti-regime factions presently groomed by Turkey's army.

Worse, the poorly-guarded IS fighters in Kurdish custody, numbering 8,000 to 11,000, according to a recent UN report, are now primed for a major jailbreak, contrary to the White House's sanguine statement that in the aftermath of the long-awaited Turkish operation, Turkey will be responsible for the IS prisoners.

A more likely scenario in the event of a full-scale Turkish invasion is that the Turkish soldiers arriving at the 30 detention centres (such as the overcrowded al-Hol camp) will only find the ghost of IS fighters haunting them for some time to come. Turkey's ill-advised invasion will be manna from heaven for IS, which is already in the process of a "second comeback".

Unwise offensive

Third, another major defect of Turkey’s Syria plan is that it underestimates the battle-hardened Kurds ability to fight back and, perhaps somewhat similar to the Houthis in Yemen, to bring the war to Turkish territory, likely with assistance from Damascus and Tehran. Iran has shown its ire at Ankara's unwise offensive by holding an unannounced military drill at the Turkish border.

As a result, Erdogan, who the Iranian media accuse of not implementing the so-called Sochi understanding on Idlib (following the Astana process to chart a diplomatic route for a future post-conflict Syria) is in danger of derailing the hitherto healthy trilateral diplomacy with Russia and Iran.From Tehran's vantage point, no matter how close the Iran-Turkey relationship, Turkey is still a NATO country encroaching on the territorial sovereignty of a strategic ally, Syria.

In other words, the Turkish assumption that it can engage in a blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty without damaging the Astana process is simply a self-serving delusion bound to be contradicted by the negative ramifications on regional affairs. 

The result will be a “regional recasting” of alliances, with the Kurds reconciling with (the much-strengthened) Damascus in the aftermath of the American "betrayal", and Turkey's relations with Iraq and Iran suffering greatly.  

There are nearly always alternatives to war and conquest. As hinted by Russia's President Putin in his January 2019 meeting with Erdogan, one alternative is to resurrect the 1998 Adana agreement, which can be revised by allowing for a three to five-mile demilitarised zone along the Turkey-Syria border.  

But, as long as Turkey continues to play the opposition card against Damascus, the latter is unlikely to return to the Adana agreement. Turkey's action represents a breach of international peace and security.

Kaveh Afrasiabi

Kaveh Afrasiabi, PhD, is a former political science professor at Tehran University and the author of several books on international affairs and Iran’s foreign policy. His writings have appeared on several online and print publications, including UN Chronicle, New York Times, Der Tagesspiegel, Middle East Journal, Harvard International Review, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and The Guardian among others.

Expert says Bolton's ouster heavy loss for Zionist lobby

New York, Sept 11, IRNA - An expert on Iran-US affairs evaluated John Bolton's expulsion from the White House as a positive step in the path against warmongering, saying it would also be a serious defeat for Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in Washington.

In an exclusive interview with IRNA, Kaveh Afrasiabi told about the effects of the expulsion of Trump's national security adviser that the news was not surprising, since the media has long spoken of Bolton's abandonment of important foreign policy decisions such as negotiating with the Taliban, and news and evidence suggest Trump has lost confidence in Bolton.

The main reason is the failure of the US foreign policy on issues such as the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela and North Korea, the senior expert noted.

As the presidential election approaches, Trump will have to show voters a sign of success in foreign policy, or else he will have face trouble in his re-election, the expert said. Therefore, Bolton's ouster should also be seen from Trump's domestic priorities.

Afrasiabi went on to say that on Iran, it should be remembered that Bolton had put forward an action plan for Iran before assuming the responsibility as the National Security Adviser, and promised that Washington could form an international coalition against Tehran after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA.

He noted that the plan was to bring about a regime change by Bolton and other American neocons so that Iran could get on its knees by means of a maximum-pressure campaign, and that the conditions for regime change would be met, but Iran resisted and Bolton and his associates failed to achieve their goals.

The analyst reiterated that the reality of the matter is that Bolton's continuation of his post meant the continuation of those failures. Therefore, one has to look at what the qualitative and functional shifts by Trump in foreign policy will be.

Referring to Trump's willingness to meet with Iranian officials, Afrasiabi inferred that Bolton's expulsion sends an important, positive signal to facilitate the Iran-US negotiation process, as Bolton personally was a barrier, even as other barriers also exist.

He said the inappropriate behavior of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo should not be ignored. Trump at the Group of 7 summit practically departed from Pompeo's terms, and said he did not want a regime change and wanted to talk to Iranian officials. Therefore, there is a kind of theoretical divide between Trump and Pompeo, and it is hoped that the next ouster will be Pompeo, though he has more flexibility softening in his practice than Bolton.

With Pompeo's survival, we should see the continuation of Trump's policy on Iran, and we should not expect a rapid and comprehensive change in this regard, the US expert said.

This news, though viewed as a positive step in facilitating the Iran-US negotiation process to resolve the conflict, is bad for Israel and Netanyahu's government, Afrasiabi went on to say.

Referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's efforts to prevent any talks between Iran and the US, the expert said that Netanyahu said in London that it is not the time for negotiation and that the maximum pressure should be exerted. He has now learnt that Trump is keen on finding diplomatic channels with Iran, which is seen as a political divide between the United States and Israel.

Bolton was a hardline advocate of Israel whose departure for Netanyahu and his lobbies in Washington is a negative development, said international affairs analyst. This will bring about a change not only about Iran but also for the entire US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Afrinasabi, referring to the recent resignation of Trump's adviser on peace talks, Jason Greenblatt, said the resignation of Greenblatt and Bolton's ouster signaled the need for the White House to make dramatic changes.

Asked what would happen to Bolton's absence in the White House's policies on Iran, he said, we certainly should not expect that immediately after Bolton's departure, the Trump administration will shift its Iran's policies.

"I am not surprised by Pompeo's remarks, but it seems that Iran's policy is more formulated by the White House than the US Department of State," said US expert on Mike Pompeo’s remark after Bolton's ouster.

Afrasiabi highlighted that Trump, who wants to demonstrate and prove a success in his foreign policy, has some concerns that do not necessarily comply with Pompeo's demands. "So we should focus on Trump's remarks and actions," he added.

It's Trump who wants to be elected in the next round, and Pompeo or other people have no worries, he said. It is important that Trump argues that serious disagreements have led to Bolton's ouster, and that Iran is one of them because Bolton wanted regime change in Iran and barred any diplomatic channels, but it seems that Trump has other tendencies.

The author of the book on Iran's nuclear Issues stated that it certainly gives the French President Emmanuel Macron a heart to pursue his mediating role between Tehran and Washington, and "we hope that these public and non-public efforts will yield positive results".

Kaveh Afrasiabi: US Efforts at IAEA Hit Tall Wall

TEHRAN (FNA)- Kaveh Afrasiabi, author and political scientist, says neither the International Atomic Energy Agency, nor even the US intelligence community ever backed White House allegations against Iran’s nuclear program.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Kaveh Afrasiabi mentioned US isolation resulted by its hostile Iran policy, saying “by scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has put itself in the defensive mode”.

Kaveh Afrasiabi, PhD is an Iranian political scientist who served as Iran’s nuclear negotiation team advisor. He taught political science at Tehran University, Boston University, and Bentley College. He has authored several books on Iran nuclear deal, and other topics including Iran, Islam, ecology, Middle East and UN reform.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: Washington withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Deal); yet again, in its recent move, it is pressuring the International Atomic Energy Agency to renegotiate the deal. What is the Trump Administration trying to achieve?

A: This is not new and I recall when the then US envoy to UN Nikki Haley visited the IAEA in August, 2017 and reportedly pressured the agency on Iran to no avail. Bad habits die hard and, clearly, the US is intent on influencing the IAEA in order to gain some traction for its flagging hostile Iran policy. By scrapping the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has put itself in the defensive mode and to turn the situation around has to convince others that its non-proliferation policy toward Iran is rational and logical, when in fact it is neither. As a result, as indicated by US media, US efforts at the IAEA have hit a tall wall.

Q: John Bolton, US National Security Adviser, says there is “substantial evidence” that Tehran had lied to IAEA inspectors. On what grounds does he make such a claim?

A: Bolton has not provided any evidence to corroborate his wild claim against Iran, nor his claim is backed by any US intelligence report. In fact, the US intelligence community has gone along with the reports of the IAEA regarding Iran's full compliance with its JCPOA obligations and to this date, no US intelligence has backed the Israeli propaganda against Iran. Bolton's agenda is, therefore, divorced from reality and pushes a jingoistic line against Iran that lacks legitimacy.

Bolton has substituted ideological demagoguery for rational policymaking on Iran, by habitually presenting a caricature of Iran and misrepresenting facts in order to sustain a failed Iran policy that has won few allies around the world. His Iranophobic approach is even dysfunctional for other dimensions of US foreign policy, such as US's South Asia Policy, that has resulted in exemptions for India on Chabahar project. Fortunately, Bolton's opposition was overruled in that case and that alone shows the limits of his influence in setting the White House's Iran policy that is in dire need of reconsideration.

Q: Considering the fact that Tehran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Tel Aviv not only has never signed the NPT, but also is believed to already possess nuclear warheads, why should there be any demand for more aggressive inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities?

A: Israel is opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, because it raises the prospect of Israel's denuclearization and regional nonproliferation, which runs contrary to Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. It is, of course, a sign of Western duplicity and double standards that they completely ignore Israel's nuclear arsenal and press countries such as Iran, which is a member of the NPT and in good standing. By smearing Iran, however, Tel Aviv hopes to deflect attentions from itself and inflate the threat of Iran in the region, so that it can pursue its alliance strategy. The problem is that as long as Tel Aviv refuses to respect the rights of Palestinians and to open its nuclear facilities to outside inspections, as requested by the IAEA, there are structural limits to how far it can achieve its alliance strategy.

Q: How do you find the European special purpose vehicle designed to protect EU companies from US sanctions? Do you believe if it will be put into operation?

A: It appears that the SPV is in the final stages of being formulated as a limited "humanitarian" mechanism to facilitate the transactions on food, medicine, and the like. Due to US pressure, European officials have stepped down from the initial promise of including oil trade in the SPV, and that certainly limits the utility of this mechanism from Iran's perspective, that counts on Europe's living up to the provisions of JCPOA calling for normalization of Iran trade. Still, despite its limitations, the SPV initiative is a right step in the right direction, with a political significance that outweighs the economic significance, and, perhaps, can be the springboard for bolder European stance vis-a-vis the unjust US sanctions in the future.