A news-report also appeared recently that the Turkish government is again stoking hatred against Armenians – the victims of the 1915 Turkish genocide that Hitler admired. This news-report received virtually no coverage in the West. The little coverage that it did receive was attacked by some because the news was reported on Al-Monitor, which is a Washington DC-based site created in 2012 by US corporations and their academics – it was an ad-hominem ‘criticism’, regardless of whether those funders raise reasonable doubts about the truthfulness of the report. But, in any case, the report itself was linked to credible sources, and so is credible.

It opened: «Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu gave a searing speech Feb. 27 on the pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) in the eastern province of Bingol. In his speech he accused the Kurds of taking advantage of the situation in the southeastern border towns of Sur and Silopi. 'They are collaborating with Russia like the Armenian gangs used to do». His assertion in context was that Turkey’s enemies «want our Kurdish citizens to get into another fight with us patriotic Turks. They try to appeal to the people of this country by honoring the Armenian gangs who cooperate with the Russian invaders».

This Al-Monitor article commented: «Nurhan Becidyan, an Armenian-American who served in the Turkish army as a reserve officer in the 1970s, told Al-Monitor about the meaning of the term 'Armenian gangs.' He said, 'When an Armenian hears the term, he immediately recalls the official Turkish government history lessons of the past century that talk about how the Armenians in 1915 collaborated with the ‘enemy’ [Russians] and revolted against the Ottomans», which is the traditional Turkish-government rationalization for the genocide that Turkey’s officials (to this day) deny was a «genocide». (Even Hitler acknowledge it was, but they don’t acknowledge it.)

Why is Turkey in NATO, except that Turkey’s government is hostile to Russia? Is that enough to qualify Turkey’s government to be in NATO? Apparently.

Back in 1915, when Turkey’s government slaughtered approximately a million Armenians, it wasn’t only Armenians whom the Turkish government aimed to exterminate. The article from Wikipedia states, «Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians and the Ottoman Greeks were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by some historians to be part of the same genocidal policy». This was Turkey’s extermination policy against peoples whose cultures were Christian. Russia was an overwhelmingly Christian-majority nation then, prior to the 1917 communist revolution; and Turkey was hostile toward Russia, and also to Greece – it was a religious hatred, of Christians, which Turkey reflects, then and now.

That Wikipedia article on the Armenian genocide says, «Writing in the late 1890s after a visit to the Ottoman Empire, the British ethnographer William Ramsay described the conditions of Armenian life as follows: ‘We must, however, go back to an older time, if we want to appreciate what uncontrolled Turkish rule meant, alike to Armenians and to Greeks. It did not mean religious persecution; it meant unutterable contempt… They were dogs and pigs; and their nature was to be Christians, to be spat upon.’» Perhaps that’s the reason why Hitler took it to be his model: he, too, denied that he was targeting any «religion»; he hated a people, a ‘race’: Jews. The Turkish government hates non-Sunnis. But in NATO it needs their cooperation.

America is in bed with some pretty sordid regimes – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, to name some of the prominent ones.

The result is a major setback for Angela Merkel. The Chancellor’s Christian Democrats (CDU) lost support in all three states – the industrial state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the wine-growing region of Rhineland-Palatinate and the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt – in the first elections that gave voters a chance to react to Merkel's stand on the problem of asylum seekers. The CDU and its coalition partner, the Social Democrats (SPD), took a hit across the board, while the anti-immigration and anti-euro party Alternative fuer Deutschland (Alternative for Germany; AfD) scored a big win. It easily entered all three state legislatures. The party took around a quarter of the vote in Saxony-Anhalt becoming the second biggest party there, and also made strong gains in the other two states, with preliminary results showing it won 12.6 percent of the vote in Rhineland-Palatinate and 15.1 percent in Baden-Wuerttemberg. The strong performance boosts AfD's hopes of entering the national parliament next year.

Germany registered nearly 1.1 million people as asylum-seekers in 2015. The government has moved to tighten asylum rules, but the Chancellor still insists on a Pan-European solution to the migrant crisis, ignoring demands from some conservative allies for a national cap on the number of refugees. The policy on refugees has proven divisive, both among the German public and within Merkel's own Christian Democrat Union (CDU).

This is of national consequence. Germany's next national election is due in late 2017. A poll of German citizens in early February found that 81 percent of the population feel the refugee crisis is «out of control» under Merkel's government, with most people in favor of more restrictive measures towards asylum seekers.

Voter support for Merkel’s government dropped from 57 percent in July 2015 to 38 percent in February 2016 – «the worst estimate during the current government’s term», the pollster concluded.

The poor result on March 13 is likely to generate new tensions. With CDU support falling in the polls, the party may look for a new leader, even though there's no long-term successor or figurehead in sight. Merkel’s capacity to inspire confidence in her welcoming domestic policy among Germans is linked to a successful resolution of the migrants’ problem at the European level. If the current strategy of rapprochement with Turkey and strengthening of the EU external border fails, Merkel may have to leave German politics by the back door next year leaving her own party and coalition partner SPD in a difficult situation.

At present, the EU and Turkey say they have agreed on the broad principles of a plan to ease the migration crisis. Under the plan brokered by Berlin and Ankara, all migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey would be returned.

For each Syrian sent back, a Syrian already in Turkey would be resettled in the EU. Turkey would also get extra funding and progress on EU integration. The German Chancellor gave a strong signal that she supported doubling aid for Syrian refugees in Turkey, as the EU bargained with Ankara to do more to stop migrants and refugees arriving on Greek shores. EU leaders were asked to provide €6bn (£4.6bn) over three years, twice the €3bn offered last November.

The deal is expected to be finalized at the EU meeting on March 17-18.

Some senior EU diplomats and EU leaders were angered by Ms Merkel’s handling of the process, which circumvented and trumped parallel talks led by EU institutions.

At that, German Chancellor Angela Merkel hailed the surprise Turkish proposal at an emergency summit in Brussels as a potential breakthrough in Europe's politically toxic migration crisis.

Ms Merkel pressed hard for the deal just three days after the Turkish government seized the best-selling opposition newspaper Zaman.

The German Chancellor with her reputation of a leader who really cares about human rights, has not done anything to make this gross violation of freedom of speech be included into the EU-Turkey agenda.

The issue of human rights violations raised by the United Nations is kept out of the EU-Turkey, Germany-Turkey dialogue.

On the very day her party braced for drubbing at key state polls on March 13, the Chancellor’s priority was to exchange views with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on an upcoming special summit between the EU and Turkey to ink the migrants deal under the terms favorable for Ankara.

There is certain background of the Germany-Turkey’s close alliance growing stronger. The German government is well aware of the fact that Turkey is involved in dealing with the Islamic State (IS).

The evidence is ample. It’s enough to remember the report prepared by Columbia University professor David L. Phillips published by Huffington Post in 2014 to hit public spotlight back then.

The report was updated last year.

US intelligence revealed that the Islamic State group made millions of dollars every day from illicit trade in oil thanks to dozens of oil fields in Syria and Iraq that came under its control.

Transportation of IS oil to Turkey and the widespread engagement of Turkish middlemen was already well-known as early as 2014, when the terrorist group gained control over the majority of Syrian oil extraction zones close to the Turkish border.

On August 25, 2015 Turkish newspaper Bugün ran a front-page story showing alleged transfer of weapon and explosives from Turkey to Islamic State through Akcakale border post.

Russia provided evidence to confirm the fact of clandestine collaboration between Turkey and the Islamic State group.

Western countries should exert pressure on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and put an end to the secret relations of Ankara and the militants, otherwise the conflict in Syria may escalate, Deputy Chairman of the Left Party Sahra Wagenknecht said in an interview with German magazine Spiegel.

* * *

The exact relationship between Erdoğan’s government and the IS may be subject to debate, but of some things are certain. Had Turkey established the same kind of absolute blockade on IS-held territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria, let alone getting as tough on the Islamic State as it does on the Syria-based Kurdish groups (the PKK and YPG), the world would have forgotten about the «caliphate» a long time ago. If it had been the case, the Paris attacks may never have happened.

If Turkey were really engaged in the fight against the IS, the terrorist group would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, no Western leader has called on Turkish President Erdoğan or Prime Minister Davutoglu to do this. Certainly not German Chancellor Merkel. She has made Germany and the EU fully dependent on Turkey in handling the most burning issue – the migrants’ policy. She views Turkey as a «strategic ally». As the recent EU summit showed she is likely to head off to share a friendly cup of tea with the Prime Minister of the same government that makes it possible for the IS to continue to exist.

Just think about it, the German government does know well that Turkey collaborates with the IS and does not do anything about it allowing Ankara to blackmail Germany and the EU instead! The Chancellor understands well that the time is wrong for the issue to hit public light as Germany faces the next parliamentary election in 2017. So she does her best to hush it up.

Cue to a bunch of clueless European tourists haggling about a refugee deal with carpet bazaar ace Ahmet Davutoglu – Turkey’s Prime Minister and grand vizier of Sultan Erdogan. Much more than clinching a sleazy deal, the EU may end up selling what’s left of its allegedly humanitarian and democratic «principles», a.k.a. soul, to the carpet man. Did neither of these Eurocrats ever read Goethe’s Faust?  

So let’s recap what the EU will get from Ankara’s masterful extortion racket. Instead of paying 3 billion euros for the refugee «carpet», it will pay 6.6 billion euros. It will facilitate visa-free travel for what’s left of the Schengen space to 75 million Turks. It will accelerate the bureaucratic road map for Turkish pre-accession to the EU. And it will comply with Ankara’s demand that for every Syrian re-expelled from Greece back to Turkey – over 2,000 arrive everyday as we speak – one Turk will be allowed to settle in the EU’s austerity purgatory. 

This is what the Mob usually dubs «an offer you can’t refuse».

A bunch of European tourists

The Eurocrats thought they had a deal – part of the so-called EU-Turkey Action Plan – before a fateful Brussels summit early in the week, on March 7. EU – and mostly German – absolute desperation was already set in stone; without a deal with Ankara the alternative is the collapse of Schengen (which has already happened anyway) and the erosion of public trust in the EU’s institutions (also already happened).

In Chancellor Merkel’s words, because of the war in Syria and the «geostrategic» situation, a deal with Turkey is «absolutely in Europe’s interest». European Commission President, devious operator Jean-Claude Juncker, added, «this is a real game-changer».

Well, it was a game-changer for the Turks, for sure. Ankara was so dismissive of that bunch of sissy European tourists they raided Zaman, the country’s largest newspaper, took it over, tear gas included, turned it into a pro-AKP rag, and got away with it. Sanctions? That’s for Syria – and Iran. Turkey smashes a newspaper and is rewarded with negotiations on turbo mode for EU membership. So much for «press freedom» and an independent judiciary.

Behaving as absolutely lousy students of history, the Eurocrats were convinced the Sultan and his vizier would take the initial deal because they badly needed EU help in their self-created, nasty confrontation with Russia; extra support along the Turkish-Syrian border (the Sultan’s famous «safe zone» dream); and would be further mollified by NATO ships being used for coast guard patrols.

But then the carpet man pulled a master gambit, and invited his top customer for dinner.

Picture wily Davutoglu running rings around Merkel at the Turkish embassy in Brussels on Sunday evening, March 6. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte – holding the rotating EU presidency – was the other invited tourist.

Davutoglu unrolled a magic carpet ride. Nothing, absolutely nothing that had been discussed for weeks applied anymore. Ankara had a new, much more elaborate «offer you can’t refuse», and the EU summit was scheduled for the day after.

The only thing left for a poor, livid Chancellor was to wake up early on Monday and try to convince everybody else on short notice this was a steal. All hell predictably broke loose. Delegations from quite a few nations openly blamed the Chancellor’s naiveté. In the end there was no consensus, just the Chancellor meekly, vaguely promising that a deal was near.

Grapes of Wrath, the Balkan remix

Brussels has up to the end of next week to seal the deal, during another EU summit. It will be a wild ride. This thing is set to open a can of legal worms/juridical nightmares.

To start with, the «principled» EU may be facing some sort of mass deportation of refugees to countries where they most certainly will enjoy shaky legal protection. So count on EU lawyers to find a loophole; they will elevate Turkey to the status of a «safe third country». Amnesty International is already furious – but who cares?

The one-refugee-for-one-Turk exchange is even more slippery – and there are no loopholes. Only a miracle from Valhalla will convince, among others, the Baltic nations, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Slovenia to accept further refugee relocation inside their own borders. The Balkan Route for all practical purposes went six feet under when Slovenia closed it down. What is Berlin to do? Reopen it with a blitzkrieg?

Moreover, only a miracle from Zeus will convince Greece as well as Cyprus – not to mention France and Italy – that opening the EU doors to Turkey is the right price to pay to ease the crisis.

So assuming a deal is clinched it will open yet another chapter in one of the great tragedies of our time; next it will be a Grapes of Wrath scenario, lost souls plying the Balkan Route – including many families – fighting with their lives not to be deported back to Turkey.

And another «mystery» will remain unsolved; how this mass of refugees got there in the first place.

First they had to sneak around western Turkey – a highly indented coast, with few major cities and only a few local bus lines – on their way to a smatter of Greek islands, mostly Mytilini and Kos but also Chios and Kastellorizo. They would have traveled more than 1000 kilometers from the Turkish-Syrian border – where many had been languishing. 

They left because Ankara told them to. They may have even had enjoyed direct and indirect access to some Ankara «help» to get on bus after bus after bus. Picture the Sultan’s network shipping their massive overland blackmail cargo by bus, delivered right on the doorstep of smuggling rings with the right connections, ready to ferry them across the Aegean to Greece.

Talk about a precious cargo. And this cargo is about to make Ankara handsomely profit to the tune of 6.6 billion – plus immense fringe benefits. And still those sorry Eurocrat tourists believe they are clinching the deal of the century; the «carpet» they are taking home is as rotten as they come.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu was in Brussels and made it clear precisely who is in control of the situation. Thousands of migrants arrive each day at the Greek port of Piraeus, creating an additional burden on Greece’s infrastructure and stirring up discord within the «European family», which is already not very friendly. Closing the Balkan route will put Athens in an even more difficult position. Like other Balkan countries, Macedonia has imposed partial restrictions on border crossings.

The flood of illegal migrants into Europe was largely triggered by Turkey’s moves to inflame the civil war in Syria, a fact which some journalists from the opposition newspaper Cumhuriyet had attempted to reveal before being sent to jail for their efforts. And now, in early March, the Turkish government has been subjected to yet more timid criticism for «not respecting EU principles». This was in reference to the campaign of harassment conducted by the Turkish government against the newspaper Zaman. A court in Istanbul has actually placed that periodical, which is allegedly linked to the well-known US-based cleric Fethullah Gülen, under state control, which entails a confiscation of property. On the evening of March 4, police special forces stormed the newspaper’s offices, firing water cannons and tear gas. This is hardly the first example of the persecution of the press in that country. Shall we say the only thing that’s needed for this is to begin asking awkward questions about the brutal war against the Kurds in the country’s southeast, the support of terrorist groups in Syria, or the Erdoğan family’s insatiable appetite for business …

According to Norbert Röttgen, the chairman of the Bundestag’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, the timing of the Turkish authorities’ attack on the freedom of the press was no accident. That German politician is certain that Ankara decided to take that step before signing the agreement with Brussels and is thus counting on Europe to hold its tongue on the issue of human rights violations.

Meanwhile Mr Erdoğan has proposed building a new city in northern Syria to house refugees. As we can see, the leader of Turkey has already dismembered Syria in his mind, giving Europeans the impression that he has negotiated all this with Obama.

The countries of the European Union had previously approved the financing for a fund to support refugees inside of Turkey. Ankara added three billion euros to its balance sheet, in addition to a revival of the talks on joining the EU and visa liberalization, plus various related perks, such as the Bundestag dropping its discussion of a potential resolution condemning the Armenian genocide that took place during the time of the Ottoman Empire, in exchange for which the Turks will reduce the influx of migrants into the EU, instead resettling them within their own borders. But the transparency about how the money will be received and spent is, to put it mildly,  insufficient.

During the five years of the Syrian crisis, Turkey, according to statements made by its leaders, has taken in almost three million refugees, in contrast to nearly two million taken in by the European Union, far from all of whom are even of Syrian origin.

Ankara’s conduct makes it clear that it is unlikely to remain satisfied for long with the three billion it is already getting in compensation from Europe. Turkey’s bill for ensuring «calm» in Berlin, Paris, and other European cities could rise to five billion euros. Or even seven, or more, as Ankara deems necessary.

«Erdoğan, who is being offered €3 billion, will not demand €6 billion, but €9 billion. That figure will rise after each summit», claims Miloš Zeman, the president of the Czech Republic.  According to information obtained by Reuters, during the closed-door talks Ahmet Davutoğlu has already requested 20 (!) billion, as well as the coveted goal of the right to visa-free travel for Turkish citizens. As of the evening of March 7, Ankara’s intermediate demands looked like this: Six billion euros and an accelerated path to EU membership.

On the night of Jan. 8 Donald Tusk stated that an agreement had been reached on these points: All new illegal migrants arriving to Greek islands by sea from Turkey will be returned; the plan for visa liberalization will be accelerated; the allocation of €3 billion, plus an additional mechanism for financing assistance for refugees in Syria, will be accelerated; preparations will be made to open new chapters in the negotiations on entry of Turkey into the EU; safe zones could be established in Syria; and Syrian refugees will be resettled based on a one-for-one principle. This document awaits approval during the next scheduled meeting on March 17-18. According to Davutoğlu, visa-free travel between the EU and Turkey will become real by the end of June.

On March 7 a meeting was held in Brussels between NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Ahmet Davutoğlu. According to Stoltenberg, NATO will back the fight in the Aegean Sea against smuggling and illegal immigration under the auspices of the Standing NATO Maritime Group, which was established to conduct «intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance at the Turkish-Syrian border». The NATO Secretary General particularly noted that the mission of the alliance is not to detain those who are trying to reach Europe or to return them to their homeland. The head of the alliance, worried about Russian air activity in Syria, warned that the crisis must not be militarized. But if one believes the commander of NATO in Europe, Philip Breedlove, Russia is the one whose actions in Syria are spurring the exodus of refugees into Europe. Given this situation, Ankara’s efforts are aimed primarily against the Syrian army, which is fighting the terrorist groups that are not included under the cease-fire provisions.

Returning illegal migrants back to the country from which they came will also require EU agencies to work with Turkish authorities in the fight against cross-border crime. But apparently the criminal «business models» are advantageous to some people in Europe itself. Reports in the Bulgarian media about trade in stolen Syrian gasoline that passes through Turkey might well prove to be merely the tip of the iceberg, just like Bilal Erdoğan’s Italian escapades.

According to international organizations, 100,000 migrants have arrived in Greece just in 2016, intending to travel onward, mostly to Germany, which, according to a report by Eurostat, has taken in almost 442,000 people in the past year – more than a third of all asylum seekers in the European Union. A noticeable increase in crime and social unrest has forced the Bundestag to tighten the rules for admitting refugees and Angela Merkel to call for the acceleration of the prosecution of migrants who have committed crimes. However, no decisions have been made at the European level on this matter, which explains the growth in anti-immigrant and right-wing nationalistic sentiment that has compelled authorities in individual states (Sweden, France, Germany, Hungary, and Austria) to resort to local legal and technical measures to stem illegal migration.

It is not alarmist to predict that the potential for conflict in Europe is going to escalate. This tension could find an outlet in the form of terrorist attacks, while the US State Department diligently notifies the whole world of the latest terrorism threat levels. And it is quite natural to conclude that when it comes to migration policy, individual states are more effective than supranational institutions. On one condition – those states must be able to exercise real, not mock, sovereignty within their own borders.

The only US response came in the feeble words of Defence Secretary Ash Carter on being asked by a reporter if he had «any reaction to President Erdogan’s comments yesterday about America contributing to a pool of blood by supporting Kurdish fighters in Syria?» Instead of putting Erdogan in his place and saying he is a dangerous buffoon, Carter replied that «obviously Turkey is a good and longstanding ally of the United States. We’re not going to agree with them in all matters. We staunchly agree with them, and always have, that we oppose terrorism in any form… we also continue to work very closely with Turkey».

Of course Washington is going to work closely with Turkey. After all it was President Erdogan who ordered the shooting down of a Russian aircraft last November, and Washington can rely on him to indulge in bombastic confrontation against Russia at the drop of a fez. Following the terrorist bombing in Ankara on February 17 Russia «expressed its deep condolences to the people of Turkey» but the response from the Turkish government was that they were «warning Russia once more: if these terror attacks continue, they will be as responsible as the YPG [the US-supported Kurdish militia group in Syria which combats Islamic State fanatics and which has emphatically denied being involved in the bombing]».

It is embarrassing for Presidents Obama and Erdogan that their aims are so divergent: Mr Obama wants to overthrow Syria’s President Assad, presumably in the same fashion as he facilitated the murder of Libyan leader Gaddafi in 2011 («We came, we saw: he died» in the laughing words of Hillary Clinton) and to destroy Islamic State barbarians. On the other hand, Erdogan’s aim is to divide and suppress the Kurdish people, especially the fifteen million Kurds in Turkey, because they have the temerity to seek a voice in their own region.

Mr Erdogan’s antics on the international stage have caused unease for many months, and his recent US-directed display of irritation was no more bizarre or malevolent than any of his other actions. At the end of January he again claimed that a Russian aircraft had violated Turkish airspace and threatened «consequences». Even the western media did not follow up on this allegation, because it was so obviously untrue – but neither did any western media report that «Turkish Air Force fighter jets violated Greek airspace 22 times on Monday February 15, according to a news release from the Greek General Staff».

Greece is a member of NATO, but not an important one because it is not in favour of confronting Russia, with which the Athens government prefers cooperation and trade. So when Greek airspace is violated by Turkish fighter aircraft there is no reaction from the United States. When Secretary of State John Kerry was in Athens last December a reporter asked him «does Greece have the right to protect its borders? And I’m talking about violation of Greek airspace, just like in the case of Turkey. Or are there two standards in this?»

Kerry is essentially a decent man, and is usually straightforward, but could only reply that «Well, no, of course there shouldn’t be two standards… I simply encourage Greece and Turkey… as NATO allies… to work together to maintain good neighbourly relations».

Turkey will never try to maintain good relations with Greece, because Erdogan knows very well that he can insult, confront and threaten it as much as he likes without US or NATO disapproval.

Neither will there be the slightest reproach from Washington when Erdogan manages to achieve his most important personal objective, which is to replace his country’s system of parliamentary government with an all-powerful executive presidency. This, indeed, is the reason for all his bluster and arrogance.

Most members of Erdogan’s deeply Islamic Justice and Development Party are in favour of their leader becoming Turkey’s supreme ruler. If they manage to sway things in the present parliament, they will alter the Constitution so that «the head of state would have the power to issue executive and legislative decrees, which effectively would mean that both the executive and legislative powers would be concentrated in the president’s hands. Parliament would retain its legislative function, but the president would have veto power over the laws it passes… The president would appoint the ministers and half of the members of higher courts, and would have the power to dissolve parliament».

Some western media have noted this markedly authoritarian ambition and in January The New York Times stated that «Mr Erdogan, who is pushing to imbue the largely ceremonial presidency with sweeping executive powers, told reporters that ‘In a unitary system [such as Turkey’s] a presidential system can work perfectly. There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany’… Mr Erdogan did not elaborate, but his comment raised the question of why the leader of one of the world’s most influential countries, an American ally and member of NATO, would mention Hitler in the context of his own tenure».

President Erdogan is backed enthusiastically by his prime minister, Mr Davutoglu, who visited Kiev on February 15 to highlight Turkey’s anti-Russia posture. It was unfortunate but amusing that Mr Davutoglu met with President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk at the very time that «Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has asked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk to resign, saying he has lost the support of the governing coalition».

Yatsenyuk – «Yats», to use the affectionate diminutive bestowed on him by the US State Department functionary Victoria Nuland who said before Kiev’s US-supported coup of 2014 that «I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience» to be the US frontman in the replacement regime – is a spent force, and neither he nor his equally corrupt president will last much longer in power. But they and their successors will continue to be sword-bearers in Washington’s anti-Russia campaign – and will in consequence be as benevolently regarded as the energetically erratic Erdogan.

Erdogan is out of control to the point of verging on derangement, but that means nothing to Washington which is not choosy about who it selects as allies, just so long as they are anti-Russia. The US, however, should bear in mind the old adage that «He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon».

From the blood and carnage, his regime has quickly sought to position itself internationally as another victim of barbaric terrorism, and as a fearless fighter against the Islamic State terror network. Turkey is a little too self-consciously wrapping itself in the emotional flag of France following the Paris terror attacks in November.

The American White House and the United Nations’ chief Ban Ki-Moon also weighed in with condemnations of the «despicable» killings in Istanbul and vowed solidarity with the Turkish state against the terrorism.

Both Erdogan and his prime minster Ahmet Davutoglu responded immediately in separate but similarly scripted speeches to claim that the atrocity was evidence that Turkey is at «the front line in the fight against terrorism».

«No-one should doubt our resolve to defeat the terrorists of Islamic State», Erdogan told reporters. His earnest, tough-sounding anti-terror declarations were echoed by Davutoglu.

However, as William Shakespeare would say: «Thou protest too much!» – meaning the contrived rhetoric suggests an ulterior aim. 

Erdogan’s government reacted with suspiciously punctual accounting of the bombing, which occurred in the historic quarter of Istanbul, killing at least 10 people, including eight German tourists. 

Within hours of the attack early Tuesday, Turkish authorities had named the suicide bomber as a 28-year-old Syrian national who was originally born in Saudi Arabia. The Turkish government said he was a member of the Islamic State (IS) terror group.

But even several hours later, as of Tuesday night, no group had yet claimed responsibility for the attack. That raises questions about who did carry out the bombing. Surely the IS would be only too glad to take the credit for an attack involving international headlines, as they usually do in such atrocities? Why did the group seem to not know anything about it in the immediate aftermath?

If this were a genuine terror attack that defied the Turkish state security services, then how come the Turkish authorities were so quickly able to identify the alleged suicide bomber? In a «normal» terror attack, the authorities would be caught off-guard and would be seen to be scrambling for several days to piece together who carried it out. Not in this case. Erdogan’s government had the low-down immediately on not only the alleged group behind the bombing (IS), but also the alleged individual. That’s quite amazing detective efficiency, if we accept the official version at face value. 

In any case, such acceptance of the Erdogan government’s version would also be wildly naive. The Turkish military intelligence, MIT, has been shown through many previous instances to be intimately involved with Islamist terror groups waging war in Syria. 

Can Dundar, the editor of Cumhuriyet, is facing life imprisonment because his newspaper exposed gun-running by the MIT to terror groups in Syria. 

Turkish MP Eren Erdem earlier this year also made credible claims that the Erdogan government has covered up an investigation into the supply of chemical weapons to Islamic State militants by the MIT; chemical weapons that were mostly likely used in the mass killing of Syrian citizens in the Damascus suburb of East Ghouta in August 2013.

Russian military aerial surveillance has in recent months irrefutably exposed industrial-scale smuggling of oil by the IS terrorists into Turkey, with credible links in the racket going all the way to the Turkish state and Erdogan’s family shipping businesses in particular.

Previous bombings against Turkish citizens inside Turkey have also implicated the dirty work of the Erdogan regime. When over 100 Kurdish rights supporters were killed in a bomb blast at a peaceful rally in Ankara last October, Kurdish groups accused Turkish state agents of secretly carrying out the atrocity. Similar claims of state-sponsored terrorism against Kurdish political groups were made over the deadly bombings in Suruc and Diyarbakir also last year.

A deadly bombing in the Turkish border town of Reyhanli in May 2013, which killed over 40, was again blamed on Turkish state agents trying to frame the Syrian government, in an attempt to contrive a casus belli for Turkish military invasion of Syria. Turkish premier Ahmet Davutoglu has been caught in leaked audio tapes voicing such false flag schemes in private meetings with party cadres.

In recent weeks, the Turkish authorities have been making high-flown claims of foiling terror plots within the country, alleging that they had pre-empted suicide bombers belonging to IS. It is impossible to verify these official claims because Erdogan’s regime has severely clamped down on independent media reporting.

But one reasonable way of assessing such official claims is that the Turkish authorities were setting the scene for an eventual terror attack, which appears to have happened this week with the bombing in Istanbul.

And with swift reaction Erdogan’s government has deftly stepped up to make pointed claims that it is a victim of IS terrorism, and thereby quickly receiving sympathy and support from the White House and the UN.

The timing is important for proper understanding. Erdogan, Davutoglu and the ruling Justice and Development Party have been exposed in recent months by Russia’s military intervention in Syria as being up to their necks in supporting terrorism in Syria. The Western media may have treated the revelations with a stultified indifference. Nevertheless, the revelations are a shocking indictment of the lawlessness of the Turkish state, a NATO member and an aspiring member of the European Union.

The Erdogan regime has become synonymous with state-sponsored terrorism, smuggling and gun-running in Syria, and in particular collusion with Islamist terror groups like IS. (Saudi Arabia has also been similarly illuminated as a rogue, gangster state.)

What better then, from the Erdogan’s point of view, than an IS atrocity in Istanbul this week killing foreign tourists in order for his regime to subsequently make claims of being an «enemy of IS» and a «defender against terrorism».

Nonetheless, this alternative, more realistic, scenario beckons: the Erdogan regime knew the bomber’s identity because it works with such terror operatives; and the Turkish authorities enabled the attack to go ahead for its own self-serving political reasons of blanching its badly tarnished international reputation, to be thus seen as a «victim of terrorism».

In recent months, Ankara’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy has become the center of global attention. Looking back to the origins of the neo-Ottomanist ideology which drives Turkey’s risky foreign adventurism today, a classified US State Department cable from 2010 confirms that Washington saw President Erdogan’s dangerous shift in foreign policy coming, but couldn’t do anything about it – or worse, chose not to.

From the provision of support to radical Islamist rebels in Syria, to the alleged trade in stolen ISIL oil, to the provocative downing of a Russian military plane, to the army’s incursion into Iraq, Ankara’s increasingly unhinged foreign policy decisions have become a mainstay on the front pages of the world’s press.

Who could have predicted, only a few short years ago, that the ruling Justice and Development Party would pivot, so quickly and so drastically, from a foreign policy of ‘Western orientation’ and ‘zero conflicts with neighbors’, to one of confrontation and ‘neo-Ottomanism’? Well… the US State Department did, apparently.

In a confidential diplomatic cable written in early 2010 and since published by WikiLeaks, Ambassador to Turkey James F. Jeffrey suggested, albeit in a somewhat muted manner, that Washington’s long-time allies in Ankara were becoming infatuated with a new, «more Islamic», «more independently activist» «neo-Ottoman» ideology – one which could present «major challenges» for US interests.

The shift, the cable explained, was influenced by a number of political, economic and geopolitical factors, and was spearheaded by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) – the big-tent political coalition of Islamists, conservatives and nationalists formed in 2001 – which would come to dominate the country’s political system by the mid-2000s. 

According to the document, Ankara’s new ideology, epitomized by then-Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and his Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, was leading to a gradual partial shift away from Turkey’s ‘traditional Western’ and ‘zero conflicts’ trajectories, and toward ‘neo-Ottomanism’ – the desire to regain Turkey’s place in the sun as a great imperial power.

In an apparent attempt to soothe his readers, Jeffrey made sure to emphasize that the traditional orientation of cooperation and integration with the West, instilled by Mustafa Kemal Attaturk following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, still «represents the core of Turkish foreign policy». Turkey, Jeffrey stressed, remains a «major NATO ally» and the «US anchor in the Middle East».

A Harbinger of Terrible Things to Come…

Nonetheless, a shift was occurring. The cable pointed to then-Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s «extraordinary speech in Sarajevo in late 2009», where Davutoglu effectively declared that the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all better off when under Ottoman control or influence, with peace and progress prevailing in the territories under Turkey’s shadow. «Now», the cable summed up, «Turkey is back, ready to lead – or even unite».

The cable noted that «while this speech was given in the Balkans, most of its impact is in the Middle East».

«Davutoglu’s theory», the document explained, «is that most of the regimes there are both undemocratic and illegitimate. Turkey, building on the alleged admiration among Middle Eastern populations for its economic success and power, and willing to stand up for the interests of the people, reaches over the regimes to the ‘Arab street’». 

Ultimately, the cable’s allusions to Turkey’s disdain for the regimes in the region goes a long way in explaining Ankara’s highly activist position during the so-called Arab Spring, which spread like a wildfire across the region in 2011, toppling the regimes of pro-Western dictators and anti-American, anti-imperialist holdouts alike.

In a portent of things to come in the aftermath of the Arab pseudo-revolutions of 2011, and Turkey’s role in them, from the smoldering Libyan civil war to the ongoing and brutal civil conflict in Syria, Jeffrey suggested, almost prophetically, that «sooner or later…Turkey will have to produce results, take risks, commit real resources, and take hard decisions to augment a policy now consisting mainly of popular slogans, ceaseless trips, and innumerable MOUs of little importance».

Fertile Ground for the Shift to Neo-Ottomanism

The US Embassy cable lays out the causes for Ankara’s drift toward neo-Ottomanism in a neat and simple manner, suggesting that growing Islamization at home (and its limits), combined with the resources made available by a generally successful economic development strategy, and disillusionment with the European Union, have all played their role. The declining political clout of the military (which, incidentally, would undergo a dramatic purge in 2012 following an alleged coup plot), is another important factor, according to the cable.

Furthermore, more abstractly, the document suggests that in the post-Cold War world, Ankara has seen a decline in and relativization of its dependence on the ‘Western anchor’, joining other emerging powers in the developing world which benefit from institutions created by the West while pursuing their own «Third Worldish policies and rhetoric».

Opportunism and the Apparent Limits of US Power

Ultimately, instead of challenging Turkey’s budding neo-Ottomanism, or suggesting that Washington should attempt to bring its not-insignificant influence to bear over Ankara’s new foreign policy approach, the cable suggested that the US would «have to live with» this new, neo-Ottoman Turkey.

Pointing out that Ankara’s attempts at becoming a regional heavyweight could have the positive prospect of relieving the US of some of its imperious ‘responsibilities’, the cable nevertheless laments that this «comes with a certain loss of control», with «Turkey’s new foreign policy [thus serving as] a mixed bag for us».

Still, perhaps in fear of losing even more influence, should neo-Ottomanism become anti-American to boot, the cable emphasizes that «on a whole host of key issues of supreme importance to us – Afghanistan and Pakistan, cooperation in and on Iraq, NATO efforts … Turkey is a crucial ally, and our use of Incirlik, Habur gate, and Turkish airspace for our Iraq and Afghanistan operations is indispensable».

Ultimately, Jeffrey suggests that «in any case, sooner or later we will no longer have to deal with the current cast of political leaders, with their special yen for destructive drama and – rhetoric».

However, in a twist with more than a hint of orientalist bias, the ambassador also suggests that «we see no one better on the horizon, and Turkey will remain a complicated blend of world-class ‘Western’ institutions, competencies, and orientation, and Middle Eastern culture and religion».

In this situation, the cable suggests that for its part, Washington will have to interact with the new, neo-Ottomanist Ankara in a pragmatic fashion, on an «issue-by-issue-approach». Almost six years on, with the situation in Turkey and the Middle East becoming exponentially more complicated, it’s worth pondering exactly which issues – from Ankara’s support for jihadist extremists in Syria, to its shoot down of a Russian plane, to its purchase of stolen ISIL oil and, most recently, its incursion into Iraq – were met with understanding and approval from Washington.

The rulers of re-emerged Ottoman Empire are trying to rekindle the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces has escalated recently. The Paris Armenia-Azerbaijan summit slated for December 1 was indefinitely postponed. Great hopes were pinned on this top level meeting, as it was expected to become a step towards peaceful management of the conflict. As one can see, the first results of Turkish intrigues are already visible. Only Allah knows what else would the insane Erdogan do to startle the world! It’s not without reason that, according to news agencies reports, Russian heavy armor and weapons systems are being deployed along the Armenia-Turkey border.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu visited Baku on December 3-4. It was a hallmark event. He has outlined his foreign policy doctrine in several writings, most important of which is his book «Strategic Depth» – an expansionist doctrine that the current Turkish government admires so much. Speaking at the ADA University in Baku on December 4, Davutoglu said, «It is necessary to completely liberate Azerbaijan’s occupied territories to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict».

He did not mention the ongoing negotiation process at all. The situation in the region is very tense. Against this background his words can be perceived as nothing else but war rhetoric. «Turkey will be by Azerbaijan’s side until a complete liberation of Azerbaijani territories. Each inch of Azerbaijan’s land is dear, and those lands should be liberated», noted PM Davutoglu. The Turkish Prime Minister did not spare flattering words as he cherished great expectations. During the December 3 expanded meeting with President Ilham Aliyev, Davutoglu said, «As great leader of Azerbaijan and our great leader, your dear father Heydar Aliyev said, we are one nation in two states. In this sense, we know that our ministers are always treated like your own and yours like ours».

Taking into consideration the great difference between the potentials of the two states, one can interpret these words as an encroachment on Azerbaijan sovereignty. Baku seems to realize it well. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev does not appear to be an expandable bargain chip to please Ankara as it pursues its extravagant ambitions. He was hospitable and pointed out that «Turkey and Azerbaijan are very close to each other. We are together on all matters. We support and will continue to support each other». He did not elaborate. In his speech he did not mention the problems that made Ankara feel the sudden surge of «brotherly love» for the Azeri people.  Aliev offered quite a different picture of the bilateral relationship. He agreed it was hard to find two other nations that were as close as Turkey and Azerbaijan. In the remarks he made on December 4 during a press conference following the meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in Baku, Aliev pointed out that «The two states are closely cooperating with each other. Turkey was the first country recognizing the independence of Azerbaijan. Our countries always support each other in all issues».

On November 26, deputy chief of Azerbaijan's Presidential Administration, chief of the department for external relations, Novruz Mammadov posted a statement on his Twitter page, saying, «Turkey is our closest ally and Russia is a very close and friendly country for us. We have historical ties with each of these countries. We have very good relations with both of them. Azerbaijan does not want any differences between friends».

Being a master of tricky Asian diplomacy, the Azerbaijani President resorted to another masterstroke. After the visit of Turkish Prime Minister he received Nikita Mikhalkov, a famous Russian filmmaker, actor, and the head of the Russian Cinematographers' Union close to the Kremlin. According to AzerNews, «It was noted that the visit of Nikita Mikhalkov contributed to the expansion of cooperation, the strengthening of relations between the two countries and nations».

These are purely cultural contacts. There is nothing to offend Turkey. At that Baku sent an unambiguous message to Moscow.

Leaving the official language grandiloquence aside, the results of the visit could hardly be viewed as a success for Ankara in its effort to become the leader of an «anti-Russia coalition». In concrete terms, the only achievement was the announced agreement to launch the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP). «Trans-Anatolian gas pipeline – TANAP can be launched sooner than it was initially scheduled», said Mr Ahmet Davutoglu at a joint press conference with Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev.

Some 6 billion cubic meters of gas of 16 billion cubic meters will go to Turkey, while some 10 billion cubic meters of gas will go to Europe. TANAP will connect the giant Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to Europe through the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCP), TANAP and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP).

It is not a bed of roses. The project needs new investments. As a result of recent events, the Turkey’s rating has been heading down. With old prices staying low, Baku has not extra funds to allocate for the purpose. Foreign investors are not rushing in. 6 billion cubic meters cannot substitute about 27 billion cubic meters delivered by Russia in case Moscow decides to stop the supplies.

Besides Azerbaijan, Ankara wants to make Georgia part of the axis it is trying to create. It attempts to take advantage of Georgia’s economic dependence and interest in Turkey’s support for its NATO membership. A regular Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey trilateral meeting at the level of foreign chiefs is expected to take place very soon. Turkey is going to call on its partners to take consolidated actions. According to the Georgia’s Defense Ministry, Istanbul is expected to host a trilateral meeting of defense ministers in mid-December to address energy security issues, in particular the security of strategic oil and gas pipelines running from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia.

Experts note that, no matter Georgia is dependent on Turkey, the Georgian leaders don’t shy away from the proposals to hold negotiations. They don’t rush in to demonstrate the solidarity with Turkey as Ankara would like them to do.  Georgian officials comment on the tensions between Moscow and Ankara in a very cautious way. The President, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs just refrain from commenting. Only the Vice-Speaker of the Georgian Dream coalition, Manana Kobakhidze, said in an interview with correspondents that she hoped for «a peaceful settlement of the conflict».

Some Georgians make more explicit statements. The words pronounced by Defense Minister Tinatin Khidasheli against this background were a real discord. He used hard words to express doubts about the military potential of Russia. «Is it possible to make such provocative statements in such a tense situation?» the Rector of the Diplomatic Academy of Tbilisi, Joseph Tsintsadze, didn’t hide his indignation in an interview with a correspondent of Vestnik Kavkaza. «God forbid, if Russia and Turkey don’t agree on the rules of the game in the coming days. In this case, it will turn into something worse. Georgia will suffer first of all».

He warned the Georgian government about the danger of confrontational rhetoric. According to him, if a war between Russia and Turkey starts, Turkish troops will invade Adjara, an autonomous republic of Georgia, including Batumi. According to him, Georgia would face horrible consequences in case a war between Russia and Turkey were sparked.

Central Asia, the far-away part of the territory neo-Ottoman Ankara claims in an effort to re-build the empire, gives Turkey a wary glance as it digs up the hatchet of war. Local leaders call for peaceful settlement and compromises between Russia and Turkey. Nonetheless, they don’t throw their support behind Ankara, especially in view of the threat to their security coming from Afghanistan. In his annual state of the nation address, Nursultan Nazarbayev, the President of Kazakhstan, clearly stated Kazakhstan’s position. «As of now, all the details are not known. But the fact is that the Russian bomber was not attacking Turkey. It did not go to Turkey. It was at war with terrorists», he said.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will make an official trip to Turkmenistan from Dec. 11 to 12. Supposedly, the government of this country will promise to deliver gas in any quantities. But it’ll be a tall order to bring this promise into life. It may take many years to overcome technical obstacles.

The world is not interested in the emergence of a new hotbed in the Caucasus. This attitude should have a sobering effect on Turkey. For instance, Russia, the United States and France, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group on Nagorno-Karabakh, said in the joint statement issued by the Heads of Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Countries, «We, the Heads of Delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries – Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov, Secretary of State of the United States John Kerry, State Secretary for European Affairs of France Harlem Desir – remain united in our commitment to mediating a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We welcome the upcoming meeting between President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan under the auspices of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs. In light of the recent rise in tensions, we appeal to the sides to re-commit themselves to the peaceful resolution of the conflict and dispel any misperceptions that they are not serious about reaching a negotiated settlement. The sides should continue discussions from the Sochi, Wales, and Paris Summits of 2014 on elements of a comprehensive settlement, and should intensify their dialogue in 2016 on the basis of proposals currently under discussion».

The wording of the statement is absolutely clear. But will it placate the Sublime Porte? Erdogan affirms he enjoys global support. In fact, he himself has become a problem for the whole world.

The plan provides for the establishment of 17 security zones, 11 logistics bases and six refugee camps. The operation will be held in the first two weeks of December. 

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu responded to the possibility of Turkish ground forces entering Syria to fight the Islamic State with a tentative, but positive, answer. 

«[A] ground forces [campaign] is something which we have to talk [about] together and share. As I told you in our last interview, there’s a need [for] an integrated strategy, including an air campaign and ground troops», he said in his interview to CNN International on November 9.

Ankara is currently preparing an analysis of the current situation in Syria and is going to address the great powers at the G20 summit in Antalya over the weekend, asking for funds to finance the plan. The Prime Minister added the caveat that «Turkey alone cannot take on this burden», but was open to joining a «coalition». «Turkey alone cannot take on this burden. If there’s a coalition and a very well designed integrated strategy, Turkey is ready to take part in all senses», Davutoglu stressed.

Turkish Hurriyet Daily cites an independent Turkish government source echoing Davutoglu’s remarks: that the Turkish government would indeed consider supplementing its airstrikes in Syria with ground troops if necessary, though there is little enthusiasm for involving the Turkish military in a ground war there. 

An indirect confirmation of the news came from the Turkish President who stressed that his party's triumph in the elections of Nov. 1 gives Turkey the chance to take big initiatives to deal with the crisis in the region. According to Erdogan, after the election result, «there is no more political uncertainty in the country».

A landslide victory in the November 1 snap election has paved the way for President Erdogan’s drive to war. Now he has ground to say the landslide victory has provided him with a popular mandate for foreign initiatives while the armed forces concentrate in the areas near the Syrian border for a possible invasion. The President is a strong proponent of «safe zones», an idea that would require US warplanes to patrol the skies over northern Syria with small groups of US troops on the ground. The plan greatly increases the probability of an unexpected clash with Russian warplanes if no security arrangements take place before the operation is launched.  

A comprehensive motion authorizing the government to deploy the Turkish army into Iraq and Syria and to allow the deployment of foreign troops on Turkish soil was approved Oct. 2, 2014 in parliament, providing the necessary legality for Turkey’s potential contribution to the international coalition’s efforts to destroy jihadists.

What drives Turkey to take such a risky action? 

The Turkey’s plan is to create a 20-mile deep ’safe zone’ along a 70-mile stretch of its border with Syria with the aim of preventing a Kurdish state in northern Syria; resisting penetration by Islamic State (IS) subversive groups and blocking the attempts of Syrian government to secure its sovereign borders.

Syrian Kurdish advances against the Islamic State have caused concern in Ankara adamant to prevent creating some sort of Kurdish state or autonomous region along Turkey’s southern border. Turkey is extremely worried about the emerging alliance between the United States and the Syrian Kurds, especially the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), a Syrian affiliate of the Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Allowing the PYD to unite the Kurdish areas of Syria would represent a threat to Turkey.  By invading Syria, Turkey may change the U.S. policy tipping the balance in its favor. Intervening in Syria could also help Turkey mitigate the worsening refugee problem. 

The country hosts nearly 2 million Syrian refugees. Ankara could transfer some of the displaced persons into a military zone across the border – namely, the 300,000 or so currently residing in Turkish camps, as well as potential future refugees. The intervention would go a long way in repairing Turkey's image in the world as voices are raised louder to accuse Ankara of being complacent against the Islamic State and other extremist groups. Targeting the Islamic State's flank, especially in the Jarabulus-Azaz zone, would greatly benefit the Turkey-friendly rebel forces in Aleppo province, enabling them to divert forces away from fighting the Islamic State to secure Aleppo city.

At that, any Turkish military operation in Syria carries tremendous and varied risks. Turkey might not be able to withstand the financial, diplomatic and military cost, with likely high casualties, of such an operation. The considerations betting against the operation include a reluctant military, lack of public support, and opposition from the Republican People's Party and Peoples' Democratic Party. The idea of military intervention into Syria is not very popular among the grassroots. An operation may backlash to unleash a wave of terrorist acts staged by Islamic State within Turkey. It could also reignite the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey’s southeast. 

A buffer zone running from Jarabulus to Azaz in Syria is a specific border area is of paramount importance to the Islamic State – its last significant link to foreign recruits and supplies. The group would offer stiff resistance. The Turkish military would have to engage in a fierce fight against an enemy proficient in the use of guerilla strikes and suicide attacks.

The IS would plan mass casualty terrorist attacks inside Turkey itself. So far, the Turkish government has been turning a blind eye on the fact that over time the group developed an underground presence in Turkey, establishing its lines of supplies and recruits coming to Syria. Large-scale terrorist attacks in cities could have a significant destabilizing effect.

The Syrian government could militarily engage the Turkish forces crossing the border through ballistic missile strikes or air raids raising the stakes in an already dangerous conflict and could draw Turkey and potentially its allies deeper into the Syrian civil war. Just hours before the Dovutoglu’s interview with CNN, the news came that the Syrian government forces achieved a big success in the four year-long war seizing the strategic Kweiris air base in eastern Aleppo province (the northern part of the country). Islamic State terrorists were either killed or sent fleeing eastward towards Raqqa. This victory diminishes the chances for Turkish troops to enter Syria unopposed. An attempt to invade the country without coordination of activities with the Syria’s government may result in direct clashes with the pro-Assad troops. The victory will certainly complicate the plans announced by Turkey.   

Jabhat al-Nusra is a powerful extremist group outside Turkish control.  Its reaction is unpredictable. Turkish military may have to face another powerful enemy of the battlefield besides the IS.

At that, international and domestic advantages could be achieved without actually going through with the intervention. At home, it is enough to convince the people that the situation is insecure enough to require strong, one-party rule. Internationally, the very prospect of intervention is sufficient to convince the U.S. to reduce its support of the Kurds, especially the PYD.

Another major issue is that such a campaign would necessitate more coordination between Russian and Turkish forces. Failure here would introduce a potentially unacceptable risk of incidents sparking a fire. For this reason, it would be right to Turkey should talk it over with Russia, Iran and Syria before actually taking any action. This would bring the two coalitions closer to benefit all, except the IS. 

* * *

If Turkey undertakes such an operation, it will have to manage multiple and varied consequences. Ankara cannot undertake a major operation alone without some kind of US support. Russia, Syria, and Iran make up another coalition pursuing the goal of liberating Syria from terror groups. Coordination is a logical step. Unilateral actions presuppose great risks. Supposedly, the Turkish government realizes that a large-scale military operation in Syria becomes an extremely risky adventure unless it is not coordinated with Russia, Iran and Syria. The need to do so is  something the Turkish officials omitted in their statements so far. The upcoming G20 summit is the right place to reach previous agreement of all actors involved before putting the plans into practice. Finally, it should be remembered that an operation in Syria without the consent of Syrian government or the approval by UN Security Council is a gross violation of international law. 

According to Turkish media, during the recent four months the Turkish General Staff of the armed forces have demanded to evacuate the guards, but the government refused to take the decision. 

Earlier there was a political scandal tied to YouTube. The conversations of Turkish officials discussing how to manufacture a pretext to invade Syria were leaked through YouTube on March 27, 2014. The details of the plan were discussed on March 13 in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by then Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, the current Prime Minister, Undersecretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Ambassador Feridun Sinirlioğlu, Deputy Chief of General Staff Yaşar Güler and Hakan Fidan, Head of Turkish Intelligence Agency. Some time after the recording was posted the access to the YouTube service was blocked. On August 5, 2013, Prime Minister Erdogan said that the «tomb of Suleiman Shah [in Syria] and the land surrounding it is our territory. We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory».

Ankara has been trying to convince the United States that it would be expedient to conduct a ground operation by Turkish army. Washington has been remaining hesitant. An invasion by a NATO member would entail many questions including the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington’s Treaty. The United States won’t be happy in case Turkey establishes its control over the northern part of Syria. 

The Turkish Prime Minister has recently returned from the United States where he took part in the session of United Nations General Assembly and held meetings with US officials. The US and Turkish governments spoke at the same time about the need to resolutely oppose the Islamic State. The United States uses weapons with capability to deliver strikes beyond the limits of local conflict. For instance, the US Air Force uses strategic bombers B-1, F-15, f-16 and F/A -18 fighters, unmanned aerial vehicles MQ-1 Predator and KC-135 tankers. For the first time the fifth generation F-22 stealth fighters took part in combat actions. Tomahawk surface-to-shore missiles were launched from submarines and surface ships in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. The area subject to strikes keeps on being extended. At first the strikes were at targets situated in Ar-Raqqah in the northern part of Syria and Abu Kamal at the Iraqi border. Later the combat area was extended to the Syrian provinces of Deir ez-Zor, Hasake, Aleppo, Idlib and Homs. 

Erdogan said that Turkey wants a «buffer zone» to be established to provide security in the north of Syria. Under the circumstances a real or simulated attack against the tomb of Tomb of Suleyman Shah and the guards may be viewed by Ankara as casus belli opening the way for an invasion of Syria. 

Now the Turkish parliament has started to debate the possibility of a ground operation in Syria and establishment of a buffer zone at the border. No doubt the plan of invasion has been thoroughly prepared. A deal on transferring Turkish hostages kept prisoners in Mosul concluded with the United States and Qatar acting as intermediaries could add some corrections to the plan. It can be conjectured that the first move would be «setting free» the ceremonial guards at burial place of Suleyman Shah in the Aleppo province. 

There is a pretext for Turkish intervention into Syria. At that the plan worked out by Washington and Turkey may hit snags. The location of the «Turk’s tomb» as it is called in Syria is located at the distance of 35 kilometers from the border. It presupposes the establishment of a buffer zone between the two states. Turkey can move a few army brigades deep into the Syrian territory but it would require the support of NATO to maintain and protect the contingent which undoubtedly would be perceived as an occupying force committing an act of aggression by Damascus and its allies. 

There is another aspect to be taken into consideration by the Turkish government before taking the final decision. The move will certainly exacerbate the already strained relations with Iran. Tehran has already refused to discuss a «silent pact» to divide the «spheres of influence» in Syria and Iraq.