Alwaght- For decades, Turkish foreign policy was highly dependent on the West and was defined in line with strategies of the West. Practically, Turkey did not have any initiative in the West Asia, to the extent that Turkey's regional identity had faced a major challenge. As the AKP came in to power, the foreign policy of Turkey changed from one-dimensional pro-Western policy to a multi-dimensional one. Theorist and architect of this approach is Ahmet Davutoglu, Erdogan's foreign minister and a university professor who designed the approach in 2001 in his book "Strategic Depth". Following the unrest in Syria, it was clear that Turkey cannot be indifferent to the developments in its neighboring country. On the one hand, these developments were in conflict with the neo-Ottomanism doctrine of the AKP leaders, and on the other hand it could pose serious challenges against Turkey's national interests with regard to economic, political and security issues. Note that, in the framework of neo-Ottomanism doctrine of the AKP, one of the main objectives of the regional foreign policy of Turkey was to minimize the problems in its relationships with neighboring countries in order to cement ties with its neighbors, especially in the economic sphere and assume the role of an influential actor in the regional developments. Therefore, the unrest in Syria not only is in conflict with Turkey's foreign policy of minimizing border disputes with neighboring countries aiming to develop trade and economic relations, but also the unrest in Syria have been threatening the national security of Turkey from several perspectives, the most important of which are as follows:
1- The complex mix of Syrian ethnic and religious nature, and uncertainty of future political life of Syria and the likely division of Syria, make Turkish leaders worried about the division of Syrian Kurdistan and formation of a similar situation in Iraqi Kurdistan (i.e., formation of an autonomous region), an issue that could provoke Turkey's Kurds after a long period of peace, and once again provoke the disputes with the Kurds as a security issue for Turkey.
2- The spread of unrest to the eastern borders of Turkey, not only is in conflict with the economic interests of Turkey to develop economic ties with neighbors, but also increases the possibility of immigrants flooding from Syria to Turkey, and this can pose serious challenges to Turkey's domestic security.
3- Uncertainty about the place of Israel in future developments in Syria could change the balance of regional powers in favor of the Israeli regime and against Turkey.
No one can deny that over the past four years, the relationship between Ankara and ISIS have been significantly high. Davutoglu's statement still resonates in our ears when he said: “the Islamic State (ISIS) is an array of Sunnis and their anger is because they have been oppressed”. In his report, Davutoglu claimed that Nouri al-Maliki, former Iraqi Prime Minister was the main cause of ISIS’s growth and development, and has claimed that Nouri al-Maliki’s oppressive behavior gave rise to ISIS terrorist group. However, in four ways Ankara has granted its support to ISIS through its intelligence service (MIT). First, Turkey opened its ports for Saudi Arabia so that it can transfer weapons and money to Takfiris. Second, Turkey purchased crude oil from the terrorists, or transited it to other customers in its territory. Third, Turkey recruited extremist elements from other countries, and sent them to Syria and Iraq. Fourth, Turkey organized the terrorists and trained them a lot. The initial position of the Turkish government towards Syria was in line with the policy of mediation in regional issues to assume an important role within the framework of the new Ottomanism doctrine; which included support for reform in Syria and advised Bashar al-Assad to do political reforms in Syria. According to this strategy, in early 2011 as the unrest began in Syria, Erdogan urged the Syrian President Bashar Assad to do political reforms, and take control of the situation.
Turkey also stressed that violent methods are not acceptable in the face of democratic aspirations of people, and if ethnic and sectarian conflicts begin in Syria or harsh treatment of protesters increase, and if the central government is in a desperate situation, Turkey would take necessary measures to protect its interests and position.
Accordingly, Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) provided great aids for Assad's opponents, including training the terrorists, financial and armed support for the terrorists, hosting the opposition group in Ankara, and finally encouraged the others to attack Syria. However, these measures failed to help Turkey to fulfill the promise the AKP had made following its intervention in Syria, and this weakened the social statues of the AKP and raised some criticisms against the party. Therefore, for the upcoming election that the party was running for, they benefited the political changes in Saudi Arabia and organized new military relations against Syria, according to which the Syrian opposition had some achievements and AKP publicized them in its election campaigns. Erdogan played an important role in changing the Saudi Arabia’s approach and reminded Malik Salman that the United States is a reluctant actor in the scene and it may even enter a coalition with Iran and Syria to neutralize the threats posed by ISIS, and let Bashar al-Assad remain in office.
Following the expansion of crisis in Syria, the bilateral relations deteriorated and in early June 2011, Turkey described the events in Syria as inhuman, and said Bashar al-Assad had failed to fulfill the promise he had made about reforms. As a result, in November 2011, Turkey made a U-turn in its position and urged Assad to leave power. In addition, Turkey adopted an offensive and active stance, and hosted a number of Syrian opposition meetings. In April 2012, Turkey held the second summit of Friends of Syrian nation in Istanbul to become a key player supporting the Syrian opposition. In line with Turkish new policies, Turkey not only let the Syrian opposition to cross its territory to carry weapons in to Syria, but also went up to the stage of armed conflict with the government in Damascus.
The shift from mediation to diplomatic pressure, could be investigated from several perspectives: First, due to the revival of the role of Ottoman Empire in the framework of the new Ottomanism doctrine, and supporting those who oppose Bashar al-Assad, Turkey is trying to present itself as a pro-Islamic movement, a supporter of influential groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and use it as a means to fulfill the dream of reviving the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, to maintain friendly relations with Arab countries and access to regional markets to sell some goods to the Syrian opposition, Turkey j o i ned the Syrian opposition groups.
In line with its regional goals and policies of the western countries and the Arab League sanctions, such as financial aids to the opposition in the summit of the Friends of Syria, Turkey placed extremely high pressure on the Syrian government. During the meeting between Tunisia and Istanbul, to say that military option is on the table, shows the depth of the fierce and aggressive stance towards Syria.
