Choosing between two evils

Ankara’s changing policy toward the Syrian crisis has left everybody surprised. After the botched coup attempt in Turkey, Ankara is opting for a new approach regardless of how it is going to affect the Syrian revolution.
While Ankara’s position is still — at least verbally — against Assad’s regime, it seems that the Turkish leaders are moving toward a different reading: The rebels are not likely to win! Since the onset of the Syrian uprising, Turkey has left no stone unturned to bring about the demise of Assad’s regime but to no avail. Not only does the Russian military intervention prop up Assad’s troops, but also the United States — Turkey’s key ally — sees the situation differently. All along the crisis, Washington kept repeating one mantra: The priority is to fight Daesh. And somehow, toppling of Assad’s regime never topped the priority list.
To Erdogan’s vexation, President Obama did not buy into the argument that Assad was the magnet for terrorists. When Ankara eventually sent troops to the northern part of Syria, rebels were upbeat. But this happiness is both premature and short-lived. Far from supporting the rebels against Assad, Turkey acts to prevent dividing Syria along ethnic lines even if this means Assad’s continuation for a while. If anything, Turkey could tolerate any option except the “Iraqi” model where the Kurds enjoy an independent status.
Amid the twists and turns of the war on Syria, the Kurds in Syria are most likely to lose. They chose not to support the Syrian revolution and instead began thinking of carving out a strip in the north to connect all Kurds in one region. Of course, the Kurds in Syria could not wish for a better outcome. But it is easier said than done. An independent strip for the Kurds means a different reality for Turkey. PKK can resume its insurgency from there thus threatening the territorial integrity of Turkey. Ankara is willing to go to war to avert this outcome.
It remains to be seen how Russia and the United States will look at the ultimate objectives of Turkey. The Kurdish militias have worked closely with the Pentagon to help defeat Daesh. Hence, many pundits wonder whether Washington would scapegoat the Kurds for the need to keep its alliance with Ankara intact. Since the failed coup of July 15, the relations between Ankara and Washington soared. Adding salt to injury, Erdogan indirectly accuse the West and the United States of standing behind the coup. If anything, Erdogan’s anger against Obama centers on two assumptions: First, Obama allows for the survival of Assad when the latter was about to pack the stuff and leave. Second, Washington supports the Kurds of Syria without taking into account the core interests of Ankara. In other words, President Erdogan began to internalize that the West cannot be a trustworthy and reliable partner in the ongoing regional crises.
In brief, one should carefully examine the calculations of Ankara. It seems that Ankara began to realize that its twin objective of getting rid of Assad and preventing the Kurds from setting up a kind of autonomous zone are incompatible. For this reason, it is natural for pragmatic politicians such as Erdogan to choose the lesser of two evils.