Turkey’s Dual-Track Strategy in Syria

Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

Gregg Roman, the director of the Middle East Forum (MEF), has outlined a comprehensive strategy for fostering a democratic transition in Iran. Central to his vision is the empowerment of internal resistance movements as a means of destabilizing the theocratic regime and paving the way for a more inclusive governance model. Roman emphasizes leveraging Iran’s ethnic and ideological diversity to weaken the central regime’s grip, particularly by supporting Kurdish, Baloch, and Arab minorities who have long been marginalized. This approach could not only accelerate the collapse of Iran’s current government but also create a domino effect in reshaping the geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East. A democratic Iran, as envisioned by Roman, could potentially align itself with Western powers, thereby counterbalancing the influence of Russia and China in the region. However, this strategy necessitates careful calibration to avoid unintended consequences, such as exacerbating sectarian conflicts or emboldening extremist groups.

Simultaneously, Turkey has adopted a two-pronged approach in post-Assad Syria that highlights its ambitions as a regional power broker. On one hand, Turkey seeks to establish a buffer zone along its southern border to neutralize perceived threats from Kurdish factions, whom Ankara views as extensions of the PKK, a designated terrorist organization. On the other hand, Turkey has invested in stabilizing opposition-held areas through infrastructure development and governance support, effectively creating a sphere of influence within Syria. This dual strategy serves multiple objectives: containing Kurdish aspirations for autonomy, curbing the influence of Iranian-backed militias, and positioning Turkey as an indispensable player in Syria’s reconstruction. However, this approach also complicates relations with U.S. allies, particularly the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who have been pivotal in the fight against ISIS. The divergence in U.S. and Turkish priorities underscores the challenges of coordinating a cohesive strategy among NATO allies in the Middle East.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s rhetoric on Jerusalem further adds to the complexity of regional dynamics. By positioning himself as a defender of Palestinian rights and Islamic sanctities, Erdoğan seeks to bolster his domestic and international standing among Muslim-majority countries. His provocative statements, however, risk exacerbating tensions in an already volatile region. Jerusalem, a city of profound religious and political significance, has long been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Erdoğan’s framing of the issue as a pan-Islamic cause not only alienates Israel but also complicates Turkey’s relations with Western powers. Furthermore, his rhetoric may embolden hardline factions within the Palestinian territories, undermining prospects for a negotiated settlement. The interplay between Erdoğan’s domestic political calculus and his foreign policy ambitions illustrates the intricate linkages between national and regional stability.

In Syria’s al-Suwayda’ province, local factions are carving out a new governance model in the wake of Assad’s waning authority. Predominantly populated by the Druze community, al-Suwayda’ has emerged as a unique case study in localized governance amidst the broader chaos of the Syrian civil war. Community leaders and local militias have increasingly assumed administrative and security responsibilities, creating a semblance of stability in a fractured state. This localized approach offers valuable insights into post-conflict governance, particularly in regions with diverse ethnic and sectarian compositions. However, the durability of this model remains uncertain, given the absence of robust institutional frameworks and the looming threat of external intervention. The developments in al-Suwayda’ underscore the potential for grassroots initiatives to fill governance vacuums, but they also highlight the risks of fragmentation in the absence of a cohesive national strategy.

Finally, Israel’s strategic pivot to counter the Houthis in Yemen marks a significant evolution in its regional security calculus. The Houthis, backed by Iran, have increasingly been viewed as a direct threat to Israeli interests, particularly due to their missile capabilities and proximity to key maritime routes. Israel’s engagement in Yemen underscores its broader strategy of countering Iranian influence across multiple theaters. By fostering alliances with Gulf states and supporting localized anti-Houthi forces, Israel aims to neutralize this emerging threat while strengthening regional coalitions. This approach aligns with the Abraham Accords’ vision of a united front against common adversaries, but it also carries risks. Escalating involvement in Yemen could draw Israel into a protracted conflict, diverting attention from other pressing security challenges. Moreover, the success of this strategy hinges on sustained cooperation among regional actors, which remains contingent on aligning diverse political and strategic interests.

The Middle East continues to be a theater of complex and interwoven dynamics, shaped by the ambitions and strategies of regional and global actors. Gregg Roman’s blueprint for Iran’s democratic transition, Turkey’s maneuvers in Syria, Erdoğan’s rhetoric on Jerusalem, the grassroots governance model in al-Suwayda’, and Israel’s counter-Houthi strategy collectively highlight the multifaceted nature of the region’s geopolitical landscape. Each of these developments carries significant implications, not only for the immediate stakeholders but also for the broader quest for stability and order in the Middle East. Navigating these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of local dynamics, as well as a commitment to fostering inclusive and sustainable solutions.