The Hidden Themes Behind the Syrian Violence
The recent bout of violence in Syria is the final act of reordering in the region.
In a tone-deaf statement, strongly reminiscent of “the skirt is too small” school of diplomacy, the European Union condemned the ongoing violence in Syria, blaming it on attacks “reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.” This is of course absurd, as countless social media posts now show that the Alawites and Orthodox Christians are now the victims of strong retributive violence perpetrated by the Turkish-backed Syrian HTS government. The situation is grim, so much so that the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church called on all Syrian civilians, including minority Shiite Muslims, to take shelter in the nearest church they can find; all churches and coastal monasteries are receiving civilians, as well as the Russian bases in Latakia.
In a joint statement over X, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch called upon the Syrian government to create conditions “conducive to achieving national reconciliation among the Syrian people” and to “reaffirm the unity of Syrian territory and reject any attempts to divide it.” At the time of writing, al-Jolani has been reportedly invited to a donor meeting by the EU.
Syria’s fate isn’t new or unpredicted. The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was prophetic at her Senate hearing, when she said, “”I have no love for Assad or any dictator. I just hate Al Qaeda. I hate that our leaders cozy up to Islamist extremists, calling them ‘rebels,’ as Jake Sullivan said to Hillary Clinton, ‘Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria.’ Syria is now controlled by Al Qaeda offshoot HTS, led by an Islamist Jihadist who danced in the streets on 9/11, and who was responsible for the killing of many American soldiers.”
President Donald Trump has repeatedly echoed that exact sentiment. Recently, with the fall of Assad, he commented, “The United States should have nothing to do with it. This is not our fight. Let it play out. Do not get involved!” Previously, in a 2015 CNN interview, he said “The problem in Syria is we have no idea who the other side are. Maybe we’re better off with Assad. We give (the Rebels) weapons and ammunition but, to me, Assad looks better than the other side.” Vice President J.D. Vance said the same thing in a now-deleted tweet.
Yet there’s a hidden dynamic observable between the EU and Syria which might have long term consequences for both European and American security: Turkey has been normalized in the EU, something which has serious implications for the broader ideological project of unifying the EU as a coherent strategic unit. Turkey is the one power that has gained the most in the turmoil spanning the region from the Black sea to the Mediterranean and Aegean.
It is at its influential peak in Armenia and Syria, having defeated its arch-rival Russia in both theaters in proxy war at an enormous economic cost to itself. The internal politics of the country have reverted back to their traditional authoritarian structure. “Erdogan has shown that he is uninterested in maintaining the façade of competitive elections. Instead, he seeks the kind of autocratic system that Putin has, one with no real opposition and no electoral surprises,” a Foreign Affairs essay suggests. But in foreign policy, Turkey is perhaps at its best bargaining position vis-a-vis Europe.
Courted by the Poles, the EU ambassadors, and the French, Turkey is the only major power in the east of the continent independently capable of being a bulwark against Russian revanchism. In return it will be logical for Ankara to extract as much as possible from Europe. It doesn’t take a foreign policy realist to see that the new alignment won’t be good for Greece, Cyprus, or Armenia, and stands to break the pan-European solidarity created in reaction to Vance’s Munich Security Conference speech. Turkey won’t be providing security to Europe’s south-eastern flank without something in return.
A sign of things to come, as evident from local powers trying to hedge: A recent report stated Armenia declared itself ready to connect Turkey and Azerbaijan through electricity lines, roads, rail systems, and pipelines, at the same time that Greece has started to complain to the French about weapons sales to Turkey.
In a recent interview, John Mearsheimer said that a full retrenchment from NATO will split Europe rather than consolidate the EU. I tend to agree. A careful reading of the interview illuminates two unsaid realist assumptions: The U.S. is more geographically secure and culturally coherent. American retrenchment will not result in an American relative disadvantage, but rather an American relative power growth because older, deeper, and baser European divisions will inevitably return absent the hegemonic glue that kept it all tempered down.
American hegemony resulted in not only protectorates taking things for granted, but protectorates also forgetting what living under other hegemonic and imperial predatory powers and their established order mean. For good or for bad, they will be reminded of that, once the American umbrella recedes.
American interest in parts of Europe is strategic, not ideological. It is contingent on geography above all else. It matters not which country is ruled by whom, but rather, which region and theater is important and which ally can share burden in that theater. Things are moving so fast that it’s hard to keep track, but the hurried Polish and French rapprochement with Turkey to balance the Russians at the cost of older Franco-Greek relations show that Mearsheimer’s prediction about an intra-EU split might end up being profound. We are living through reshaping of an order that usually happens once in centuries.
The post The Hidden Themes Behind the Syrian Violence appeared first on The American Conservative.
