NATO meets to discuss the threats to Turkey from Syria.
While everyone was guessing why President Obama wasn’t on top of his game during the first Presidential debate with Mitt Romney, there is a good possibility that the Commander-in-Chief was trying to talk Turkey from jumping off the cliff of peace into the ocean of war with Syria. If such a conflagration does unfold, and Turkey has laid the ground work for such an event, an intense conflagration could be started pulling in NATO and Iran.
Turkey is mad at Syria, refugees
Turkey has made it very clear that they are unhappy with the civil war raging inside neighboring Syria. Shortly after Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan voiced opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crack down on democracy supporters in Syria, a Turkish F-4 Phantom jet was shot down by a Syrian missile in late June, 2012. By August , an estimated 5,000 refugees were flowing into Turkey to escape the conflict in Syria. Turkey has said it would cap the total number of refugees at 120,000.
Kurdistan flares up
Flag of Turkey
Amidst the civil war between the Shia and Sunnis in Syria, Kurds are taking advantage of the chaos along the border along the Turkish-Syrian border. Turkey, who has fought rebel Kurds protesting for an autonomous Kurdistan inside the country, do not want the Kurdish fighters taking advantage of the Syrian conflict’s chaos. Within less than a year Turkey is now dealing with a refugee problem, trade-smuggling issues, Kurdistan and then…
Syria chases after rebels
On October 3rd the Syrian military deliberately fired shells at Syrian rebels inside Turkey killing 5 people. Turkey immediately responded by returning fire. Turkey had changed the rules of engagement after their fighter jet was shot down to allow for return fire in such a case. The Turkish Prime Minister was quoted as saying, “These provocations against the safety of Turkey will not remain unanswered, we have responded to the attack, and bombed targets in Syria.” Two days later, the Turkish Parliament authorized cross-border military action against Syria, if deemed necessary by the government. As of October 5th, Turkey and Syria continued to exchange mortar shells back and forth
NATO
Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Under the treaty obligations of NATO, if a member state is attacked under certain conditions, NATO forces and other signatories to the treaty will come to its defense. NATO convened on October 3rd (same day as the Presidential debate) in Brussels under Article 4 of the charter which occurs when a member state feels its territorial integrity, political independence or security is under threat. NATO issued the following press report about the meeting.
In view of the Syrian regime’s recent aggressive acts at NATO’s southeastern border, which are a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies, the North Atlantic Council met today, within the framework of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, and discussed the continuous shelling of locations in Turkey adjacent to the Turkish-Syrian border by the Syrian regime forces.
The most recent shelling on 3 October 2012, which caused the death of five Turkish citizens and injured many, constitutes a cause of greatest concern for, and is strongly condemned by, all Allies.
In the spirit of indivisibility of security and solidarity deriving from the Washington Treaty, the Alliance continues to stand by Turkey and demands the immediate cessation of such aggressive acts against an Ally, and urges the Syrian regime to put an end to flagrant violations of international law.
Please note in the first sentence the Turkish – Syrian border is defined as “NATO’s southeastern border”.
Are they playing chicken?
With Syria crumbling before the world’s eyes, picking a fight with their much stronger neighbor, Turkey, is dumb. However, I will assume that Turkey wants to keep NATO in the loop not necessarily because they would need their help to wipe out Syria, but perhaps as insurance or deterrent.
One big party
The big problem is that Syria signed a mutual defense or military cooperation agreement with Iran in 2006. The agreement specifies military cooperation if there is aggression by the United States or Israel. But because the U.S. is part of NATO, that might be enough of a trigger to bring Iran into a conflict if NATO does support Turkey. We also don’t know how Russia would react because they have a naval port on the Syrian coast. Would Russia stand still has NATO decimated Syria and then filled Iran full of craters to knock out their nuclear program?
NATO bombing run over Iran
Worst case scenario is that Turkey and Syria slip into all out hostilities. Turkey calls for NATO backup and logistics. NATO’s involvement triggers Iran to come to the defense of Syria. NATO sees that the door is open and goes after Iran’s nuclear facilities under the guise of protecting Turkey.
Israeli dream come true
With out lifting a finger Israel gets Iran and its nuclear threat eliminated. It won’t be all that easy, but this is one path to the beginning of WW III. If I can put this together, the Obama White House is light years ahead of me and probably actively lobbying Turkey to restrain their actions. At the October 5th press briefing on board Air Force One, Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest had the following comments regarding the Turkey-Syrian situation
Q On Turkey and Syria — I mean, does the U.S. believe that Turkey is justified in retaliating because of this mortar attack that killed five people?
MR. EARNEST: Well, let me start by saying that the United States condemns the violence and the aggressive actions of the Syrians. We certainly express — the United States government certainly expresses our sympathy to the Turkish people for the lives that were lost.
As you know, the United Nations Security Council condemned this attack. And the North Atlantic Council at NATO issued a statement indicating that we’re going to stand with our ally, Turkey, and demand that the aggressive actions of the Syrian regime come to an end.
We also understand that the Turks have taken some actions that are designed to ensure that their sovereignty is no longer violated by Syrian aggression, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they take those actions. They’re certainly appropriate.
Q Does the U.S. support Turkey’s — the parliament’s decision to authorize a cross-border military presence?
MR. EARNEST: As I mentioned, it’s our understanding that the measures that they have taken, the steps that they have taken are designed specifically to ensure that those acts of aggression that violate the sovereignty of that nation come to an end. And we do certainly stand behind Turkey as they take that action because we believe that action is appropriate.
All tough talk, will we see action?
All statements indicate full backing for whatever action Turkey needs to protect itself. While I am not trying promote any conspiracy theory, the whole situation could deteriorate quickly sucking NATO, Iran and other countries into war. The White House has to have serious concerns about the unintended escalation of the conflict even if they do sound matter-of-fact about it in press briefings. When you consider all of this, President Obama could be excused if his full attention was not on Mitt Romney.