At first, the declaration seemed untimely as the Syrian issue was not as dramatic as it is today. Rasmussen announced to the world that NATO was ready to defend Turkey, a member country, against all foreign aggression. It was odd to hear from the NATO secretary-general, and not from Turkish authorities, that Turkey’s security was at jeopardy because of the Syrian uprising. Right after Rasmussen’s declaration, the UK said it was ready to send troops to protect Turkey if necessary. At that time, the Turkish public was too busy counting the number of Syrians seeking refuge in Turkey’s border towns.
It is often said that NATO’s protection is indispensable because of the risk that the Syrian regime may use its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Assad will never use those weapons unless he has gone completely insane. He knows perfectly well that using WMDs will be an open invitation for an international intervention against Syria. Besides, Russia will never let Assad use them and provoke the Western world, as Moscow is determined to keep NATO out of the Syrian issue.
So what has changed now and why has Turkey asked NATO to send Patriot aerial interceptor missiles and a radar system? Maybe this is all about Turkey’s plans for missile purchases. However, the strategic ramifications of this issue should also be debated. We’ve been told that the Patriot system will protect Turkey, but nobody tells us how big the risk of being attacked is. The only thing we know is that Turkey supports the Syrian opposition, including radical groups that are not only fighting against Assad’s army but also against Syrian Kurdish groups. There are also claims that the Turkish authorities have resumed contact with their Israeli counterparts.
Everyone knows that the recent clashes in Gaza were mostly about Iran. Perhaps the Patriot system’s purpose is not to protect Turkey from Syria but also to send a warning to Iran and put Israel’s worries to rest. These missiles can even offer some kind of protection to northern Iraq.
In brief, deploying the Patriot system will affect Turkey’s positions on many fronts. Contributing to the protection of Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan by Western powers will naturally irritate Iran and Russia.
Accepting NATO’s help is an important strategic decision. After such a decision, it is no longer possible to expect that Turkey’s relations with “killjoy” countries will go on as usual.
Turkey has recently sent divergent signals about the region’s important issues, which has created some confusion in foreign capitals. As of now, Turkey has two possible paths to follow: first, acting completely like a US ally; or act as a maintainer of balance between the US and Russia. The Barack Obama administration would prefer the second option, but if the US fears that Turkey is getting too close to the Islamic governments in the Middle East, it may ask Ankara to clarify its position. It seems that the Turkish government, too, is mostly in favor of the second option but the recently taken decisions are not the way to do it.
The Patriot decision begs many questions. We know that in Turkey decisions are being taken by the government, but are there still elements within the state mechanism that try to twist these decisions? Are these elements in contact with the “other” US, over which Obama does not have total control? Is this strand of Turkish-US relations maintained mainly through NATO? I’m not sure about the answers. What I am sure of is that one has to look at the European powers too when forging Turkey’s foreign policy.