‘Israel’ Draws a Red Line for Turkey in Syria; But Where Is Ankara’s?

News:

On August 18, the Zionist occupation bombed the Syrian Abu al-Duhur Air Base. According to “Israel”, the strike was intended to prevent Turkey from establishing a military presence there. Although Ankara denied that any military personnel were present during the bombing, Damascus confirmed that a Turkish delegation had visited the base shortly before for military cooperation.

Comment:

Those factual details do not alter the nature of the attack: the occupier made it explicitly clear that the warning was directed at Turkey. Netanyahu openly declared that a Turkish military presence south of the border would not be accepted, while Defense Minister ‘Israel’ Katz warned Erdoğan against “dangerous adventures.” The message is clear: the occupier arrogates to itself the right to forcibly restrict Turkey’s military freedom of movement in Syria.

The response from the so-called Western allies reveals the true dynamics with utmost clarity. NATO remained completely silent on this violent restriction of the military freedom of movement of one of “its most key member” states. The United States, which was certainly aware of the strike, downplayed the attack as merely an “unnecessary escalation.” Washington then acted solely as a “crisis manager” to “contain” the situation. And the military attack targeting Turkey was left unanswered.

Also, the response from Turkey’s defense pact with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia was no different: they too remained silent.

This posture explains the true dynamics behind Turkish actions. Turkey’s military presence in Syria, Iraq, and Azerbaijan, as well as its recent defense pact with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, is presented by Ankara as "strategic autonomy." In reality, however, this development is permissible to the US exclusively because it fits within the American agenda and reinforces American hegemony. The defense pact also primarily serves this American logic: it structures the region within parameters that suit Washington.

The boundaries of this “autonomy” are drawn sharply the moment Turkish actions clash with the top US priority: the military supremacy and security of the Zionist occupation. At that point, American tolerance vanishes. The fact that Ankara subsequently chooses containment and de-escalation rather than deterrence proves that Turkish freedom of movement does not stem from its own sovereign power, but exists merely within the space permitted by Washington.

This incident exposes a fundamental problem that applies to the entire Muslim world. Its governments do not lack weapons, billion-dollar budgets, or large armies. The problem is that this power is not deployed from an independent political agenda, but is only permitted to function within the strategic framework of the United States.

So, real power will not come from buying more weapons or making deals with Washington.

To break free, the Muslim world must stop acting as a manager of a foreign-led order. It must build true independence by breaking away from Western cultural, economic, political, and military dependency, uniting the Muslims and vast resources, and enforcing its own red lines; especially when it comes to Palestine. Otherwise, their armies will remain impressive on paper, but powerless in reality.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Okay Pala
Media Representative of Hizb ut Tahrir in The Netherlands