Erdogan, the Trojan horse of terror


Erdogan-ISIS(November 22) – Love him or hate him, Erdogan has been a survivor; a hero for some, and a stick in the mud that would not go away for many more others. He has thus far managed to dodge many serious decisive moments, the last of which was the recent parliamentary elections that he won with flying colours despite the predictions of many analysts, including myself, that he was destined to lose abysmally.

After being in power for more than a decade, with all of his initial domestic financial successes and failed regional gambles in Syria, the November elections came to give Erdogan a new lifeline that he himself perhaps did not believe he was going to achieve.

With this win, Erdogan felt invincible. For an Islamist, and this is what Erdogan is, feeling invincible takes on a whole new meaning.

This is a simplistic translation of a Quranic verse: “If God is by your side, no one can defeat you” (Quran 3:160).

Erdogan believes he is invincible because he believes that he is on a mission and that God is by his side. If he had any reason to doubt this divine role he believes he has, the November election results put that doubt to rest.

It is rather difficult for a non-Muslim to imagine the impact on an Islamist’s mind to believe that he is invincible because God is on his side. It is seen as a license to do as one pleases, a carte blanche, and a mandate to act at will.

After the downing of the Russian Su-24, many conspiracy theories were proposed, and this is not unusual. The big questions that many analysts and observers tried to, and are still trying to resolve, is what made Erdogan do it and who was behind his decision.

There are two main possibilities; Erdogan either acted on his own accord or in conjunction with a second party. The second party can only be the United States. It cannot be NATO because the European side of NATO is currently bogged down in trying to establish where Europe should place its focus and action in the wake of the Paris attacks.

So did the USA whisper in Erdogan’s ear to make him shoot down a Russian jet?

If the answer is yes, then both parties, ie the USA and Turkey, would have something to gain from this action. Many theories have been put forward in an attempt to explain what America would gain, but in reality, they do not hold any ground at all given that such action can evoke a full-on confrontation between America and Russia.

Even the foolhardy George W Bush would not risk an all-out war with Russia. Why would Obama do it now and for what reason?

Obama had, and still has, his chance to intimidate Putin if he wishes to do so in Ukraine. If anything, any such intimidation would be more intimidating given the location of Ukraine relative to Russia. So why would America choose Turkey to intimidate Russia if this intimidation can be better done in Ukraine? No logical answer can be found, because there isn’t one.

Perhaps some clues can be found in the outcome of the extraordinary NATO meeting that Turkey asked for almost immediately after shooting down the Russian jet.

The NATO meeting defended Turkey’s right to protect its sovereignty. It is not unusual for an organization like NATO to defend one of its members. The subtle messages however have to be read in between the lines.

The meeting reached the conclusion that this matter was up to Turkey and Russia to resolve. Obama made it much clearer when he said that “Turkey and Russia must talk and de-escalate”.

What must be gleaned from this is that NATO, and of course America, are both distancing themselves from Turkey on this count. If Turkey wants to fight Russia, they are implying, Turkey will have to do this alone.

What does this say about the big question as to who was behind the decision to shoot down the Su-24?

There is little doubt that the decision was Turkish and only Turkish.

The self-proclaimed invincible Erdogan has taken yet another huge gamble, believing that God is by his side and that he will defeat the “infidels”.

When Turkey became a NATO member, the world was different, the power structure was different, the ideologies were different, and it is truly a comedy of errors that in the time of global war against Islamic terrorism, Turkey continues to be a NATO member when it is one of the biggest supporters of Islamism. But the West is yet to wake up.

NATO cannot abandon Turkey all out, and there is no reason for it to do so either. That said, there must be some growing European unrest, especially in France, as to how to deal with a NATO member that is inadvertently defending ISIL.

Whatever the intricate details with NATO may be, Russia knows well that Erdogan stands alone in his offensive. NATO will not support him.

The onus is now on Russia to decide how to deal with the aftermath of the downing of the Su-24. Contrary to the rhetoric of many cynics who see that President Putin has been cornered, in reality, he has many options and he is in the rightful and privileged position to be the one who can make the choice.

Russia can respond in many different ways according to her own choosing. In between the extreme options of taking it on the chin and nuking Ankara, Russia has a myriad of choices; all of which can downsize Erdogan, putting him in the corner in which he belongs.

It would be shortsighted to even think that the quick punitive measures that Russia took against Turkey are going to be sufficient. Discouraging Russian tourists of visiting Turkey and cancelling military cooperation and other similar measures, hardly constitute what one would put in the basket of a befitting punitive measure given what Turkey has done.

Any escalation resulting from a Russian “retaliation” would be unwise, and can lead Russia into a military bog that she does not need.

The deployment of the frigate Moskba with its S-400 arsenal is realistically more of a media stunt and cannot be effective if those highly effective surface-to-air missiles are to be deployed from the Mediterranean. After all, even with their enormous 10-Mach plus speed, they become virtually ineffective if used against enemy planes engaged in a dogfight hundreds of kilometes away. Such surface to air missiles will need to be planted alongside the Turkish-Syrian borders.

Moscow and Damascus should therefore continue with their resolve to free up the Idlib-Aleppo region, which is conveniently close to the Mediterranean, with a special attention and focus on moving north towards the Turkish borders. This move must be done whilst sticking to two major rules; 1) providing air defence to fighter bombers using interceptor jets which will be ready to shoot down anything that looks least suspicious, and 2) trying hard to avoid any deliberate confrontation with Turkey.

The more Turkish loyal forces currently located in Syria get pushed away north towards Turkey, the more Erdogan is going to feel most intimidated and hurt.

As Syrian troops supported by Russian air power liberate the Aleppo region, S-400 batteries will need to be deployed in those regions, on the ground, and the push to take land back from the terrorists should move east with more and more S-400 batteries deployed to eventually cover the 1000 Km border line between Syrian and Turkey. There is no better humiliation for Turkey than doing just this, without creating any reason for a major escalation which should be avoided at all cost.

Russia must also remain steadfast in her support to her key reliable partner in the war; the Syrian Army. If Russia tries to corner Turkey by way of supporting the PKK as some have been suggesting, Russia would be pushing herself into a hole that is not much different from America’s hole in its ominous dealing with ISIS.

The world is changing, and Europe is definitely the best place to witness this change. Had Erdogan decided to shoot down a Russian jet prior to the Paris attacks, he might have got some sympathy from his EU partners in NATO, but a lot has changed ever since the Black Friday of Paris and the European focus is now on fighting terrorism and curbing the influx of refugees with the full knowledge that they will be infiltrated by Islamist terrorists.

If Europe has not woken up to the fact that Turkey is and has been supporting ISIS, it must surely be beginning to realize that Turkey is the gate keeper of the so-called Syrian migrants who have been infiltrated by Islamist terrorists. Unless they are all absolute morons, someone in Europe must at least be beginning to realize that Turkey is not a strategic NATO partner, but rather an Islamist Trojan Horse.

Again, there is little doubt that Erdogan has acted alone. In his action, he is putting much at stake, including a confrontation with Russia at a time that Europe, especially France, is trying to be Russia’s partner in the war against terror, and at a time in which NATO would go out of its way to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia.

Any speculation that Erdogan was pushed by his senior partners is very irrational.

Back to how Erdogan regards himself as “the” protector of Islam and the “one” whose support comes directly from up above.

As an Islamist first and foremost and a Turkish nationalist second, Erdogan sees himself as the custodian of Islam and Muslims. He is not against ISIS in its ideology and doctrine. He is only sometimes against it when its decisions do not match his own or do not come from his command room.

He has thus far survived tumultuous events domestically, regionally, and internationally. He managed to fool the Saudis and Qataris and used their funds to establish his own dreams. He smiles to the Israelis and plays the partner game with them. He has capitalized on the NATO status of Turkey, a status it achieved when Islamist terrorism did not exist and when Turkey was a very secular country. He smiles to the Iranians and even struck huge business deals with Russia. Many find him hard to understand, because they do not really look at his Islamist agenda.

Despite many policy failures, he is still standing, but he will ultimately fall on his sword.

In downing the Ru-24, it is highly likely that he has finally bitten much more than he can chew. This is potentially the mistake of his life that will bring him tumbling down.

Give any megalomaniac enough rope, and he will hang himself. Erdogan is no exception.

*Ghassan Kadi is an analyst specializing in the Middle East/West Asia, and maintains a blog is his writing at Intibah Wakeup



Filed under West Asia (Middle East)

5 responses to “Erdogan, the Trojan horse of terror

  1. It’s beyond comprehension that suggestions of Erdogan’s presence in the International Criminal Court for his financing of ISIS are not being put forward.


    • Jerry, one of the CEO’s of an Erdogan family monopoly was a participant at last weekend’s 2015 Halifax International Security Forum (HISF). These monopolies are the subject of persistent allegations in Turkey of being involved in shipping oil by land and by sea for ISIS. Attendance is “by invitation only.” The HISF president, one Van Praagh, is former NDI country director for Turkey, senior program director for NED ad German Marshall Fund and was senior adviser to the Canadian Defence Minister, Peter Mackay. There is substantial evidence to indict US, Canada, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey et al in the International Criminal Court.

      The use of proxy mercenary armies camouflaged by a fictitious “civil war,” according to the Obama Doctrine, masks the identities of their sponsors. It cannot hide them, nor their aggression, from the light of day nor the reaches of international law.

      Aggression is a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 8(1) and Article 8(2)(g) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are crystal. The Crime of Aggression as articulated in the Rome Statute originated in the Nuremberg Principles and the United Nations Charter. The aspects of aggression as defined were originally called “crimes against peace.”

      As for the Government of Canada that allows, either wittingly or unwittingly, its citizens to ally themselves with mercenary forces attacking the sovereign nation of Syria, and now Iraq, provisions of Article 8 also apply. Article 8(1) “planning, preparation” language and paragraph 2(g) relating to “sending […] irregulars or mercenaries” should be applied and enforced.

      The accusation of committing the crime of aggression is consistent with the Rome Statute, Article 8(1) which defines it as:

      “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.” (Rome Statute, Article 8(1))

      The next paragraph, Article 8(2)(g), explains that the aggression need not be committed by the regular armed forces of a State. The sending of mercenaries also qualifies as a crime of aggression:

      The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. (Ibid., Article 8(2)(g))


  2. Talk about a historic bombshell… Wow.


  3. Pingback: Syria condemns the aggression of the Turkish regime and reaffirms its determination to face the invasion by all legitimate means | Tony Seed's Weblog

  4. Pingback: Erdogan’s long-coming reality check | Tony Seed's Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s