Turkey and the Lesser of Two Evils in Syria

Travelers cross a border between Syria and Turkey on April 18. (AFP)
Travelers cross a border between Syria and Turkey on April 18. (AFP)
TT

Turkey and the Lesser of Two Evils in Syria

Travelers cross a border between Syria and Turkey on April 18. (AFP)
Travelers cross a border between Syria and Turkey on April 18. (AFP)

If Turkey were given the choice between normalizing relations with the Syrian regime or accepting the establishment of Kurdish state in northern Syrian and on its southern border, then it will opt for the first option as "the lesser of two evils."

This was the gist of Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu's remarks last week, when he said that similar to what happened in Afghanistan, Turkey would be willing to work with the regime, without recognizing its legitimacy.

The "lesser of two evils" scenario has been witnessed before in Syria.

When ISIS swept through large swathes of the country and Iraq, western countries eased their push for the overthrow of the Syrian regime, because they believed that it would be replaced by the terrorist organization. This led some countries to stop supporting opposition factions, especially Islamic ones, and to express "concern over the resounding victory of the opposition."

Some observers even go so far as to say that then US President Barack Obama held back from striking Syria in late 2013 because he "feared for the regime, rather than fear the regime.".

Moreover, Russia intervened militarily in Syria in 2015 because it wanted to "preserve the Syrian state" and prevent its fall in the hands of ISIS, which was practically on Damascus' doorstep. Countries reportedly supported, or did not oppose, Russia's intervention at the time because they feared the "substitute" or the "lesser of two evils".

Israel was also confronted with the lesser of two evils: Iran and Hezbollah's strategic entrenchment on its northern border and the "fall of the regime" or coordinating with Russia to "revive the regime". It opted for the second choice and receiving Russian cover to cracking down on Iran and imposing its "red lines" on the Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut route. The United States supported Israel through the ongoing deployment of its forces in northeastern Syria. It too does not want Syria to fall in the hands of Iran - "the greatest evil".

As for Arab countries, some opted from the very beginning of the crisis to stand with Damascus. Others were encouraged by Tehran's expanded role and Ankara's incursions in Syria to "normalize" relations with Damascus. We are now speaking of an "Arab role" that favors the survival of the Syrian government and legitimizes it in the confrontation against the "new Persians and Ottomans" - again here opting for the lesser of two evils.

A new Turkish approach in Syria is significant due to its timing. Ankara has made numerous concessions in Syria over the past decade. It started off by demanding the ouster of the regime, before now agreeing to it playing a role at the beginning or end of the transition. It then signed de-escalation agreements and carried out exchanges sponsored by Russia and Iran.

Ankara then abandoned eastern Aleppo in exchange for breaking up the prospects of the emergence of a Kurdish state between the eastern and western Euphrates in late 2016. In early 2018, it made concessions to Moscow while it carried out its incursion in Afrin in northern Aleppo, and preventing the spread of the Kurdish "entity" to the Mediterranean. It later agreed to Moscow and Tehran arranging security meetings between head of Syria's National Security Bureau Ali Mamlouk and chief of Turkish intelligence Hakan Fidan.

Fidan and Mamlouk met in early 2020. Their meeting was preceded by security meetings in Syria's Latakia and in the Iranian capital. The meetings revealed a lot of points of agreement and disagreement. Ankara was forced to readjust its position in wake of its growing concern over Washington's support to the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and separatist leanings. This pushed Turkey to coordinate with Damascus despite its belief that the latter had in 2011 paved the way for the Kurds to expand their influence to spite Turkey and pressure it.

At the time, Moscow proposed a return to the 1998 Adana agreement that allowed Turkey to infiltrate five kilometers into northern Syria to crack down on the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Damascus, in return, wanted concessions from the "Turkish occupation" forces in Idlib, Aleppo and northern Syria.

The circumstances were not "ripe" at the time: Moscow and Ankara were coordinating in northwestern Syria, Washington and Moscow were coordinating in northeastern Syria and Arab countries wanted to compete with Turkey in Syria.

Cavusoglu's recent remarks were also made during now different circumstances:

First, Russian-American coordination collapsed due to the war in Ukraine. US National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk's plan to pressure the Kurds in return for Russia persuading Damascus to negotiate with the "separatists" and agree to a negotiated settlement also collapsed.

Second, the American deployment will persist in Syria during Joe Biden's term, especially in wake of the chaotic US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. The American deployment is seen as a victory against ISIS. The deployment is not open-ended, but it is still there.

Third, Arab countries that were seeking normalization with Damascus to compete with Ankara, are now looking for points of interest with Turkey. Syria may be one arena of interest and reports have spoken of possible Turkish-Arab construction projects in Syria.

Is Ankara ready to "cooperate" with Damascus to prevent the rise of Kurdish state that will pose a threat to Syrian, Iranian and Turkish national security?

Cavusoglu's statements and the prospects of a Syrian-Turkish security meeting are significant, especially if they are viewed in wake of the Turkey's drone strikes against leading Kurdish figures in northeastern Syria and its new operation in northwestern Iraq.



Numbers That Matter from the First 100 Days of Trump’s Second Term

US President Donald Trump looks on, on the day he welcomes the Super Bowl LIX winner, NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 28, 2025. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump looks on, on the day he welcomes the Super Bowl LIX winner, NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 28, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

Numbers That Matter from the First 100 Days of Trump’s Second Term

US President Donald Trump looks on, on the day he welcomes the Super Bowl LIX winner, NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 28, 2025. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump looks on, on the day he welcomes the Super Bowl LIX winner, NFL champion Philadelphia Eagles on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, US, April 28, 2025. (Reuters)

President Donald Trump's first 100 days back in the White House have been a demolition job — and that's a point of pride for his administration.

For the Republican administration, the raw numbers on executive actions, deportations, reductions in the federal workforce, increased tariff rates and other issues point toward a renewed America. To Trump's critics, though, he's wielding his authority in ways that challenge the Constitution's separation of powers and pose the risk of triggering a recession.

From executive orders to deportations, some defining numbers from Trump’s first 100 days:

Roughly 140 executive orders In just 100 days, Trump has nearly matched the number of executive orders that his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, signed during the previous four years, 162. Trump, at roughly 140, is essentially moving at a pace not seen since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency, when the Great Depression necessitated urgent action.

But the number alone fails to capture the unprecedented scope of Trump's actions. Without seeking congressional approval, Trump has used his orders and directives to impose hundreds of billions of dollars annually in new import taxes and reshape the federal bureaucracy by enabling mass layoffs.

John Woolley, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara and co-director of the American Presidency Project, sees "very aggressive assertions of presidential authority in all kinds of ways" that are far more audacious than anything done by former presidents. That includes Biden's student debt forgiveness program and Barack Obama's decision to allow residency for immigrants who arrived in the country illegally as children.

"None of those had the kind of arbitrary, forceful quality of Trump’s actions," Woolley said.

145% tariff rate on China Trump's tariff agenda has unnerved the global economy. He's gone after the two biggest US trade partners, Mexico and Canada, with tariffs of as much as 25% for fentanyl trafficking. He's put import taxes on autos, steel and aluminum. On his April 2 "Liberation Day," he slapped tariffs on dozens of countries that were so high that the financial markets panicked, causing him to pull back and set a 10% baseline tax on imports instead to allow 90 days of negotiations on trade deals.

But that pales in comparison to the 145% tariff he placed on China, which prompted China to fight back with a 125% tax on US goods. There are exemptions to the US tariffs for electronics. But inflationary pressures and recession fears are both rising as a trade war between the world's two largest economies could spiral out of control in dangerous ways.

The US president has said that China has been talking with his administration, but he's kept his description of the conversations vague. The Chinese government says no trade negotiations of any kind are underway. Trump is banking on the tariffs raising enough revenue for him to cut taxes, even as he simultaneously talks up the prospect of an agreement.

So far, despite the economic risks, the Trump team shows little desire to budge, even as the president claims a deal with China will eventually happen.

"I believe that it’s up to China to de-escalate because they sell five times more to us than we sell to them," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Monday.

More than 10,000 square miles of Crimea Trump said during his presidential campaign that he could quickly defuse the Russian-started war in Ukraine. But European allies and others say the US president's statements about how to end the war reflect a troubling affinity for Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Trump's peace proposal says that Ukraine must recognize Russian authority over the more than 10,000 square miles (26,000 square kilometers) of the Crimean Peninsula. Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy rejected the idea out of hand: "There is nothing to talk about — it is our land, the land of the Ukrainian people."

Russia annexed the area in 2014 when Obama was president, and Trump says he's simply being realistic about its future.

The four meetings that Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, has had with Putin have yet to produce a trustworthy framework for the deal that Trump wants to deliver.

After recent Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and towns, Trump posted on social media that perhaps Putin "doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along."

Over 2,000 more Palestinians in Gaza dead Trump was eager to take credit for an "epic ceasefire" agreement in the Israel-Hamas war in order to restart the release of hostages taken in Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack. But the ceasefire ended in March, and more than 2,000 Palestinians have died since the temporary truce collapsed. Palestinian officials have put the total number of deaths above 52,200. Food, fuel and medicine have not entered the Gaza Strip for almost 60 days.

Trump said in February that he would remove the Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and relocate them elsewhere, suggesting that the United States could take over the area, level the destroyed buildings and construct a luxurious "Riviera of the Middle East."

Roughly 280,000 federal job losses The Department of Government Efficiency, led by tech billionaire and adviser Elon Musk, is dramatically shrinking the government workforce. Across all agencies, there have been about 60,000 firings, including at the IRS, which might make it harder to collect taxes and reduce the budget deficit. Another 75,000 federal workers accepted administration buyout offers. And the Trump administration has floated at least another 145,000 job cuts.

Those estimated job losses don't include the possible layoffs and hiring freezes at nonprofits, government contractors and universities that had their federal funding frozen by the Trump administration.

The federal government had about 3 million federal employees, including at the US Postal Service, when Trump became president, according to the Labor Department.

139,000 deportations The Trump administration says it has deported 139,000 people who were in the United States without proper legal authority. Trump’s first months also have produced a sharp drop in crossings at the Southwest border, with Border Patrol tracking 7,181 encounters in March, down from 137,473 the same month last year.

Deportations have occasionally lagged behind Biden’s numbers, but Trump officials reject the comparison as not "apples to apples" because fewer people are crossing the border now.

The administration maintains that it's getting rid of violent and dangerous criminals. But many migrants who assert their innocence have been deported without due process.

In April, the Supreme Court directed the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return to the US of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvador citizen who was deported to his home country. Abrego Garcia had been living in Maryland and had an immigration court order preventing his deportation to his native country over fears he would face persecution from local gangs. So far, Abrego Garcia remains held in a Salvadoran prison.

Trump said last week that he won the presidential election on the promise of deportations and that the courts are interfering with his efforts.

"We’re getting them out, and a judge can say, ‘No, you have to have a trial,’" Trump said. "The trial's going to take two years, and now we’re going to have a very dangerous country if we’re not allowed to do what we’re entitled to do."