Turkish leaders have gone too far down the road in implementing the US plans for the Middle East in a bid to become the regional hegemon, a political analyst tells Press TV.
The comments come as Turkey’s parliament recently ratified a bill that authorizes the army to carry out operations inside Syria.
On Thursday, Turkish lawmakers approved the motion with 320 votes in the country’s 550-seat parliament.
The one-year mandate authorizes military operations in Syria if the Turkish government deems them necessary.
The move by the Turkish parliament comes after mortars fired from Syria killed five people in southeast Turkey.
The Turkish government has blamed the Syrian army for the loss of lives despite the fact that the identity of the perpetrators is still unknown.
Press TV has interviewed Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington, to shed more light on the issue.
He is joined by two additional guests: Saul Landau, vice chairman of the Institute for Policy Studies from Berkley, and Middle East expert Jihad Mouracadeh from the Lebanese capital city of Beirut.
What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.
Webster Griffin Tarpley do not you find it a little odd that NATO, you would think would be aching to get into Syria somehow, you would think; I mean perhaps you can shed more light on that and this could be a perfect opportunity for that, given that one of its member countries has been shelled from Syria.
But that is not the stance. Our Guest Jihad Mouracadeh also stated that.
How do you see it?
I would not be confident about the peaceful evolution of all this. I think that we have to go back a little bit.
Remember, the difference of Obama compared to Bush, Cheney is that Bush, Cheney were the advocates of direct US military action.
US would bomb and invade countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, others; with Obama it is much more nuance. It is based on deception, dissembling and treachery and this strategy is called “Buck Passing.”
Buck Passing means, if you have an ally like Turkey which is showing very disturbing signs of independent action and then you have a country like Syria which is aligned with Russia and China; the way to deal with that is not to have a direct US military attack but to play one against the other.
In particular I am thinking of 2010, Turkey was showing signs of, I think world leadership in some ways, Turkey combined with Brazil to try to cool down the question of the Iranian nuclear program and back the world away from a general war over that.
That was very positive, but that alone, to people here in Washington.
So the result of that was Obama got on the phone with Erdogan and he promised that he would make Erdogan great. That Turkey would become a regional hegemon and by the way they were going to go after Syria and the Syrian government would fall.
The Syrian government would go down like Tunisia with just a couple of days and Erdogan and Davutoglu bought into that and they have now gone way out on a limb.
I understand about 18 percent of the Turkish population is interested in military action against Syria. So there is a tremendous majority against military action but since Erdogan and Davutoglu control the main party they can get this vote, which now takes us a step further towards some larger armed confrontation.
It is beginning to look more and more like the Spanish civil war and remember if Hillary Clinton gets on the telephone with Davutoglu, she is not telling him to cool it. She is saying, ‘Assert your rights, get out and find even more.’
So because of their vanity and ambition and the related factors, Erdogan and Davutoglu have gone very far down the road and you wonder, is there a way back for them?
I would urge them to find a way back, to pull back from this. This is not in Turkey’s interest and if we get a conflict between Turkey and Syria; the one who is laughing will be the United States because they will have disposed of two countries that were resisting the imperial dictates coming from here.
Well, what will you suggest in terms of Turkey finding a way back? Do you think that is a possibility at any point?
The entire rebellion in Syria is artificial. It is fomented from the outside. There are the death squads that NATO has brought in. They have shipped them in from Libya by means of an airlift. They have gathered them from half of the world.
If Turkey would simply say that we are going to close our borders; we are not going to allow these killers to use bases inside Turkey, this would come to a rather quick end and of course Lebanon, Syria and the Kurdish entity would also have to go along. But mainly it is Turkey right now, concerning Aleppo.
If you can answer Mr. Mouracadeh there, of how much these terrorists are going to put back any form of a political resolve especially when it comes to the future of a Syrian government were there to be run if Assad was to go?
I mean do these groups not demote that fact when they keep getting added to the pot so to say?
Well, there is a violent opposition which is supported, fist of all financially and logistically, and this is done by Saudi Arabia, by Qatar, by the United Arab Emirates with the general approval of NATO.
We know that there are the CIA officers and the US Joint Special Operation Command (JSOC) people in southern Turkey that are directing traffic, they do the logistic function to organize that.
We know that there is a NATO base in Iskenderun (a southern city of Turkey near the border with Syria), where the Libyan fighters were flown in, we know that there is a place called Adana near the Incirlik NATO air force base in Turkey.
All of these are used for the logistical backup and indeed a lot of the main force fighters are foreigners.
They are people from all over the North Africa, Middle East all the way out to Pakistan, from Chechnya, all the way to Somalia.
A lot of them are there; we have had reports of even people recruited in France, right? People of the Mohamed Merah-type.
I do not think it is a question of Islamist or not Islamist. The question is that these are Saudi networks. These are Saudi networks and they are there to destroy the Syrian state.
The reason that they cannot unite is because NATO does not want them to unite. The NATO does not want a central government of Syria ever again.
They want the 300 squabbling groups, the Syrian National Council is a bad joke; the Free Syrian Army is essentially a congeries of al-Qaeda and others, of Salafis and Saudis and others.
So this is a complete mess and there is no government there; everybody can see that. There is no leader. There is no government.
The entire thing depends on foreign help, foreign logistics, foreign money and again foreign fighters.
Now of course some Syrians are then sucked in. They are drawn into this on various reasons. They have become fellow travelers. They are carried away. Some of them have no choice they are forced to do it at gunpoint.
But again the question is causality. If you cut off the outside inputs, the entire thing will calm down relatively, rapidly.
Webster Griffin Tarpley go ahead.
I am afraid there is no such a consensus in the world [as the previous guest of the program suggested] and this is exactly the point.
We had the consultative conference in Tehran, of the actual friends of Syria and essentially, the people who want to avoid military escalation.
Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Venezuela, Cuba, Kazakhstan; really more than half of the world, 30 countries, more than half of the world and they are trying to avoid the military blowup.
The NATO desire is to have this entire thing, destroy Syria and if possible, you go as far as possible in damaging Turkey.
So this rogue state… the definition of a rogue state is ‘illegitimate.’ That definition of rogue state is contrary to international law and that is a propaganda tool of the US and the British and others.
(In response to Jihad Mourcadeh) The United Nations, there is no consensus of the five permanent members about illegitimacy of rogue states; there is no such a thing.