ABSTRACT

Snow has fallen on the mountains you dreamed of—a Turkish saying encapsulating the paradox of achieved aspirations accompanied by unforeseen challenges. For President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, this sentiment aptly mirrors his pursuit of a transformative vision for Turkey. Over two decades of leadership, Erdoğan has engineered a meticulously layered strategy, integrating domestic consolidation, regional assertiveness, and global positioning to reshape Turkey’s role as a power in the 21st century. Yet, the realization of these ambitions is fraught with complexities, particularly as Ankara navigates entrenched domestic vulnerabilities, volatile regional dynamics, and the pressures of an increasingly multipolar global order.

Erdoğan’s geopolitical framework is anchored in a neo-Ottomanist vision—a deliberate departure from the Western-aligned secularism of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This ideological shift elevates Turkey’s historical and cultural heritage as a central pillar of national identity, projecting influence across former Ottoman territories and beyond. By intertwining Islamic values with nationalist pride, Erdoğan has crafted a narrative that resonates with diverse audiences: appealing to conservative domestic constituencies while positioning Turkey as a protector of Muslim interests globally. The conversion of Hagia Sophia from a museum back into a mosque exemplifies this strategy, signaling a symbolic return to Turkey’s Ottoman roots while asserting the primacy of Islamic heritage over secular traditions.

Domestically, Erdoğan’s policies have prioritized consolidating power through a combination of economic populism, infrastructure development, and authoritarian measures. Signature projects such as Istanbul’s third airport, expansive bridge networks, and energy pipelines symbolize Turkey’s economic ascent, portraying Erdoğan as a leader capable of delivering tangible progress. However, these initiatives also serve as mechanisms of political patronage, reinforcing loyalty among business elites and ensuring the dominance of Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP). Concurrently, the expansion of presidential powers, suppression of dissent, and restrictions on media freedom reveal Erdoğan’s intent to centralize authority and minimize opposition.

Economically, Erdoğan’s tenure has been marked by a dual strategy of fostering growth while maintaining control over key financial levers. While his administration has driven rapid urbanization and industrialization, unorthodox monetary policies—such as maintaining low-interest rates amid high inflation—have drawn criticism for destabilizing economic fundamentals. These policies, however, underscore Erdoğan’s prioritization of political expediency over technocratic governance, ensuring short-term stability that bolsters his domestic standing despite long-term economic vulnerabilities.

The Kurdish question remains one of the most significant domestic and regional challenges to Erdoğan’s vision. Domestically, the Kurdish population in southeastern Turkey faces entrenched political marginalization and economic underdevelopment. Efforts at reconciliation, such as the 2009 “Kurdish Opening,” initially demonstrated promise, allowing for cultural recognition and political dialogue. However, the breakdown of peace talks in 2015 marked a shift toward securitization, with intensified military operations and the suppression of pro-Kurdish political movements. The dismissal of elected Kurdish mayors and their replacement with state-appointed trustees epitomizes Ankara’s approach, further alienating Kurdish communities while consolidating nationalist support.

Regionally, the Kurdish question intersects with Turkey’s broader ambitions in Syria and Iraq. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition dominated by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), presents a dual challenge. For Ankara, the YPG’s affiliation with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—a designated terrorist organization—represents an existential threat. In response, Turkey has launched multiple military operations in northern Syria, aiming to dismantle Kurdish territorial gains and establish buffer zones along its borders. These actions, while addressing immediate security concerns, have drawn criticism from Western allies and strained NATO cohesion, particularly as the U.S. continues to support the SDF in its counter-ISIS efforts.

In Iraq, Turkey’s relationship with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) exemplifies the complexity of Ankara’s Kurdish strategy. While maintaining strong economic ties with the KRG, particularly in energy trade, Turkey has conducted military incursions into northern Iraq targeting PKK strongholds. These actions highlight the tension between Ankara’s reliance on the KRG as a regional ally and its determination to neutralize cross-border militancy. The delicate balance of cooperation and confrontation underscores the broader challenges of addressing the Kurdish question within a fragmented regional landscape.

Erdoğan’s regional ambitions extend beyond the Kurdish issue, reflecting a calculated effort to position Turkey as an indispensable power in the Middle East. In Libya, Ankara’s support for the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) has secured maritime agreements bolstering Turkey’s claims in the Eastern Mediterranean. These moves, coupled with assertive energy exploration efforts, exemplify Erdoğan’s drive to reshape regional power dynamics. However, such actions have provoked countermeasures from regional adversaries, including Greece, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, complicating Ankara’s path to regional dominance.

Globally, Erdoğan has pursued a doctrine of “strategic autonomy,” seeking to reduce Turkey’s dependence on traditional Western alliances while cultivating ties with non-Western powers. The acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile defense system exemplifies this approach, reflecting Ankara’s willingness to challenge NATO norms to assert its sovereignty. Similarly, Turkey’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative signals an effort to diversify economic and geopolitical partnerships, positioning Ankara as a key player in the emerging multipolar order.

Despite these efforts, Turkey’s strategy faces significant headwinds. Domestically, economic challenges—including inflation, unemployment, and currency devaluation—exacerbate public discontent. The prolonged Syrian conflict has placed additional strain on border provinces, where refugee populations and disrupted trade routes have created socio-economic pressures. Regionally, Ankara’s reliance on militarized solutions to the Kurdish issue risks perpetuating cycles of instability and undermining long-term reconciliation efforts. Internationally, Turkey’s assertiveness has drawn criticism from Western allies, complicating its efforts to balance domestic priorities with global aspirations.

Ultimately, Erdoğan’s vision for Turkey reflects a grand strategy that integrates ideological, political, and economic dimensions. By redefining Turkey’s identity, asserting regional influence, and pursuing global recognition, Erdoğan seeks to position Turkey as a leading power in an increasingly polarized world. However, the realization of this vision requires navigating a complex interplay of domestic vulnerabilities, regional rivalries, and international pressures. The stakes are immense, as Turkey’s ability to reconcile its ambitions with the realities of a fragmented geopolitical landscape will determine its trajectory in the decades to come.

Table: Comprehensive Analysis of Turkey’s Geopolitical Strategy under Erdoğan

The Calculated Vision of Erdoğan: Redefining Turkey’s Global Stature Through Strategic Realignments

Snow has fallen on the mountains you dreamed of. This Turkish saying captures a paradox Turkey now faces—having achieved the geopolitical shift of the Assad regime’s downfall, Ankara confronts a mosaic of complex challenges that threaten its regional ambitions and internal cohesion. At the forefront is the Kurdish question, an issue deeply entwined with Turkey’s historical identity, political evolution, and foreign policy. The removal of Assad has amplified the Kurdish issue, elevating it from a domestic and border concern to a regional dilemma with far-reaching implications for Turkey’s role in the Middle East. This crisis has forced Turkey into a delicate balancing act between asserting regional dominance and preserving national unity in an era of escalating uncertainty.

The fall of Bashar al-Assad presents Turkey with both opportunities and risks, particularly as it pertains to the Kurdish population across its borders. The prospect of curbing the influence of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a U.S.-backed militia with ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), represents a potential security boon for Ankara. Simultaneously, Assad’s removal creates a vacuum that Kurdish groups in northern Syria may exploit to bolster autonomy, undermining Ankara’s territorial security and fueling separatist aspirations within Turkey itself. This duality underscores the perennial tension in Turkey’s Kurdish policy: whether to address the Kurdish issue through military suppression, sociopolitical integration, or a combination of both.

Turkey’s recent gestures toward Kurdish political groups have added a layer of complexity to this already intricate issue. In October 2024, Devlet Bahçeli, an ultranationalist leader and long-time critic of Kurdish movements, proposed normalization with Kurdish factions, including the PKK. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan cautiously echoed this sentiment, distinguishing between “Kurdish brothers” and terrorist factions. This overture, though politically expedient, reflects the precariousness of Turkey’s position. On one hand, engaging Kurdish groups could quell discontent and stabilize southeastern Turkey. On the other, it risks alienating nationalist constituencies and emboldening Kurdish separatist factions, creating a volatile domestic environment.

The evolution of Turkey’s Kurdish policy can be traced through decades of oscillation between reconciliation and securitization. In 2009, the “Kurdish Opening” marked a turning point, with Erdoğan’s government initiating dialogue with Kurdish leaders and allowing cultural expressions such as Kurdish-language broadcasts. However, the initiative faltered due to mutual distrust and external pressures. By 2015, the collapse of the peace process precipitated a return to hostilities, with trench warfare erupting in southeastern Turkey. This regression was exacerbated by the spillover of the Syrian Civil War, which bolstered Kurdish militancy and territorial aspirations.

The Kurdish electorate within Turkey remains fragmented, posing a significant challenge to Erdoğan’s domestic strategy. On one side is the People’s Equality and Democracy Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish and progressive party with deep ties to Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned PKK leader. On the other are conservative Kurdish factions, historically aligned with Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), but increasingly disillusioned by his government’s securitized policies. Erdoğan’s strategy to navigate these divisions involves courting moderate Kurdish voters while maintaining support from nationalist factions—a delicate balancing act that risks alienating both camps if mismanaged.

Internationally, the Kurdish question complicates Turkey’s regional ambitions. The Syrian Democratic Forces, bolstered by U.S. military and financial support, control significant territory in northern Syria. This dynamic pits Turkey against its NATO ally, as Ankara perceives the SDF as an existential threat due to its PKK affiliations. Efforts to counter the SDF have included cross-border military operations, such as “Operation Peace Spring” in 2019, which aimed to establish a buffer zone along Turkey’s southern border. These interventions, however, have strained Turkey’s relations with Western powers and highlighted the difficulty of balancing domestic security with international diplomacy.

The Syrian transitional government under Mohammed al Sharraa introduces further complexities. While Turkey seeks alignment with Damascus to counter Kurdish militancy, the overlap of interests remains tenuous. Turkey’s insistence on neutralizing Kurdish militias contrasts with Syria’s prioritization of consolidating internal control. The potential for divergence in strategies risks creating friction, undermining Turkey’s ability to achieve its objectives in northern Syria. This delicate interplay underscores the limitations of Turkey’s leverage in a fragmented and multipolar regional landscape.

Economic factors also play a pivotal role in shaping Turkey’s Kurdish policy. The prolonged Syrian conflict has strained Turkey’s economy, with southeastern provinces disproportionately affected due to their proximity to the conflict zones and large refugee populations. Kurdish-majority areas, in particular, have faced economic marginalization, fueling resentment and undermining integration efforts. Addressing these disparities requires significant investment in infrastructure, education, and social services—initiatives that conflict with Ankara’s reliance on military solutions and nationalist rhetoric.

Symbolism and identity politics further complicate the Kurdish question. Actions such as the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque exemplify Erdoğan’s strategy of merging Islamic and nationalist narratives to consolidate support. However, this approach risks alienating Kurdish populations, whose grievances often stem from cultural and political marginalization. Balancing these competing narratives is essential for Erdoğan to maintain domestic stability while pursuing broader geopolitical ambitions.

The Kurdish question also intersects with Turkey’s relations with Iraq, where the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) serves as both an ally and a challenge. While Ankara maintains economic and security ties with the KRG, its tolerance for the PKK’s presence in northern Iraq remains a contentious issue. Turkey’s military incursions into Iraqi territory, aimed at dismantling PKK strongholds, have drawn criticism from Baghdad and strained bilateral relations. These actions highlight the regional dimension of the Kurdish issue, where Ankara’s attempts to suppress militancy often clash with the sovereignty and interests of neighboring states.

Ultimately, the Kurdish question represents a microcosm of Turkey’s broader geopolitical dilemma. Balancing domestic stability, regional aspirations, and international alliances requires a nuanced approach that transcends traditional paradigms of suppression and co-optation. For Erdoğan, the stakes extend beyond immediate political survival to the long-term viability of Turkey’s role as a regional power. Achieving this balance demands a recalibration of policies that address the root causes of Kurdish grievances while navigating the intricacies of a volatile Middle Eastern landscape.

The road ahead for Turkey is fraught with challenges. As the Kurdish question continues to evolve, it will remain a defining issue in shaping Turkey’s domestic policies, regional strategies, and international relations. The interplay of historical grievances, political pragmatism, and geopolitical realities underscores the complexity of finding a sustainable resolution. For Erdoğan, the Kurdish question is not merely a policy challenge but a litmus test for his vision of Turkey as a resilient and ascendant power in an increasingly fragmented world.

Ankara’s Calculated Responses to Kurdish Militancy: Navigating Regional Turbulence and Domestic Challenges

In October 2024, Ankara faced a profound test of its domestic and regional policies with a PKK-linked attack targeting TUSAŞ, a cornerstone of Turkey’s burgeoning defense industry. This assault symbolized more than an isolated act of militancy; it epitomized the enduring complexities of the Kurdish question and its intersection with Turkey’s broader geopolitical ambitions. The government’s response was swift and uncompromising, encompassing the removal of pro-Kurdish mayors, the imposition of trustees in Kurdish-majority municipalities, and an escalation of military operations in southeastern Turkey. These measures, while aligning with nationalist expectations, have exacerbated the polarization between the state and Kurdish communities, threatening long-term reconciliation efforts and stability.

The choice to target TUSAŞ, a vital player in Turkey’s defense apparatus, carried calculated symbolism. As an emblem of national technological and military advancement, TUSAŞ has been instrumental in Turkey’s drive for defense autonomy, particularly in the development of indigenous drones and advanced weaponry. The attack highlighted vulnerabilities within Ankara’s security framework, compelling an intensified focus on counterinsurgency measures. However, the backlash against pro-Kurdish politicians further marginalized an already disenfranchised demographic, fueling grievances that could perpetuate cycles of dissent.

At the regional level, the Kurdish question remains inextricably tied to Turkey’s strategic recalibrations in the post-Assad landscape. The toppling of the Syrian regime and the emergence of a transitional government led by Mohammed al Sharraa presented Ankara with an opportunity to reshape the regional order. Turkey’s ambition to dismantle the so-called “Kurdish terrorist corridor” extending across its southern border necessitated an intricate dance of diplomacy and military assertiveness. However, the fragmented nature of Kurdish militancy in Syria, coupled with the persistent support of the U.S. for groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), has complicated Ankara’s calculations.

The SDF, operating as a coalition dominated by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), has received substantial military aid and political backing from Washington. This support, framed within the context of counterterrorism and the fight against ISIS, remains a critical sticking point in U.S.-Turkey relations. Despite Turkey’s insistence on the YPG’s affiliation with the PKK, the U.S. has maintained its partnership with the SDF, creating a diplomatic rift that complicates NATO cohesion. Ankara’s calls for the establishment of a buffer zone in northern Syria have met with limited success, as international actors hesitate to fully endorse Turkey’s objectives.

Simultaneously, the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency introduced both opportunities and uncertainties for Turkey’s regional strategy. While Trump’s previous term offered Ankara greater latitude in conducting military operations through a reduced U.S. presence in northern Syria, his re-election has been tempered by the appointments of officials critical of Turkey’s policies. Figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, with their strong stances on human rights and Kurdish autonomy, pose potential obstacles to Turkey’s objectives. These dynamics underscore the precariousness of Ankara’s reliance on fluctuating U.S. policies to advance its regional goals.

In Iraq, Ankara’s approach has been similarly fraught with complexity. Efforts to designate the PKK as a terrorist organization at an international level have encountered resistance, reflecting the competing interests of regional stakeholders. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), led by President Nechirvan Barzani, occupies a pivotal position in Turkey’s strategy. While the KRG has served as an economic partner and a buffer against unchecked PKK influence, internal divisions within Iraqi Kurdistan and Baghdad’s sovereignty concerns have limited the scope of Turkish initiatives. Military incursions into northern Iraq, aimed at dismantling PKK strongholds, have strained relations with both the KRG and Iraq’s central government, creating a diplomatic tightrope for Ankara.

Internally, the PKK’s fragmentation has further complicated Turkey’s counterinsurgency efforts. The divergence between factions advocating political solutions and those favoring continued militancy reflects broader disunity within the Kurdish movement. Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned PKK leader, has periodically called for non-violence, but his influence appears diminished in the face of younger, more militant commanders. This generational shift within the PKK, coupled with its regional alliances in Syria and Iraq, challenges Ankara’s ability to address the Kurdish issue cohesively.

Economically, the Kurdish question imposes additional pressures on Turkey’s southeastern provinces. These regions, already grappling with underdevelopment and the social strains of hosting Syrian refugees, face compounded challenges from prolonged military campaigns and political marginalization. Ankara’s investments in infrastructure and economic incentives have been insufficient to offset the alienation felt by Kurdish communities. The lack of sustained socio-economic development fuels resentment, providing fertile ground for insurgency and undermining state legitimacy.

Turkey’s strategy also intersects with broader geopolitical currents, where its regional ambitions are shaped by rivalries and alliances. The presence of Iran and Russia as key players in Syria introduces additional layers of complexity. While Ankara has sought to align with Tehran and Moscow on issues of mutual interest, such as curbing U.S. influence in the region, divergent objectives regarding Kurdish autonomy and the Syrian transitional government have created friction. These dynamics highlight the challenge of pursuing a unified regional strategy in a multipolar environment.

The internationalization of the Kurdish question further complicates Ankara’s efforts to consolidate its domestic and regional policies. The European Union, while critical of Turkey’s human rights record, has been cautious in addressing the Kurdish issue due to broader geopolitical considerations, including migration agreements and economic ties. This reluctance has emboldened Ankara to pursue unilateral actions, albeit at the cost of international goodwill. The intersection of domestic securitization with regional assertiveness reflects a broader trend in Turkey’s foreign policy, where short-term gains often overshadow long-term stability.

In conclusion, the Kurdish question remains a linchpin in Turkey’s pursuit of regional dominance and domestic cohesion. The attack on TUSAŞ symbolized the broader vulnerabilities within Ankara’s strategy, highlighting the interplay between security, politics, and diplomacy. As Turkey navigates the complexities of a post-Assad Middle East, its ability to address the Kurdish issue will determine its trajectory as a regional power. The stakes are not merely political but existential, as Ankara grapples with the challenge of reconciling its national aspirations with the realities of an interconnected and turbulent geopolitical landscape.

Geopolitical Realignments and Turkey’s Intricate Kurdish Strategy in a Post-Assad Middle East

In the aftermath of Bashar al-Assad’s ousting, Turkey finds itself entangled in a profoundly complex geopolitical realignment. The vacuum created by Assad’s departure has redefined regional dynamics, compelling Ankara to reassess its strategies to maintain influence while addressing the long-standing Kurdish question. This pivotal moment offers Turkey opportunities to reshape its regional standing, yet the layered realities of Kurdish autonomy movements, fragmented alliances, and evolving power plays among regional and global stakeholders reveal a fraught landscape where ambitions collide with hard realities.

Ankara’s approach in Syria has always been shaped by two interdependent objectives: securing national borders from the threat of Kurdish militancy and leveraging the instability within Syria to establish a sphere of influence. Assad’s removal initially seemed to align with these goals, as the Syrian state’s centralized grip over its territories weakened significantly. The transitional administration, under Mohammed al Sharraa, symbolizes this decentralization, presenting Ankara with a pathway to mold northern Syria in its image. Yet, this fragmented political structure also amplifies challenges, as various Kurdish factions vie for increased autonomy, further complicating Ankara’s security calculus.

The most pressing concern for Ankara remains the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which continue to solidify their control over key territories in northern Syria. Despite nominally being a coalition, the SDF is dominated by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a group Ankara unequivocally links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This affiliation is not only a domestic issue but also a regional threat, as Turkey views the consolidation of Kurdish-controlled territories along its borders as a precursor to increased separatist sentiments within its own southeastern provinces. Consequently, Ankara has pushed for the establishment of a “safe zone” along the Turkish-Syrian border to both resettle refugees and neutralize Kurdish militias. However, these ambitions have met significant resistance from both regional actors and international powers, who view such actions as a potential infringement on Syrian sovereignty.

The removal of Assad has inadvertently emboldened Kurdish political aspirations, adding urgency to Turkey’s military and diplomatic interventions. Kurdish factions have sought to exploit the transitional government’s weakness, solidifying territorial control and demanding recognition of their autonomy. This situation has forced Ankara to adopt a dual-pronged strategy of direct military action and indirect pressure on regional allies. Operations such as “Peace Spring” and “Claw-Lock” have targeted YPG strongholds in Syria and PKK enclaves in Iraq, reflecting Turkey’s commitment to a militarized approach. However, these actions have drawn widespread criticism, particularly from Western allies, who accuse Ankara of exacerbating regional instability.

The U.S., in particular, remains a pivotal obstacle in Ankara’s efforts to dismantle Kurdish militancy in Syria. Washington’s continued military and financial support for the SDF, under the guise of countering ISIS, has deepened mistrust between the two NATO allies. This support underscores a broader misalignment of priorities: while the U.S. prioritizes defeating remnants of ISIS, Ankara is fixated on neutralizing what it perceives as existential threats from Kurdish forces. This divergence has manifested in diplomatic standoffs, with Turkey threatening to obstruct NATO initiatives while lobbying for greater Western recognition of its security concerns.

Compounding these issues is the complex interplay between Turkey and neighboring Iraq. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) occupies a unique position in Ankara’s regional strategy. Historically, Turkey has cultivated economic ties with the KRG, viewing it as a counterbalance to the PKK’s presence in northern Iraq. Yet, internal divisions within Iraqi Kurdistan, coupled with Baghdad’s resistance to external military interventions, have constrained Ankara’s ability to pursue its objectives unilaterally. Military incursions targeting PKK strongholds, such as in the Qandil Mountains, have strained Turkey-Iraq relations, underscoring the limitations of Ankara’s reliance on force over diplomacy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s shadow looms large over Turkey’s regional ambitions. Tehran’s alliances with Kurdish factions in Iraq and Syria, while opportunistic, complicate Ankara’s efforts to isolate militant groups. Iran’s strategic calculus often intersects with Turkish interests, such as opposing U.S. influence in the region, but diverges sharply on Kurdish autonomy. This rivalry introduces a layer of unpredictability to Ankara’s engagements, as Tehran seeks to leverage Kurdish groups to counterbalance Turkish influence while avoiding outright conflict over overlapping objectives in northern Syria.

Domestically, the Kurdish question remains an Achilles’ heel for Erdoğan’s administration. The southeastern provinces of Turkey, home to a significant Kurdish population, have long been a hotbed of political and social unrest. Economic underdevelopment, coupled with decades of securitization, has fostered an environment of deep-seated resentment. Erdoğan’s initial attempts at reconciliation, marked by the “Kurdish Opening” and peace talks with Abdullah Öcalan, have since been replaced by a hardline approach characterized by military campaigns and political marginalization. The dismissal of pro-Kurdish mayors and the appointment of trustees in their place exemplify Ankara’s strategy of suppressing political dissent, though such actions risk further alienating Kurdish communities and exacerbating existing divisions.

Economic factors also weigh heavily on Turkey’s Kurdish policy. The southeastern region lags behind the rest of the country in terms of infrastructure and economic opportunities, a disparity that has been exacerbated by the prolonged Syrian conflict. Refugee influxes have placed additional strain on these areas, creating competition for resources and inflaming tensions between Kurdish residents and Syrian newcomers. While Ankara has invested in development projects to address these challenges, such initiatives are often undermined by ongoing violence and a lack of genuine political engagement with Kurdish leaders.

The geopolitical landscape further complicates Turkey’s aspirations. The vacuum left by Assad’s removal has attracted a multitude of actors, each with competing interests. Russia’s involvement in Syrian reconstruction efforts, for example, has forced Ankara to navigate a delicate partnership with Moscow. While the two countries have cooperated on certain fronts, such as de-escalation zones, their divergent views on Kurdish autonomy and the future of Syria’s territorial integrity remain points of contention. Similarly, European actors, while critical of Turkey’s human rights record, remain reluctant to take decisive action against Ankara due to broader concerns over migration and regional stability.

Turkey’s efforts to position itself as a stabilizing force in northern Syria through reconstruction projects and refugee resettlement initiatives face significant hurdles. These programs aim to achieve dual objectives: reducing domestic pressure from the refugee crisis and cementing Turkish influence in the region. However, local resistance to Turkish involvement, coupled with international skepticism, has hindered progress. Moreover, Ankara’s focus on securitization often overshadows its development initiatives, perpetuating a cycle of instability that undermines long-term solutions.

The Kurdish question also poses broader implications for Turkey’s international standing. Ankara’s militarized approach has drawn criticism from human rights organizations and Western governments, tarnishing its reputation on the global stage. At the same time, its assertiveness in addressing perceived security threats has bolstered its image domestically, appealing to nationalist sentiments and consolidating Erdoğan’s political base. This duality reflects the broader tensions within Turkey’s foreign policy, where short-term domestic gains often come at the expense of long-term diplomatic relationships.

The post-Assad Middle East presents Turkey with a paradox of opportunities and challenges. The Kurdish question, deeply intertwined with Turkey’s domestic and regional strategies, remains a defining issue that shapes Ankara’s geopolitical trajectory. As Erdoğan navigates this intricate landscape, his ability to balance security concerns with broader regional ambitions will determine Turkey’s role in an increasingly fragmented and multipolar world. The stakes are immense, as the resolution of the Kurdish question holds implications not only for Turkey’s internal stability but also for its aspirations as a regional powerbroker in the 21st century.

Turkey’s Strategic Balancing Act: Navigating Superpower Dynamics and Domestic Pressures in a Post-Assad World

Turkey’s international position in the post-Assad Middle East is shaped by the calculated maneuvers of global powers such as the United States and Russia, both of which are pursuing agendas that frequently intersect—and conflict—with Ankara’s strategic objectives. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency has reintroduced both challenges and opportunities for Turkey’s foreign policy calculus. While Trump’s previous term offered Ankara increased latitude for military interventions in northern Syria, his re-election has brought new complexities. His administration’s continued reliance on Kurdish groups such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as part of its counterterrorism framework remains a significant source of contention in U.S.-Turkey relations. The SDF, dominated by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), is perceived by Ankara as indistinguishable from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a designated terrorist organization that poses an existential threat to Turkey’s sovereignty and internal stability.

This divergence has created a diplomatic impasse. Ankara has long argued that U.S. support for the SDF, including financial aid and military equipment, not only undermines Turkish security but also emboldens separatist movements within its borders. The United States, however, frames its alliance with the SDF as indispensable for maintaining pressure on ISIS remnants and stabilizing territories previously under jihadist control. This strategic misalignment has strained NATO unity, with Turkey repeatedly leveraging its position within the alliance to block initiatives or demand concessions, such as the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, whom Ankara accuses of orchestrating the 2016 coup attempt. Trump’s mixed signals on U.S. troop deployments in Syria further complicate matters, leaving Ankara uncertain about Washington’s long-term commitment to its Kurdish allies and the implications for Turkish security.

Russia, on the other hand, represents a different kind of challenge. As a key player in Syrian reconstruction efforts, Moscow wields considerable influence over the Assad-aligned factions and their approach to governance in post-war Syria. While Turkey and Russia have cooperated in certain areas, such as de-escalation zones and energy projects like the TurkStream pipeline, their agendas frequently clash when it comes to Kurdish autonomy and territorial integrity in Syria. Russia’s support for Kurdish groups as leverage against both Ankara and Washington introduces a volatile element into Turkey’s calculations. Moscow’s broader goal of maintaining a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean and asserting dominance in the Syrian theater often runs counter to Ankara’s efforts to curb Kurdish aspirations and assert its own influence in northern Syria.

This geopolitical tug-of-war places Turkey in a precarious position. To advance its objectives, Ankara must navigate an intricate web of competing interests, balancing its relationships with both superpowers while avoiding overdependence on either. This delicate act is further complicated by Turkey’s own regional ambitions, which frequently intersect with those of its larger allies in ways that create friction rather than synergy.

Economically, the prolonged Syrian conflict has exacerbated domestic pressures on Turkey, particularly in regions hosting large populations of Syrian refugees. With nearly four million refugees within its borders, Turkey bears the brunt of one of the world’s most protracted humanitarian crises. The economic strain is particularly acute in border provinces such as Hatay, Şanlıurfa, and Gaziantep, where infrastructure, public services, and labor markets are stretched to their limits. Ankara’s efforts to facilitate refugee repatriation are therefore closely tied to its broader regional strategy. The stabilization and reconstruction of northern Syria are prerequisites for voluntary return programs, yet these initiatives face significant obstacles. Security risks, local resistance to Turkish involvement, and the lack of cohesive governance in transitional Syrian territories complicate the implementation of these plans.

Furthermore, Turkey’s economic challenges are not confined to refugee management. The broader impact of the Syrian conflict on Turkish trade routes, agricultural output, and energy security has created additional vulnerabilities. The closure of key transport corridors and the destruction of infrastructure in Syria have disrupted trade flows, while the loss of access to Syrian energy resources has forced Ankara to seek alternative suppliers, often at higher costs. These economic pressures are compounded by inflation, currency devaluation, and unemployment within Turkey, creating a volatile domestic environment that limits Erdoğan’s room for maneuver on the Kurdish issue and other contentious policies.

Domestically, the Kurdish question remains a central axis of Turkey’s internal political dynamics, with far-reaching implications for its regional engagements. Years of securitization and political marginalization have deepened the grievances of Turkey’s Kurdish population, undermining prospects for reconciliation. Efforts to address these grievances have been inconsistent at best, oscillating between fleeting attempts at dialogue and punitive measures that alienate Kurdish communities. The dismissal of pro-Kurdish mayors and the imposition of government-appointed trustees in their place exemplify the heavy-handed approach that has characterized recent years. While these measures resonate with nationalist constituencies, they exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement among Kurds, further entrenching divisions that complicate Ankara’s ability to build consensus on a unified national strategy.

The interplay between domestic and regional Kurdish dynamics presents another layer of complexity. Kurdish factions in Syria and Iraq operate with varying degrees of autonomy and allegiance, creating a fragmented landscape that challenges Ankara’s efforts to neutralize what it perceives as existential threats. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq, for example, serves as both an ally and a rival in Turkey’s strategy. While Ankara maintains strong economic ties with the KRG, particularly in energy trade, it is wary of the KRG’s tacit support for PKK activities in northern Iraq. Military operations targeting PKK strongholds in areas such as Sinjar and the Qandil Mountains have strained Turkey-Iraq relations, underscoring the difficulties of addressing cross-border Kurdish militancy without alienating key regional partners.

Iran’s involvement further complicates Turkey’s Kurdish policy. Tehran’s alliances with certain Kurdish factions, particularly in Iraq, serve as a counterbalance to Turkish influence, creating an additional axis of rivalry. While Ankara and Tehran share a common interest in preventing Kurdish independence movements from gaining traction, their methods and priorities often diverge. Iran’s support for paramilitary groups and its broader ambitions in Syria and Iraq frequently place it at odds with Turkish objectives, highlighting the challenges of forging a cohesive approach to the Kurdish question within the broader context of Middle Eastern geopolitics.

The intersection of these factors underscores the centrality of the Kurdish question in shaping Turkey’s regional strategy and international relations. As Ankara seeks to navigate this intricate web of challenges, its ability to achieve a sustainable resolution will hinge on its capacity to balance competing interests, manage domestic pressures, and assert its influence in an increasingly polarized geopolitical environment. The stakes are high, as the outcomes of these efforts will not only define Turkey’s role in the post-Assad Middle East but also shape its broader trajectory as a regional power in the years to come.

Turkey’s response to these challenges must therefore be multidimensional, integrating military, economic, and diplomatic tools to address the root causes of the Kurdish issue while mitigating the risks posed by external actors. A sustainable resolution will require Ankara to move beyond short-term securitization measures and adopt a more nuanced approach that balances its regional ambitions with the realities of a fragmented and volatile Middle East. Failure to do so risks perpetuating the cycles of instability and conflict that have long undermined Turkey’s aspirations for regional leadership and internal cohesion.

Unveiling Erdoğan’s Grand Strategy: Reasserting Turkey’s Power in a Polarized Global Order

The policies pursued by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan exemplify a meticulously crafted strategy aimed at elevating Turkey’s stature as a preeminent regional and global power. This ambition transcends immediate political survival, delving into a far-reaching vision to redefine Turkey’s geopolitical identity and role in the world. At the heart of Erdoğan’s approach is a blend of pragmatism and ideological fervor, wherein domestic consolidation, regional assertiveness, and global positioning converge into a cohesive grand strategy.

Erdoğan’s leadership has been characterized by a deliberate effort to dismantle the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular, Western-aligned foreign policy, replacing it with a neo-Ottomanist vision rooted in the intertwining of Islamic values and nationalist pride. This ideological shift is not merely symbolic but serves as a foundation for projecting Turkey’s influence across the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond. The conversion of Hagia Sophia from a museum back into a mosque stands as a potent emblem of this transformation, signaling a pivot away from secularism toward an identity steeped in historical and religious continuity.

This redefined identity serves dual purposes. Domestically, it galvanizes Erdoğan’s conservative base, reinforcing his narrative of restoring Turkey’s cultural and political greatness. Internationally, it positions Turkey as a defender of Muslim interests, capable of challenging both Western hegemony and rival regional powers. By leveraging its unique geographic location as a bridge between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, Erdoğan aims to transform Turkey into an indispensable actor in global geopolitics.

At the regional level, Erdoğan’s foreign policy reflects an intricate balance of confrontation and collaboration. His administration’s military interventions in Syria, Libya, and Iraq underscore Turkey’s commitment to securing its borders and neutralizing perceived threats. These actions are not isolated maneuvers but components of a broader strategy to expand Turkey’s sphere of influence. In northern Syria, for instance, Ankara’s operations against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) reveal a calculated effort to dismantle what it perceives as a “terror corridor” while simultaneously asserting control over key territories. This dual objective of security and expansion underscores the complexity of Turkey’s regional ambitions.

Libya offers another lens into Erdoğan’s regional strategy. By supporting the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) against Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA), Turkey has secured maritime agreements that bolster its claims in the Eastern Mediterranean. These agreements, coupled with Ankara’s assertiveness in energy exploration, highlight Erdoğan’s broader objective of reshaping regional power dynamics to Turkey’s advantage. However, these moves have also drawn criticism and counteractions from regional adversaries, including Greece, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, complicating Turkey’s path to regional dominance.

Erdoğan’s approach to global powers further illuminates his strategic intent. Turkey’s acquisition of the Russian S-400 missile defense system exemplifies its pursuit of “strategic autonomy,” a doctrine aimed at reducing dependence on traditional Western alliances. This decision, while straining relations with NATO and the United States, reflects Erdoğan’s willingness to challenge established norms to assert Turkey’s sovereignty. Simultaneously, Turkey’s participation in China’s Belt and Road Initiative signals an effort to diversify its economic and political alliances, positioning Ankara as a key player in the emerging multipolar order.

Domestically, Erdoğan’s policies reveal a parallel ambition to consolidate power and reshape Turkey’s socio-political landscape. Through extensive infrastructure projects, such as Istanbul’s new airport and the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge, Erdoğan has positioned himself as a leader capable of delivering tangible progress. These projects, however, also serve as tools of patronage, reinforcing loyalty among business elites and local authorities. At the same time, Erdoğan has expanded presidential powers, curtailed media freedoms, and suppressed political dissent, ensuring that opposition voices remain fragmented and marginalized.

Economic policy under Erdoğan is marked by a dual focus on growth and control. While initiatives to promote industrialization and urbanization have transformed Turkey into a regional economic hub, unorthodox monetary policies—such as maintaining low interest rates despite soaring inflation—reveal Erdoğan’s prioritization of political expediency over economic orthodoxy. These measures, while criticized for destabilizing Turkey’s economy, reflect a calculated effort to sustain short-term stability and prevent economic discontent from undermining his authority.

The Kurdish issue remains a pivotal element of Erdoğan’s domestic and regional strategy. After the collapse of peace talks in 2015, Erdoğan adopted a securitized approach, intensifying military operations in Kurdish-majority areas and marginalizing pro-Kurdish political movements. This shift underscores his recognition of the Kurdish question as both a national security threat and a political challenge. Regionally, Erdoğan’s efforts to dismantle Kurdish autonomy in northern Syria and Iraq align with his broader goal of preserving Turkey’s territorial integrity while countering narratives of separatism.

Yet, Erdoğan’s handling of the Kurdish issue also reflects the broader contradictions of his strategy. While suppressing Kurdish political expression domestically, he has simultaneously sought to leverage divisions within Kurdish factions to advance Turkey’s regional objectives. This dual approach, while effective in the short term, risks deepening societal fractures and undermining long-term stability.

On the global stage, Erdoğan has sought to position Turkey as a mediator and powerbroker capable of influencing international institutions and conflicts. His administration’s active engagement in the United Nations, G20, and other multilateral forums underscores this ambition. Erdoğan’s critiques of Western-dominated structures, coupled with calls for a more equitable global order, resonate with emerging economies and marginalized nations, enhancing Turkey’s soft power.

Symbolic actions play a critical role in Erdoğan’s strategy to redefine Turkey’s identity. Beyond the conversion of Hagia Sophia, initiatives to promote Islamic education and culture reflect a broader effort to intertwine religion and nationalism. This cultural transformation aims to create a cohesive national identity that aligns with Erdoğan’s geopolitical vision, positioning Turkey as both a regional leader and a global voice for the Muslim world.

In conclusion, Erdoğan’s policies represent a meticulously crafted strategy to elevate Turkey’s status in an increasingly polarized global order. By blending ideological fervor with pragmatic adaptability, Erdoğan has navigated domestic challenges and international pressures to consolidate his power and reshape Turkey’s role on the world stage. His vision, while ambitious, is fraught with risks, as the interplay of domestic vulnerabilities, regional rivalries, and global tensions creates a volatile landscape. Nonetheless, Erdoğan’s ability to balance these competing forces will ultimately determine the success of his grand strategy and the trajectory of Turkey’s future.

Copyright of debugliesintel.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved