International parties that intervened in the crisis in Syria seek to perpetuate the Turkish-Kurdish conflicts to drain Ankara’s military power and curb its influence in the country. The aim is to exclude Ankara from equations for sharing spheres of influence in post-conflict Syria. At the same time, Turkey seeks to get a foothold for its forces inside Syria and seize control of areas along the Syrian border from the Kurdish People's Protection Units while also establishing sustainable military supply lines to back Syrian factions loyal to Turkey.

This article assesses the dimensions of Turkey’s intervention, now in its fourth week, and tackles the goals of its current operation and the most prominent political consequences as well as factors affecting its future.

Goals of Turkey’s Intervention

Afrin province has been under the Kurdish rule since March 2013 and is known as Rojava, the Kurdish word for "West",  indicating West Kurdistan. Elections, which were scheduled in January, were postponed because of Turkey’s military attack. 

Reasons behind Turkey’s intervention in Afrin can be outlined as follows:

1- Reducing threats posed by the Kurds. Turkey fears that international recognition of an autonomous rule by the Democratic Union Party in a federal Syria can weaken its efforts to eliminate the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) which has been fighting the Turkish state for decades.

Turkey’s military operation comes after the United States, in January, announced its support  for plans to set up a border force of 30,000 personnel to enforce security in Kurdish-held areas on Syria’s border with Turkey and Iraq. The announcement prompted Turkey’s resentment and strong opposition. On January 21, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim claimed that the operation is intended to guarantee Turkey’s security and protect Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens from terrorist organizations. Haberturk quoted Yildirim as saying that Turkey’s operation in Afrin, northern Syria, aims to create a security zone about 30 kilometers deep inside Syria. On the same day, the Turkish Army issued a statement saying that the targets include the hideouts and arms depots used by the militants.

2- Winning 2019 elections. The operation is a tool that Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may use in the elections slated for 2019, especially because the Kurds constitute a strong opposition force against Erdogan. However, Turkish opposition forces supporting the Kurds took advantage of the military operation to condemn Erdogan’s policy. ‎Kemal Kilicdaroglu, criticized his country’s foreign policy and said that it has jumped in “a swamp”, adding that Turkey has never been alone at international circles as it is now. Moreover, Hurriyet Daily News reported that Turkish authorities detained 11 top members of the Medical Association, including its head, for criticizing the military operation saying “No to war, peace now and everywhere.” Thirteen people were arrested for backing these doctors. The Turkish Ministry of the Interior, in a February 5, 2018 statement, said that since the beginning of Operation Olive Branch, 449 people were arrested for spreading terrorist propaganda on the social media, and 124 others for participating in the protests.

Positions of Involved Parties

It can be said that determinants of international positions on Turkey’s military intervention in Afrin revolve primarily around the management of a highly-sensitive and highly-complex balance of influence between parties to the crisis in Syria, and the redrawing of the crisis.

The following are the key actors’ positions on the offensive:

1- Russia’s interests. Russia declared a position of non-interference on Turkey’s operation withdrawing its troops and opening Syrian airspace for the Turkish warplanes to carry out the attack on Afrin. Russia’s new position came after it made efforts to persuade the Kurds to relinquish control over their security and border in favor of the regime of Bashar Assad and maintain some form of autonomy. The aim was to address Turkey’s concerns over Kurdish control of areas along its border with Syria. However, this proposal which would allow the Assad regime to regain control of more Syrian territory has not been accepted by the Kurds.

That is why Russia seeks to expand its scope of influence using Operation Olive Branch as a tool to deplete the Syrian Kurds as an effective political power on the ground, while at the same the time trying to reduce the United States’ role in settling the crisis. This bid was asserted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in an interview with Kommersant newspaper. He said, “many political scientists are asking why do we care and say that the worst is the best: let the United States prove its inability to find an agreement, (to show) its destructive role in global affairs, let it be in Iran or Syria and where the unilateral actions have already infuriated Turkey.”

It should be noted that Russia described the United States’ announcement of plans to set up a 30,000-strong border force in Syria using Kurdish militants as a bid  to isolate areas held by the Kurds. In general, Russian criticism revolved around two key goals, the first of which is to blame the United States for the outbreak of fighting in Afrin, while the second is to send a message to the Kurds that they have failed to pick the suitable partner.

2- American Coordination. Despite taking divergent positions over the Assad regime, relations between the United States and Turkey have been strained by a tug-of-war due to their different interests with Syria’s Kurds. It should be noted that after Turkey reacted with outrage to the United States’ announcement of plans to train Kurdish militants on internal security, the United States retracted the statement, with the Pentagon denying, on January 18, that it was not creating a new army or a conventional border guard in Syria. It added, “The U.S. continues to train local security forces in Syria. The training is designed to enhance security for displaced persons returning to their devastated communities.”

Despite this, Turkey went on to launch its military campaign on Afrin. Moreover, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, on January 21, stated that Turkey had warned the United States before carrying out airstrikes against the Kurdish militia in Afrin. Mattis added that the two countries “are working now on the way ahead. We'll work this out."

These statements reveal that the United States does not oppose Turkey’s offensive but Washington further stressed that it should not go beyond Afrin. On January 21, U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert stated,” We urge Turkey to exercise restraint and ensure that its military operations remain limited in scope and duration and scrupulous to avoid civilian casualties.”

3- Syrian Deal. The Assad regime is concerned because of the Kurds’ increasing influence in northern Syria, but also that the Turkish forces may not leave Syria’s territory. Although the Assad regime denies Turkey’s claims that it had warned it before the military operation, and despite it described the Turkish presence on Syrian territory as occupation and aggression, the regime has not provided material support to Syrian Kurds.

On January 21, following the launch of the Turkish offensive in Afrin, al-Assad regime’s army claimed that it recaptured Abu al-Duhur military airport, and some 300 towns and villages in the provinces of Hama, Idlib and Aleppo. One explanation has it that there was a political deal whereby the Assad regime would condone Turkey’s military intervention in Afrin and the regime’s forces would be allowed to advance in Idlib province.

Repercussions of the Olive Branch

Due to the complex terrain in Afrin, Turkey is facing difficulties in gaining total control of the area. From the repercussions of the current operation, the following stand out,

1- Turkey’s Changing Alliances. Although Turkey’s earlier statements indicated that the operation would be swift, its recent statements about forcing out the Kurds from Manbij indicate the possibility of unexpectedly expanding the operation to include new parties. For instance, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdag, in a February 4 interview with CNN Turk, warned that “if U.S. soldiers wear terrorist uniforms or are among the terrorists in the event of an attack against the (Turkish) army, then there is not going to be the chance to make a distinction at this point.”

On the other hand, Turkey’s military intervention has prompted calls by the opposition to open up to al-Assad regime. Opposition Republican People's Party leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu recently said that “if we want to be key players on the Syrian stage, then we should get initiate contacts with Assad.” At a later stage, such calls might put pressure towards developing Turkey's regional and international alliances. Additionally, Turkey represented the Syrian opposition forces to the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held last month in Sochi, Russia.

2- Unifying the Kurds. The People's Protection Units called for mass mobilization in defense of Afrin and urged all the Kurds and democracies to stand up against the Turkish offensive.  Murat Karayilan, a member of the PKK's Executive Committee, in a January 20 interview with Sterk TV interview, warned that the attack on Afrin would be seen as an attack against all Kurds, adding that the PKK would not stand by and watch. 

Moreover, the Kurds called upon the Assad regime to carry out its sovereign duties and protect Syrian territory from the occupation.

3- Relative Support for Kurds. Operation Olive Branch has earned the Kurds relative support from foreign powers such as France which seeks to play an influential role in the crisis in Syria. In an interview with Le Figaro newspaper, published on January 31, French President Emmanuel Macron said that “if it turns out that this operation takes a turn other than to fight a potential terrorist threat to the Turkish border and becomes an invasion operation, then this becomes a real problem for us.”

It should be noted that despite its criticism of the nature of cooperation between the Kurds and the United States, Russia continues to stress the need for a Kurdish role in a settlement in Syria. To make this position clear, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in statements on January 22, 2018, said that Kurds should play a role in the future political process and that this role should certainly be ensured. 

Future of Turkey’s Intervention

Influential international powers involved in the crisis in Syria seek to perpetuate the war to undermine the power of both Turkey and the Kurds. That is why the Turkish intervention in Syria is not likely to settle any of the issues of this crisis, but may lead to expanding the area of Turkey’s influence and leverage its position at talks over a final settlement. The limits of these gains are yet to be tested by any upcoming rounds of talks. 

It is hard to imagine that Turkey’s operation would be expanded to include Manbij, where U.S. troops are stationed, before the two sides reach a satisfactory deal. Some views note that U.S Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Turkey on February 15, 2018, indicates that there was an agreement about such a deal, especially after Gen. Joseph Votel, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, on January 28, told CNN, during a tour to the Middle East, that withdrawing from Manbij was "not something we're looking into.”

On the other hand, the military intervention prompted more international pressure on Turkey amid a propaganda war going on between parties to the crisis in Syria. Such a development can impact the future of the country’s regional war, especially in light of reports from NGOs accusing Turkey of killing civilians and refusing to receive those fleeing increasing violence in Syria's northwestern Idlib province.