The Race Toward January 20th
The year 2024 was largely dominated by the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon, and in mid-summer attention started to shift toward the US presidential election.
President Biden was determined to run for a second term. A growing number of Democratic leaders urged him to leave the race. He fought them bitterly until he finally concluded that he had no other option than quitting. But that came too late. Thus, the Democratic Party not only lost the presidential election but the Republicans won the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Then a race started among the actors in the two conflict areas for better bargaining positions before Mr. Trump assumed office.
On November 17, following Russia’s launch of more than two hundred missiles and drones at Ukraine, President Biden authorized Ukraine to use ballistic missiles, or ATACMS, for strikes limited to the Kursk region of western Russia. In the following days, Ukrainian armed forces fired ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles into the area. President Biden also authorized the provision of antipersonnel land mines to Kyiv drawing criticism from arms control groups since this was against the provisions of the “Ottawa Convention” or the “Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty”.
Finally on November 21, the 1002nd day of Russia’s invasion, Russia launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile hitting Ukraine’s city of Dnepropetrovsk. The missile fired by Russia, dubbed “Oreshnik”, carried multiple warheads, known as “multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles”, and was nuclear-capable. Some saw the escalation as an effort to strengthen negotiation positions. Others saw it as a “dangerous gamble”.[i]
With less than two months at the White House, was Mr. Biden’s decision to allow Kyiv to fire ATACMS into Russia a selfless act of support? No. It was the continuation of the Biden administration’s policy to keep Russia bogged down in Ukraine no matter what the cost for Ukrainians. Would Kyiv dare fire more ATACMS in response to Russia’s Oreshnik missile attack? I doubt it because the punishment would be more severe. Moreover, Russia is now hitting Ukraine’s energy grid, and President Zelensky who has followed Biden’s lead all along is suggesting that the war could end if unoccupied Ukraine becomes NATO territory, with the return of areas currently under Russian control taken up in diplomatic negotiations, leading to comments about his readiness for concessions. Unfortunately, no matter how it is formulated, NATO membership is not in the cards.
This is what President Putin told the media on November 28, following his visit to Kazakhstan and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit:
“There are various scenarios. If incumbent President Biden believes that by escalating tensions, by intensifying the confrontation, he is paving the way for the future administration to extricate itself from this predicament, allowing the President-elect to say: “It’s not me, it’s others who have lost their senses. I have no part in this. Let’s engage in dialogue.” Certainly, that remains a possibility.
“Another plausible scenario is that the current administration seeks to create additional challenges for the future administration. That too is conceivable. However, from my perspective, the newly elected president is both intelligent and experienced, and I believe he will discover a solution, especially after enduring such, shall we say, a significant challenge as the battle to reclaim the White House.” (emphasis added)
In brief, the recent escalation in the war in Ukraine has benefitted Russia and left Ukraine with increasingly tough choices ahead of Mr. Trump’s return to the White House.
As for the Middle East, Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right government has enjoyed the unreserved support of the Biden administration since October 7, 2023. The US presidential election, the military exchanges between Iran and Israel, and the escalation in the war in Ukraine were welcome distractions for Prime Minister Netanyahu to continue striking Gaza and Lebanon at no cost. And since Mr. Trump has been a strong supporter of Israel all along, the Israeli Prime Minister had few worries, if any, about the upcoming change at the White House.
On November 26, President Biden announced the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. He said:
“Today, I have some good news to report from the Middle East. I just spoke with the prime minister of Israel and Lebanon, and I’m pleased to announce that their governments have accepted the United States’ proposal to end the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And I want to thank President Macron of France for his partnership in reaching this moment.”
Could Israel agree to a ceasefire with Lebanon had the International Criminal Court (ICC) not issued arrest warrants for Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant? I do not think so. To put it bluntly, it was neither Mr. Biden nor Mr. Macron but the ICC judges who finally convinced Mr. Netanyahu that it was time to show some restraint, somewhere. And his choice was Lebanon because he still wants to have a free hand in the Gaza Strip. And at least two hundred people were killed in Israeli airstrikes on northern Gaza Saturday.
It is worth mentioning in this connection that after the ICC issued the arrest warrants, French officials said that Paris is committed to international justice. Later, however, the French Foreign Ministry issued a statement that reversed/clarified the position of France. It said that the Israeli leaders were covered by immunity rules because Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and triggered a call by the outgoing European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on all EU member states to respect the decisions of the International Criminal Court.
Last week’s biggest surprise was the attack by “Syrian opposition groups” on Aleppo. The main group is the jihadist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a faction linked to Al Qaeda. Some Western news outlets have said that rebel groups supported by Ankara, at least some of them, also took part in the attack. Some Russian ones were critical of Türkiye.
The spokesperson of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to a question, said that in line with “Türkiye’s commitment to Syria’s unity and territorial integrity”, and Türkiye’s priority to fight against terrorism, Ankara is following the developments closely.[ii]
According to the spokesperson, Türkiye has warned on various international platforms that the recent attacks on Idlib have reached a level that undermined the spirit and implementation of the Astana agreements and emphasized that these attacks must come to an end.
Does this mean that in Ankara’s view, Damascus provoked the rebel offensive? Yes. In other words, the rebel offensive is understandable and only to be expected, if not more.
Regardless, Ankara’s leading role in the regime change project in Syria, and its references to Syria’s territorial integrity constitute a huge contradiction. If the Turkish government is now faced with a difficult situation this is mostly its own making.[iii]
The only high-level statement from the AKP government so far has come from Foreign Minister Fidan. He said that Türkiye is not involved in the clashes in Syria and is taking the necessary measures to prevent an influx of refugees. But information from “reliable sources” comes in abundance. For example, Anadolu Agency, a state-run news agency, reported the following yesterday: “The Syrian National Army (SNA) launched an operation to counter the terror group PKK/YPG’s plan to establish a terror corridor between Tel Rifaat and northeastern Syria, according to security sources.” The SNA is a group supported by Türkiye.
Also yesterday, the White House issued a statement saying that “the United States has nothing to do with this offensive, which is led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a designated terrorist organization.”[iv]
Yet, the view expressed by some that Israel and the US have encouraged the rebels for a surprise offensive cannot be ruled out right off because the two countries are united in eliminating threats to Israel, curbing Iran’s regional outreach, and putting Tehran on the defensive. This started with Iraq and continued with the regime change project in Syria, an Arab country that has maintained close cooperation with Russia and Iran for years. After all, Washington partnered with the Taliban to ensure the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, why not use Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its likes as proxies in Syria? Thus, the offensive could be an attempt to oblige Mr. Trump to engage in another far-reaching Middle East project going beyond Gaza and Lebanon to redraw regional maps, perhaps even in cooperation with President Putin.
Today, Türkiye is confronted with serious internal and external problems that will inevitably impact its future. Underlying all this is our democratic decline. The only solution is a quick return to democracy. The AKP government owes at least that to the Turkish people. The AKP government owes at least that to the Turkish people.
[i] https://responsiblestatecraft.org/storm-shadow-ukraine/
[ii] https://www.mfa.gov.tr/sc_-15_-disisleri-bakanligi-sozcusu-oncu-keceli-nin-idlip-ve-mucavir-bolgedeki-gelismeler-hk-sc.en.mfa
[iii] https://diplomaticopinion.com/2024/07/08/turkiyes-overlooked-gift-to-israel/
[iv]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/11/30/statement-by-nsc-spokesperson-sean-savett-on-syria/