IN THE MAELSTROM OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

With the entry of Turkish troops into northern Iraq, ano-ther big arena of the Middle East conflict seems to have emerged. This event, which is in close relation to bloody developments in the "war of all against all" in Syria, once again exposes the approach of not only Turkey, but also of other interested states to conflicts in the hottest region of the planet.

The Ba'shiqah march of Erdogan

A Turkish tank battalion entered the Iraqi province of Nineveh and set up a camp near Ba'shiqah, which is located near Mosul. Historically, this city is one of the centres of Turko-man people living in some areas of Iraq and Syria. However, after the US invasion of Iraq, the position of the Kurdish movement, which created its national autonomy in the northern part of the country, strengthened in Mosul. By the way, at that time Turkey, headed by the ruling Justice and Development Party, did not dare to invade northern Iraq to protect the Turkomans. Shortly after the withdrawal of the US-led coalition troops from Iraq, Mosul fell into the hands of the Islamic State terrorist organization, which turned this city into one of its centres. It is the fight against Islamic State that Ankara used to substantiate the decision it took a few days ago to enter northern Iraq, or rather the need to protect the Turkish instructors who train fighters of the Kurdish people's militia fighting Islamic State. A similar position was expressed by the head of the Kurdish autonomy of Iraq, Masud Barzani, during his visit to Turkey. "The rotation of Turkish troops in the Mosul area is wrongly perceived, and the problem is greatly exaggerated. The Turkish military trained Arab volunteers. The delegation of Turkish top officials went to Baghdad to discuss the issue. We will not accept the violation of our sovereignty in any case. But we are fighting Islamic State and we need help from friends. These two issues should not be mixed. This issue will be resolved in the near future," Barzani told reporters after his meeting with Turkish Defence Minister Ismet Yilmaz.

According to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish troops were deployed in a base in northern Iraq at the request of the country's authorities. He referred to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. However, almost a year has passed since Baghdad's request, and a lot has changed in the regional configuration. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Iraqi leadership very strongly condemned the actions of Ankara, calling them "hostile". Baghdad said it regards these actions as occupation since Turkish troops entered Iraq without the consent of the country's leadership.

The Iraqi Foreign Ministry complained about the actions of Turkey to the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Closed consultations held in the Security Council showed that the entry of Turkish troops into northern Iraq was a surprise even for the Western allies of Ankara. It is notable in this regard that the United States actually disowned Turkey's Iraq campaign, indicating that the rotation of the Turkish military contingent has nothing to do with the international coalition's military operation against Islamic State.

Meanwhile, Russia described Turkey's actions in northern Iraq as a flagrant violation of international law. Moscow's position on this issue indicates further development of the Russian-Turkish confrontation cau-sed by the incident with the downed Su-24 bomber. Russia, which had a neutral position on previous attacks by Turkish troops on Iraqi territory, which have been repeatedly reported over the last decades, has now decided to include such actions by Ankara on a general list of facts indicating, from Moscow's point of view, the illegal activities of Turkey in the international arena.

But despite all this, the actions of Ankara clearly contain a logical chain that identifies the leitmotif of its approach to all conflicts around the perimeter of the Turkish border with the countries of the Middle East region. This is the need to foil terrorism by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is a far greater threat to Turkey's national interests than Islamic State and other terrorist groups that cover their deadly activities with slogans of religious radicalism. This is indicated by permanent Turkish military strikes on PKK positions in northern Iraq, which, of course, do not really fit into Ankara's goal to assist Kurdish fighters fighting Islamic State. However, it is the specificity of the Turkish position in relation to armed conflicts on the territory of Iraq and Syria that is rejected not only by Russia, but, by and large, by the West, which is in contradiction with the interests of the leading centres of power in world politics. It is no accident that the influential German newspaper Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten notes that the aggravation of the situation in northern Iraq, where Tur-kish fighter jets carry out air strikes on PKK positions, can cause a new front to appear in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, another extremely important aspect can be seen in the "Iraqi" motivation of Ankara. The apparent weakening of Turkish influence on the situation in Syria after Russia launched a war against Islamic State and other terrorist groups prompted Ankara to play a more active role in northern Iraq, which is currently one of the centres of both the Kurdish movement and religious extremists. At the same time, this probably does not take into account the risk of a conflict with Baghdad, which has a very negative attitude to the actions of Ankara in northern Iraq. But was the reaction of Baghdad so unexpected and could it turn Iraq into another hostile neighbour for Ankara?

The Syrian rift between Ankara and Riyadh

Turkey found itself in a maelstrom of the strategy of controlled chaos reigning in the Middle East in order to maintain the hegemony of certain global centres. Judging by Western media reports, the part of the role, which seems to have been assigned to Turkey by "the powers that be", could be its participation in sending a large contingent of ground troops to Iraq, which will also involve troops from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and the United States. This situation shows, in particular, Ankara's rapprochement with Riyadh, which is quite clearly evident in the Syrian crisis. By the way, the conference of Syrian opposition groups in the capital of Saudi Arabia, which in fact brought together Sunni political leaders opposing Assad, confirmed the demand Erdogan has been putting forward for many years. It is the need for the resignation of Assad at the very beginning of the alleged "transition" in Syria. Most experts agree that Riyadh, supported by Ankara and other allies, seeks to settle the Syrian crisis without Assad's allies - Russia and Iran. The statement of Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, who opened the conference, says a lot: "Either a political settlement through negotiations is reached in Syria and Assad leaves office, or the conflict will continue and this goal will be achieved by military means."

Thus, Riyadh actually voiced a threat: If the demand for the departure of Assad from the political scene is not complied with, use the Saudi-backed Wahhabi armed groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, which are fighting on Syrian territory and have, according to various reports, close connections with international terrorist organizations - Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. By holding the conference itself, according to a professor at Damascus University and political analyst Taleb Ibrahim, "the Saudi kingdom is trying to clean up the dossier of opposition groups from their terrorist past and present them in a new way".

However, it is clear that this approach does not suit the forces interested in another Syrian settlement, which allows for the participation of President Assad in the "transition period". First of all, Russia, which described the conference in Riyadh as a "counterproductive step" because Saudi Arabia is hosting the Syrian opposition groups "it favours".

Such different positions on the future of Syria are not only an obstacle to peace in this long-suffering country, but also threaten with unpredictable consequences for external centres involved in the Syrian crisis, including Turkey.