What if the US or Turkey did a large intervention in Syria btwn July 2011 & August 2014?

Would Russia have counter-escalated against the Americans or Turks?

  • Yes, against either

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • No, against either

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • Yes against the Turks, no against the Americans

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • Yes against the Americans, but no against the Turks

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How would this have gone down?

If the US proposed it, would Erdogan's Turkey, Abdullah's Jordan or Maliki or Abadi's Iraq have been willing to provide logistical or more active support.

If Erdogan decided to intervene in a major way, how would western countries have reacted?

I also deliberately chose this period, because it is before Russia became a direct participant in September 2015.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It'd be useful if you outlined who the 'large intervention' is against - I can imagine a US intervention against IS, and I can imagine one against Assad, and they each have rather different implications.
 
I assume that he means against Assad.

I don't think that Russia would risk war with NATO over Syria before their intervention in 2015. Definitely not in 2011, though post-Crimea it is a bit more likely (but not by much). They might provide increased material aid and intelligence to the Syrians and Iranians, though.
 
Agreed. The quicker and sharper the response, the more political will is implied. The more political will, the less perceived upside for direct involvement.
The earlier the intervention in Syria the less likely Russia is to anything.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Turks intervene and support a Sunni Islamist government will Israel feel better of or worse off than when the area was dominated by Alawites allied to Iran and Hizballah?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Turks intervene and support a Sunni Islamist government will Israel feel better of or worse off than when the area was dominated by Alawites allied to Iran and Hizballah?

I am thinking that a Turkish-backed Sunni regime would turn out to be *more* dangerous for Israel than Israel facing the Iran-Syria-Hizballah troika as in OTL. Unless Erdogan is inclined to reach some kind of accommodation with Israel, but that seems unlikely because his brand is confrontationalism.

Things escalating with Syrian Sunnis and Turks is worse for Israel than with Iranians because the Turkish heartland and manpower is closer than the Iranian, and does not need to go quite as far or through so much desert as the Iranian to reach Israel. Plus in addition to having a large army and NATO equipment, the Turks can pose a naval threat too.
 
How would this have gone down?

If the US proposed it, would Erdogan's Turkey, Abdullah's Jordan or Maliki or Abadi's Iraq have been willing to provide logistical or more active support.

If Erdogan decided to intervene in a major way, how would western countries have reacted?

I also deliberately chose this period, because it is before Russia became a direct participant in September 2015.

Russia only intervened after Iranian general Qassem Soleimani convinced them. If either Turkey or USA intervenes, Russian intervention is out. Especially with the Ukrainian crisis coming through. However, a deal with Russia will be made by any of the states, especially Turkey. Russia gets something in return.

The results of an intervention will differ. A Turkish intervention will be bloodier and less effective than a American one. And it might take longer.

Assad however is scr*wed regardless.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks for the reply@Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Russia only intervened after Iranian general Qassem Soleimani convinced them.

interesting- any news links on this

If either Turkey or USA intervenes, Russian intervention is out.

The "first come, first served" rule, I suppose. Other respondents and voters have generally gone along the same lines.

However, a deal with Russia will be made by any of the states, especially Turkey. Russia gets something in return.

Hmm. Well there's no way Turkey gives any concessions that compromise its own sovereignty. I wonder what it gives - tacit support for an Alawite state in coastal Syria that leases naval facilities to the Russians?

The results of an intervention will differ. A Turkish intervention will be bloodier and less effective than a American one. And it might take longer.

Turkish intervention would be bloodier and less effective than American because?

a) less high-intensity combat experience
b) Turkey's been purging most of its own officer corps over this time
c) Toxic relations with the Syrian Kurds. Don't worry, we're getting to this one about right now in OTL, :(

The main things the Turks would have going for them would numbers and proximity.

I'm not saying an intervention, other than the type we are having right now, was bloody likely, but if any neighbor of Syria could have pulled it off, it would have been Turkey.

A full-on intervention for outright regime change is a bit hard to imagine, smaller powers than the US are not used to planning or committing to projects of such scale.

More plausible I would think would be occupation of a 100 kilometer buffer zone for security and refugee handling, or an occupation of the few northernmost Syrian provinces for that purpose.

---I would think that any US intervention, to be decisive, would have to have full logistic cooperation of Turkey anyway. Iraq, Lebanon or Jordan would all be more on a much less secure and more flimsy basis. A US intervention out of Iraq would not have been possible for much of this period, and in any case would be subject to sabotage. Lebanon would obviously be too contested an environment, and the logistics through Jordan would be quite a bit too circuitous. Turkey is on the shortest path between the sea and Syria other than the Syrian shore itself.
 
Top