As US president Barack Obama announced the American strategy against ISIL in Syria and Iraq, understanding Turkey’s stance highlights the sharply contrasting positions of the countries which attended Paris meeting

Nidal Hamadeh

Edited and Translated by Mohamed Salami

As US president Barack Obama announced the American strategy against ISIL in Syria and Iraq, understanding Turkey's stance highlights the sharply contrasting positions of the countries which attended Paris meeting on the so-called Islamic State.

Turkey Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu expressed during the meeting his country's absolute rejection for the US-led war against ISIL, considering that such a war should have been launched against the Syrian president Bashar Assad and his army four years ago.

A French retired officer, Alan Korfees, considered that Turkey benefit mostly from the emergence and the role of ISIL, adding that ISIL debilitated the threat which Kurds has posed against it, especially that the PKK was obliged to send its elite fighters to defend the Kurdish cities in Iraq and Syria.

Korfees revealed that the Turks frankly informed the US about their absolute refusal to launch airstrikes against ISIL as they consider this will empower Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iran.

The geographical portrayal of ISIL positions of dominance in Iraq indicates clearly that its only outlet is the Turkish Anatolia which is being used to smuggle the terrorists and weapons from Turkey to ISIL which, in turn, smuggles the Syrian and the Iraqi oil to Ankara.

Well-informed sources assert that as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain are unable to launch a land war against ISIL, the US will certainly impose on Turkey to play a vital military role in the upcoming encounter.