This article first appeared in The Edge Review

By LUKE HUNT / Istanbul
Throughout the Cold War, Turkey played a deft diplomatic hand. With neighbours like the Soviet Union and its recalcitrant regional satellites, Syria, Iraq and Iran, keeping the peace was the mantra underpinning Turkey’s projection of soft power within the politics of the region.

It was a common sense policy that earned Ankara a wealth of respect across the Middle East and beyond – until very recently. A combination of nasty domestic differences, unfettered access to oil and gas and a leader’s uncompromising ego is heralding an end to a once peaceful approach.

At the center of this policy shift is Turkey’s Prime Minister TayyipErdogan, whose formidable abilities have achieved what many once thought almost impossible. Since coming to power in 2003, he has rehabilitated a dilapidated Istanbul, brought the country’s finances under control and delivered Turkey a realistic chance of membership in the European Union.

But those accomplishments of a personality forged out of an impoverished upbringing and Islamic values have more recently been overshadowed by Erdogan’soutright belligerence, and he is thrusting his agenda onto a war-weary world.

Local headlines like: “Turkey Calls on World to ‘Walk the Walk’ in Syria” and “Turkey would join International coalition against, says Foreign Minister” are troublesome, presumptuous and smack of a desire to internationalize a tragic conflict that has already claimed some 100,000 lives.

“To say that Erdogan is an aggressive character is an understatement,” said one longtime observer who declined to be named, adding that the treatment of people who speak their mind about the government in Turkey was comparable to the way China treats its dissidents.

Syria, meanwhile, is descending into a greater and greater mess. There are more than one million Syrian refugees on Turkish soil from where the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has been allowed to operate. 

The situation has been made much worse by further allegations that the embattled government of Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons on their own people in the country’s two-and-a-half-year civil war.

Turkish Foreign Minister AhmetDavutoglu has been doing the rounds and urging military action against Syria, regardless of United Nations conventions or any decisions by the U.N. Security Council, after up to 1,000 people were allegedly killed by chemical weapons, possibly sarin gas, fired by government forces into a Damascus suburb controlled by rebels.

“We always prioritize acting together with the international community, with United Nations decisions. If such a decision doesn’t emerge from the U.N. Security Council, other alternatives … would come onto the agenda,” Davutoglu said recently.

“Currently 36-37 countries are discussing these alternatives. If a coalition is formed against Syria in this process, Turkey would take its place in this coalition.”

Washington is now convinced sufficient proof exists that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government,and international clamor for a military response is growing louder, muffling out warnings from Russia that it will act to protect what its deems as its sphere of influence.

Undeterred by Moscow’s threats, Erdogan has pushed even further. He wants military intervention and for the Syrian leadership to be put on trial for crimes against humanity. He said if the U.N. cannot agree on what should be done, he has mooted suggestions from his political corner that an alternative to the U.N. should be established.

The Turkish opposition, however, is opposed to military intervention and Erdogan’s reasoning has been sharply criticized.

With elections due next year, analysts say he fears the bloody protests which erupted in Taksim Square in July will escalate and claim his political scalp in a Turkish re-run of demonstrations that toppled governments in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

It’s what the prominent Turkish columnist Murat Yetkin referred to as the “What if it happens here too” factor.

“The other thing to consider is the Kurdish issue. That’s always been the conflict that’s consumed a lot of their focus,” the long-term observer said. “Erdogan has done a great job of resolving the differences with the Kurds — without upsetting Turkish sensibilities, which is a hard thing to do.”

Resolving the long-running Kurdish dispute was perhaps Erdogan’s greatest victory. The Kurds have renounced violence and prospered after Ankara recognized the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) rule over northern Iraq. Deals were done and Turkey now relies almost entirely on the KRG for its oil and gas supplies.

As a prominent member of NATO, Turkey’s voice has weight. However, this is often undone by old-fashioned hatreds. With the Kurdish issue under control,Erdogan has turned his attention to Egypt, where a military coup ousted President Mohamed Morsi two months ago.

Despite democratic elections that brought Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood, a hardline Islamic group, to power a little over a year ago, Morsi’s leadership looked increasingly like it was pulling the country in a conservative Islamist direction that was unwanted by the Egyptian military, Western governments, Israel and secular Egyptians. Massive protests against Morsi ultimately culminated in the military coup that ousted him two months ago.

Nevertheless, the Brotherhood has a friend in Erdogan, who blames Israel for the coup against Morsi. It was a silly statement that prompted an international rebuke. International commentator Jeffrey Goldberg described Erdogan as a “smart man with Jews on the brain” and as a “semi-unhinged bigot.”

There is no shortage of anti-Semitism among political leaders in the Middle East, including pro-Western leaders with a local agenda. U.S.-led missile strikes on Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons now seem inevitable, but “walking the walk” with Turkey on a military adventure across its border would only make an already untenable and tragic situation far worse.