The war of four nations

Before hostilities openly erupt between countries we can often observe the looming warning signs. The ancients from the Egyptians to the Assyrians claimed to actually see haunting visions in the skies of approaching armies of mighty chariots and hordes of footman as an omen of impending carnage. Josephus wrote that prior to the Roman siege of Jerusalem “prodigious and incredible glowing chariots and armed battalions of soldiers in armor were seen moving about and surrounding cities through the clouds.” Alas, nowadays military planners rely on more conventional means to predict the outbreak of war. But the metrics employed are not an exact science. Analysts can point to geo-political trends that would seem to indicate tension is brewing. Intelligence can ascertain enemy troop movements and potential military strategies. However it is often a black swan event that actually pulls the trigger.

The Middle East occupies its own corner of the global chess board and predictably (because they are the major power brokers with adverse interests) a hybrid/proxy war has persisted for decades between Israel, Iran, Turkey and various combinations of the Arab States. The black swan event that was the recent proximate cause of a hot war between Israel and Iran lay in the remote corner of Gaza. Few envisaged that Hamas would be able to pull off such a daring atrocity that triggered the chain of events which led to the Israel – Iran wars. Military analysts are now pouring over the maps of Syria, attempting to scout the crucible from which war between Israel and Turkey could erupt. However it may not even be a single event but rather a combination of distinct episodes that tilt the balance to the point of no return.

Psychologists would perhaps construe the heavenly apparitions attested by the Judeans as projections of their worst fears. The prospect of confronting the Turks in battle also invokes a kind of apprehension not until now experienced with the less advanced enemies Israel has fought. But rather than preemptively pulling back from the Turkish menace in Syria, the IDF should boldly assert their red lines for their sphere of influence and let the chips fall where they may. With Iran largely eliminated from the Syrian equation Israel is the only other major power capable of curtailing Turkish expansionism. Should direct war break out, it will always be more favorable to fight deep in Syrian territory rather than on our borders.

The broader issue to consider is Washington’s agenda in all of this. To what extent does Trump want to give Erdogan a central position in the new regional configuration? It is reasonable to presume that the US is keen to prevent outright war between its allies Israel and Turkey. But how invested is the US in playing the umpire on the ground? So far the US Administration has given mixed messages. Clearly Trump wants to keep Ankara on side. Turkey’s strategic position stretching from the Bosphorous to Iraq’s northern border is crucial for maintaining regional stability. But when it comes to concrete measures like delivering to Turkey the much vaunted F-35 fighter jets, the State Department has dragged its feet. Concerning Israel, the US has thus far only issued mild rebuke of Israeli airstrikes far in Syrian territory. Moreover, it has tacitly endorsed limited Israeli incursions designed to secure the immediate Druze dominant Syrian border province. It is important to note that the US is generally otherwise heavily preoccupied with Iran (amongst other theaters) and therefore its ability to marshal a potential contemporaneous rapprochement  between Israel and Turkey may be highly limited.