Turkey’s Reluctant Position: Halting Syria’s Disintegration and Regional Instability

On July 22, 2025, Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister, Hakan Fidan, strongly declared the disunity of Syria by strongly declaring that Turkey will directly involve itself to ensure that militants do not establish the independence level. He was speaking when there was increasing tension in the southern part of Syria including some recent combat between Syrian Bedouin tribes and Druze militants in the province of Sweida. As much as such confrontations are seen to be internal, the decision by Fidan was taken directly against Israel with which Turkey feels is trying to destabilize Syria and further divide the country. The declaration is a bold move by Turkey on an already volatile region that is fragile politically and militarily.

The essence of Turkey interventionist policy is that; Turkey does not support dismemberment of Syria, which Turkey thinks would undermine the regional approach and offer a perfect fertile environment that bigots would use to propagate anarchy. The Turkish government feels that stability in the region and peace highly depends on the territorial integrity of Syria. In the case of Turkey, the demise of Syria would not only place the security of the region at risk but will expose it to an unstable scenario whereby the rebel forces spearheaded by the YPG can exploit the situation in an attempt to enforce their self-rule interests. YPG has been rubbing Turkey the wrong way over the years with Turkey deeming them as terrorist groups due to their affiliation with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) which has a long standing insurgency war against Turkey.

Turkey has pursued a rigorous policy of disallowing any Kurdish territorial advances in Syria, particularly those that might eventually serve as the basis for demands for an independent Kurdish state. Turkey’s fear of Syrian dismemberment is rooted in a mix of its own Kurdish separatist pressures and the general regional geopolitics. Consequently, Turkey regards any initiative toward Kurdish autonomy in Syria as an existential threat to national security.

Fidan’s statement also reflects the increasingly strained relations between Turkey and Israel. Turkey has always been suspicious of Israel’s motives in Syria, particularly after Israeli attacks on Damascus in early July 2025. Turkey suspects these attacks are just a part of a wider strategy by Israel to destabilize the region and undermine Syria. Specifically, Turkey accuses Israel of seeking to undermine Syria’s quest for peace and security, a process that would most assuredly involve the repatriation of Syrian displaced persons as well as reconstruction of the war-stricken nation.

Fidan’s rhetoric implies that Israel perceives a divided Syria as a weaker and more malleable nation that can be a regional liability, collapsing the Middle Eastern power balance. From this point of view, Israeli intervention in backing some groups, like the Druze in Sweida, is regarded by Turkey as an attempt to develop lines of division inside Syrian society so that the country becomes more susceptible to outside manipulation.

Israel’s assertions of hitting targets inside Syria to protect the Druze community are taken with suspicion by Ankara, which is convinced that Israel is playing on humanitarian interests as a cover for more profound geopolitical interests. Fidan’s assertion that the actions of Israel constitute a conscious policy of regional destabilization means that Turkey interprets Israel’s interests in Syria as being in ultimate harmony with the breakdown of the sovereignty of the country.

The recent confrontations involving Druze combatants and Syrian Bedouin tribes in Sweida point to the sensitive and precarious nature of Syria’s internal politics. Although these are not new confrontations, they have acquired more importance in the backdrop of persistent regional competition and foreign interference. Turkey has decried the violence, urging an immediate ceasefire among the belligerents. But for Turkey, the conflicts are more than a regional dispute, they are an expression of the broader geopolitical fight occurring within Syria.

Sweida conflict is also being seen by Turkey as part of a broader attempt by outside powers to take advantage of Syria’s internal fissures. For Ankara, the escalation of such tensions reflects the shortcomings of outside powers, especially Israel and the United States, in their handling of the Syrian war. Turkey assumes that the interference of such foreign powers in regional disputes is only meant to worsen instability and extend the agony of the Syrian people.

Turkey’s direct intervention in Syria, especially under the rubric of territorial integrity, is one of the most important features of its regional strategy as a whole. Turkey has consistently declared its reluctance to let Syria break apart, specifically on ethnic or sectarian lines, and is willing to resort to military force if needed to stop such break-up. This position is indicative of Turkey’s greater aspirations in the region, which are to continue having its neighbors under its sway and to prevent Syria from becoming a refuge for organizations that threaten Turkish security.

Historically, Turkey has undertaken several military operations inside northern Syria, aimed at Kurdish militia organizations and seeking to secure its border with the south. But the Syrian government has not been present in these regions for the most part, and there has been a complicated set of actors intervening, including Russia and Iran, which back the Syrian government. Turkey, on the other hand, has partnered with opposition forces and asserted the sovereignty of the Syrian government but less selectively.

Fidan’s words indicate that Turkey is willing to intensify its activities in Syria if the situation there worsens further. There is a possibility of even more active Turkish military intervention in southern Syria, especially in the wake of Sweida clashes. For Turkey, Syria’s unity is not only a national security issue but also a representation of its wider Middle Eastern strategic interests.

Though prepared for military action, Turkey still has faith in diplomatic options as a way out of the Syrian crisis. Fidan reiterated that Turkey is willing to back peace processes and diplomacy to bring stability in Syria. But, he made it clear that such attempts to disintegrate Syria by violent or separatist means will face a strong reaction.

The diplomatic-military balancing act can be considered a staple of the Turkish reaction to Syrian crisis. Though Turkey is ready to interfere in military conflict in case of necessity, it does not wish to contribute to escalation of the conflict further and preserve stability in the region. The call of diplomacy made by Fidan can be said to be congruent with the Turkish stand to play a stabilizing role in the region alongside its stance of hardline against fragmentation and instability in Syria.

The categorical Turkish rejection of any attempt at dividing Syria and the implied direct Turkish intervention will serve as a new stage in the participation of Turkey in the war in Syria. The support given by Ankara to the territorial integrity of Syria is pegged on its general approach in the region and its fears regarding the proliferation of Kurdish independence movement. One of the factors that drives Turkey towards Syria also concerns its perception on the destabilizing role of Israel in the region and its concern over greater consequences of dismembered Syria. With the conflict evolving, it is indeed certain that the presence of Turkey in the region will be a factor to reckon with when it will come to deciding the future of Syria. The statement is clear: Syrian partition is unacceptable and any kind of actions in that direction are going to be strongly opposed, as united Syria remains the most important key to security and stability in the region.