The situation with NATO, Turkey and the Kurds in Syria is of central geopolitical importance for the United States. What’s at stake? In short, continued control and influence in Middle East affairs…
PH: “Who’s going to manage this situation? Is it going to be Turkey or Russia? Or, is the U.S. going to have some stake in that? That’s what’s at stake, that’s why they [the US] are squatting. U.S. needs to be involved in this conflict.”
RT: ‘Why is Turkey so concerned about the Kurds?
PH: “Both Turkey and the U.S. are using the exact same justification for mounting operations inside of Syria…which is ‘anti-terror’…or the fight against terrorists. Even though Turkey proper hasn’t been attacked, it’s labeled this as an existential crisis, as the U.S. did with ISIS.”
RT: ‘What’s at stake here with Turkey?
PH: “Maybe some type of demographic change […] a transformation to have more ‘pro-Ankara’, possibly Muslim Brotherhood Arab factions. Right now, some Free Syrian Army are fighting on behalf of Turkey in this fight […] a new front in this war.”
RT: ‘How do you see this playing out, this potential confrontation?
PH: “I think the U.S. will avoid that (confrontation) at all costs. They haven’t escalated because all parties agree that will mean WWIII… or it will lead to a bigger conflict. The big loser here is Syria. It’s not the best situation for Syria, in terms of the rest of the powers involved. But it’s better than a greater, wider war.”