By Ioanna Theou
Introduction
The main argument and the central research question
This thesis seeks to answer to the following question; How and to what extend have peripheral actors – particularly Turkey but the Assad regime itself- shaped the US foreign policy in Syria from the Syrian civil war in 2011 to the present? This thesis supports that US policy in Syria was not a result of a coherent strategic plan, but was shaped in a reactive manner, under the pressure of regional dynamics. Also, the strategic ambitions of small peripheral states, such as Turkey and the Assad regime, influenced the American foreign policy.
So, the main purpose of this thesis is to explain the perspective that the periphery influenced the US, creating in this way new strategic dilemmas and shifts in foreign policy. The Syrian civil war is one of the most complex conflicts of the 21st century. Unlike the regimes of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, that collapsed into political transitions following the Arab Spring [1]events, the Assad regime managed to remain in power. The Assad regime’s resilience was not just the result of authoritarian regime withing Syria, but something more complicated. [2]
The events of Syrian civil influenced from both support of regional and international allies. This is what makes Syria a unique case. The Syrian regime survived in this difficult period, when many others in the region collapsed. This is the reason why this thesis focusses on Syria, and it is a challenge to explore in more depth. Most studies on the Syrian crisis tend to insist on the humanitarian disaster or on the global power between great powers, like Russia and United States.
But this thesis aims to explore more the role of secondary powers -especially Turkey or the Assad regime- and how these secondary actors shaped US strategic decisions. This thesis does not aim to judge US foreign policy in a positive or negative way. Instead, it aims to show a new aspect of great powers. More specifically, to show how great powers behave to pressure from regional actors. As explained in the literature review, the ideas of scholars such as Philip Gordon, Marc Lynch, and Zbigniew Brzezinski offer the main theoretical background. Building on their work, this thesis provides an insight on how ‘’weaker’’ powers can still influence the behavior of a superpower like the United States in a tense environment.
The resilience of the Assad regime, combined with the involvement of regional and global actors, has made Syria a crucial point for analyzing the interplay between local dynamics and international strategies. However, what makes the Syrian civil war extremely important for the analysis of international relations is not only its intensity and duration, but mainly the role of regional powers in shaping the strategy of global powers, namely the United States. The main objective of this research paper is to examine how regional powers, Turkey and Assad regime, influenced directly or indirectly the American foreign policy decisions in Syria.[3]
The main argument of this thesis is that US foreign policy in Syria was not the outcome of a coherent grand strategy. Rather it was a reactive behavior to constantly evolving regional dynamics. The behavior of Turkey or the Assad regime played an important role in shaping the decisions of US administrations. This perspective challenges the idea of American dominance in the Middle East and suggests that peripheral powers can as well to influence the strategic goals of hegemonic powers.
Focusing on Syria provides information about US adaptability. Syria revealed the limits of American power and the growing power of regional states. This thesis brings a new perspective to existing debates by focusing on the role of smaller regional actors and showing how changes in the region challenged US goals. This is a challenge to the traditional analyses of great power politics.
The Syrian crisis is one of the most complex and international issues because it is related to geopolitical, humanitarian, strategic and theoretical dimensions. The geographic position of Syria is crucial because it connects the Eastern Mediterranean with the Persian Gulf and the Middle East with Turkey and Russia. The Syrian civil war -due to its geographic position- soon transformed into multidimensional conflict. US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf countries involved into the conflict and of course each country ‘’entered’’ the war motivated by its own interests. [4]
The Syrian civil war was a multi-level conflict because it involved an internal struggle alongside ethnic and religious divisions between Shiites and Sunni Muslims. These divisions have fueled the war with violence and sectarian characteristics. The tension in Syria led as well to the rise of extremist groups such as ISIS. This terrorist group introduced a new dimension of terrorism and shaped the conflict’s dynamics. The combination of civil war, the rise of terrorism, and international and regional involvement makes Syria important for understanding the multifaced nature of conflicts. Except from the geopolitical importance, the humanitarian consequences were catastrophic. Many people lost their lives, while over 13 million have been displaced or have become refugees. From the Arab Spring uprisings, the Syrian crisis caused one of the largest refugee flows since World War II. [5]
The Syrian crisis has strategic value for the US and the West. The US and the European Union states involved into the Syrian war mainly because they wanted to fight against ISIS and to support the Syrian Kurds as barrier to ISIS. The emergence of ISIS in Syria, had consequences not only for the region but also for Europe and the United States. The Assad regime attempted to resist the spread of ISIS, aiming to fight back the jihadist extremism. However, it soon became clear that the regime alone could not counter the extremist groups alone. So, the American support for the Kurdish militias groups of Syria shows the strategic importance of Syrian not only for American foreign policy but as well as for NATO stability and the balance of power in the Middle East. [6]
The known episodes of chemical weapons by the Assad regime raises important dilemmas for both local and international actors. The extensive violations of human rights, -including the use of chemical weapons-, the selective intervention by the west raised doubts about the effectiveness of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the role of the United Nations. At the same time, the Assad regime challenged these narratives, claiming that many of the accusations were created by western powers to delegitimize the Syrian state and justify western intervention. [7]
These conflicting narratives made it harder for the international community to respond clearly, as they complicated the distinction between genuine humanitarian concern, and strategic goals. Equally important was and still is the role Turkey. Turkey involved in the Syrian conflict on military, political and humanitarian levels. Its involvement related to two reasons. The first reason was the Kurdish Issue. The Kurdish issue is challenge to Turkish state policy and national security since the establishment of modern Turkish state (1923).[8]
The emergence of a de facto autonomous state along the Syrian Turkish border -especially with the aid of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the YPG- was considered by Erdogan as a direct threat to the Turkish territories and perhaps as a potential support for the PKK, which considered a terrorist party. Therefore, Erdogan decided to adopt a defensive stance and launched a series of military interventions in north Syria. Through these operations, Erdogan, wanted to prevent the Kurdish controlled territories of south-eastern Syria, which could unify with the northern borders of Turkey. [9]
The second reason was its regional strategy and desires of Turkey. The Justice and Development Part (AKP), under Erdogan, initially adopted the known foreign policy ‘’zero problems with neighbors’’ doctrine, as formulated by Ahmet Davutoglu. However, this policy -due to the Arab Spring uprisings and the Syrian civil war- began to gradually change from its original principles. This change led to a more interventionist approach and included aspects of the neo- Ottoman view. Erdogan considered Turkey as a regional power with historical, cultural and religious legitimacy that has the ‘’right’’ to exert influence from the former Ottoman territories.
The theme of this research thesis is relevant to today’s geopolitical realities. While the Syrian civil war may have ended, Syria continues to serve as a strategic battleground where regional and global powers compete for influence. The country’s future is closely linked to wider regional power, especially with Turkey’s rise as a regional power, the ongoing Kurdish issue in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria, and Israel’s attempts to contain Iranian expansion through Hezbollah.
At the same time, US involvement in Syria -particularly under Trump administration- showed that a full withdrawal was not an option. Instead, Washington aimed to adjust its role in order to counter the growing influence of Iran, Russia, and China. Therefore, Syria should not be seen only as a case of past policy success or failure. It also serves as a way to better understand today’s changes in the regional balance of power. This thesis examines a question that connects the past and the future. Can the patterns of the past help explain the strategic challenges the US faces today? [10]
Literature review
The periphery narrative, while often associated with international relations, can be identified back to earlier imperial past, and especially the British Empire. In the ‘’Imperialism of Free Trade’’, Robinson and Gallagher emphasized that Britain’s imperial expansion was not always planed but was influenced by local conditions and pressures from periphery or weaker states. Instead of promoting its own goals on others, the empire often reacted to opportunities from smaller actors. This pattern can be identified later in the actions of other great powers, including the United States in the Middle East.[11]
The Middle East was an arena of US- Soviet rivalry during the Cold War, where both powers competed for regional influence in smaller peripheral states. The United States strengthened its alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iran -before the 1979 Islamic Revolution-, and on the other side the Soviet Union supported the Arab nationalist regimes including Nasser’s Egypt, Baathist Iraq and Hafez al Assad’s Syria. [12]
In the post- Cold War and especially in the Arab Spring uprisings, Syria once again became a point of great power rivalry. This time between the United States and Russia. The Syrian civil war showed clearly the inaction of Obama administration in the region and through this inaction Putin found the opportunity to increase its role in the region and supported the Assad regime.[13] At the same time, Erdogan wanted to strengthen Turkey’s position as a regional actor that seeks to expand its influence especially in northern Syria, due to Kurdish Issue. [14]So, the interaction between external and regional actors shows how local dynamics can influence or change the strategies of global powers.[15]
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s geopolitical approach in the work The Grand Chessboard shows the significance of the Middle East as one of the ‘’critical pieces’’ on the Eurasian chessboard. Syria is a regional state, but it gains importance due to its geographical position, serving as a getaway to the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia.[16] This logic could connect with the geopolitical theory of Mackinder’s Heartland and Spykman’s Rimland and through this approach it is understandable why is important the American presence in the region.
The question that arises is, why Syria has a strategic importance for the United States. The answer of course is because both Obama administration wanted to prevent the strengthening of Russia or Iran or even China. Within this framework, American strategy might appear contradictory, but it is often shaped under the pressure of regional developments that are part of ‘’contest’’ in Eurasia.[17] Charles Webel’s and Mark Tomass’s Asserting the War on Terror: Western and Middle Eastern Perspectives examines how the War on Terror reshaped both Western strategic choices and the political landscape of the Middle East after the attacks of 09/11.
It explains why the Obama Administration chose a ‘’cautious’’ strategy in conflicts like the Syrian war. Tomass highlighted that the Obama administration supported the Kurdish forces, who fought ISIS, but this alliance influenced the American- Turkish relations. The decisions behind the Obama administration were not a sign of American decline but a deliberate strategic limitation after the earlier military interventions of Iraq and Afghanistan.[18] Another helpful example for understanding the American strategic behavior in Syria is Tim Marshall’s Prisoners of Geography. Tim Marshall in his book shows how geography continues to shape the strategic choices of states.
For example, his chapter on Turkey and the broader Middle East is helpful because he frames Turkey as a connecting ‘’bridge’’ between East and West and emphasizes also the importance of religious and ethnic characteristics of the Muslim world. The Muslim world is divided between Sunnis Muslims and Shiites Muslims and this internal division is important because it creates both alliances and tensions, and therefore it can shape the balance in the Middle East. For example, in the Syrian war this division was reflected in the alliances of Assad regime. Shiite Iran, Shiite Hezbollah supported the Alawite regime of Bashar al Assad, while Sunni countries as Erdogan’s backed the opposition. The conflict evolved into a geopolitical conflict shaped by sectarian divisions. [19]
Michael Cox and Doug Stokes’s US Foreign Policy focus on an internal factor of a state that can influence its foreign policy. More specifically the authors show how the ideology of a state, its institutions and its domestic pressure could shape American strategic decisions. This book shows how the US foreign policy has evolved from the Cold War to the War on Terror and how lobbies and economic interest can influence the US foreign policy in the Middle East. So according to Tim Marshall geography is crucial for international relations and global dominance while Cox and Stokes expose the ideological logics that drive American policy choices. These two books combined are essential for understanding the American- Turkey relation and its inconsistent approach to the Syrian conflict.[20]
On the other side, Marc Lynch’s The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East highlighted how the Arab Uprisings did not lead to ‘’democratic regimes’’ or ‘’reforms’’ but instead they caused new power struggles between regional countries like Turkey, and each country is trying to shape the future of its own country and of the region. These changes brought the Obama administration in a difficult position, as it had to react to new alliances, – for instance the American- Kurdish relations- but the new alignments undermined traditional alliances -especially with Turkey- and created contradictory policy goals. [21]
Similarly, Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson analyzed how the Obama administration redefined its foreign policy away from direct military interventions and adopted more cautious foreign policy with an emphasis on diplomacy, particularly after the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that this shift was not a sign of decline in US power, but more a cautious strategy. [22]
This thesis of course agrees that the Obama’s decisions about Syria was a deliberate choice and not a sign of weakness. But the main goal of this thesis is the focus to regional states -especially Turkey and the Assad regime- and to show as well how these regional states influenced US decisions in Syria. In other words, while Syria was a case of cautious US policy, it also became an opportunity for smaller actors to strengthen their position.
Methodological remarks
This thesis will focus on how the strategic behavior of the Assad regime and Turkey influenced American foreign policy in Stria, particularly during the post- 2011 period. The research will incorporate on primary sources such as official speeches, press briefings, foreign policy doctrines, congressional testimonies. And reports from relevant think tanks, such as the Institute for the Study of War. The methodological framework emphasizes on how strategic ideas are constructed and justified in political discourse.
This involves analyzing how actors define space, threat and the need of an opportunity in order to change the regional environment. For example, President Obama publicly called Bashar al Assad to step down. This statement is a clear shift from US disengagement to a disapproval of the Assad regime. However, the lack of a direct military operation highlighted the gap between American rhetoric and strategic action and in a way this speech can confirm the central argument of this thesis. The US foreign policy was shaped in a reactive way rather than in a proactive way. [23]
Most of President Obama’s speeches during the Syrian conflict aimed at delegitimizing the Assad regime and calling for its removal. Another great example is President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University confirms the rapprochement of the American foreign policy after the attacks of 09/11. Of course, on the main priority was the fight of terrorism groups but the United States due the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan lost many American soldiers therefore he wanted to reduce large-scale military interventions in the Middle East and focus on targeted actions with drone strikes. [24]
Compared to the first speech, this speech did not focus on Bashar al Assad but on the US foreign policy after the attacks of 09/11 and how important was the fight against terrorism. Therefore, US foreign policy in Syria has lacked coherence and consistency over time. Another example of the shifts of American foreign policy is senator Risch’s statement. In his statement addressed Turkey’s military offensive in north-eastern Syria, highlighting Turkey’s actions. As he mentioned, ‘’Turkey’s invasion into northern Syria threatens to unravel all of the progress the US…’’. This phrase showed that Turkey’s action could impact US interests, because with the Turkish military operations towards the Kurdish militia’s groups undermined the Kurdish-led campaign against ISIS. [25]
The Institute for the Study of War’s report Putin’s Real Suria Agenda provides an interesting perspective on Russia’s strategic objectives in Syria. According to Genevieve Casagrande and Kathleen Weinberger, Putin’s primary goal not the defeat of ISIS or al-Qaeda, but to weaken the US influence in the region. This observation emphasizes the logic of the Heartland theory and helps to explain why Syria became a crucial point of conflict for American strategy. Through the Assad regime Putin managed to booster Russian military presence in the Middle East with the air defense systems -S-300 and S-400- and to establish anti-access zones that limited US and NATO operations in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Russian support to Assad regime strengthened the regime and weakened the opposition groups which supported by the United Staes. Therefore, President Obama’s influence undermined and Syria became key battleground between the United States and Russia. Syria’s potential impact on Russia’s Africa and Mediterranean Ambitions report by the Institute for the Study of War provided information about Russia’s strategic interests not only in Syria but in Africa and the Mediterranean. An expansion of Russian influence in the region would pose significant risks to US foreign policy interests, forcing the United Stated to be more cautious in order to protect its own interests.[26]
Although classical geopolitical theories such as Harford Mackinder’s Heartland and Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland are not applied in prescriptive manner, they are used in this thesis as analytical tools. These theories help to understand how territorial control and regional geography remain close in the strategic thinking of both American and Turkish policymakers. The Turkish doctrine of ‘’strategic depth’’ by Ahmet Davutoglu can be seen as a regionalized continuation of Rimland logic.
Of course, the American theory of Containment, as analyzed by George Kennan, did not want the expansion of Russian and Iranian influence and therefore the United States needed to contain the rise of Russia and Iran. Both theories help us to understand some basic ideas and patterns behind older strategic decisions. Although the theories of Heartland and Rimland are old, with combination of containment logic we can connect past thinking with current foreign policy decisions. The chosen methodology allows us to understand how geography, strategic perception and regional rivalries have shaped US foreign policy responses in Syria. [27]
The main theory
This thesis will include classical geopolitical theories and contemporary international relations theories. The fundamental theories of Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman provide an important view for the strategic significance of Syria. Harford Mackinder’s Heartland theory claims that control over the Eurasian Heartland is pivotal to global dominance. Whoever controls the Heartland controls the world. Although Syria does not belong to the heart of the Heartland its geographical position shows that is a critical gateway, influencing access and control over Heartland. This became evident in the Syrian civil war itself. The Assad regime maintained close ties with Russia and Iran, but these two powers threaten US dominance in Middle East, and therefore for Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administration perceived as strategic rivals.
Consequently, the fall of Bashar al Assad could create an opportunity for the establishment of a new regime more aligned with US interests. Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland Theory emphasizes the strategic importance of the coastal areas of Eurasia. Syria’s position along the Eastern Mediterranean shows how vital is. Syria could be served as channel of communication for the US to project influence into the heart of Eurasia. Using these theories, the thesis also engages with George Kennan’s Containment Theory. George Kennan’s Containment Theory emphasizes the necessity of limiting the expansion of ‘’rivalry’’ powers. in relation to the Syrian war, the US aimed at limiting the influence of Russia and Iran, who were both supporters of the Assad regime.[28]
On the other hand, the Turkish foreign policy vision outlined by Ahmet Davutoglu in his Strategic Depth doctrine shows that are common details in relation to classical geopolitical theories, such as Spykman’s Rimland Theory and the logic of containment. Turkey is located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, therefore it is considered as a part of the Rimland, making it a pivotal actor for the United States. Turkey and United States are allies since the beginning of the Cold War. Turkey’s geographical position was critical and identified as a buffer zone to the spread of communism.
Davutoglu’s focus on active involvement in neighboring regions -such as Syria- shows Erdogan’s ambition not only to deal with local instability but also to strengthen its position in the region. Erdogan wanted to transform Turkey from a passive ‘’buffer zone’’ to an influential and independent regional power. The more active foreign policy in Syria or Libya or Egypt can be seen as an attempt to redefine Turkey’s strategic role in the Middle East. President Erdogan and his party since 2002 have implemented significant changes in both domestic and foreign policy. [29]
Nicholas Spykman’s Rimland Theory emphasizes the importance of the coastal areas surrounding the Heartland. The Middle East and especially the Eastern Mediterranean is important area of influence. Syria as part of this ‘’outer ring’’, is vital for the access of sea powers, such as the US, to central Eurasia. The known containment theory by George Kennan was used as a tool to understand the US stance towards Russia and Iran.
The US, even without directly involvement, seeks to limit Russian and Iranian influence in the Middle East, through economic, diplomatic or alliances with non-state actors, such as the Syrian Kurds. The dynamic of regional actors in shaping foreign policy is not new. The relevant discussion began from the period of British Empire, with the classic study by Robinson & Gallagher (The imperialism of Free Trade, 1953), who argued that the great powers was often forced to change its strategy to the pressures of geotechnical regions. [30]
The main goal of this thesis is to approach the war in Syria not merely as a crisis of American power, but as a field where the influence of smaller actors -such as Turkey or the Assad regime itself- can influence the foreign policy of a superpower.
The main purpose of this thesis
The Syrian conflict is an example which examines the contradictions in US foreign policy. The US foreign policy shifted from the commitment to democracy and western values to a more pragmatic narrative that focused more on power and strategic interests. The role of alliances is also pivotal, because it highlighted that United States involvement in the Middle East is influenced not only by its goals but also by the actions of US allies.
By examining the Syrian civil war, we could understand better the limits of American influence in a region where are involved many regional actors and how these actors have the power to adjust the strategic goals of a global power. We no longer live in era that is dominated by one or two great powers, but the balance of power has change. Smaller states with increasingly influence can influence larger power and therefore the way that alliances are formed.
This thesis argues that the Syrian civil war revealed the contradictions in American foreign policy. From the idealistic narratives of democracy and western values to the pursuit of power and strategic interests. By analyzing the role of alliances, the influence of peripheral actors and the impacts of their actions, this thesis emphasizes both the goals that the US wanted to achieve in the Middle East and the limits of US administrations to shape outcomes.
The structure of the thesis
The structure of the thesis is organized into five chapters, after the introduction. The first chapter engages with the historical background and continuities of American Policy. This chapter will focus from the War on Terror to the Arab Spring and the Syrian Crisis and will examine how the American foreign policy has changed. The second chapter will analyze the Syria as Regional Factor in US strategy and how important was the role of the Assad regime, the Shiite allies and the geopolitical position of Syria. It is important to note the US influence through selective alliances, the Syrian Kurds.
The third chapter will focus to the role of Turkey as an emerging regional power. The shift from ‘’zero problems with neighbors’’ to the revisionist foreign policy. the strategic importance of Syria, the Kurdish issue and the US- Russia relationship. The fourth chapter will analyze on how Turkey balances its relations between the US and Russia. The fifth chapter explores how the US lost their initiative in Syria and there is a last chapter about the current situation of Syria and some concerns about the future of Syria.
Bibliography
[1] Peter, Mansfield, and Nicolas, Pelham, A History of the Middle East, Penguin, 2019, pp. 487-516.
[2] Christian, Grataloup, A History of the World in 500 Maps, Themes& Hudson (London: 2023), pp. 562-565.
[3] Christopher, Phillips, The battle of Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East, (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2016), pp. 8-20.
[4] Raymond, Hinnebusch, and Adham, Sauli, The War on Syria: Regional and International Dimensions of the Syria Uprising, (New York: Routledge, 2019), pp. 4-10.
[5] Christopher, Phillips, as mentioned above, pp. 2, 200-207.
UNHCR, Syria Refugee Crisis Explained (2025), available at https://www.unrefugees.org/news/syria-refugee-crisis-explained/
[6] International Crisis Group, how to ISIS in Iraq and Syria? (Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2017) pp. 3-5,
[7] United Nations, Security Council Deems Syria’s chemical Declaration Incomplete, Urges Nation to Close Issues, Resolve Gaps, Inconsistencies, Discrepancies, UN Doc. SC/15220 (2023), available at https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15220.doc.htm
[8] Peter, Mansfield, and Nicolas, Pelham, ibid, pp. 498, 500-501, 514-516, 520.
[9] Michalis, Sarlis, Syria, Turkey and geopolitics of Middle East, (Athens: Limon, 2021), pp. 95, 121-122.
[10] Hakan M., Yavuz, ‘’Social and Intellectual Origins of Neo- Ottomanism: Searching for a post nationalism vision.’’ Die Welt des Islams, Vol. 56, No. 3, 4, (2016), pp. 438-465.
International Crisis Group, Israel, Hezbollah and Iran, Middle East Report no. 182 (2018), pp. 2-6.
Eldat, Shavit, and Sima, Shine, (2025), The Nuclear Talks between the United States and Iran- Chances for Reaching an Agreement and Implications for Israel, (Tel Aviv: Institute for National Security Studies, 2025), pp. 1-6.
[11] John, Gallagher, and Ronald, Robinson, ‘’The Imperialism of Free Trade’’, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 6., No.1, (1953), pp. 1-15.
[12] Fred, Halliday, The Middle East in International Relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005), pp. 97-129.
[13] Fawaz A., Gerges, ‘’Obama and the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment?’’, International Affairs, Vol. 89, no.2, (2013), pp.299-323.
Christopher, Phillips, The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), pp.213-231.
[14] Henry J., Barkey, & Graham, E. Fuller, Turkey’s Kurdish Question, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998), pp.157-185.
[15] Zbigniew, Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard, (Athens: Livanis, 1998), pp. 21-53.
[16] Zbigniew, Brzezinski, Z., ibid, pp. 63-92, 107-147, 317-330, 338-358.
[17] Harford, Mackinder, ‘’The Geographical Pivot of History’’, The Geographical Journal 23, no.4, (1904), pp. 421-437, https://ndisc.nd.edu/assets/422105/mackinder_1904_heartland_article_17_pages.pdf
Nicholas, Spykman, The Geography of the Peace, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1944), pp.
[18] Christopher, Webel and Michael, Tomass l, Asserting the War on Terror: Western and Middle Eastern Perspectives, (New York: Routledge, 2017) pp. 61-70, 81-92.
[19] Tim, Marshall, Prisoners of Geography, (Athens: Dioptra, 2019), pp. 195-229.
[20] Michael, Cox, and Doug, Stokes, US Foreign Policy, (Oxford- New York: Oxford University Press,2012) pp. 21-29, 197-218, 347-348.
[21] Marc, Lynch, The New Arab Wars: Uprisings and Anarchy in the Middle East, (New York: Public Affairs,2016), pp. 85-95.
[22] Steven, Simon, and Jonathan, Stevenson, ‘’The End of Pax Americana: Why Washington’s Middle East Pullback Makes Sense’’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 94, No.6, (2015), pp. 2-10.
[23]Barack, Obama, ‘’ The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their Way’’, White House, (2011), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/08/18/President-obama-future-syria-must-be-determined-its-people-President-bashar-al-assad
21Barack, Obama, ‘’Remarks by the President at the National Defence University’’, White House, (2013) available at
[25] Senator Jim, Risch, ‘’Opening Statement at Hearing on Turkey’s Offensive in Northeast Syria’’, 2019 available at https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/chairman-risch-opening-statement-at-hearing-on-turkeys-offensive-in-northeast-syria
The statement of senator Risch reflects how Turkish strategic goals influenced the United States and how eventually the Obama/ Trump and Biden administration readjust the American foreign policy. it is difficult to see an independent American foreign policy.
[26] Gregory, Casagrande, and Kyle, Weinberger, Putin’s Real Syria Agenda, The Institute for the Study of War, (2017), available at https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Putin%27s%20Real%20Syria%20Agenda.pdf Ka Liana, Karr, Africa File Special edition: Syria’s Potential impact on Russia’s Africa and Mediterranean Ambitions, Institute for the Study of War, (2024), available at https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/africa-file-special-edition-syria’s-potential-impact-russia’s-africa-and-mediterranean
[27] Michael, Mayer, Us Grand Strategy and Central Asia, (Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, 2008), pp. 15-30. Ahmet, Davutoglu, Strategic Depth, (Athens: Poiothta, 2010), pp. 25-39.
[28] Harford, Mackinder, ibid.
Nicholas, Spykman, ibid.
George, Kennan, bid.
[29] Tim, Marshall, ibid, pp. 221-227
Ahmet, Davutoglu, ibid, pp. 117, 146-148, 210-229, 300-308,334-340, 359-361, 593-596.
[30] John, Gallagher, and Ronald, Robinson, ‘’The Imperialism of Free Trade’’, The Economic History Review New Series, Vol.6, No.1, (1953), pp. 1-15.