By Ioanna Theou
Turkey’s foreign policy cannot be fully understood without considering the historical and ideological frameworks that continue to shape its strategic thinking. Two of the most influential concepts are the Missak- i Milli (National Oath) and Ahmet Davutoglu’s ‘’Strategic Depth’’ doctrine. Together, they shape a powerful narrative that blends historical memory, national identity, and geopolitical ambition and of course both they have played a profound role in Turkey’s posture toward Syria, Middle East, Greece and Cyprus. The Turkish National Oath was proclaimed in 1920 as the foundational territorial vision by Kemal Ataturk. It defined not only the borders the new Turkish nation aspired to defend, but also the regions it considered as former Ottoman territories. These included: Northern Syria, Mosul, Kirkuk, Western Thrace, Cyprus and the Aegean territories.
While the Treaty of Lausanne established Turkey’s borders, the importance of Missak-I Milli persisted. In Turkish nationalist and conservative circles, the National Oath represents the unfinished geographic aspirations of the early republic. President Erdogan does not hesitate to make these references, reinforcing the idea that Turkey has legitimate interests extending beyond its current borders. Ahmet Davutoglu, former foreign minister created the base of Turkish foreign policy in the 2000s. Davutoglu theorized that Turkey’s power derives from its Ottoman heritage and its central geographical position. His doctrine advocates the Turkish active involvement in regional affairs, the leadership in former Ottoman territories.
Turkey -according to Ahmet Davutoglu- has the ‘’right’’ to defend the former Ottoman territories and gradually, it aspires to reassert control over those territories. Turkey could also, use soft and hard power to shape the future of neighboring countries. Finally, the Davutoglu doctrine emphasizes the importance of reconstructing political ties with the Muslim world. This can be helpful in a Turkish multi-dimensional foreign policy between East and West, because Turkey aspires to uphold diplomatic ties with both Eastern and Western countries. According to Davutoglu, Turkey is not just a peripheral state but a central power with historical responsibilities and past and strategic depth across the Middle East, the Balkans, and North Africa.
Although emerging from different historical periods, the Misak-i Milli provides the historical memory and territorial imagination. On the other hand, the Strategic Depth offers the contemporary geopolitical strategy to act upon that memory. Together, these two theories, cultivate a worldview in which Turkey, sees Syria, Aegean Sea, Cyprus, Western Thrace, northern Africa as a part of its natural geopolitical environment. Therefore, Turkey, pursues regional leadership beyond defensive motives, uses military operations to establish zones of influence, challenges existing borders and power balances.
Turkey’s role in the Syrian conflict reflects the practical application of these ideological frameworks. Military operations such Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch, and Peace Spring align with the logic that Turkey must prevent hostile entities -such as the Kurdish autonomous regions- from controlling historically significant territories near its borders. Ankara wants to shape political developments in its strategic hinterland, meaning, the dissolution or fragmentation of neighboring states opens space for Turkish influence reminiscent of Ottoman-era continuity. The establishment of Turkish-controlled zones is a long-term goal for President Erdogan.
From an international relations perspective, the combination of the Turkish National Oath and the Strategic Depth doctrine is potentially destabilizing for three reasons. Firstly, it encourages territorial revisionism, as the suggestion that Turkey has historical claims in Syria, Iraq, or the Aegean challenges internationally recognized borders. Secondly, it justifies military intervention, since such actions are framed not merely as security measures but as legitimate assertions of historical rights. Finally, it intensifies regional rivalries, with countries such as Syria, Iraq, Greece and even Iran perceiving Turkish polices as neo-imperial or expansionist, thus deepening regional tensions and instability.
The Misak- i Milli and Davutoglu’s Strategic Depth doctrine are more than historical references or academic theories, they are living components of Turkey’s foreign policy identity. Their governance has profoundly influenced Ankara’s actions in Syria and its broader regional ambitions. Understanding these frameworks is essential for analyzing Turkey’s geopolitical behavior and assessing the long-term implications for stability in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. For neighboring countries like Syria, Greece, Cyprus, the Turkish National Oath and the Strategic Depth doctrine in not only a theory but it is a source of potential conflict and rivalry. It fuels perceptions of Turkish neo-imperial ambition and raises the risk of escalation in already volatile environments.
Bibliography
X. D. Minagias, Turkey: Revisionism and Conflicts, Leimon, Athens, 2019, pp. 253-256.
St. Larrabee, ‘’Turkey Rediscovers the Middle East’’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, No. 4, July- August 2007, pages 105-106.
I. Mazis, Geopolitics of Middle East and Turkey, Livanis, Athens, pp. 59-60.
M. Sarlis, Syria, Turkey, and the geopolitics of Middle East, Leimon, Athens, 2021, pp. 72-73, 85, 115-116.
P. Zalewski, ‘’How Turkey Went from ‘ Zero Problems’ to Zero Friends’’ ,Foreign Policy, August 22 2013, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/22/how-turkey-went-from-zero-problems-to-zero-friends/#:~:text=It%20expanded%20business%20and%20trade%20links%20with%20Arab,Israel%2C%20Fatah%20and%20Hamas%2C%20and%20Pakistan%20and%20Afghanistan
Ismet Inonu Vakfi, Misak-ı Milli, https://www.ismetinonu.org.tr/en/today-in-history-28-january/
Ahmet, Davutoglu, Strategic Depth, Poiothta, Athens, 2010, pp. 25-39, 117, 146-148, 210-229, 300-308,334-340, 359-361, 593-596.