It is no simple matter for officials in Ankara to declare that the perpetrators behind the bombings in the town of Rihaniyya are Turks linked to the Syrian intelligence services. It is no simple matter either that the Turks hinted that the perpetrators may also be tied to the recent massacres in Baniyas. True, the deterioration between the two countries is not new, but it is also true that this is currently taking on more serious manifestations. When a country's government accuses another of standing behind bombings on its own territory, then it is inevitably committing itself to responding. Usually, a country may resort to the UN Security Council, but Ankara is aware that this door is shut, and closely guarded by the Russians. For this reason, it is expected that Ankara will search for other ways to respond, beyond firing a bunch of shells across the border or invoking NATO's umbrella. The past months carried many indications of the extent of deterioration between Ankara and Damascus. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not tired from repeating his calls on President Bashar al-Assad to step down. He used harsh words to describe his erstwhile friend. Ankara did not limit itself to hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. It strongly pursued the role of sanctuary and stronghold for Assad's enemies, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA). On the other hand, Assad did not show leniency with his former friend either. He received the leaders of the Turkish opposition and held Erdogan fully responsible for the deterioration. He addressed Turkish public opinion more than once through Turkish media, to double the pressure on Erdogan who cannot do the same. Meanwhile, official Syrian media dag up old lexicons and began issuing warnings against the return of the Ottomans on the backs of the Muslim Brotherhood, as a prelude to reviving the caliphate. The Syrian media also resurrected the issue of Iskenderun (Hatai) after having ignored it for decades. The timing of the bombings in Rihaniyya unleashed a torrent of speculations and analyses. First, the bombings took place a few days after the US-Russian agreement to hold an international conference for peace in Syria, based on the famous Geneva Communiqué. The attacks also took place after the fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) began withdrawing from Turkey, in fulfillment of what may be termed the Erdogan-Ocalan agreement. Incidentally, this agreement had an immediate impact on the attitudes of the Kurds in Syria, and suggested the Kurdish card could be withdrawn from Damascus's hands into Ankara's. Furthermore, the bombings occurred a few days before a meeting between Obama and Erdogan, following meetings held by the US president with a number of Arab leaders involved in the Syrian crisis. Observers familiar with the Turkish stance believe that the recent attacks will push Erdogan to go further in calling on Obama to end his prevarication over the Syrian issue. They also believe that Erdogan “will consider the survival of Assad, even if only on a part of Syrian territory, a serious threat to Turkey's stability and unity and the region" and that “Ankara is willing to pay the price of its stability and become even more involved in the battle to push Assad to step down." The Turkish-Syrian honeymoon had been long. Turkey saw the ‘ideal relationship' with Syria at the time to be a stepping stone to the Arab world to further relations and mediations. For its part, Syria rejoiced in this relationship with the Sunni NATO member. It saw that relationship as an alternative to the absence of good ties with Saudi and Egypt, and also a stepping stone and a key. But after the honeymoon came bitterness. Syria is accusing Turkey today of bringing in weapons and militants, and Ankara is accusing Damascus of trying to destabilize Turkey and threaten the unity of its fabric. Ankara dreams of Syria without Assad, and Damascus dreams of Turkey without Erdogan. The Syrian Information Minister did not forget to demand that Erdogan step down. But the game is more complex than that. Russia is trying to emphasize that it is the key to the solution. Iran does not lack the appetite for this role despite its deep involvement. How difficult it is to resolve the Syrian crisis. The bridge is closed and the key is lost. Meanwhile, Erdogan will certainly demand that Obama forcibly open the bridge and find the key, as a last resort.
