Share this
Fehim Işık
“There is almost no aspect of the relationship between the Turkish state and ISIS that is not public knowledge. Numerous captured ISIS members have confessed to their relationship with the Erdoğan administration. One of the most influential confessions was that of ISIS commander Abu Mansur al-Maghrabi,” writes Fehim Işık for Yeni Özgür Politika.
In March 2019 the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) finally put a stop to ISIS’s dominance, in Baxoz (Baghuz).
One of the gang leaders captured during the process of this operation in which ISIS made the decision to withdraw and go underground once again was Abu Mansur al-Maghrabi. Abu Mansur accepted the proposal of collaboration from the US, and following interrogation in Rojava he was handed over to US forces and taken to Iraq.
One of the people Abu Mansur spoke to while he was in Iraq in 2019 was Dr. Anne Speckhard, the director of the International Centre for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE) and a professor of psychiatry, who was a consultant to US intelligence.
Some of what the ISIS commander said in the period in question was reported to the press by Dr. Speckhard. However, certainly by conscious choice, she presented the things the gang leader had said about Turkey more as allegations or partisan accusations.
Abu Mansur was in charge of the border, border trade and passage, and defined his own role as the “ambassador for Turkey”.
He confesses that he went to Turkey many times to meet with National Intelligence Agency (MIT) officers and military authorities about the coordination of matters under his remit, from the treatment of wounded ISIS members to the trade in oil and border control. He says that he was once summoned to Ankara to meet with Erdoğan, and that he stayed in the MIT guest house, but that the meeting did not ultimately happen.
Dr. Speckhard spoke again on 20 November 2021 about things this ISIS member had told her, about Turkey-ISIS relations. She spoke with Aydogan Vatandas, an editor with the internet site Politurco, and said she was shocked by what the ISIS commander had told her.
Dr. Speckhard, who explained that she had attended NATO’S Centre of Excellence in Ankara on a number of occasions as a speaker, said that she was stunned just after a few minutes of listening to what he had to say about Turkey.
I don’t know whether an academic acting as a consultant for an intelligence organisation can herself be defined as an intelligence officer. But since in the country we live in [Turkey] we even define MIT chauffeurs as members of MIT, then by the same token, Dr Speckhard is essentially also an intelligence officer.
For this reason we can say it is no coincidence that she said that she was shocked in that last interview. It was a conscious choice of words.
In the past these relations between ISIS and other jihadist groups on the one hand and Turkey on the other were never spoken of with this degree of openness, whereas now there is talk of an Erdoğan regime, which wishes to control these gangs with an Islamist mentality, whilst concealing the truth.
Viewed at from this angle, it is clear that divisions between the West and Turkey are increasing and that the US and the West in general are changing their minds about the bad choice they made in the beginning and changing their minds about supporting jihadist constructs like ISIS and the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Dr. Speckhard has a lot to say. I cannot include all of it here. Anyone who wishes can find it on YouTube and follow it there. But what I can say in summary is this:
What she said regarding the sheer dimension of the relations between the Turkish administration and the Jihadist gangs/groups shows the degree to which these relations have developed, and shows that the US and the West have been turning a blind eye to Turkey’s relations with jihadist gangs despite knowing what was going on. Her statements also show Russia’s use of what it knew as a trump card against Turkey and against the Erdoğan administration.
In summary, it was proof of how much of a two-faced, immoral, vile environment the states of the region and the states with interests in the region desired to create on the ground…
The first to begin turning the wheel in the opposite direction was the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), who refused to allow the immoral approach in question, and were willing to give their lives in the legendary resistance they built up in Kobanê (Kobani).
The fire of resistance in Kobanê spread throughout the whole of Rojava with nearly 12,000 martyrs to the cause and nearly 30,000 war wounded veterans. A very heavy price was paid.
Thus an end was brought to the existence of these proxies on the ground. Now the principal actors themselves have stepped into the ring. Those effecting the occupation of Efrîn (Afrin), Girê Spî (Tell Abyad) and Serêkaniyê (Ras al-Ayn) were the original players. They have occupied these regions and are keeping their proxies under their own protection.
The threats remain and are still continuing. For this reason it is worth everyone listening once more to the things Dr. Speckhard had to say. Naturally, reading between the lines and in the full awareness and context of the reasons for her saying them, you can clearly see how double-dealing, hypocrisy and immorality affect state policies.
And it is double-dealing and hypocrisy which gives Erdoğan his courage…
