Which Side Is Turkey On?

In best Stopped Clock mode, Con Coughlin writes:

With Isil fighters continuing their relentless assault on the Kurdish-held town of Kobane on Syria's border with Turkey, questions are inevitably being asked about Ankara's true intentions in this increasingly complex conflict.

The dominant image of today's coverage of the fighting is of Turkish battle tanks massed on the border ready to repel any attempt by Isil to infringe Turkish territory.

The seriousness of the situation is underlined by the fact that any attempt by Isil to attack Turkish positions could trigger an article five response by Nato, which obliges all the other nations in the 28- state alliance – including Britain – to defend any member that finds itself coming under attack.

Indeed, Nato planning officers say measures are already in place to intervene if Turkey comes under attack along its border with Syria.

But before we get too carried away with calls to spring to Turkey's defence, it would be useful first to consider precisely what Ankara's position is concerning the brutal conflict taking place across its border with Syria.

This time last year there was little doubt that Turkey was a vital ally in Western attempts to end the bloodshed in Syria. In common with the U.S. and Britain, Turkey believed the only logical solution was the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with a more representative system of government.

But the failure of Britain and America to follow through with their pledge to bomb the Assad regime caused a rift with Ankara, one that continues to this day.

I'm told that when Downing Street recently suggested that David Cameron visit Ankara, the Turks vetoed the idea.

Now the recent hostage swap between Ankara and Isil, in which a number of Islamist fighters were released in return for the safe return of several Turkish diplomats who were taken hostage during the summer, has raised questions about just the real nature of the relationship between Ankara and the Islamist fighters across the border.

American Vice President Joe Biden got himself into hot water at the weekend when he suggested the Turks were not doing enough to prevent Islamist fighters moving freely across the border.

The notoriously sensitive Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, demanded an immediate retraction, but Mr Biden is not the only one who has raised questions about Ankara's relationship with Isil.

Many of the Kurds fighting for their lives in Kobani have even suggested the Turks are arming Isil in the hope that they will defeat the Kurds – who have never enjoyed a comfortable relationship with the Turks – as well as succeeding in the overall objective of overthrowing the Assad regime in Damascus.

Whether it would be in secular Turkey's long-term interests to have an extremist Islamist state established in Damascus is open to question.

But so long as Ankara appears to be hedging its bets with Isil, it would be prudent for the West  to ask just whose side the Turks are on in this bitter conflict.