Abstract
This research is based on explaining the dynamics that led the Iran, Russia and Turkey to initiate Astana Process within the framework of the Syrian Civil War’s changing dynamics. The article intends to combine power politics with the “complexity” paradigm. Linear ontology is problematic in explaining the changing dynamics. On the other hand, the complexity paradigm explains non-linear processes derived from its ontological foundation. Especially the variety and diversity of actors, their interconnection, interdependence, and co-adaptation to the situation can be a solution against the reductionism of this phenomenon. Actors in the Syrian crisis are very diverse, and it can be observed that actors like ISIS can profoundly affect the policies in this process, and the Syrian issue can affect varied actors’ security and foreign policies that are also based on power competition. Complexity paradigm assumes system as complex, more dynamic and living that many actors (which are not exogenous as closed units) interact with many feedback loops; thus the outcome of the events may not be predicted. IR is also impacted by many various parameters and variables which are interconnected and interdependent, indeed, also the main actors in the system cannot be limited by only states which are socializing and affected by the structure in their interactions considering the critical impact of the substate factors, transnational terrorist groups, and many other variable causes as well as their interactions in the international changing and co-evolutionary dynamics. Russia, Turkey, and Iran (the guarantors of the Astana Process) have followed different policies and demonstrated divergent outlooks regarding the crisis. Indeed the priorities and set agendas differed from one another as well as objectives to pursue in the disorder occurred by fragmented and diversified dynamics in Syria. However “unpredictable” events of changing dynamics resulted in diversification of states’ agendas. The prolongation of the civil war led to the introduction of new actors along with it, and especially the states sharing the border with Syria were also exposed to new threats. It can be seen that with the emergence of ISIS and Russian activism in the Syrian complexity, especially her intervention in Syria as well as other actors’ policies on this complexity, the regional and global powers have also co-adapted their policies on the changing dynamics. This co-adaptation also derives from the intertwined causalities in the complexity which is between the order and disorder. The Astana process is also an expression of this co-adaptation in Iranian, Russian and Turkish policies in Syrian Complexity. The complexity paradigm offers an alternative framework in order to understand the process-oriented interconnected power struggle in disorder. The characteristics of the “processes” in the Syrian disorder symbolizes the fracturing component in the power struggle that brings non-linear orientation. The power struggle shaped by the non-linear dynamics by the time and processes in the changing dynamics brings about flexibility in the behaviors of the actors in order to maintain their initial priorities in their foreign policies or their main objectives in the changing dynamics. That results in the co-evolutionary dynamics in the interactions between the relative power distributed actors restrained or allowed activism in structure, and between the actors and structure that co-shaped each other in the area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This research is based on and derived from: Çoban, M.İ. (2020). Astana Process in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Foreign Policies on Syrian Complexity. Master of Science Thesis. Middle East Technical University. Available at: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12625609/index.pdf/ (Accessed: 15 October 2020).
References
Açıkalın, Ş. N., Artun, E. C. (2019). The concept of self-organized criticality: The case study of the arab uprising. In: Ş. Erçetin, & N. Potas (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2017. ICCLS 2017. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89875-9_7.
Açıkalın, Ş. N., Bölücek, C. A. (2014). Understanding of arab spring with chaos theory—uprising or revolution. In: S. Banerjee, Ş. Erçetin, & A. Tekin (Eds.), Chaos Theory in politics. Understanding complex systems. Dordrecht: Springer. http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-94-017-8691-1_3.
Akbarzadeh, S. (2015). Iran and Daesh: The case of a reluctant shia power. Middle East Policy, 22(3), 44–54.
Akpınar, P. (2015). Mediation as a foreign policy tool in the arab spring: Turkey, Qatar and Iran. Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, 17(3), 252–268.
Aktürk, Ş. (2019). Relations between Russia and Turkey before, during, and after the failed coup of 2016. Insight Turkey, 21(4), 97–113.
Al Jazeera. (2017). Russian and Turkish jets ‘bomb ISIL’ in Syria’s Al Bab [online]. Al Jazeera. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/russian-turkish-jets-bomb-isil-syria-al-bab-170118130233894.html.
Al Jazeera English. (2016). Why is Russia courting Syrian Kurds? [online]. Al Jazeera. [Viewed 15 April 2020]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2m86rPNSPQ&list=WL&index=41.
Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: Explaining alignment with a regime in crisis. International Affairs, 89(4), 795–823.
Altunışık, M. B. (2020). The New Turn in Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Regional and Domestic Insecurities [online]. Istituto Affari Internazionali. [Viewed 01 August 2020]. https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/iaip2017.pdf.
Ansari, A., & Tabrizi, A. B. (2016). The view from tehran. In A. B. Tabrizi & R. Pantucci (Eds.), Understanding Iran’s role in the Syrian conflict (pp. 3–10). London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.
Aras, B. (2014). Davutoğlu Era in Turkish foreign policy revisited. Journal of Balkan & Near Eastern Studies, 16(4), 404–418.
Aslanlı, A. (2018). Rusya’nın Suriye Politikası [online]. ORSAM. [Viewed 14 February 2020]. https://orsam.org.tr/d_hbanaliz/75tr.pdf.
Associated Press. (2015). Putin Visits Iran for Talks on Syria’s Future [online]. Time.Com. [Viewed 18 April 2020]. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.metu.edu.tr/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=111173069&site=ehost-live.
Azizi, H. (2019). Why the Ankara Summit Is Important [online]. Valdai. [Viewed 02 May 2020]. https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/why-the-ankara-summit-is-important/.
Baczynska, G. (2015). Moscow-hosted Syria talks end, sides agree only to meet again [online]. Reuters. [Viewed 23 August 2020]. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-moscow-talks/moscow-hosted-syria-talks-end-sides-agree-only-to-meet-again-idUSKBN0L21VV20150129.
Baczko, A., Dorronsoro, G., & Quesnay, A. (2018). Suriye: Bir İç Savaşın Anatomisi. İstanbul: İletişim.
Bağcı, H. (2009). Reaction to: Baran, Z., & Lesser, I. O. (2009). Turkey’s identity and strategy: A game of three-dimensional chess. In: M. Schiffer, & D. Shorr (Eds.), Powers and principles: International leadership in a shrinking world (pp. 197–224). Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Bağcı, H. (2015). Strategic Depth in Syria: From the Beginning to the Russian Intervention [online]. Valdai Discussion Club. [Viewed 5 September 2019]. https://valdaiclub.com/a/valdai-papers/valdai-paper-37-strategic-depth-in-syria-from-the-beginning-to-russian-intervention/.
Bağcı, H. (2013). Suriye’de doğrular yanlışlar… [online]. Star. [Viewed 27 March 2020]. https://www.star.com.tr/acik-gorus/suriyede-dogrular-yanlislar–haber-759105/.
Bağcı, H., & Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2015). From chaos to cosmos: Strategic depth and Turkish foreign policy in Syria. In: Ş. Ş. Erçetin, & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 11–26). Springer International Publishing.
Bağcı, H., & Erdurmaz, S. (2017). Turkey-Russia relations in the Era of the justice and development party (AK Party): From honeymoon to separation and reconciliation again. In W. Zellner (Ed.), Security Narratives in Europe (pp. 131–146). Germany: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
Barkey, H. J. (2014). Turkey’s Syria predicament. Survival, 56(6), 113–134.
BBC News. (2016). Syria conflict: Ceasefire agreed, backed by Russia and Turkey [online]. BBC News. [Viewed 20 August 2020]. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38460127.
BBC News Türkçe. (2018). İran Cumhurbaşkanı Ruhani: Türkiye’nin Afrin’deki operasyonu nafile [online]. BBC News. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-42959710.
Behravesh, M. (2017). Iran’s Syria policy post-IS: Staying for the long haul [online]. Middle East Eye. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/irans-syria-policy-post-staying-long-haul.
Borshchevskaya, A. (2018). Moscow’s middle east resurgence: Russia’s goals go beyond damascus. Middle East Quarterly, 25(1), 1–13.
Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction (pp. 1–6). New York: Routledge.
Carmichael, T., & Hadžikadić, M. (2019). The fundamentals of complex adaptive systems. In T. Carmichael, A. J. Collins, & M. Hadžikadić (Eds.), Complex adaptive systems views from the physical, natural, and social sciences (pp. 1–16). Switzerland: Springer.
Charap, S. (2013). Russia, Syria and the doctrine of ıntervention. Survival, 55(1), 35–41.
Cîndea, I. (2006). Complex systems—new conceptual tools for ınternational relations. Perspectives: Central European Review of International Affairs, 26(Summer), 46–68.
Clemens, W. C. (2014). Complexity science and world affairs. New York: State University of New York Press.
Çoban, M. İ. (2020). Astana Process in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Foreign Policies on Syrian Complexity. Master of Science Thesis. Middle East Technical University.Retrived from October 15, 2020, from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12625609/index.pdf/.
Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2015). Complexifying ınternational relations for a posthumanist world. In E. Kavalski (Ed.), World politics at the edge of chaos: Reflections on complexity and global life (pp. 169–188). New York: State University of New York Press.
Davutoğlu, A. (2016). Stratejik Derinlik, Türkiye’nin Uluslararası Konumu (108th ed.). İstanbul: Küre.
Del Sarto, R. A. (2017). Contentious borders in the Middle East and North Africa: Context and concepts. International Affairs, 93(4), 767–787.
Deutsche Welle. (2017). New Russia-Syria accord allows up to 11 warships in Tartus port simultaneously [online]. Deutsche Welle. [Viewed 7 March 2020]. https://www.dw.com/en/new-russia-syria-accord-allows-up-to-11-warships-in-tartus-port-simultaneously/a-37212976.
Einstein, A. (1993). Relativity: The special and the general theory. Translated from German into English by Robert W. Lawson. New York: Routledge.
Esfandiari, G. (2017). IS Propaganda Increasingly Targeting Iran And Its Sunnis [online]. Radio Free Europe. [Viewed 14 April 2020]. https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-islamic-state-propaganda-targets-sunnis/28531534.html.
Esfandiary, D., & Tabatabai, A. (2015). Iran’s ISIS policy. International Affairs, 91(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12183.
Freire, M. R., & Heller, R. (2018). Russia’s power politics in Ukraine and Syria: Status-seeking between ıdentity, opportunity and costs. Europe-Asia Studies, 70(8), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2018.1521914.
Geyer, R., & Rihani, S. (2010). Complexity and public policy: A new approach to 21st century politics, policy, and society. New York: Routledge.
GlobalSecurity.org. (2020). Operation Euphrates Shield [online]. Global Security. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/syria-euphrates-shield.htm.
Goodarzi, J. M. (2020). Iran and the Syrian civil war. In R. Hinnebusch & A. Saouli (Eds.), The war for Syria: Regional and ınternational dimensions of The Syrian uprising (pp. 138–155). London: Routledge.
Harrison, N. E. (2006). Complex systems and the practice of world politics. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 183–196). New York: State University of New York Press.
Harrison, N. E. (2006). Thinking about the world we make. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 1–24). New York: State University of New York Press.
Hashem, A. (2017a). In Syria, Iran sees necessary war [online]. Al-Monitor. [Viewed 12 April 2020]. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/03/iran-syria-intervention-hamedani-quds-force-memoir.html.
Hashem, A. (2017b). Iran’s post-ISIS regional strategy. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 105–112.
Hurriyet Daily News. (2017). Turkey, Russia sign memorandum to coordinate strikes in Syria [online]. Hürriyet Daily News. [Viewed 16 April 2020]. www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-russia-sign-memorandum-to-coordinate-strikes-in-syria-108469.
Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity ın political and social life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Kavalski, E. (2015). Complexifying IR: Disturbing the “Deep Newtonian Slumber” of the mainstream. In E. Kavalski (Ed.), World politics at the edge of chaos: Reflections on complexity and global life (pp. 253–272). New York: State University of New York Press.
Kavalski, E. (2007). The fifth debate and the emergence of complex ınternational relations theory: Notes on the application of complexity theory to the study of ınternational life. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20(3), 435–454.
Kissane, D. (2011). Beyond anarchy: The complex and chaotic dynamics of ınternational politics. Stuttgart: ibidem.
Kissane, D. (2015). Cleopatra’s nose and complex ınternational politics. In: Ş. Ş. Erçetin, & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 57–72). Springer International Publishing.
Lehmann, K. E. (2012). Unfinished transformation: The three phases of complexity’s emergence into ınternational relations and foreign policy. Cooperation & Conflict, 47(3), 404–413.
Lohrmann, R. (2000). Migrants, refugees and ınsecurity. Current threats to peace?. International Migration, 38(4), 3–22.
Maloney, S. (2017). ISIS attacks Iran and accusations fly [online]. Brookings. [Viewed 13 April 2020]. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/06/09/isis-attacks-iran-and-accusations-fly/.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). The great delusion, liberal dreams and ınternational realities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Naumkin, V. (2017). What Awaits Syria? [online]. Russia in Global Affairs. [Viewed 23 February 2020]. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/what-awaits-syria/.
Notte, H. (2016). Russia in Chechnya and Syria: Pursuit of strategic goals. Middle East Policy, 23(1), 59–74.
Oktav, Ö. Z. (2020). Turkish-Iranian relations in Syria. In R. Hinnebusch & A. Saouli (Eds.), The war for Syria: Regional and ınternational dimensions of the Syrian uprising (pp. 176–188). London: Routledge.
Onjanov, N. B. (2018). Ara Bulucu; Suriye Düğümü. Translated from Kazakh into Turkish by Aşur Özdemir. Ankara: Panama.
Oztig, L. I. (2019). Syria and Turkey: Border-security priorities. Middle East Policy, 26(1), 117–126.
Papadopoulos, M. (2018). Russia-Turkey Relations and the Kremlin’s “Kurdish Card” [online]. Global Research. [Viewed 13 April 2020]. https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-turkey-relations-and-the-kremlins-kurdish-card/5661007.
Parker, J. W. (2020). Qassem Soleimani: Moscow’s Syria Decision—Myth and Reality [online]. Institute for National Strategic Studies. [Viewed 28 April 2020]. https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2074132/qassem-soleimani-moscows-syria-decision-myth-and-reality/.
Root, H. L. (2014). Dynamics among nations: The evolution of legitimacy and development in modern states. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Rubin, J. Z. (1992). Conclusion: International mediation in context. In J. Bercovitch & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Mediation in ınternational relations; multiple approaches to conflict management (pp. 249–272). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rumer, E. (2019). Russia in the Middle East: Jack of All Trades, Master of None [online]. Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. [Viewed 12 March 2020]. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/31/russia-in-middle-east-jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none-pub-80233.
Sağlam, M. (2013). İnadın Ötesinde: Rusya’nın Suriye Politikası. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 68(4), 211–217.
Sandole, D. J. D. (2006). Complexity and conflict resolution. In N. E. Harrison (Ed.), Complexity in world politics: Concepts and methods of a new paradigm (pp. 43–72). New York: State University of New York Press.
Shaheen, K. (2016). Aleppo: Russia-Turkey ceasefire deal offers hope of survival for residents [online]. The Guardian. [Viewed 24 August 2020]. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/13/deal-reached-to-evacuate-rebels-and-civilians-from-aleppo.
Sinkaya, B. (2015). İran-Pyd İli̇şki̇leri̇: Takti̇k Ortaklik. Middle Eastern Analysis/Ortadogu Analiz, 7(70), 50–52.
Sinkaya, B. (2011). İran-Suriye İlişkileri ve Suriye’de Halk İsyanı. Middle Eastern Analysis/Ortadogu Analiz, 3(33), 38–48.
Sinkaya, B. (2017). İran’ın Suriye Stratejisi. Akademik Ortadoğu, 11(2), 49–64.
Smith, L. (2014). Kaos. Translated into Turkish by Hakan Gür. Ankara: Dost.
Soltaninejad, M. (2019). Coalition-building in Iran’s foreign policy: Understanding the “Axis of Resistance”. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 21(6), 716–731.
Souleimanov, E. A., & Dzutsati, V. (2018). Russia’s Syria war: A strategic trap? Middle East Policy, 25(2), 42–50.
Stein, A. (2018). What Turkey’s Afrin Operation Says about Options for the United States [online]. Atlantic Council. [Viewed 17 April 2020]. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/syriasource/what-turkey-s-afrin-operation-says-about-options-for-the-united-states-2/.
Stent, A. E. (2019). Putin’s world: Russia against the west and with the rest. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Suchkov, M. A. (2017a). Moscow’s Leverage in Syrıa is Strong, But Limited [online]. Russia in Global Affairs. [Viewed 28 February 2020]. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/moscows-leverage-in-syria-is-strong-but-limited/.
Suchkov, M. A., (2017b). Russia’s “Post-West World Order”: Why Turkey Matters. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 69–78.
Sullivan, C. J. (2018). Sidestepping a quagmire: Russia, Syria, and the lessons of the soviet-afghan war. Asian Affairs, 49(1), 48–55.
The Health Foundation. (2010). Evidence scan: Complex adaptive systems [online]. The Health Foundation. [Viewed 15 May 2020]. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/ComplexAdaptiveSystems.pdf.
Tomé, L. (2016). Complex systems theories and eclectic approach in analysing and theorising the contemporary ınternational security complex. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin & H. Bağcı (Eds.), Handbook of research on chaos and complexity theory in the social sciences (pp. 19–32). IGI Global: Springer.
Tomé, L., & Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2019). Complexity theory as a new lens in IR: System and change. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin & N. Potas (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2017: Explorations of chaos and complexity theory (pp. 1–16). Switzerland: Springer.
Trenin, D. (2010). Russia’s policy in the middle east: Prospects for consensus and conflict. Carniege Endownment, New York: The Century Foundation.
Tür, Ö. (2019). Turkey’s role in middle east and gulf security. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 13(4), 592–603.
Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2016). No: 333, 29 Aralık 2016, Suriye’de Çatışan Taraflar Arasında Ülke Genelinde Ateşkes İlanı Hk. [Online]. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [Viewed 30 April 2020]. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-333_-29-aralik-2016_-suriye_de-catisan-taraflar-arasinda-ulke-genelinde-ateskes-ilani-hk_.tr.mfa.
UNHCR. (2020). Syria Regional Refugee Response [online]. UNHCR. [Viewed 02 May 2020]. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria.
Unnikrishnan, N., & Purushothaman, U. (2017). Russia in middle east: Playing the long game? India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 73(2), 251–258.
Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge: Polity.
Vakil, S. (2018). Understanding Tehran’s long game in the levant. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 15(60), 105–120.
Wilhelmsen, J. (2019). Putin’s Power Revisited: How Identity Positions and Great Power Interaction Condition Strategic Cooperation on Syria. Europe-Asia Studies[online], 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1602594.
Wilson, J. L. (2010). The legacy of the color revolutions for Russian politics and foreign policy. Problems of Post-Communism, 57(2), 21–36.
Yeşilyurt, N. (2013). Orta Doğu’yla ilişkiler. In: B. Oran (Ed.), Türk Dış Politikası, Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar (Vols. III (2001–2012), pp. 401–62). İstanbul: İletişim.
Yükselen, H. (2017). Kompleksite Kuramı ve Diyalektik. In F. Yalvaç (Ed.), Tarihsel Materyalizm ve Uluslararası İlişkiler (pp. 309–332). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları: Ankara.
Yükselen, H. (2020). Russia and Turkey in Syria: Testing the extremes. İstanbul: SETA.
Xoпёpcкaя, Л. Л. (2018). «Иcлaмcкoe Гocyдapcтвo. 2.0»: Hoвыe Bызoвы в Цeнтpaльнoaзиaтcкoм Peгиoнe. Бoльшaя Eвpaзия: Paзвитиe, бeзoпacнocть, coтpyдничecтвo. 1(2), 212–217.
Бифoлки, Д. (2018). Гeoпoлитикa и тeppopизм нa Ceвepнoм Кaвкaзe: пocлeдcтвия кoнфpoнтaции/coтpyдничecтвa EC и Poccии и пpoпaгaндa джиxaдиcтoв. Гocyдapcтвeннoe yпpaвлeниe. Элeктpoнный вecтник, 68, 7–37.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Çoban, M.İ. (2021). Co-adaptation in Context with Iranian, Russian and Turkish Policies on Syrian Complexity: The Emergence of the Astana Process. In: Erçetin, Ş.Ş., Açıkalın, Ş.N., Vajzović, E. (eds) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2020. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74057-3_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74057-3_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74056-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74057-3
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)