Neo-Ottoman Turkey’s triumph over its regional rivals

For more than a decade, Bashar Assad presided over a regime that brutally repressed dissent, fueled a devastating civil war and transformed Syria into a proxy battlefield for regional and global powers. His resignation and sudden exile to Russia mark the end of an era in Syria’s long and bloody history.

Although Assad’s departure may seem like a turning point, it is not the end of Syria’s suffering. Instead, it signals the beginning of a new phase in the ancient power struggles that have long defined this critical crossroads of empires.

Among the players vying for influence in post-Assad Syria, Turkey has emerged as the clear winner. Over the past decade, Ankara has pursued a policy often described as “neo-Ottomanism,” a term that encapsulates its ambition to reclaim influence over territories once governed by the Ottoman Empire. Neo-Ottomanism refers to a strategic and ideological framework in which Turkey seeks to extend its economic, political and cultural influence across regions historically under Ottoman control, including the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has consistently leveraged this approach to expand its footprint in Syria. Initially, Turkey’s intervention in the Syrian conflict was framed as a response to the Kurdish threat along its southern border and a humanitarian effort to address the refugee crisis. However, Ankara’s deeper motivations became evident as it established military control over northern Syria, built infrastructure and implemented policies that promote Turkish culture and governance in occupied areas. By the time of Assad’s downfall, Turkey had entrenched itself as the dominant foreign actor shaping Syria’s future.

Assad’s resignation did not occur in a vacuum. It was the result of shifting dynamics among the main competing powers in Syria: Russia, Iran, Turkey and the Kurds. Each of these actors entered the Syrian conflict with distinct goals, but Turkey’s neo-Ottoman strategy has proven the most adaptable and enduring.

Russia, despite playing a decisive role in propping up Assad’s regime, has seen its position in Syria weaken due to the toll of its war in Ukraine. Moscow’s orchestration of Assad’s exile to Russia underscores the limits of its influence. Iran similarly has seen its role diminish — while Tehran initially backed Assad to maintain its “axis of resistance,” Turkey’s pragmatic approach has undercut Iran’s sectarian strategy. Meanwhile, the Syrian Kurds, who sought autonomy amid the chaos of war, have been neutralized by Turkey’s military operations and diplomatic maneuvers, leaving them vulnerable as the U.S. scales back its regional presence.

Turkey’s success in post-Assad Syria stems from its multifaceted strategy combining military strength, economic investment and ideological appeal. Its military interventions have established control over key regions in northern Syria, creating a buffer zone that secures Turkey’s borders and provides leverage over the future political settlement in Syria. Simultaneously, Ankara has poured resources into rebuilding infrastructure in Turkish-occupied areas, fostering dependency and creating a sense of stability absent elsewhere in the country. Culturally, Turkey’s neo-Ottoman vision manifests in the promotion of Turkish language and curricula, as well as economic integration that ties these regions closer to Ankara.

The implications of Turkey’s ascendancy extend beyond Syria. By asserting itself as the successor to the Ottoman Empire, Turkey is reshaping the regional order established after World War I. This shift weakens the legacy of Arab nationalism and offers a pragmatic model of governance that appeals to war-weary populations. It also has the potential to redraw alliances in the Middle East, as countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may seek to engage with Ankara to counterbalance Iran and Russia. While Turkey’s actions do not explicitly seek to redraw national borders, its administration of Syrian territories blurs traditional notions of sovereignty, raising questions about Syria’s future as a unified state.

Yet Turkey’s neo-Ottoman project is not without challenges. Erdogan faces domestic criticism over the economic strains and political polarization exacerbated by costly interventions abroad. Internationally, Turkey risks alienating Western partners, including America and NATO, due to concerns over Ankara’s authoritarian tendencies and its cooperation with non-Western actors like Russia. Furthermore, resentment against Turkish control in northern Syria could provoke local resistance, threatening the stability Ankara seeks to establish.

Turkey has carved out a new role for itself as the successor to the Ottoman Empire. Whether neo-Ottomanism represents a viable framework for regional stability or a new form of imperialism remains uncertain. What is clear is that Syria, once again, stands at the crossroads of history, its fate intertwined with the ambitions of an ascendant Turkey.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.