Turkey’s military expansion: Neo-Ottoman ambitions in disguise

Following their rise to power, Erdoğan and his officials increasingly embraced an expansionist, neo-Ottoman ideology, seeking to assert dominance and exploit the resources of politically and security-fragile states. Turkey’s ongoing military interventions—particularly in Syria and Iraq—demonstrate that its leadership is serious about restoring regional influence reminiscent of the Ottoman era.

"Neo-Ottomanism" in AKP Officials' Own Words

In 2003, then-President Abdullah Gül stated in a Turkish newspaper interview:

"Turkey cannot be confined to Anatolia; its full borders extend beyond the official ones. Turkey’s influence and interests surpass its geographical limits." When asked if this signified a neo-Ottoman agenda, Gül responded: "Call it what you will. The Balkans, the Middle East, and Central Asia are regions of direct concern to us. Turkey cannot be locked inside Anatolia."

Such rhetoric reflects AKP leaders’ consistent use of historical references like the Misak-ı Millî (National Pact), an Ottoman-era territorial claim. In January 2019, then-Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu justified granting Turkish citizenship to Syrian refugees by asserting:

"They come from lands within the Misak-ı Millî borders, which gives them a rightful claim to become Turks."

Erdoğan himself has repeatedly invoked Ottoman history to justify Turkey’s regional policies. On August 8, 2011, while serving as Prime Minister, he declared: "Syria is not a foreign issue for us; we consider it a domestic matter."

On July 15, 2012, he further elaborated:

"Why are we so involved in Syria? The answer is simple: We are the successors of the Ottoman state. We are the descendants of the Seljuks and Ottomans. We carry the legacy of our ancestors who fought throughout history."

On January 11, 2018, Erdoğan explicitly stated: "Northern Syria was within the Misak-ı Millî borders."

On September 16, 2018, just before the Sochi Agreement, he dismissed the Syrian government’s legitimacy, declaring: "We do not recognize the Syrian regime or state. If some powers claim to be in Syria at the regime’s invitation, we are there at the invitation of the Syrian people. In Idlib, people do not wave Russian or American flags—they carry Turkish flags."

Strategic Methods to Achieve Neo-Ottoman Goals

Over the years, Turkey has systematically pursued regional dominance by: Supporting Islamist political movements and armed groups, exploiting sectarian and ethnic divisions to manipulate internal conflicts, using political and military influence to install pro-Turkish governments and leadership, and Signing controversial agreements to expand its strategic and economic control.

Libya: A Case Study in Turkish Expansionism

Turkey’s intervention in Libya serves as a clear example of this strategy. On December 25, 2019, Turkish Presidential Spokesman İbrahim Kalın stated:

"Anyone familiar with Turkey’s modern history understands that its security begins beyond the Misak-ı Millî borders. We must expand our security perimeter, which is why Libya is of great importance to us."

He further asserted: "In the age of globalization, Turkish national security begins beyond the Misak-ı Millî borders. Libya may seem distant, but dismissing its significance reflects a narrow worldview."

Under this pretext, Turkey deployed military forces to Libya, altering the course of the civil war and empowering Turkish-aligned political and military factions. Beyond military influence, Turkey has pursued lucrative deals worth billions of dollars, including a maritime agreement that strengthens its claim to Mediterranean gas and oil reserves—an issue that remains at the heart of Turkey’s disputes with Greece and Cyprus.

Turkey’s expansionist policies, framed as national security and historical responsibility, continue to shape its aggressive military footprint across the region.

Syria: Occupation and Pursuit of Dominance

Since the outset of the Syrian crisis, Turkey has sought direct intervention, deploying its forces into Syrian territory and occupying vast areas. It has also supported loyalist mercenary groups, including the so-called Syrian National Army.

Over the past years, the Turkish occupation and its Syrian proxies have implemented measures aimed at altering the identity of occupied Syrian regions—such as Jarablus, al-Bab, Azaz, Afrin, Ras al-Ain (Sere Kaniye), and Tel Abyad (Gire Spi). However, Turkey’s ambitions have extended beyond mere occupation.

After the collapse of the Assad regime and the rise of a new authority in Damascus, Turkey leveraged its influence on the ground to exert pressure on this emerging administration. Despite Syria still being in a transitional phase, Ankara began advocating for early political, military, and economic agreements with the new authorities. Such agreements, however, lack legitimacy, as they do not adhere to any recognized legal frameworks.

Turkey is now seeking a border demarcation agreement with Damascus, alongside long-term accords that would allow it to establish additional military bases deeper within Syrian territory—moving beyond its previous focus on border areas. This expansion would solidify Turkey’s grip on Syrian affairs, enhancing its capacity for political and military influence. Additionally, Ankara aims to gain control over Syria’s military and security forces under the pretext of providing training, a move that threatens the country’s sovereignty and the independence of its institutions.

Iraq: Military Bases and Coercion

Turkey’s expansionist policies are not confined to Syria; they extend into Iraq and the Kurdistan Region as well. In October 2016, after the Iraqi government rejected Turkey’s participation in the battle to liberate Mosul from ISIS, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responded by invoking historical claims: “They should read the National Pact to understand what Mosul means to us... Mosul was ours.”

Erdoğan further stated: “As we witness events unfolding in Syria and Iraq, the new generation must understand one thing very well: What is the National Pact? We must comprehend this thoroughly. If we study and grasp the National Pact, we will clearly understand our responsibility in Syria and Iraq. If we say that we have a responsibility in Mosul, then we must be both at the negotiating table and on the ground. There is a reason for this. Unfortunately, we were unable to protect our National Pact along our western and southern borders. They wanted to confine us within a shell, and we reject this notion. Since 1923, they have sought to imprison us within these constraints to make us forget our Seljuk and Ottoman past.”

On another occasion, Erdoğan reiterated: “We could not protect our National Pact. If we carefully examine developments in Syria and Iraq, there is something I must say—we are obliged to reclaim our role in the National Pact.”

Turkey has worked to expand its military presence in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (Bashur) by establishing numerous military bases. Additionally, it has supported certain Sunni and Turkmen factions while using water resources and other strategic issues as leverage to pressure Baghdad into cooperation against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

a.k

ANHA