Abstract
When the Arab Spring broke upon Syria in 2011, Turkish political elites found themselves facing the following dilemma: either continue pursuing the country’s “profitable” relationship with an “oppressor” or support the Syrian uprising at the risk of losing a crucial source of diplomatic support in the Middle East. It was the second option that was chosen. In order to bring about this radical change and demonize the Syrian regime in the aim of overturning it, Turkish political elites developed a discourse based on four types of argumentative strategy: humanitarian, normative, security-based and religious/historic. First and foremost, this discourse sought to justify rapidly breaking with the Syrian regime in Turkish public opinion; it next sought to present the fight against the regime as legitimate and necessary at the national and international levels. By deconstructing these discursive processes, this article seeks to understand, not just the strategic considerations of Turkish decision-makers, but also the ideological aspect of Turkish foreign policy.