The U.S. has been interfering with a sovereign state without any U.N. decision, just as it previously did in Afghanistan and Iraq. This time it is targeting Syria and at the moment, it is working on the ground with the People's Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian affiliate of the PKK, which it considers to be a terrorist organization along with many European states. So far, it has provided 9,000 trucks of weapons to the YPG.

These are not the arguments of journalists. The Public Affairs Office of the U.S.-led coalition recently announced that the U.S. would establish a border force consisting of 30,000 soldiers from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) on the Turkish and Iraqi borders. As many U.S. generals and senators have repeatedly said in their statements, we know that the SDF is ruled by the YPG, namely the PKK. The SDF is just camouflage.

So, why is the U.S. attempting to carry out such an operation against Turkey when the country is located on NATO's borders and the U.S. and other members of the pact are responsible for its security? Could the anti-Daesh fight in Syria and Iraq be an excuse?

Pentagon authorities have already announced that Daesh has been mopped up. Moreover, there is a coalition of elements of legitimate states to handle this job there, and Turkey has also been involved in this struggle. Why should there be any need for terrorist organizations to get involved?

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asked NATO about this scandalous U.S. decision. After a telephone conversation with Erdoğan, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO "understand[s] Turkey's concerns regarding the matter." Pointing out that it is Tukey's incontestable right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, Stoltenberg said that Turkey is an important country for NATO and that NATO was not consulted on the matter of creating such a force in northern Syria.

So, what will happen now?

Even though legitimate and sovereign regional states are opposed to this move, will the U.S. form this army of terror, which has not been approved by NATO, and will the world sit back and watch? To me, the Pentagon thinks this is how it will be. It thinks that although Bashar Assad opposes the creation of the force, he does not have the power to prevent the formation of an army of terror in Syria. It also thinks that Turkey will not risk a confrontation on the ground and that NATO will overlook the violation of international law, as U.S President Donald Trump has often threatened to cut financial support to it.

However, they are wrong this time, and they have made a faux pas with a half-baked plan. We do not know whether NATO will run the risk of bring into question its presence and function in the region and do what is necessary for the rightful opposition from Turkey, its most important border force.

Obviously, all countries in the region, particularly Turkey, will resist the U.S.'s operation this time. Even if it is one of the alternatives for the U.S. - resisting these terrorists is a must in order to exist in this region. Moreover, the Pentagon's imposition is against the interests of Russia and Iran.

What does support of a 30,000-member ravager troop and the silence of our alliances like NATO signify for this existential necessity? We hope both the U.S. and NATO will understand before it is too late that their half-century alliance with Turkey will not tolerate this latest strain.