Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took power in Syria but failed to move onto a democratic path due to its model of governance. HTS did not adopt an inclusive approach, excluding formations and forces outside itself from participation in government. It did not share power with other political forces or actors. Yet in such transition periods, the appropriate course would have been the formation of a structure based on broad political alliances with representative capacity at the national level.
Turkey fully supported and guided this monolithic, excessively centralized approach and its impositions. The United States and other powers also did not place a democratic restructuring on their agendas. Their priority was not a democratic Syria. Instead, these powers focused on bringing Syria under their control and ensuring it no longer posed a problem for their interests. The Turkish state, driven by the aim of preventing the Kurds from gaining status and eliminating their achievements, firmly embraced HTS. It chose to darken Syria’s future to deny the Kurds any recognized status.
As is known, talks were held under the leadership of the United States, resulting in the signing of the 10 March Agreement between the Damascus government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)–Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Under the agreement, integration was intended to be completed by the end of the year. However, despite the agreement and the presence of mediating powers such as the United States and France, HTS took no concrete steps in practice. Instead, it sought to detach integration from the substance of the agreement and implement it as a one-sided process of surrender and takeover.
Turkey’s anti-Kurdish stance also made things easier for HTS. HTS calculated that “the Turkish state will threaten the Kurds and exert pressure on them; it will work on my behalf in the face of the United States and Western allies.”
The year ended without any issues being resolved and talks and debates carried over into the new year. Ahead of the meeting held on 4 January, a principled understanding had been reached regarding the integration of the SDF. However, instead of translating this understanding into practice, HTS issued an ultimatum. As a result, no meaningful progress was made in 2025.
The US then stepped in once again and brought the parties together in Damascus on 4 January. At the time this article was written, the content of the meeting had not yet been made public. It is hoped that a more constructive approach will be adopted this time and that the decisions taken will be implemented.
Prior to this meeting, representatives of the Turkish government and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) continued their threats against the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the SDF in their New Year messages. What purpose is served by pushing a country already in ruins back toward war and catastrophe? Moreover, it had already been reported in the press that talks between the SDF and Damascus would take place on the 4th of the month. Despite this, what problem is solved by calling on HTS to wage war and offering it support?
This is all taking place at a time when the United States actions against Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro are on the global agenda. As the saying goes, the world has come unhinged, and that is exactly the situation we are witnessing. International rules and law no longer function. Those who possess power do whatever they wish. Donald Trump wants to turn the United States into the world’s watchdog, the sheriff of the town.
Those governing Turkey, alarmed by developments in the Middle East, sought to move away from a climate of conflict with the Kurds and to consolidate the domestic front. For this reason, they issued a call to Abdullah Öcalan. Beyond the dangers in the region, as is visible across the world today, affairs have spiraled out of control.
In addition, Iran is also under threat. Protests and unrest have erupted there as well. Trump has stated that if there were an attack on the public, the United States would intervene in Iran. This multiplies the pretexts for an attack. He also stated in talks with Benjamin Netanyahu, “We cannot accept Iran becoming stronger, and we may strike again.”
Amid such dangerous and rapid developments in the region and globally, Syria must prioritize securing internal peace. SDF and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria have consistently advocated resolving problems through dialogue and political methods and have repeatedly emphasized their commitment to Syria’s unity. The Damascus government could have assessed this positive and constructive approach more accurately. Turkey, for its part, could have played a constructive role in contributing to Syria’s internal peace and democratic unity. To date, however, it has not done so; on the contrary, it continues to beat the drums of war.
Voices rising from Turkey also point to a more dangerous possibility. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has ended its existence and armed struggle and has set as its goal the resolution of issues through political and legal means. Despite this, statements persist claiming that “the PKK/Party of Democratic Union (PYD)/People’s Protection Units (YPG) terrorist organization in Syria poses a danger to us.” As a result, while ending the war in Turkey and resolving the Kurdish question are placed on the agenda, the process is sought to be blocked in Syria.
Officials from the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the MHP state that the SDF must lay down its arms and be dissolved, otherwise laws related to a solution will not be enacted. How will sacrificing the Kurds in Syria and leaving them defenseless be reflected in Kurdish–Turkish brotherhood in Turkey? With such contradictions, “brothers” in Turkey and “enemies” in Syria, the Kurdish question cannot be resolved, and democracy will come to neither Turkey nor Syria.