Mehmet Ali Çelebi, Editor-in-Chief of Yeni Yaşam Newspaper, said the new plot being implemented in Syria through Rojava bears similarities to the international conspiracy carried out against Abdullah Öcalan in 1999, and spoke to ANF about the international dimensions and behind-the-scenes dynamics of the process that began with the attacks on Aleppo.
Behind the plot targeting Rojava
Çelebi said the conspiracy process that began with the attacks on Aleppo targets Kurdish gains in Rojava and added: “The first plot also began in Syria; it is striking that the second international conspiracy directed against Kurds has once again unfolded with Syria at its center. Figures such as Hosni Mubarak and Süleyman Demirel were involved in the first plot. In the United States, the administration of Bill Clinton was in office. The United Kingdom was among the main pillars of the conspiracy. Following the plot, the process led to the Adana Agreement. This agreement constituted a critical threshold between Turkey and Syria. It was signed on 20 October 1998, while Hafez al-Assad was still alive, two years before his death and before transferring control to Bashar al-Assad. Within the framework of the Adana Agreement, Turkey established a significant sphere of influence over Syria.
With this sphere of influence, policies aimed at politically suppressing dynamics and excluding them from the energy equation produced results. One of the most important pillars of this process was the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project (BTC). After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, the project to transport Azerbaijani oil from the Caspian region to Ceyhan (Adana) was accelerated after 1993, and activities continued right up to this period of conspiracy.”
Kurds sacrificed to the energy equation
Çelebi said another key pillar of this conspiracy materialized through the Blue Stream Energy project. He said: “Another factor was the Blue Stream pipeline between Russia and Turkey. Russia remained silent in many areas for the sake of this project and turned a blind eye to policies directed against Kurds. At that time, the West also supported the administrations of Boris Yeltsin and later Vladimir Putin to prevent Russia from returning to a socialist orientation. In this way, the Blue Stream project was pushed through during that period. In other words, Kurds were, in a sense, sacrificed to the energy equation. Another dimension of this was the policy of seeking dominance over the Mediterranean and Cyprus basin and thereby weakening the influence of the Kurdish movement in that region.”
6 January and the international consensus
Çelebi stated that an international consensus was again formed on 6 January 2026 within the framework of anti-Kurdish policies, and said: “Once again, the United Kingdom played a leading role; this time, United States President Donald Trump was also on the stage. Trump had already signaled this policy when he allowed the occupation of Kirkuk. Under normal circumstances, he pursued a policy aimed at eliminating the Popular Mobilization Forces (Hashd al-Shaabi), which are aligned with Iran, in Iraq. However, when it came to the Kurds, and at Turkey’s request, he allowed this force under the command of Qassem Soleimani to occupy Kirkuk. This was because he sought to establish a concept based on financial interests and rent-seeking with the Justice and Development Party (AKP) administration.
After Kirkuk, he paved the way for jihadist structures to enter Afrin (Efrîn) together with Turkey, and likewise for the incursions into Tal Abyad (Girê Spî) and Ras al-Ayn (Serêkaniyê) in 2019. Because the United States controls the airspace over both Iraq and Syria, it opened these areas to operations.”
The United States’ alliance with Kurds was tactical
Çelebi said that significant concessions were granted to Turkey during the Trump administrations, and continued: “For this reason, as United States elections approached, the AKP–Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) coalition in Ankara began to wait for Trump almost ‘like waiting for Godot.’ The pro-government media—television channels and newspapers, were eagerly anticipating Trump’s return. After Trump took office, bargaining talks were held over how anti-Kurdish policies would be pursued.
The United Kingdom had its own calculations; driven by a historical antagonism toward Russia, it sought to prevent Russia from gaining access to warm seas. The United States aimed to push Russia, China, and Iran out of Syria. The force positioned to fill this vacuum was the AKP–MHP coalition, which leveraged its NATO membership and geopolitical position. Powers such as Germany and the United Kingdom supported this policy, preferring that a NATO force fill the Iran and Russia vacuum in the region.
In essence, the alliance that the United States administration formed with Kurds in Syria was a tactical alliance. As we have emphasized before, the United States cooperates with Kurds up to a point, while also maintaining Turkey as a balancing force. It seeks to position Turkey against Russia in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and in the Middle East through the framework of the ‘moderate Islam’ project due to Turkey’s Islamic identity.”
Trump’s volatile profile
Çelebi said Trump’s inconsistent and volatile approach to world politics also fueled this conspiracy process and added: “Trump’s profile was highly changeable; one day he would heap praise by calling someone ‘a very good leader,’ and the next day he would unleash insults and threats. He could set his sights on Canada, one of the United States’ closest allies, threaten to seize the Panama Canal, or pursue a policy of purchasing Greenland, which belongs to Denmark. The European Union, for its part, sought to construct a defense umbrella in response, while assigning a role to Turkey. Because of Turkey’s military strength and its possession of one of NATO’s largest armies, many of its actions were tolerated. To reiterate: when a crossroads is reached, the preference of the United States is not the Kurds, but Turkey.”
The United States sided with Turkey and HTS
Çelebi said the United States’ decision to withdraw from Iraq and redeploy its forces to the Kurdistan Region to fortify it militarily is driven by multiple strategic aims. He said: “The United States is withdrawing from Iraq and moving its forces to the Kurdistan Region, where it is reinforcing its military presence. It seeks to establish a balance of power against Iran and to draw Israel and regional countries into the ‘Abraham Accords.’ At this point, Turkey is being assigned a persuasive role. At the same time, a policy of disarming Hamas is being pursued. In doing so, the United States is pursuing a line of politics through the AKP–MHP administration, which Hamas is ideologically close to. All of this is inseparable from the pressure being exerted on Iran. While preparing for operations against Iran, the United States aims to sever Turkey completely from Russia and to halt gas purchases through the Blue Stream and Turk Stream pipelines. The pressure applied to India as of February 2026, resulting in India ending its energy relations with Russia, is an example of this. The United States is seeking both to cut Russia’s and China’s energy routes and to construct a system in which it would distribute the resources of Venezuela and Iran under its own control following the operation of 3 January 2026.”
Çelebi said the United States has sided with Turkey and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in its policies toward Rojava, and stated: “What is striking here is that HTS and the Syrian National Army, which emerge from the same ideological lineage as al-Qaeda and ISIS, the perpetrators of the 11 September attacks, have been supported by the Trump administration. This situation even provoked serious reactions within the United States Congress. Ankara’s foreign policy is structured around preventing Kurds from gaining any status anywhere; it appears to invest all its efforts in an anti-Kurdish, anti-Armenian, anti-Greek, and anti-Alevi strategy. However, the situation in Syria and Rojava can change abruptly. Looking at the pages of history makes clear what jihadist structures that carried out massacres in capitals such as Paris, Moscow, Brussels, and London in the past may bring upon peoples in the future.
Indeed, Kurds and peoples in international solidarity taking to the streets across the world first influenced parliaments and then governments. Even the Macron administration in France was compelled to abandon double-dealing and assume a mediating role.”
Çelebi recalled that many issues were on the table during the meetings held in Damascus on 4 January between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the interim Damascus administration, but that the talks were sabotaged at the last moment. He said: “4 January 2026 is critical in this regard. The visits of SDF Commander-in-Chief Mazloum Abdi and Sipan Hemo to Damascus, the participation of United States commander Kevin Lambert, and the meetings held with the Syrian Minister of Defense constituted significant progress. As Thomas Barrack himself acknowledged, discussions were underway on how Kurdish would be reflected in the constitution and in education. Ahmed al-Sharaa issued Decree No. 13 before the 6 January attack, announcing that Kurdish would be recognized as a national language; however, this decree contains many ambiguities. The content of the education curriculum and its practical implementation remain unclear. Structures acting at Ankara’s direction sabotaged solution-oriented meetings through backstage maneuvering.
At the Paris meetings held on 5–6 January, planned by Barrack, Hakan Fidan, and the United Kingdom, and attended by Israel, the HTS regime was also at the table. The plan that Barrack had prepared months earlier was activated there. The Rojava administration needed to anticipate this process and develop alternative plans. Imperial powers will always seek new Lausannes and new maps. Yet Kurds, since the generation of 1968, have climbed step by step beyond the borders drawn by imperialists. After the collapse of the Soviets, the Halabja massacre, and the Gulf wars, they emerged each time by regrouping and moving forward.
Revolutionaries always carry a spark of hope within them; otherwise, the Cuban Revolution of 1959, the Vietnamese resistance, the Paris Commune, or the Soviet dynamic of 1917 would not have taken place.”
Turkey has an opportunity to pursue a solution on equal footing with Kurds
Çelebi said new processes could still develop against the plan constructed through jihadist regimes following the 5–6 January Paris meetings. He stressed that the region remains open at any moment to political earthquakes. Çelebi said: “The example of Iran must be examined. Iran has driven a wedge between itself and its peoples (Kurds, Azeris, Baloch, and Arabs). The 12-day war in June 2025 showed that possessing massive military hardware and missiles alone is not enough. The real power is not missiles, but the will of the people.
The AKP administration is operating under a similar illusion, believing it can intimidate peoples through military spectacles and structures such as HTS. Yet structures that become detached from their own people are condemned to decay. As Marx said, ‘A nation that oppresses other nations cannot itself be free.’ While attempting to oppress other peoples, you try to conceal corruption, degeneration, and decay; yet one day you see everything collapse from within. Allocating enormous budgets to weapons, tanks, and jihadist groups while deeming a wage of twenty thousand lira sufficient for your own people erodes social ethics.
There is a major opportunity before Turkey: to develop a solution process with Kurds based on equality; to share economic value with peoples instead of channeling resources to military units in Syria; and to open the path to freedom. Otherwise, this policy could lead Turkey toward an end like Iran’s. Iran failed to draw lessons and will suffer severe destruction. If Turkey does not wish to become like Iran, it must invest in equality and freedom rather than in arms.”
Leave a Reply