The current processes in Syria are causing concern to many external players, from neighbors (which is quite natural) and former allies of Bashar al-Assad, such as Russia and Iran, to Western countries that are wary that the processes of state-building will go on without their participation, and the current interim administration is only talking about democracy, but in fact has his own plans for the future of this country.
For this reason, there are talks behind the scenes in the corridors of power about the possible federalization of Syria with the division into zones of responsibility. The project is not one of the worst, because Russia once offered the Assad government a similar option, which he refused. And after a while had lost everything. From the point of view of the ethno-religious composition of Syria, its federalization is quite logical. Historically, during the French mandate in 1921-1922, there were areas of Druze administration (centered in Al-Suwayda), Alawites (Latakia), as well as two territories with centers in Damascus and Aleppo, respectively, not to mention Lebanon, which became a separate state. The federalization project was also supported by the UN. The United States also supported this project. During the war and now, only the Kurds actively support this idea from within.
As for the opponents, the government expressed skepticism about possible Balkanization, that is, the gradual alienation of the regions and the further disintegration of a united Syria. But, in addition, the Syrian opposition itself, supported by the West and a few regional players, had previously opposed federalization. Now Turkey is also opposed to this process, since it actually controls many paramilitary groups, the largest of which is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) (banned in Russia). It translates as the Levant Liberation Organization and has a Sunni ideology with the roots of Jabhat al-Nusra, which in turn was created as part of ISIS with the participation of Al-Qaeda (all three are banned in Russia).
But it is obvious that the opposite federalization project may lead to Islamization (in a Salafist way) and neo-Ottomanization of Syria, including repression against the Kurdish population. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet recently reported that “Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned. If the PKK-YPG does not lay down its arms, if it continues to insist on another administration in Syria and if Western countries make demands in this direction, then a large-scale military operation together with the Syrian state will be inevitable.” In northern Syria, Turkey has several groups under its operational control, consisting of adherents of Salafist ideology, natives of Central Asian and Caucasian countries, including Russia, as well as China (Uyghurs). Most likely, Ankara is going to incite them against the Kurds who have historically lived in this region. The aforementioned Self-Defense Forces are the armed wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (People’s Protection Units – YPG), supported by the United States.
Turkey is clearly interested in full control of Afrin, Azaz, Manbij and Tell Rifaat, which will inevitably lead to a new escalation.
Therefore, Turkey will find itself in a difficult situation, especially after the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House. As for the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers’ Party), which represents an umbrella structure for the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Turkey (at the level of deep conspiracy in Iran), judging by insider information from the Kurdish side, the PKK is likely to be reformed and even possibly split into various parts in order to relieve political tension in Turkey. At the same time, coordination between the Kurdish factions will be maintained in order to keep a common strategy for preserving their own identity and designing the future. In the fall of the Assad government, the Kurds see the inevitability of reformatting the borders of the region, which were echoes of the consequences of the First World War and did not take into account their vital interests. If the Kurds managed to achieve autonomy in Iraq, now they will try not to miss the opportunity to participate in the fate of the Syrian restructuring, no matter what the cost. And given their powerful foreign lobby and the clear support from a number of countries, their aspirations may well receive political formalization.
In addition to the United States and, probably, the EU countries, which will support the ideas of federalization and, in fact, the Kurds (as well as Christians) in Syria, Israel is another serious regional actor that will be able to intervene in the current processes. Guided by its own security issues, Israel has already occupied part of Syria, justifying this by the need to expand the buffer zone near the Golan Heights (which were occupied much earlier). Israel, regardless of who the prime minister will be, will not want to allow a Salafist-neo-Ottoman project to appear on its borders, especially given the ties between Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas movement.
The Jerusalem Post also reported that Israel should be prepared for a direct confrontation with Turkey amid the latter’s attempts to restore the Ottoman Empire. The analytical note, which was presented to the Israeli Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Finance Minister, states that the risk of uniting Syrian factions would pose a security threat to Israel, and Turkish-backed forces could allegedly act as intermediaries, creating instability in the region.
For this reason, Israel will actively support both supporters of federalization and a secular state, as well as its long-time allies, the Kurds.
After gaining independence, Israel found itself in a hostile Arab environment, so it was forced to look for regional allies. Iran was one of them before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The others were the Kurds, and Israel has actively supported them since Mustafa Barzani’s first uprising in Iraq, which began in 1961. Since then, cooperation between the Kurds and Israel has been steadily developing.
The second important factor is the very presence of Kurds in the Israeli establishment. Although it is generally believed that only ethnic Jews reside in Israel (except for the Arab minority), this is not the case. There is a large Kurdish diaspora in the country, which is quite active in its political life. The reason is that earlier, during the Arab-Israeli wars, Kurdish families professing Judaism were expelled from Syria and Iraq. And there are at least 200,000 people with Kurdish roots living in Israel now. For example, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Saar, and the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir (who shares rather radical Zionist views), are of Kurdish origin. In addition, many high-ranking officers in the Israeli army and other law enforcement agencies are also Kurds.
These data indicate the beginning of a new and rather difficult period for Syria. And, although Russia’s minimal presence there still remains, it is necessary to develop various scenarios of action, including an assessment of the regional security system. Given the upcoming signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership agreement with Iran, the Syrian issue cannot be ignored. Although these plans have already caused concern in the United States, where they consider the new agreement between Russia and Iran as a prelude to the return of Iranian armed groups to Syria and further assistance to the Lebanese Hezbollah.
Comments