?Where is Syria headed? And what are the most possible scenarios
Analytical study:
In light of the chaos and tumult that Syria is experiencing, especially after the fall of the Syrian regime through the swift operation led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham “HTS” (formerly al-Nusra), which was named Operation “Deterring Aggression” coordinated with Turkey, Israel, and the USA against both the Syrian regime and what is referred to as the “axis of resistance,” through mutual interests and agreements, after Turkey provided guarantees to Russia to influence Islamic groups to maintain Russian bases in the warm waters of the Mediterranean Sea, and a possible understanding regarding a deal about the war in Ukraine; Syria has entered a new phase characterized by ambiguity, vagueness, and an unclear vision regarding the future of Syria and its new regime. This is especially evident with Turkey promoting various radical Islamic factions listed as terrorist organizations, including ISIS, to re-deploy within Syrian geography, allowing ISIS to emerge from its hideouts to roam freely in areas like Homs, Aleppo, Hama, and others. Videos circulating on social media have shown ISIS members in their uniforms, insignias, weapons, and vehicles, undermining the efforts of the international coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) against ISIS. This could increase risks and signal the onset of a bloody civil war among different religious and ethnic sects in Syria, particularly with the burning of Christmas trees and acts of revenge and field executions carried out by some Islamic factions.
The victorious countries of World War I that divided the Middle East under the powers that established the nation-state in the region via the Sykes-Picot Agreement are the same ones, after a hundred years, trying once again to redraw and rearrange the Middle East based on making fundamental changes to governance systems and their structures, or perhaps changing the political maps in the region, especially among the conservative nationalist states that have begun to operate according to their authoritarian interests and agendas, no longer aligning with Western and American interests.
It seems that the primary driving force behind the winds of change sweeping through the Middle East, including Syria, is Israel, primarily alongside America, Britain, France, and Turkey as tools for implementing the plan. It is noteworthy that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s repeated statements were not made in vain, in which he referred to the beginning of the transformation of the new Middle East following the cutting of Iranian arms and curtailing its role and dominance over the region, and that this will lead to a reconfiguration of governance systems such that they do not pose a threat to its security. All these developments and rapid events have come after the events of October 7 and the Israeli war with Hamas, notably the announcement of the “David Economic Corridor” starting from India, passing through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Jordan to Israel, and then to Europe.
We sensed Israel’s true capability and strength after the events of October 7 and Iran’s defeat in Lebanon and Syria; it is evident from the role Israel is playing today in the region that Israel is poised to lead the next phase in the Middle East, considering that Iran has become out of the game as a regional power, so we do not expect it to have a prominent role in the future of the new Middle East. There are diligent efforts by the Turkish state to fill the Iranian and Russian void in Syria.
The Turkish role in creating “creative chaos” and trying to fish in troubled waters:
From the very first moment, we mentioned in one of our analyses that the initiation of what is called “Deterring Aggression” by “HTS” coinciding with the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was not a coincidence. On 23/12/2024, the Israeli Defense Minister publicly stated that they were the ones who brought down Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Therefore, the operation to overthrow Assad was planned in advance by Israel and the United States. The role of al-Jolani here is to execute what has been planned to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. As for Turkey’s role in this matter, it lies in creating chaos to fish in troubled waters, by instructing various radical factions to seize control of Syria, as described by U.S. President Donald Trump as “unfriendly control” of Syria.
Turkey pretends and claims that it is behind the operation to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime, as if it controls all the strings of the game and that it will be the “one in charge” in the future of Syria; this was demonstrated by Turkey through the intensive shuttle visits of Turkish officials (intelligence and foreign ministry) to Damascus where they expressed their support for the government and their proposals regarding arming and training the Syrian army, among other things – essentially imposing guardianship over Syria. This indicates that Turkey’s role in this matter is secondary because there are two strong main players on the field (Israel and Saudi Arabia).
We do not believe that Saudi Arabia will leave the Syrian arena entirely to Turkey’s expansionist agendas, especially when we talk about returning Syria to the Arab fold; Turkey is trying to involve itself in Syrian affairs through the coalition and the Muslim Brotherhood and influence al-Jolani to seize control of Syria completely, attempting to weaken the SDF and end the Autonomous Administration, thus undermining the morale of the Kurdish people in general, to compel them to make concessions to it, accept its conditions, and surrender to the Damascus government. This is akin to a misleading media war that falls within the framework of a special war. If we hypothetically assume that Turkey’s claims are correct, then why did Turkey also initiate what is called “Dawn of Freedom” in Syrian territory, coinciding with the “Deterring Aggression” operation launched by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham? The answer is that Turkey’s goal in encouraging “HTS” and other factions to launch the “Deterring Aggression” operation is to strike at the SDF and eliminate the Autonomous Administration; however, al-Jolani did not confront the SDF, and when Turkey realized that al-Jolani did not meet Erdogan’s demands, it took the initiative to launch what is called “Dawn of Freedom.”
If Turkey were truly in control of “HTS” and its leader al-Jolani, and if it were coordinating at a high level with them, the forces of “HTS” would have clashed with the SDF in Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and other areas. Therefore, Turkey is unable to direct al-Jolani as it wishes, and we believe that the international community will not accept Turkish guardianship over Syria after it has freed itself from Iranian guardianships. The clear contradiction was evident in the press conference held between Ahmad al-Shara (Abu Mohammed al-Jolani) and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, when a journalist from Al Jazeera asked al-Shara a question, and another to Hakan Fidan, saying: “Is there an agreement on the form of the ruling system in the upcoming stage?” Al-Shara avoided answering and said: “I think the questions are directed to His Excellency the Foreign Minister.”
We believe that the form of governance in future Syria will be determined by the Syrians and the international community based on ethnic and religious diversity, and Turkey will not be able to impose its dictates on the new Syrian government; the international community will not accept replacing Iranian hegemony with another Turkish hegemony or leaving the Syrian arena to radical Islamic factions to do as they please. Thus, Turkey’s diligent efforts and the reason behind its hurry and race to Damascus before all other countries is due to its realization that the Kurdish file and Syria in general have gone beyond its control, especially since there is implicit approval from Russia, the United States, and Western countries for the Kurds to obtain their rights in the new Syria. The primary goal of these nearly daily shuttle visits to Syria, as well as Turkey’s adherence to the National Army factions, is nothing but attempts to influence the political decision in Damascus and to prevent the Kurds from obtaining their legitimate rights, and to block any attempts to establish a decentralized or federal Syria, because any decision made regarding the form of the upcoming Syrian government—whether it be a decentralized or federal system in Syria—will negatively affect the internal situation in Turkey, given that the number of Kurds in Turkey exceeds 20 million, which is what Turkey fears on the other side.
In short: What Turkey could not achieve through reconciliation with the Assad regime regarding dismantling the autonomous administration in northern and eastern Syria and the SDF, it is now attempting to achieve through coordination and cooperation with Damascus; by inciting “HTS” to take a hostile stance against the autonomous administration. The second aim of the shuttle visits by intelligence and foreign officials, among others, to Damascus falls within the framework of contributing to the reconstruction of Syria and obtaining investments. Turkey’s dictates after the decline of Iranian influence in Syria and its imposition of guardianship over Damascus as soon as the Assad regime falls remind us of its negative role in the Syrian revolution and its distortion from its true path; it used the Syrian opposition coalition, which had international support, as a tool for its own agendas in the region and transformed what is called the National Army (Free Army) into mercenaries, sending its elements to Libya, Karabakh, Niger, and to South Kurdistan (northern Iraq) to fight the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
Therefore, the issue of Turkish control over Syrian political decisions is unlikely; the allegiance of Al-Julani is to Saudi Arabia, not Turkey. This was evident from the extensive coverage by the Saudi channels Al-Hadath and Al-Arabiya regarding every detail when the so-called “Deterring Aggression” process began. The important question is: Can the caretaker government (Al-Julani’s government) forge treaties with other countries? We believe that this caretaker government lacks the authorization and full powers to enter into treaties with countries to attract investments in Syria, and Turkey seems to be playing in extra time. Another important question is: Will the international community leave the Syrian file and the formation of the new state and the shape of the governance system in Syria to the benefit of “enemies of democracy,” namely Turkey and Erdogan, who is imposing his hegemony over the region through radical Islamists? The most crucial question of all is: Will Israel accept that Sunni radical Islamic factions dominate the Syrian scene? And how will the Arab and international reactions be, particularly from Israel? Will both Iran and Russia remain bystanders and do nothing?
The new Ottomanism relies on radical Islamic elements to impose its dominance over the region:
The Justice and Development Party, led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with his Islamic orientation, has been in power since 2002, having taken the reins from secularists. Erdogan has enhanced his influence within the state’s corridors and institutions, gradually transforming the secular state into an Islamic one through the enactment of laws and legislation that align with his Islamic thought and authoritarian tendencies. He has shifted from a parliamentary system to a presidential system to monopolize decisive decisions, especially exploiting the military coup in 2015 to suppress his opponents, imprisoning and torturing hundreds of generals, and dismissing tens of thousands of officers and soldiers from the army under various pretexts, allowing it to impose his Islamist grip with a racist inclination. This was achieved after his alliance with the Nationalist Movement Party to establish security and military authorities that obey his orders, striking opponents, particularly the Kurds, with an iron fist.
The Syrian crisis that began in 2011 presented a golden opportunity for Turkey to protect and arm itself and impose its hegemony through radical Islamic elements (ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nusra, the Brotherhood, and other Islamic factions) to inject new blood into the Turkish Turanism with an Islamic tint for the centenary launch of the Turkish Republic, which Erdogan openly proclaimed during the centennial anniversary of the Turkish Republic in 2023, describing it as “Turkey’s new century.” He mentioned on several occasions that the time has come for them to lead the republic in the twenty-first century after it was led by secularists for a hundred years, and that they (the Turks) have suffered injustice due to the Treaty of Lausanne, which has encroached on their land and diminished their role. According to their claims, they see that they must reclaim the stolen Ottoman territories (Aleppo, Mosul, Kirkuk, and other regions).
Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party, stated in front of his parliamentary group when the Turkish flag was raised over Aleppo Castle: “You cannot find a citizen whose heart does not flutter at the mention of Aleppo, because Aleppo is Turkish and Muslim to the core. It’s not just us who say this; history, geography, truth, our ancestors, and also the Turkish flag waving over Aleppo Castle say it.”[1] After Bahçeli’s speech, just two weeks later, Erdogan said in a meeting in front of his supporters: “There are those who wonder why Turkey is meddling in the Syrian file? (referring to the Republican People’s Party) We say to those who ask this question that they are ignorant, that they are not sufficiently aware of their history, and that they lack our cultural and civilizational values. Erdogan continues speaking and says: “While borders were being drawn in our region during World War I, what would happen if the circumstances were different? There is a strong likelihood that the cities of Aleppo, Hama, Idlib, Raqqa, and Damascus could become just like Gaziantep, Hatay, and Urfa, within our provinces. Do you see now why we are there?” Here again, it is clear to everyone that Turkey’s claims about the PKK and the threat to Turkish national security are nothing more than flimsy pretexts and justifications for reaching its true goals; namely, the full occupation of northern Syria on both its western and eastern banks, annexing it to Turkey, similar to what it did in the Syrian Iskenderun, so that later it could establish a buffer zone that would include the Turkmen in the border strip between Syria and Turkey.
Erdogan, allied with Qatar and emulating Iran in asserting control over the region; through interventions in the affairs of regional countries such as Libya and the African continent (Niger/Burkina Faso) and Karabakh, among others, particularly the occupation of large parts of northern Syria, and imposing a form of guardianship over the interim government led by al-Jolani in Damascus, with the assistance of his Islamic army and mercenaries from the Free Syrian Army and radical Islamic factions that Turkey has embraced, trained, and funded on its territory, to serve its own agenda. Erdogan’s exploitation of the Palestinian card, especially his support for Hamas and describing it as a “resistance movement,” has raised concerns among Israel, the US, and Western countries in general.
Turkey is attempting to present itself as the second regional power, competing with Israel in exerting its influence over the region, within the framework of a new Ottomanism to thwart the economic corridor project (India – Gulf states – Israel – Europe). (Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, discussions were ongoing about the gas pipeline project between Qatar and Turkey, which had been suspended for a long time. This strategic line extending from Qatar, passing through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, and then reaching Turkey and onwards to Europe, spans 1,500 kilometers and costs $10 billion; it was proposed in 2009, but Bashar al-Assad announced his refusal to allow the pipeline to pass through Syria; this was to avoid harming his ally Russia, which at that time was exporting gas to Europe.[2]
With the fall of Assad, the Qatari-Turkish gas pipeline project has resurfaced recently; however, there are numerous challenges preventing the implementation of this project due to the geopolitical situation in Syria and the competition among international and regional powers over Syrian geography, headed by Israel, the US, Saudi Arabia, and others, in addition to the destruction of Syria’s infrastructure and the current state of instability in the country. It is worth noting that Erdogan has stated that the “David Corridor” economic corridor announced in India in 2023 cannot be opened without Turkish approval.
Will the Israeli project (David’s Corridor) clash with the Turkish-Qatari pipeline project in the region, or is Turkey pretending to be hostile to Israel while actually serving Israel and implementing its agendas in the region? There have been some reactions from Israel and the U.S. regarding Turkey’s blatant interference in Syrian affairs and its imposition of guardianship over the new Damascus government. During a phone call on December 28, 2024, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken clarified to his Turkish counterpart that “the U.S. supports a political process led solely by Syrians, prioritizing the formation of an inclusive government that represents all sects, while considering human rights.” At the same time, Israeli Foreign Minister Gidon Saar stated that “there is no government in Damascus, but rather a terrorist group.” Israel does not trust that these uncontrolled factions on the Syrian scene will not pose a threat to its security in the future, especially since we are witnessing video clips of members of these groups openly threatening and declaring their intent to liberate Jerusalem, prompting Israel to quickly destroy strategic weapons and arms depots in Syria.
On the Arab side, despite some Arab countries sending delegations to Syria, there is a clear state of apprehension and great concern among Arab nations regarding what is happening on the Syrian scene and the so-called “deterring aggression” operation carried out by Al-Jolani to overthrow Assad. Arab countries are also worried about their internal security and the danger these groups pose in potentially reverting back into their territories in the future. Some observers and analysts fear that the Afghan scenario could repeat itself in Syria as well. Could Syria be left to radical Islamic factions just as Afghanistan was left to the Taliban?
The Turkish obsession and upcoming changes in the redrawing of a new Middle East:
Turkey understands that the arrangements being made by Israel, the United States, and Britain in the region are part of a new redrawing of the Middle East, and it is well aware that these changes will also affect Turkey. The Kurdish issue is now beyond the control of the Turkish state, and the Kurdish cause has taken on regional and international dimensions following the Syrian crisis, particularly with the participation of the SDF in the international coalition against ISIS. This was confirmed by former Turkish President Abdullah Gül, who stated: “We were late in addressing the Kurdish issue and giving it some form, and now it has gone beyond our control.”
Indeed, the Kurds have become the primary force that can be relied upon to promote democracy in the region and address issues of security and stability. Turkey cannot tolerate the successful experience of Autonomous Administration in northern and eastern Syria. Therefore, it has repeatedly and vigorously attempted to influence the course of events to align with its interests, whether through its occupation of areas in northern and eastern Syria, targeting infrastructure, or through political and diplomatic pressures to thwart and undermine the Autonomous Administration project in northern and eastern Syria. Despite all these pressures, Turkey has not succeeded in achieving its goals. Based on these factors, Devlet Bahçeli, the head of the Nationalist Movement Party, took the initiative to send a delegation of parliamentarians from the Equality and Democracy Party to Imrali to meet with Mr. Ocalan to revive the peace process that halted in 2015.
What Turkey has achieved in military or political victories in Syria remains a temporary victory unless it translates into a real political victory. Herein lies the importance of the Kurdish role; the ongoing state of exhaustion that Turkey faces in its war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the continuous wasting of human and material resources for nearly half a century has drained Turkey. The continuation of this bleeding is not in its favor, so it is compelled to reconsider its policies towards the Kurds and reconcile with them in both Syria and Turkey to build a genuine partnership and recognize the rights of the Kurdish people in the Turkish constitution. Historically, it has been proven that Turkey will gain strength and momentum by allying with the Kurds, as happened in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, and the War of Independence from 1919 to 1922.
Therefore, the issue of resolving the Kurdish question in Turkey and the region in general cannot be postponed or relied upon military action to eliminate the Kurds, especially since there is international sympathy for the Kurds to obtain their rights in Syria; this in itself sends clear signals from Western countries, the United States, and Israel regarding lifting the veto on the Kurdish issue, and accepting the rights of the Kurds in the new Syria after the Kurdish issue has remained unresolved for a hundred years.
The Kurds today have become a formidable force in the Middle Eastern political equation and must be taken into account due to their military and organizational strength on the ground in confronting the extremism of ISIS and various radical Islamic factions. The danger of ISIS has not yet ended, and there are no guarantees against the return of ISIS or similar groups, which underscores the importance of the Kurds in the region; dominant powers, primarily the United States and Israel, view the Kurds as a factor of balance and stability against the growing strength of radical factions in the region. Thus, they need new allies; it is in their interest for the Kurds to emerge as a major force alongside Arabs, Turks, and Persians in the region, especially since the Kurds do not have expansionist ambitions like Iran and Turkey.
The Syrian battlefield differs from the Afghan battlefield, because Syria’s geostrategic and geopolitical position is very significant; it lies at the crossroads of three continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), especially when we speak today about the withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria, meaning that the Syrian arena is left to America and Israel. Another important point is the security and safety of Israel first and foremost; we mentioned at the beginning of our talk that Israel will be the dominant power and will lead the Middle East, and America’s presence alongside it in the region enhances its position. Therefore, we do not believe that the Afghan scenario will be repeated in Syria.
Will Al-Julani and the radical Islamic factions remain in power in Syria in the future?
The matter of overthrowing the Assad regime within days by an Islamic force represented by “HTS” (formerly the Jabhat Al-Nusra), which is a radical force listed as a terrorist organization with a $10 million bounty on its leader, has indeed astonished the world; the intersection of interests among these forces sometimes accomplishes what the mind cannot imagine. “HTS” has been used to “kill three birds with one stone,” namely: overthrowing the Syrian regime, Iranian forces, and pressuring Russian forces to withdraw together. Therefore, if Al-Julani and the other factions continue to hold power in future Syria, we must understand that “HTS” has given guarantees to Israel that it intends to normalize relations with Israel, that it will ensure security on the Israeli border, and that it will not pose a danger to Israel and its national security in the future. Additionally, it has assured a role for Israel in preventing the return of Iranians and Russians to Syria.
The overthrow of the Syrian regime by “HTS” and the administration of the areas through a caretaker government does not mean that it will determine the fate of future Syria. The formation of the governance system in the new Syria will not be determined by Al-Julani’s government but will be under American sponsorship and UN oversight. The question of Al-Julani’s survival in power in Syria along with the Islamic factions is linked to how serious Al-Julani and his leaders are about the fundamental changes expected from them, particularly in their mindset and behavior, rather than merely in their appearance or whether they have trimmed or grown their beards. The important question is to what extent Al-Julani will respond to international community demands to form a civil democratic state, based on human rights and considering the rights of minorities, acknowledging the rights of all ethnicities, sects, and beliefs present in the new Syria. Will all factions under “HTS” follow their leader’s (Al-Julani’s) orders? The situation is very complex, and many challenges await Al-Julani; this will become evident in the coming months.
Perhaps the transitional government phase of “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” is a temporary stage in Syrian history, similar to what happened during the coup periods of the 1950s. The “Hayat” may bring about radical changes in its structure and ideology, moving away from extremism and Salafism to adopt a flexible Islamic approach that aligns with Western powers and America, enabling it to integrate and adapt to Syrian society. Alternatively, its role may also end, and it might be completely removed from the Syrian scene once HTS’s mission concludes. In any case, the current phase is a temporary one, and later a transitional government will be formed from all the sects and components present within Syria.
There are three scenarios looming for the future of Syria:
Merely toppling the Assad regime does not mean that the conflict between the warring capitalist forces in Syria has ended, nor that all issues will be resolved overnight. Amid the discussions about changing the face of the Middle East and redefining it anew, these challenges may persist for several more years, especially since we are talking about “creative” chaos and the struggle of powers to establish their foothold in the Syrian geography, especially with the spread of groups of radical Islamist factions supported by Turkey and their seizing of power in Syria; this poses a real danger threatening the security of the region and the stability of the entire world. The rapidly changing developments may surprise us, and what we do not expect may happen. There are several scenarios looming on the horizon in Syria:
The first scenario: the situation remains as it is now, with al-Julani remaining in power after gaining legitimacy, attempting to extend Syrian state control over the entire Syrian geography, including Northern and Eastern Syria, Suweyda, and other areas, through the use of violence and imposing control if necessary. Of course, this is supported and encouraged by Turkey, Qatar, and some conservative countries opposing the upcoming changes in the Middle East. In this case, only the model of the central state with an Alawite hue will transform into a central state with a singular Sunni hue, leading to more complexities, bloodshed, and endless sectarian-civil wars, which will cost the Syrians dearly.
The second scenario: is partitioning. Based on the existing sects and ethnicities, the Syrian geography will be divided into several small states and entities similar to what France did during World War I in Syria. At least three or four states will be formed; these include the Alawite state, the Druze state, the Sunni state, and the state of Northern and Eastern Syria. This scenario is unlikely at least in the current time, but if the Syrians do not unite around a common framework that guarantees the rights of everyone, including the Kurds to obtain their legitimate rights in language, culture, and identity, and to establish a democratic system that includes all ethnic and sectarian entities in Syria, this option will remain looming on the horizon.
Scenario three: The third scenario is the federal system; although the federal system has proven its merit in many Western and Arab countries such as Switzerland, Germany, America, the UAE, and others, and has achieved remarkable success in peaceful coexistence, protecting rights, and living with dignity, it remains a concern for many countries in the Middle East, which consider it detrimental to the public interest and claim it is a step towards separation. It is known that it is the optimal solution for the Syrian mosaic, and its success has been proven in many advanced countries.
Scenario four: The fourth scenario is a decentralized system or something akin to autonomy. Given that Syrian society is diverse and multicultural, with the essential feature of ethnic and religious diversity, it is necessary to establish a consensus constitution among the components that protects and preserves the rights of minorities and sects, and fulfills the hopes and aspirations of Syrians to build a decentralized, democratic, and pluralistic system based on equality and justice, away from the tyranny and racial discrimination that the Syrian people have suffered for the past fifty years at the hands of the Ba’ath regime. This scenario is currently embodied in the autonomy administration that adopts the “democratic nation” as a basis for common living among its various components in the region of North and East Syria, which has been in practice since 2013, involving Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmen, and other components.
Sources:
[1] youtube.com/shorts/1rZhCwOIJWk?i=WZ0z78roFSva4/1U
