It is a bit like adding water to a boiling pot, and a bit like playing devil’s advocate, but it seems that recent events in Syria and the new situation that has emerged do not seem to be developing in our favor. In fact, last Sunday evening (8 December), Netanyahu announced to the entire world who had the most to gain from the new conditions, that is, from the turmoil that is likely to result in Syria ceasing to be a state.
The Israeli Prime Minister, who travelled to the Syrian-Israeli border, declared Assad’s departure from the country and the collapse of the Ba’ath regime a great victory for Israel. He insisted that its relentless bombing of Syria had played an important role. Julani, whom they previously described as the leader of a jihadist terrorist organization, has already turned into an ‘opposition’ leader and is being glorified by the U.S. media. The ‘opposition’, which has taken control of Syrian cities from Aleppo downwards (Hama, Homs, and Damascus), is being marketed as ‘young people with clean faces’. Julani and his team are sending moderate messages to the Syrian people, but it is not clear how long this process will last.
What is good for Israel cannot be good for us?
What is good for Israel is not necessarily bad for us, and what is good for us is not necessarily bad for Israel. After all, Israel is not our ideological rival or enemy; neither is America…. But from the point of view of Israeli and American priorities, if what they want to do does not coincide with our rights and interests, or if it contains elements that are literally ‘dangerous’ to our rights and interests, then there is a problem.
In fact, following Netanyahu’s statements on the Syrian border, the Israeli Air Force has been bombing air defense systems and military facilities in many cities, especially Damascus, as well as government buildings and land registry offices. Ports, naval facilities, etc. have all been destroyed. There is no doubt that these air operations will continue. On the other hand, Israeli ground troops have crossed the Syrian border and are about 14-20 kilometers inside Syria. This is likely to continue. Meanwhile, Tel Aviv has announced that the ceasefire line established between Israel and Syria in 1974 after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war has ended because Syrian troops have withdrawn from the area. In other words, there is no doubt that Israel is planning something permanent, especially in the geography where the Druze live.
What Israel is doing or will do in this region is not unknown. The project of dividing Syria into four parts (Durzi state, Sunniistan, Alawite state and Kurdish state), which Israeli leaders and political elite have been talking about for years, has reached the stage of realization.
It is clear that this fragmented structure will not serve Türkiye’s national interests, but the main problem is how to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state in the vast and fertile areas east of the Euphrates. Already, important figures of the Israeli lobby (Lindsay Graham and others), who have raised their voices in the U.S., have begun to talk about the fact that Türkiye should not be allowed to touch this structure east of the Euphrates and that sanctions should be imposed if it tries to do so.
In order to solve the problem of this PKK/PYD-controlled organisation’s access to the sea, Israel is taking control of the area from Tanf to the Durzi region in Syria. Thus, the ‘corridor’ that was attempted in 2014-15 and failed to materialise due to Türkiye’s armed response – which Turkish officials correctly called a terror corridor – will now come from the south and open to the Mediterranean via Israel. Any attempt by Türkiye to operate in this region will be blocked by both the U.S.-Israel and the HTS and its components, which control the central government from inside Syria. The justification will be things like keeping Iran out of this region, which will be music to the ears of the political/Salafi Islamist groups in Türkiye. Such a Kurdish structure will serve as the foundation for a Greater Kurdistan, which will later be formed together with a large part of Türkiye.
Constitution and transitional period
The pre-partition scenario in Syria will begin with a new constitution. Changing the Syrian constitution, which currently has a national unitary structure, would mean a new constitutional structure with autonomous and/or federated units. There is no doubt that such a course, which Türkiye has been advising the Syrian government on for years and which I have always criticized, is now being prepared. With the implementation of such a constitution, the infrastructure for partition is in fact being prepared because the four states mentioned above (Sunnistan, Alawite State, Durzi State and PKK/PYD region) will become autonomous or federated regions with their own internal administration and security forces (army, police and even judiciary) and will be included in the constitution. It is too early to say whether Christians will be granted such an area.
On the other hand, such a constitutional process and transitional period may bring new conflicts. In Iraq, for example, such conflicts erupted when significant numbers of American, British, and other European troops were directly involved. When members of the Ba’ath – both the security forces and the Ba’ath bureaucracy – were excluded from the new constitutional process, the Ba’ath, as the representative of the Sunnis, began opposition and even armed resistance.
There is no guarantee that similar tensions will not arise in Syria. Given that the Baath is still the most organised structure in Syria, whether it is integrated into the new system will have important consequences. The U.S. first invaded Iraq and there was no UN approval for this invasion; however, after this unilateral and illegitimate invasion, the U.S. received the status of occupying country from the UN Security Council. As an occupying country, it had the right to maintain troops and the obligation to maintain public order. The constitution was largely drafted by the U.S. and imposed on the Iraqi people, but this did not prevent serious unrest. In Syria, there is/will be no force as large as the American troops. The number of groups that view each other with suspicion and even hostility is much greater than the Kurds and Arabs in Iraq and the Sunnis and Shiites among the Arabs. Therefore, the Turkish authorities’ expectation of a democratic, peaceful, and happy Syria for all Syrians looks like an inscription on the waters of the Mediterranean.
What can be done? Questions, questions…
By reaching an agreement with Assad, Türkiye could protect its national interests much easier and there would be no security problems on the Turkish-Syrian borders. At the same time, the Syrian refugees in the country could have been repatriated and the PKK/PYD and jihadist terrorist organizations could have been fought together with Syria. But these possibilities are now history. Moreover, with such a compromise, the current situation in Syria could have been maintained and psychological pressure could have been exerted on the PKK/PYD, making it easier for Trump to withdraw from this country when he takes office.
In the new era, Türkiye’s priority should be to prevent the PKK/PYD from becoming a state, but how will it be possible to criticize Israel in the harshest way and make the Israeli lobby in the U.S. completely anti-Türkiye while at the same time taking initiatives in the U.S.? How can we prevent the PKK/PYD, which has been demanding a new Syrian constitution for years, from being included in this constitution as an autonomous entity? If this cannot be prevented – which is very difficult – it is not at all unlikely that we will see two Terrorist States on our borders.
One of them is under the control of HTS and its components and its strings are completely in the hands of America and especially Israel, and the other is the PKK/PYD. The other problem is that when Trump, who said he would actually withdraw from Syria, took office, the conditions became so complicated that he could not seriously evaluate the withdrawal, and it is not at all unlikely that the current situation will develop in that direction. Of course, experts with sticks or Vileda handles on TV, or those on the streets shouting, ‘we have brought down Aleppo’, cannot know the answers to these questions, but I hope the authorities have thought about what we are facing.
