The ongoing reconfiguration of the Middle East has revealed a critical reality for regional and global actors: there can be no lasting stability in Syria without addressing the Kurdish question. Journalist Dilan Dîlok, writing for Mezopotamya Agency (MA), offers a comprehensive analysis of the complex dynamics at play in Syria following the HTS-led overthrow of the Assad regime and the broader implications of this shift.

 

STABILITY IN SYRIA HINGES ON KURDISH QUESTION

 

The most dramatic shift in Syria followed the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, which soon expanded to involve Lebanon and Syria. This new wave of conflict allowed various regional powers to reposition themselves strategically. Iran, once a dominant force in the region, was pushed out of Syria, and political tensions increased across Iraq and Yemen.

 

According to Dilan Dîlok, “The negotiations carried out under the name of controlling nuclear weapons are essentially attempts to harmonise [Iran] with the world capitalist system — partly with a stick and partly through diplomacy.” She also highlights the joint US-Israeli operations against pro-Iranian groups in Yemen and growing instability in Iraq, where the future of Hashd al-Shaabi became a matter of intense debate.

 

SYRIA AND HTS

 

HTS’s takeover of Damascus was not the result of military superiority but a planned transition. Dîlok argues that HTS lacked both the capacity and the intention to seize control. “HTS had neither the equipment nor the military power to do this. In fact, HTS itself did not expect such a thing.” The group was pushed into power quickly and unprepared, and under Turkey’s encouragement, directed its forces toward Kurdish-controlled areas.

 

However, they met stiff resistance in Tishreen and Qarakozak, where the Kurdish forces halted their advance. The limitations of these armed groups quickly became apparent, and internal divisions surfaced. In the meantime, Alawite massacres led to heightened sectarian tensions, while the Druze community sought protection through ties with Israel and declared autonomy in southern Syria.

 

Amidst this fragmentation, Dilan Dîlok notes, “The Kurds preserved and strengthened their position. After surviving this ordeal, they once again proved to the whole world with their practices that they are the most stable and liveable region in Syria as a new model.”

 

TURKEY'S CALCULATIONS

 

Turkey has been playing a complex game in Syria, attempting to suppress Kurdish autonomy while stepping into the power vacuum left by Iran. The core of Ankara’s ambition is to impose a unitary Syrian state structure that would prevent Kurdish self-governance.

 

Dilan Dîlok writes, “Turkey calls for a unitary structure, an Arab Republic and a centralised structure. ‘We will accept the differences, but no one will be a separate administration, a separate power,’ making statements on behalf of Syria, encouraging this, and constantly threatening the Kurds.”

 

But this approach runs counter to Israeli interests. While Israel targets pro-Iranian forces, it also rejects the idea of Turkey-backed Sunni jihadists taking power. Though Turkey currently controls a significant strip of northern Syria, including areas like Jarablus, Afrin, and Serekaniye, it lacks the resources to dictate Syria’s future.

 

Dilan Dîlok underlines the geopolitical reality: “Israel's wishes are important here. Because one of the main priorities of the western powers, especially the USA, in the region is Israel's security. Therefore, a shaping that Israel does not want cannot be realised here.”

 

SHARA ACCOUNTS

 

In a move that surprised many, Western coalition forces — led by the UK — facilitated a protocol between HTS leader Ahmed al-Shara (Colani) and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi. The timing came right after the Alawite massacre, when HTS's legitimacy was collapsing internationally.

 

According to Dilan Dîlok, “They tried to make a legitimise by North and East Syria, SDF and Rojava, so to speak, at a time when they were stuck after the Alawite massacre and the world started to say 'these cannot govern Syria, they are not suitable'.” The intent behind the agreement was to protect the regime while creating an illusion of Kurdish-HTS reconciliation.

 

Soon after, the U.S. distanced itself from the new HTS regime, removing its symbols from government buildings and reinstating the old Syrian flag. It issued conditions for recognition, and as Dilan Dîlok explains, “It seems increasingly difficult for HTS to come to power in Damascus... they do not have the potential to make a rapid transformation.”

 

STABILITY IS DIFFICULT

 

HTS’s coalition includes numerous jihadist groups, many of which are linked to al-Qaeda. As such, it lacks the ideological and structural foundations for building a democratic or federal Syria. This, Dilan Dîlok argues, is not accidental: “This was one of the calculations of the power that brought HTS to Damascus: An unstable Syria.”

 

A fractured Syria, much like Iraq, suits certain regional strategies, especially Israel’s long-term security doctrine. While there is growing international interest in experimenting with autonomous or confederal models, the feasibility of such systems remains uncertain.

 

KURDS

 

The clearest lesson from the current crisis is the centrality of the Kurdish question. Dilan Dîlok writes, “In the newly shaped Middle East, all international powers, including Turkey, have realised that it will not be possible to achieve stability in the new process without clarifying the situation of the Kurds.” Initiatives such as talks with the Rojava administration and the re-evaluation of İmralı processes are being seen in this new context.

 

When the pro-coalition ENKS failed to secure influence in Damascus, it turned to Rojava. South Kurdistan (Başûr) helped mediate this shift, culminating in a significant gathering in Qamishlo on April 26. The outcome: a military agreement and a sense of renewed unity.

 

CONFERENCE

 

Dilan Dîlok views the Qamishlo conference as an important symbolic and political milestone: “This conference has an important role in terms of declaring the unity of the Kurds and their demands to the world. This has created great excitement and joy for Kurds all over the world, especially in the 4 parts of Kurdistan.”

 

The conference outlined a path forward, including the formation of joint committees to negotiate with Damascus. These committees aim to articulate Kurdish positions clearly and present them with a unified voice.

 

However, the reactions from Damascus and Ankara were hostile. Dilan Dîlok notes, “The statements made by Damascus against all the demands of the Kurds should be seen as statements made by Turkey. Damascus does not have any opinion outside of Turkey.”

 

She adds that despite Turkey’s efforts, “The behaviour of the Durzis, the attitude of all non-jihadist circles, especially women, showed that there will not be a Syria as Turkey imagines. This is the common attitude of the whole world.” Turkey, she concludes, may have no option left but to seek compromise — likely starting with Israel.