Washington Kurdish Institute | January 18, 2025
As soon as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—a group designated as a terrorist organization by the US—launched its campaign to topple the dictatorship in Damascus, Turkey and its radical Syrian proxies initiated a simultaneous war against the Syrian Kurds. The attacks, carried out with drones and artillery, resulted in the deaths of dozens of people, including women and children. Meanwhile, other Turkish-backed groups in the occupied Afrin region killed more civilians who had returned to their hometown after being displaced—a pattern of violence inflicted on the Kurds since Turkey’s invasion of Afrin in 2018.
Nearly two months after the fall of Assad’s dictatorship, Turkey continues to employ thousands of its Syrian proxies and has launched further attacks on Kurdish territories in Syria, leading to intense battles, particularly near the strategic Tishreen Dam. At the same time, the Turkish government is actively supporting the formation of a new interim government in Damascus, providing extensive backing to HTS. This group, a long-time ally of Turkey with affiliations to al-Qaeda and ISIS, is being positioned to ensure that no role or place will be reserved for Syrian Kurds in the new political structure.
Western Countries’ Naive Approach and Why Syrian Kurdistan is Vital
Historically and in modern times, the West, mainly the U.S. has pursued a weak and appeasing policy toward Turkey, the “NATO member.” This policy has persisted under various administrations, all of which have largely ignored Turkey’s consistent anti-US policies, including collaboration with US adversaries and actions against US interests across the region, including in Syria. The appeasement toward Turkey has often come at the expense of the Kurds across Greater Kurdistan. For example, the US repeatedly prioritized Turkey over the Kurds, even when the Kurds faced persecution and ethnic cleansing in Syria and Turkey. Similarly, in Iraq, the US opposed the independence referendum held by Iraqi Kurds in 2017, dismissing it as “illegitimate”; a shared position with Turkey and Iran.
In Syria, Turkey has been attacking the Kurds and invading their lands since 2015, yet the US has remained silent aside from releasing statements here and there. Notably, under President Trump, the US withdrew from most of Syria, effectively greenlighting Turkish invasions. Under President Biden, Turkish drone attacks on the Kurds have continued unabated.
Turkey has capitalized on the US’s appeasement policies, particularly in Syria, where it has repeatedly called for a US withdrawal and hindered the fight against ISIS by targeting Kurdish forces. The US initially deployed troops in 2014 out of serious concerns about ISIS’s growth and potential threats to the US. With anti-terrorism laws invoked, the US created a symbolic presence and provided air support to Kurdish forces to combat ISIS.
By 2019, the caliphate had been dismantled, with tens of thousands of ISIS terrorists killed and thousands more captured. However, the victory came at a steep cost, with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) losing approximately 12,000 fighters. The question arises: why did the US and the European Union (EU) choose to arm the Kurds against ISIS in the first place? The answer is straightforward: Turkey failed to play any meaningful role in the fight against ISIS, even allowing thousands of foreign terrorists from Europe to cross the Turkish border to join ISIS. Efforts to arm the so-called “Syrian opposition” proved disastrous, as $500 million in US aid ended up benefiting al-Qaeda affiliates. This left the Kurds as the only viable partners for the US and EU, given their refusal to collaborate with the Assad regime.
Even after the caliphate’s fall, the SDF continued to maintain security in northern and eastern Syria, despite persistent Turkish aggression. When Turkey and its Syrian proxies attacked the SDF, the US’s response was apathetic and failed to deter Turkish aggression. Beyond dismantling the caliphate, the SDF has also prevented numerous terror attacks on the EU and the US by uncovering ISIS cells and thwarting planned operations. The SDF has provided invaluable intelligence, exposing ISIS’s structure, resources, and international operations.
The US and EU continued weak stance toward Turkey could result in severe consequences for their national security. If the Kurds lose ground to Turkish proxies—radical Islamists with ties to al-Qaeda and similar groups—it will embolden terrorist networks.
Western nations have also displayed naivety by rushing to legitimize the new radical governance in Damascus. The HTS, which has turned parts of Syria into a haven for terrorism, harbors thousands of ISIS-like extremists, providing fertile ground for external attacks on the region, the US, and the EU. Another misguided approach is the assumption that supporting and recognizing the new rulers in Damascus will prompt Syrian refugees to return home. This policy is fundamentally flawed; the HTS regime has already created new waves of refugees, and Syria is likely to become a new migration route to the EU. Additionally, Syria’s Mediterranean shoreline, controlled by HTS and other radical groups, could facilitate the smuggling of terrorists into Europe or the US.
The international community, led by the US, must prepare for a prolonged fight against terrorism in Syria. Secular groups, primarily the Kurds and the SDF, remain the most reliable partners in this struggle. Therefore, western nations must adopt a new policy that prioritizes support for Syrian Kurds and abandons the outdated approach of appeasing Turkey. Establishing an autonomous Syrian Kurdish region would solidify the stability achieved by the Autonomous AANES and prevent future misuse of the region against US allies, including Israel and Arab states that support the Kurds in Iraq and Syria.
The Syrian Kurdish region’s strategic importance cannot be overstated. Its stability is vital for regional security, and its protection is a necessity for the long-term interests of the US, EU, and their allies. A decisive shift in policy is required to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, and that the region does not fall into the hands of radical elements that threaten global security.
Syria: A Flawed Middle Eastern State
Syria, like many of its neighboring countries, is home to a diverse mix of ethnic, religious, and sectarian groups, some of which have lived there for centuries. However, it has become a prime example of the flawed designs imposed by Western powers following World War I. Sharing historical and geographical similarities with Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Syria’s current borders are the result of arbitrary divisions by Britain and France. The peoples of these countries have been paying the price for these arrangements for decades.
Among the most affected by these divisions are the Kurds, who inhabit a clearly defined geography that should never have been fragmented. Meanwhile, Sunni and Shia Arab Muslims rarely occupy the same territories, as the two main sects of Islam are geographically distinct. This unfair division, orchestrated by Western powers, has resulted in endless wars and persecutions of various groups. Most disheartening is the international community’s continued reluctance to support Kurdish self-determination, effectively condoning the historical and ongoing atrocities committed against them.
Today’s Syria evokes parallels with Iraq in 2003, a nation that endured years of dictatorship and brutal rule. Currently, Syria is divided among multiple factions. On one side are extremist radicals such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including HTS in Damascus. On another side are Turkish-backed ultra-nationalists operating under the guise of the so-called “National Army.” Then there is the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), which, similar to the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, represents a vision of secularism and equality. This administration has fought tirelessly against extremism while promoting a pluralistic and inclusive model for Syria’s future.
In addition to these groups, other radical factions such as ISIS, the Army of Islam (Jaish al-Islam), Ahrar al-Sham, Faylaq al-Sham, Jaish al-Nukhba, and Jaish al-Sharqiya add to the complexity. While these factions currently tolerate HTS’s dominance, the fragile alliances are unlikely to last, as history has shown with similar brigades and terrorist groups. HTS’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jawlani, a US-designated terrorist, was recently removed from a $10 million bounty by the US.
Turkish-Kurdish Peace
The Turkish government, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been particularly brutal toward Kurdish populations in Turkey and Syria. While Erdogan initially offered limited access to the Kurdish language during his early political career, he later reversed these efforts and adopted ultra-nationalist policies that surpassed even those of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. For example, following electoral losses in 2015, Erdogan’s war on the Kurdish region in Turkey left it in turmoil and destruction. He further escalated his crackdown by removing dozens of elected Kurdish officials and imprisoning veteran politicians and emerging leaders. Similarly, he launched a war on Syrian Kurds, committing atrocities and enabling ethnic cleansing in places like Afrin. His ongoing drone attacks continue to claim the lives of civilians.
In 2013, Erdogan announced a peace process between the Turkish government and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). However, it was short-lived, as Erdogan shifted alliances to the ultra-nationalists after failing to secure Kurdish support for his political ambitions. Consequently, he not only abandoned peace with the Kurds but also launched military offensives against Kurdish regions in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
Erdogan’s government remains one of the most oppressive regimes in its treatment of the Kurdish nation across Kurdistan, including the recent removal of more elected Kurdish officials in Turkey and continued military operations in Syria. Erdogan’s focus has increasingly centered on dismantling the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) and preventing the establishment of Kurdish autonomy in Syria.
Recently, Erdogan, along with his ultra-nationalist ally Devlet Bahçeli of the MHP, launched a new round of peace overtures to the Kurds. These initiatives included facilitating visits between leaders of the pro-Kurdish The Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM) Party and imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. Bahçeli and Erdogan have even proposed new peace processes, with Bahçeli surprisingly advocating for Öcalan to be hosted in the Turkish parliament and granted amnesty.
This unexpected move by Erdogan appears to be driven by multiple factors. Erdogan aims to amend the constitution to extend his presidency, a goal that requires Kurdish support. At the same time, Turkey has struggled to contain the PKK and the SDF in Syria, both of which have effectively countered Turkish military and its proxies. Erdogan fears that regional players, such as Israel, might increasingly back the Kurds as the Kurdish issue garners global attention. Additionally, Erdogan believes that achieving peace at home would bolster Turkey’s regional expansion efforts and strengthen its bid to lead the Islamic Arab world.
The question remains: what kind of peace can Erdogan deliver to the Kurds? The core issue is that Erdogan cannot provide what Kurds have been fighting for over a century, namely self-governance, whether through independence or federal status. Genuine peace would require recognition of the Kurdish region in Turkey, referred to as Kurdistan, with full rights and constitutional guarantees. This would involve the establishment of laws ensuring Kurdish self-governance and autonomy, including security forces under Kurdish control. It would necessitate the release of all political prisoners and the provision of legal amnesty for Kurdish leaders. The Kurdish language would need to become an official language in Turkey, alongside measures to end assimilation policies and laws to combat hate crimes against Kurds. Furthermore, reparations would be required to compensate Kurdish victims of past atrocities, including families impacted by public violence.
While peace would greatly benefit the Kurds, it would benefit Turkey even more. A peaceful resolution would allow Turkey to build strong alliances across the Kurdish regions, which stretch from western Iran to the verge of the Mediterranean. This alignment could significantly enhance Turkey’s geopolitical influence.
However, whether Erdogan and Bahçeli are the right leaders to deliver such a deal remains uncertain. Their history of ultra-nationalism and anti-Kurdish policies casts doubt on their ability to foster genuine peace. Without substantial and sincere efforts, their peace initiatives risk being seen as mere political maneuvers rather than a true commitment to resolving the Kurdish issue.
Historical parallels, such as Saddam Hussein’s so-called peace with the Kurds—known as the March 11 Declaration—serve as a cautionary tale. What appeared to be a symbolic peace was quickly followed by ethnic cleansing campaigns against Iraqi Kurds, highlighting the potential dangers of insincere negotiations.