Samir Al-Taqi
Turkey’s position on Syria’s future is closely tied to its internal developments and its strategic vision for the region. Considering recent shifts, particularly after the withdrawal of U.S. authorization for Russia’s role in Syria and the broader region, and following Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, the foundations of the Cold War-era balance between Iran and Israel, where Russia played the role of a power broker, have collapsed.
For years, Russia mediated between Israel, Iran, Turkey, the former Syrian regime, the Syrian opposition, and even regional powers like Saudi Arabia. However, after October 7, this Russian-brokered regional stability completely disintegrated. As a result, Turkey saw an opportunity. Much like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that he would reshape the region, Ankara recognized a strategic opening to assert its influence and reposition itself as a key player. This allows Turkey to secure a direct role in shaping Syria’s future while reinforcing its broader regional standing.
Read also: Ilham Ahmed to “+963”: U.S. Support for the SDF is Independent of Any Deals with Russia
Turkey’s Political Calculations
Politically, Turkey now acknowledges the significant risks to regional stability, which could, in turn, threaten its own national security. A crucial factor in calming tensions in northeastern Syria was the statement by Abdullah Öcalan, which helped ease certain conflicts despite opposition from various factions. This development has also allowed for a clearer distinction between Syria’s Kurdish issue and Turkey’s own Kurdish question, as the former is increasingly seen as an internal Syrian matter.
The United States has played a key role in mediating between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian government in Damascus. Meanwhile, recent events on Syria’s coast have raised concerns that the country could slide into a full-scale civil war, threatening to undo previous agreements brokered by Ahmad al-Sharaa. Consequently, the focus has shifted toward finding common ground between Syria’s various factions.
A Parallel with Iraq?
Turkey’s evolving stance on Kurdish self-governance is evident when examining its approach to the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq. Initially, Ankara strongly opposed the formation of Kurdish self-rule in Iraq. Yet over time, it became one of the KRG’s main supporters.
Similarly, if we consider Turkey’s long-term strategic interests, it is possible that, within the framework set by the United States, Turkey could support a constitutional status for Syria’s Kurds, one that aligns with its broader geopolitical goals.
While significant obstacles remain in Turkey’s relationship with the Kurdish issue, some of the primary barriers have already been overcome in recent years. A major turning point was Öcalan’s statement, which helped redefine the Kurdish issue in Turkey as a domestic matter. Additionally, the agreement reached between Ahmad al-Sharaa and the SDF has contributed to shaping new political realities on the ground.
Despite these shifts, stability remains fragile, and Turkey continues to monitor developments, particularly in border areas where it seeks to maintain influence through allied factions. The recent attacks in Syria indicate that Ankara is approaching the situation with extreme caution.
Read also: Syria Moves Toward Stability: Al-Sharaa Agreement with Abdi and the Path Forward
The Pivotal Question: Can Syrians Coexist Peacefully?
The key question being asked by diplomats, including Turkish officials,is: Can Syrians live together peacefully? Only Syrians themselves can answer this question. If external actors perceive that coexistence is not possible, each regional power will attempt to impose its own vision on Syria, which could turn the country into an ongoing battleground for competing interests.
From a strategic standpoint, the SDF has a clear interest in preventing further escalation. The recent agreement involved certain compromises, postponing key issues concerning northeastern Syria and Kurdish-majority areas to future Syrian-led negotiations.
However, the situation remains unstable, and multiple actors, both internal and external, are working to disrupt any progress, whether for personal or strategic reasons. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on Syrians to ensure a minimum level of civil peace and to move toward a negotiated framework for coexistence. This process must include a clear vision for the relationship between Syria’s various communities, as well as an economic model that accommodates all factions.
