By Dr. Adnan Bozan
Syrians did not overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime only to replace its authoritarianism with a new form of tyranny, or to see the country move from Baathist rule to a jihadist authority, the chaos of armed groups, religious extremism, and national conflicts. The Syrian revolution arose in pursuit of freedom, dignity, and justice. Yet the fall of the former regime did not bring the tragedy to an end; instead, it opened the door to a new phase in which the crisis of the new authority in Damascus, led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, is becoming increasingly apparent, along with its inability to build a state that protects all Syrians and puts an end to the chaos of weapons and regional allegiances. A state cannot be built on religious slogans, governed through a mentality of domination, or founded on racism; nor can its unity be imposed on peoples by force. Rather, it must rest on equal citizenship, the rule of law, and respect for ethnic, cultural, and political pluralism. If Damascus is incapable of upholding these principles, it is not laying the foundations for stability but driving the country toward a deeper crisis that could develop into a comprehensive political and security collapse.
What is happening in Syria can no longer be justified by invoking the chaos inherited from the previous regime, nor can responsibility continually be shifted onto foreign conspiracies. Any authority that assumes power bears direct responsibility for protecting civilians, bringing armed groups under control, preventing ethnic incitement, and holding accountable everyone who commits violations, whether affiliated with the authorities or allied with them. To leave the country hostage to armed force, allow political and ethnic disputes to escalate into bloody confrontations, and use the name of Arab tribes as a cover for armed operations and chaos that threaten the population is neither a defense of the tribes nor of Arabs. It is an affront to them and an exploitation of their identities in struggles over power and influence. Arab tribes are not militias, Arabs are not enemies of the Kurds, and the names of Syria’s various communities must not be hijacked and turned into instruments of incitement and armed conflict. Anyone who raises the banner of tribal identity to justify attacks on civilians, threaten residents, seize their property, or burn their possessions is not defending the dignity of the tribe. On the contrary, such conduct brings disgrace upon it and sets its members against their fellow citizens.
The city of Kri Sipi (Tel Abyad) stands out as a particularly alarming example of the concerns surrounding the future of the Kurdish presence in Syria. This is not merely a passing security disturbance, nor a local dispute that can be reduced to tensions between population groups. It is an issue involving the security of the indigenous population, their right to their land, the return of displaced people, and the protection of their property and identity against any form of forced change. In light of these developments and concerns, Syrians have every right to question the Damascus authorities about their responsibility, their position toward the armed groups spreading chaos, and their actual ability to prevent tribal disputes from being exploited to settle political scores and target Kurds. If the government is serious about building stability, it must take clear legal measures to protect the indigenous population, investigate settlement and demographic-change practices that have affected the city since 1970, review cases involving the seizure of land, homes, and other property, restore rights to their lawful owners, guarantee the safe and voluntary return of displaced people, and hold accountable anyone proven to have been involved in displacement, dispossession, or assault. If a presidential decree is issued to address this issue, it should establish a legal process for restoring rights on the basis of law and evidence, not order collective deportation on the grounds of identity or origin. The objective must be to end injustice and demographic change, not to inflict new injustice on civilians whose responsibility for those policies has not been established. Rights cannot be restored by creating new victims, but by redressing the consequences of violations, holding those responsible accountable, and restoring dignity to people who have been deprived of their homes and land.
Turkey’s role, meanwhile, cannot be ignored when analyzing developments in northern Syria. Every state has the right to seek its own security, but no state has the right to use security concerns as a pretext for open-ended intervention in the affairs of its neighbors, or to allow its military and political influence to become a factor threatening the Kurdish presence and the rights of the local population. If Damascus wishes to demonstrate that its national decisions are independent, it must prove that Syria’s future will not be shaped according to Ankara’s interests, and that Syrian territory and the rights of Syrians are not bargaining chips in regional deals. Any external support provided to armed groups that commit violations should also be subject to investigation and accountability on the basis of evidence, rather than allowing civilians to pay the price for political and military understandings.
Invoking the Armenian tragedy in this context is not a call for hostility between peoples; it is a warning about the dangers of silence when an ethnic group faces threats, displacement, or incitement. History teaches us that major catastrophes do not always begin with an explicit declaration of intent to commit genocide. They may be preceded by the demonization of a group, the denial of its rights, the normalization of attacks against it, and then its abandonment to face overwhelming force alone. No indications that Kurds are being targeted because of their ethnic identity should be treated lightly. At the same time, definitive judgments about the nature of events must not be made before they have been documented and investigated. The necessary measures are clear: protect civilians, stop incitement, prevent forced displacement, conduct independent investigations into violations, and hold those responsible accountable, regardless of the organization or faction to which they belong.
As for the betrayal by the United States, under Donald Trump’s leadership, and by other international powers, the time has come for them to stop treating Syria as a chessboard on which peoples are moved according to the interests of states. Kurdish forces fought ISIS and made enormous sacrifices in that struggle. It is morally unacceptable to abandon the communities that bore the burden of that war to face new dangers whenever international calculations change. Yet Kurdish rights are not an American gift, nor do they depend on the will of Trump or anyone else. They are inherent rights that do not disappear when alliances shift. The international community must exert serious pressure to protect civilians, support independent investigations into violations, and reject double standards under which crimes are condemned when committed by adversaries but ignored when committed by allies.
The new authority in Damascus faces a test from which it cannot escape: either it proves that it is a state authority by bringing all armed groups under the law, protecting Arabs, Kurds, and all other Syrian communities, guaranteeing rights and freedoms, and opening the way to genuine national partnership; or it continues to govern through a logic of domination, allowing chaos to spread, its legitimacy to erode, and Syria to be driven toward another confrontation. The greatest threat to Damascus is not the Kurds’ demand for their rights, nor Syrians’ rejection of authoritarianism. It is the authorities’ inability to build a state in which everyone feels equal before the law and understands that their security does not depend on the ruler’s approval or the protection of an armed group.
The Assad regime has fallen, but the end of authoritarianism cannot be achieved simply by changing the ruler. If the new authorities believe they can subjugate Syrians in the name of religion, unity, or security, then they have learned nothing from the country’s history. Syria does not belong to Damascus alone; the Kurds are not guests in their own homeland; Arabs have no exclusive right to monopolize the state; and no group has the right to place its weapons above the law. A homeland built on exclusion cannot achieve stability, unity imposed by force cannot endure, and an authority that tolerates chaos—or proves incapable of stopping it—becomes part of the problem rather than its solution.
Damascus now faces a historic choice: to build a state for all Syrians or to continue down the path of chaos and division. If it is genuinely committed to the country’s stability, it must begin by protecting the indigenous population of Kri Sipi, restoring rights and property, ending forced displacement, holding mercenaries and all those who threaten civilians accountable, and stopping the exploitation of tribal and ethnic identities in struggles for power. Continuing along the same course will not create a strong state. It will deepen the crisis of legitimacy and drive the country toward a collapse whose price may ultimately be paid by all Syrians.