Although I maintained silence in recent days regarding the clashes that took place between the Asayish and the SDF forces on the one hand, and certain Arab terrorist factions—subordinated to regional agendas and operationally attached to the authority in Damascus—on the other, this silence was neither neutrality nor hesitation. Rather, it was a conscious position, grounded in precise knowledge of what is unfolding behind the scenes, far from media noise and the slogans of consumptive mobilization.

What is happening on the ground is neither a spontaneous conflict nor an isolated confrontation. It is part of a process of political and security exchanges and settlements quietly managed between the Damascus authority and the SDF, under regional and international sponsorship, in which both Turkey and Israel play undeclared roles, according to a logic of geographical and political bargaining:
southern Syria weighed on the scale of regional interests, in exchange for the neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh, and perhaps far more than that.

More dangerous than all of the above, however, is the fact that Kurdish rights in Syria are today hanging by a thread. The claim that the SDF constitutes a genuine guarantee of Kurdish national rights, or that it is capable of imposing these rights in any future Syrian constitution, is a dangerous political illusion, unsupported by real power balances or by the nature of existing alliances. Experience has demonstrated that the SDF is managed as a temporary functional tool, not as a long-term national or ethnic project.

Even eastern Euphrates—now presented as a “stable zone of influence”—is not immune to this fate. On the contrary, all political and security indicators confirm that its handover to the authority in Damascus is only a matter of time, within international understandings that prioritize superficial stability over political justice, and reproduce the same centralized system, with cosmetic modifications that do not touch the core of authoritarianism.

In this context, decentralization does not appear as a comprehensive political right for all components of Syria, but rather as an instrument applied selectively: granted to the Syrian coast, managed through special balances in the south, while being hollowed out in Kurdish regions, which will be returned to political submission without any real constitutional guarantees.

What we are witnessing today is not the end of a crisis, but the beginning of a systematic liquidation of the Kurdish cause in Syria, through top-down settlements in which the Kurdish people do not participate, which do not represent their will, and which are managed according to the logic of international interests rather than historical and political rights.

Accordingly, continuing to sell illusions, or tying the fate of the Kurds to temporary military arrangements, is a grave existential gamble. What is required today is neither silence nor blind alignment, but a courageous political review that redefines the Kurdish project in Syria on independent, democratic foundations, beyond functional instrumentalization.

Therefore, betting on the extraction of Kurdish rights within the borders of a Syrian state that has historically proven its incapacity and hostility toward any genuine partnership is no longer a realistic option. The only path to protecting Kurdish existence, dignity, and political decision-making is a clear and explicit demand for the independence of Kurdistan—not the acceptance of suspended rights within a state that has never recognized the true owners of the land.

History does not show mercy to those who gamble on time, and rights that are not seized through collective political consciousness are sold in the first deal.

9 / 1 / 2026

Dr. Adnan Bouzan

Add comment