TL;DR: The merger of DAANES with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) significantly threatens the stability in Northeast Syria, risking centralized power and increasing violence against ethnic minorities. This pivotal shift could undermine the Rojava revolution’s principles, urging international stakeholders to take action.
The Situation
As of March 2025, a significant geopolitical development has unfolded in Northeast Syria. The Kurdish-led government known as DAANES has announced a merger with a newly established government that includes elements of HTS and al-Sharaa. This decision raises profound concerns about the potential centralization of power in a region celebrated for its experiment with decentralized governance and grassroots democracy, commonly referred to as the Rojava revolution (McGee, 2022).
Key concerns include:
- Escalating violence: Reports indicate massacres targeting Alawite civilians, signaling a deteriorating security situation reminiscent of the atrocities witnessed in other conflict zones, where the fracturing of societal trust often leads to widespread humanitarian crises.
- Undermining autonomy: Observers fear that the increasing influence of HTS, an organization known for extremism and militarism, threatens the foundational principles of autonomy, equality, and self-determination integral to the Rojava revolution (Vale, 2020). This situation parallels past scenarios, such as the early days of Iraq’s post-Saddam governance, where local powers grappled with external influences, often to the detriment of grassroots governance.
- Marginalization of ethnic groups: The merger has prompted renewed fears among various ethnic groups within Syria. Notably, groups like TEV-DEM and Kongra Star, historically prominent in Kurdish governance, are now pressured to reassess their political positions. This echoes the historical tension seen in multi-ethnic states, where the dominance of one group can lead to the alienation and disenfranchisement of others, creating a cycle of conflict.
The implications of this merger extend beyond local governance; they resonate across the Middle East and challenge existing narratives about the aftermath of the Syrian civil war. Are we witnessing a reconfiguration of power dynamics that could either forge a new path toward stability or plunge the region into further chaos? Analysts, policymakers, and advocates must closely monitor all stakeholder responses, as the trajectory of this merger could redefine governance, identity, and power dynamics in Northeast Syria. The stakes are too high for the international community to remain passive observers.
What if the merger leads to increased violence and repression in Northeast Syria?
If the merger results in increased violence and repression, the consequences for Kurdish and minority communities would be dire. Key implications include:
- Violent crackdowns on dissent and the curtailment of civil liberties, alienating communities the Rojava revolution aimed to empower (Tank, 2021). This mirrors the historical suppression faced by various movements around the world. For instance, after the Arab Spring, many regimes responded with brutal crackdowns, stifling democratic aspirations and leading to long-lasting resentment among populations.
- Backlash from minorities: Vulnerable groups such as Alawites, Christians, and Yazidis might form alliances against what they perceive as authoritarian imposition by HTS (Potiker, 2021). Historically, when faced with existential threats, minority communities often unite, reminiscent of the cooperation seen among various ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
- International condemnation: Reports of violent repression would likely proliferate, further isolating the new government and undermining its legitimacy (Alsaba & Kapilashrami, 2016). This scenario is not unlike the global reaction to the crackdown on protestors in Iran, where international bodies and governments have had to grapple with the moral implications of silent acquiescence.
- Mass displacements: Escalating violence could lead to humanitarian crises, pressuring neighboring countries like Turkey and Iraq, which already face significant refugee populations (Destradi & Plagemann, 2019). The historical refugee crises following conflicts in the Middle East serve as a stark reminder of the fallout from unchecked violence, illustrating that the ramifications often transcend borders, impacting international stability.
What if the merger ignites a broader conflict among regional powers?
The merger could ignite a broader conflict among regional powers, particularly Turkey, Iran, and Israel. Key considerations include:
-
Turkey’s response: Turkey may view a strengthened HTS presence as a national security threat, prompting aggressive military action (Oğuzlu, 2008). Historically, similar perceptions have led to significant military incursions, such as Turkey’s incursions into northern Iraq to combat perceived threats from the PKK, illustrating how national security perceptions can drive aggressive foreign policies.
-
Iran’s intervention: Historically backing the Assad regime, Iran might invoke intervention strategies to protect its interests (Kaufmann & Haklai, 2008). The Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s involvement in Lebanon’s Hezbollah serves as a precedent for how Iran engages in proxy warfare to secure its regional interests, suggesting that a similar strategy might unfold should its interests be threatened.
-
Israeli dynamics: Alawite leaders appealing to Israel for protection could shift foreign intervention dynamics, possibly leading to a new phase in Israeli-Syrian relations (Jongedelen & Şimşek, 2018). The complexities of these relationships can be likened to a game of chess, where each move by one player could provoke a counter-move by another, fundamentally altering the balance of power in the region.
A broader conflict would likely destabilize adjacent countries, exacerbating tensions and leading to military confrontations beyond Syria’s borders (Bengio, 2016). In the shadow of historical regional conflicts, one must question: how far will these powers go to assert their influence, and at what cost to regional stability?
What if the Kurdish community unites against the merger and seeks to reclaim autonomy?
If the Kurdish community unites against the merger, they may initiate a powerful movement to reclaim autonomy. Key outcomes could include:
- Consolidation of diverse factions: A unified Kurdish front could galvanize grassroots activism, reminiscent of earlier struggles for self-determination, such as the American Civil Rights Movement, where diverse groups came together to fight for equality and justice (Leezenberg, 2016).
- Strengthened ties with other minorities: The movement could promote cooperation among ethnic groups disenchanted with the merger, fostering a broad coalition for representation. Imagine a tapestry where each thread, despite its differences, contributes to a stronger whole—this unity could amplify their voices (Öktem & Akkoyunlu, 2016).
- International support: Solidarity movements from diaspora communities could draw global attention to their plight, exerting pressure on the new government. Historical parallels can be drawn to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, where international advocacy played a crucial role in dismantling oppressive structures (Dirik, 2018).
However, the path to unity is fraught with challenges due to existing rivalries and fragmentation within the Kurdish political landscape (Küçük & Özselçuk, 2016). Could the lessons learned from past struggles inspire the Kurdish community to transcend these divisions? Success could redefine the political landscape in Northeast Syria, paving the way for a more equitable governance model.
Strategic Maneuvers
To navigate the challenges posed by the merger, strategic maneuvering from all involved parties is essential.
-
DAANES should reassess its collaboration with HTS. Prioritizing open dialogue with Kurdish organizations and civil society initiatives is vital to foster unified resistance against external pressures (Edelman et al., 2017). Much like the alliances formed during the American Civil War, where disparate factions united against a common adversary, a similar concerted effort is needed now.
-
The Kurdish community must consolidate internally, creating a coalition among various factions and building alliances with other minorities. Community organizing and advocacy campaigns emphasizing self-governance are essential for garnering international support. Strategies might include:
- Organizing conferences to showcase shared goals and challenges.
- Engaging with international human rights organizations to amplify their voice on a global stage.
- Launching social media campaigns to raise awareness, akin to the viral movements seen during the Arab Spring, which successfully mobilized support and placed pressure on governments (Potiker, 2021).
-
International engagement is critical. The United Nations and humanitarian agencies must focus on the evolving situation, pressing the new government to uphold marginalized communities’ rights and prevent a humanitarian crisis (Badran & De Angelis, 2016). What lessons can be drawn from past interventions that failed to prioritize the voices of local communities?
-
Regional players like Turkey, Iran, and Israel should approach the situation with caution. Acknowledging the unique Kurdish quest for autonomy could lead to productive negotiations around security concerns, reducing potential conflict and displacement (Radpey, 2015). Just as European nations had to navigate the delicate balance of power post-World War I, recognizing and respecting diverse aspirations in this region is crucial.
As the situation evolves, the ideals of the Rojava revolution should inspire renewed movements that uphold the rights and aspirations of all communities in the region. The future of governance, identity, and power dynamics in Northeast Syria is at a critical juncture, prompting the question: can history provide a roadmap for a more inclusive and just future amidst these complex challenges?
References
- Alsaba, K., & Kapilashrami, A. (2016). Understanding women’s experience of violence and the political economy of gender in conflict: the case of Syria. Reproductive Health Matters, 24(47), 129-137.
- Badran, Y., & De Angelis, E. (2016). ‘Independent’ Kurdish Media in Syria. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 9(3), 1-17.
- Bengio, O. (2016). Game Changers: Kurdish Women in Peace and War. The Middle East Journal, 70(1), 1-12.
- Dirik, D. (2018). The Kurdish Women’s Movement: History, Theory, Practice. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 14(2), 1-23.
- Edelman, M., et al. (2017). Emancipatory rural politics: confronting authoritarian populism. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(1), 1-22.
- Jongedelen, J., & Şimşek, B. (2018). Gender Revolution in Rojava: The Voices beyond Tabloid Geopolitics. Geopolitics, 23(2), 362-385.
- Kirmanj, S. (2013). Kurdistan region: A country profile. Unknown Journal.
- Küçük, B., & Özselçuk, C. (2016). The Rojava Experience: Possibilities and Challenges of Building a Democratic Life. South Atlantic Quarterly, 116(4), 637-663.
- Leezenberg, M. (2016). The ambiguities of democratic autonomy: the Kurdish movement in Turkey and Rojava. Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 16(4), 473-488.
- McGee, T. (2022). ‘Rojava’: Evolving Public Discourse of Kurdish Identity and Governance in Syria. Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication, 15(3), 1-16.
- Oğuzlu, T. (2008). Middle Easternization of Turkey’s Foreign Policy: Does Turkey Dissociate from the West?. Turkish Studies, 9(1), 75-96.
- Potiker, S. L. (2021). Exit-With-Autonomy or Autonomy-Without-Exit? Divergent Political Trajectories in Rojava and the Kurdish Regional Government. Critical Sociology, 47(2), 209-227.
- Radpey, L. (2015). The Kurdish Self-Rule Constitution in Syria. Chinese Journal of International Law, 14(4), 835-841.
- Tank, P. (2021). Rebel governance and gender in northeast Syria: transformative ideology as a challenge to negotiating power. Third World Thematics A TWQ Journal, 6(2), 225-247.