Political analysis by Ibrahim Kaban
Current Context
1. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF):
The SDF governs northeastern Syria with military and political dominance, drawing strength primarily from U.S. support in combating ISIS. Its main objectives are maintaining Kurdish autonomy and ensuring stability in its territories.
2. Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS):
HTS is the dominant force in Idlib and nearby areas, aiming to establish an Islamic governance system independent of Damascus. Despite being labeled a terrorist organization by many countries, HTS has recently sought to reshape its image as a more moderate local force.
3. The United States and Israel:
United States: A key ally of the SDF, seeing it as a strategic partner in the region. However, the U.S. remains cautious toward HTS due to its terrorist designation.
Israel: Focused on curbing Iranian influence in Syria and may exert pressure to achieve political stability that prevents Tehran's expansion.
Future Scenarios
1. Scenario: Confrontation
Military confrontation between the SDF and HTS remains a plausible outcome for several reasons:
Ideological Differences: The SDF follows a secular ideology tied to Kurdish self-rule, while HTS seeks to establish Islamic governance, making their visions incompatible.
Power Struggles: Control over resource-rich areas in northeastern Syria, such as oil and agriculture, could spark conflict.
Turkey’s Role: Turkey might support HTS against the SDF to curb Kurdish influence along its borders, further escalating tensions.
2. Scenario: Agreement
Despite ideological and political tensions, a mutual understanding between the two sides is not entirely out of reach due to:
U.S. Pressure: Washington may push both sides toward dialogue to prevent escalation that could undermine its broader regional strategy.
Local Stability Needs: Both HTS and the SDF understand that conflict would lead to greater chaos, opening the door for ISIS resurgence or stronger regime influence.
Shared Concerns About Damascus and Iran: HTS and the SDF could find common ground in their opposition to the Syrian regime and its Iranian backers, encouraging limited coordination.
Will the U.S. Pressure HTS to Negotiate with the SDF?
It is unlikely that Washington will overtly or directly pressure HTS to negotiate with the SDF due to:
HTS's Terrorist Designation: This makes it difficult for the U.S. to engage with HTS without facing international backlash.
Focus on the SDF: The U.S. prefers to strengthen the SDF as a legitimate force in the region rather than empower HTS.
However, the U.S. might rely on intermediaries, such as Turkey or Qatar, to convey indirect messages to HTS, encouraging concessions that promote regional stability.
Will Israel Pressure Damascus?
Israel could play a limited but indirect role in facilitating SDF-HTS rapprochement by:
Weakening the Syrian Regime: Through strikes on Iranian targets in Syria, weakening Damascus and pushing it toward political compromise.
Coordination with the U.S.: Israel might support U.S. efforts to bring together opposition forces like the SDF and HTS if it helps limit Iranian influence.
Nevertheless, Israel's involvement would be risky, as any overt role could be exploited by Damascus or Iran to delegitimize any potential agreement between the SDF and HTS.
Key Determinants
1. Turkey's Position:
Turkey plays a pivotal role in balancing power between the SDF and HTS, potentially supporting HTS to undermine Kurdish autonomy.
2. The Future of Idlib:
If HTS succeeds in solidifying its image as a "moderate" political force, it might gain implicit international acceptance, facilitating dialogue with the SDF.
3. The Dynamics of Damascus and Iran:
International and Israeli pressure on Damascus might create opportunities for negotiations between all opposition forces, including the SDF and HTS.
Conclusion
The future relationship between the SDF and HTS is shaped by complex regional and international factors. While military confrontation seems more probable due to ideological differences and geopolitical rivalries, the possibility of an agreement remains viable if international actors—especially the U.S. and Turkey—push for local stability to prevent Iranian expansion and preserve strategic balance in northern Syria.
