Report prepared by: Geostrategic Studies Team
The conflict in Syria is no longer merely an internal struggle over power or a reflection of social and political fragmentation. Over the past years, it has evolved into an open arena where complex regional and international strategies intersect, driven by security concerns, geopolitical calculations, and ideological agendas. At the center of this landscape stand the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), one of the most controversial actors in the Syrian theater—not only because of their decisive role in defeating ISIS, but also because of the political and administrative project associated with them, a project that directly clashes with the visions of key regional powers that reject any form of autonomous local governance.
Within this context, a compelling analytical reading emerges: the process of weakening or targeting the SDF was not the result of a unilateral decision by a single state, but rather the outcome of a convergence of interests among Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, activated at a critical international moment shaped by the policies of the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump. This was not a declared alliance or a joint operations room, but a convergence of roles and instruments, where objectives aligned despite differences in tactics.
Within this context, a compelling analytical reading emerges: the process of weakening or targeting the SDF was not the result of a unilateral decision by a single state, but rather the outcome of a convergence of interests among Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, activated at a critical international moment shaped by the policies of the administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump. This was not a declared alliance or a joint operations room, but a convergence of roles and instruments, where objectives aligned despite differences in tactics.
Turkey: Structural Hostility Toward Any Organized Kurdish Entity
Turkey has been the most direct and decisive actor in this trajectory. Since the emergence of the SDF as an organized military force controlling a contiguous geographic area along Turkey’s southern border, Ankara has viewed it as an immediate strategic threat to its national security. This stance cannot be separated from Turkey’s long-standing approach to the Kurdish question, in which any form of Kurdish political autonomy—inside or outside its borders—is perceived as a potential catalyst for internal destabilization.
By framing the SDF as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Turkey justified its military operations under the banner of “counterterrorism.” Yet the course of events—from Afrin to Ras al-Ayn and Tel Abyad—demonstrated that the core objective was not purely security-driven, but deeply political: dismantling any viable Kurdish self-administration that could serve as a regional precedent. This strategy relied on direct military intervention, the use of Turkish-backed Syrian factions as ground forces, intelligence operations, and demographic engineering, all aimed at reshaping the border region in the long term.
Qatar: Financing and Political Influence as Indirect Tools
Qatar’s role has been less visible but no less significant. Leveraging its financial power and extensive political and media networks, Doha approached the Syrian conflict through a lens that ultimately placed it at odds with the SDF project. From Qatar’s perspective, the SDF represented a secular, pluralistic model that conflicted with the political forces and movements Doha supported throughout the Syrian conflict.
Although no public evidence confirms direct Qatari funding of military operations against the SDF, multiple indicators point to indirect forms of support. These include financial backing for armed factions operating in areas adjacent to SDF-controlled territories, as well as sustained media narratives portraying the SDF as a separatist entity or a temporary American proxy. For Qatar, the SDF was less a military adversary than a political and ideological obstacle to reshaping Syria’s future in a way that accommodated its regional allies.
Saudi Arabia: Political Cover and the Reproduction of an Arab Narrative
Saudi Arabia adopted a more cautious and less confrontational posture, yet its political and media role proved consequential. In the early stages of the conflict, Riyadh maintained limited engagement with the SDF, but this position shifted as Saudi regional priorities evolved. With diminishing prospects for regime change in Damascus and growing concern over prolonged instability, the Kingdom reassessed its approach.
From Riyadh’s viewpoint, the SDF did not constitute an effective counterweight to Iranian influence, nor did its decentralization-oriented political vision align with Saudi Arabia’s traditional conception of state authority. Consequently, Saudi Arabia contributed to providing indirect Arab political cover for Turkish operations by softening criticism, amplifying narratives that framed the SDF as a factor in Syria’s fragmentation, and facilitating its gradual isolation within the Arab political sphere.
The Trump Administration: From Military Partnership to Political Abandonment
The policies of the Trump administration constituted the decisive enabling factor for this convergence of roles. Viewing Syria as a secondary file, the administration focused narrowly on defeating ISIS while avoiding long-term political commitments. This approach culminated in the 2019 decision to withdraw U.S. forces from northeastern Syria, a move that fundamentally altered the balance of power and opened the door to Turkish military intervention.
Washington relied on the SDF as a temporary military partner but failed to offer credible political guarantees for the post-ISIS phase. In prioritizing its strategic relationship with Turkey as a NATO ally, the United States signaled its willingness to tolerate a reconfiguration of the local order, so long as its immediate interests remained intact. This message encouraged regional actors to advance their agendas within the resulting strategic vacuum.
Converging Interests: Shared Objectives Without a Formal Alliance
What unfolded cannot be accurately described as a classical conspiracy orchestrated by a single command center. Rather, it was the natural outcome of converging interests among actors with differing agendas but a shared objective: the containment or dismantlement of the SDF experience. Turkey sought to neutralize the Kurdish question at its borders, Qatar aimed to expand the influence of its political allies, Saudi Arabia pursued stability without empowering rivals, and the Trump administration prioritized disengagement at minimal political cost.
Conclusion: Strategic and Political Lessons
This experience underscores the fragility of reliance on temporary alliances in a volatile international environment. For the Syrian Democratic Forces, the central challenge extends beyond military resilience to the political arena—internationalizing their cause, building broader regional relations, and presenting their project as a source of stability rather than a threat. For the Kurdish people more broadly, this trajectory reaffirms a longstanding historical reality: external support is contingent and interest-driven, while geography and regional rivalries remain constant and unforgiving.
