博客

Regional observers are closely examining Turkey’s strategic objectives regarding the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that control substantial territories in northeastern Syria. Since the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December, Ankara has emerged as a dominant power broker in Syria, cultivating strategic alliances with the interim government led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Both Turkish authorities and HTS leadership have consistently demanded the expulsion of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)-affiliated elements from SDF ranks and advocated for the group’s disarmament, potentially through integration into Syria’s formal defense structures. This position creates a complex diplomatic landscape given that Western powers, while classifying PKK as a terrorist organization, have simultaneously supported PKK-linked factions in Syria since 2014 to combat Islamic State extremists.

Recent statements from de facto Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa emphasize that the emerging administration will reject any form of federal division and insists on state monopoly over military capabilities. Despite President Erdogan’s vigorous rhetoric regarding eliminating security threats from Syrian territory, Ankara appears to favor diplomatic solutions over full-scale military intervention against Kurdish forces.

The SETA think tank, maintaining close government ties, recently proposed a collaborative framework where American and Turkish officials could pursue non-violent resolution mechanisms. The proposal suggests the United States would acknowledge Turkey’s security concerns by limiting military and political support for SDF, while Turkey would refrain from large-scale operations in northeastern Syria.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has reiterated demands for SDF to expel PKK cadres and demobilize their forces. On Monday, Fidan claimed approximately 2,000 foreign fighters embedded within SDF ranks are under the command of senior PKK officials Sabri Ok and Fehman Huseyin, who allegedly influence SDF leadership.

A critical element in this diplomatic process involves ongoing negotiations between Turkish authorities and imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, initiated in October. Multiple Turkish sources indicate Ocalan may release a video statement in February urging PKK disarmament, which could significantly pressure SDF toward accepting a political compromise.

Senior PKK official Bese Hozat confirmed they await Ocalan’s guidance regarding future steps, noting his intensive efforts toward democratic solutions for the Kurdish question and regional democratization.

Turkish officials anticipate that with Ocalan’s potential intervention, non-PKK elements within SDF could be integrated into Damascus’ military administration. Additionally, they expect former President Donald Trump’s potential return to office might accelerate SDF’s positional reconsideration.

Beyond disarmament, Ankara seeks the repatriation of Kurdish refugees to northeastern Syria and the reintegration of rival Kurdish political parties into the region. Turkey recently facilitated discussions between Masoud Barzani, former president of Iraqi Kurdistan and PKK rival, and SDF leader Mazloum Abdi, urging political reintegration and cooperation with Damascus.

According to sources familiar with Ankara’s strategic thinking, Turkey essentially desires the Democratic Union Party (PYD) to transform into a national political entity participating in democratic elections and gaining representation in Damascus through constitutional processes.

Al Jazeera Arabic recently reported that Damascus presented SDF with a draft agreement aligning with Turkish interests, offering constitutional recognition of Kurdish cultural rights and establishing decentralized administrative systems with substantial local powers. However, Damascus insists SDF must integrate into national military institutions as individuals rather than as independent units, and cannot maintain current deployments in non-Kurdish majority areas like Raqqa. SDF reportedly rejected these terms, citing Turkish security threats and demanding equitable oil revenue sharing.

Despite ongoing diplomatic efforts, indications suggest Turkey continues military preparations. Yahya Bostan, a columnist with extensive military and intelligence connections, recently wrote that Ankara is intensifying efforts to eliminate PKK threats, anticipating increased diplomatic and intelligence operations at military levels in the near future.

Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community, known as the Haredim, has long been exempt from military service, a privilege that has sparked significant debate and legal challenges. On Tuesday, the High Court of Israel ruled that this exemption could no longer stand, mandating that Haredim must serve in the military like other Israeli citizens. Additionally, the court decided that the state could no longer fund ultra-Orthodox education services, a decision that has deeply impacted a community heavily reliant on such aid. This ruling comes after years of legal battles and societal pressure, particularly intensified by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the need for increased military manpower. The Haredim, who have traditionally prioritized religious education over military service, now face a critical juncture. The community’s leadership, though expecting the court’s decision, is frustrated by the outcome, especially given the current right-wing government’s inability to secure their interests. The ruling has also exacerbated tensions within the coalition government, as far-right parties, who advocate for military service, clash with the Haredim’s demands for exemption. Beyond military conscription, the Haredim are grappling with a potential budget crisis. The freeze on education funding threatens the very foundation of their society, which depends heavily on state support. This dual crisis of conscription and funding could lead to the dissolution of the government, as Haredi leaders struggle to navigate the political landscape. The ultra-Orthodox community, traditionally insular and focused on religious life, now finds itself at the center of Israel’s political debate, a position that is both unfamiliar and challenging. As the government and the Haredim seek a resolution, the broader Israeli public remains divided, with a growing consensus that the ultra-Orthodox must contribute to national defense. The outcome of this struggle will have profound implications for Israel’s social fabric and political stability.