This analysis draws on the research of Fehim Taştekin, with additional context and analysis from the author.
Since November 27th, the war in Syria has taken a sharp and alarming turn. Turkish-backed forces, including the Syrian National Army (SNA) and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—formerly affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS—have launched attacks and seized control of several Syrian cities. This coalition, led by al-Joulani, who once had close ties to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State in Iraq, also comprises other extremist factions. Major cities like Aleppo have already fallen under their control, and as of December 5, 2024, reports suggest these groups have advanced into Hama.
Amid this chaos, much of the international media’s focus remains on these militant groups. In a baffling and concerning trend, some outlets have gone so far as to sanitize their past crimes against humanity, even describing them as “diversity friendly” —a gross misrepresentation that ignores the violence and extremism at their core. Yet, while the spotlight remains fixed on these forces, another key player in this war is receiving far less attention: the Kurdish forces.
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), including their YPJ units, stand as a pivotal force in the region. While their actions may not dominate headlines, they possess the potential to alter the trajectory of this conflict and, by extension, the future of the Middle East. The SDF’s influence extends beyond their military capabilities—they represent a vision of governance and resistance that stands in stark contrast to the ideologies of the groups currently making gains.
A pivotal question remains whether the Kurdish-led SDF will take the next step: advancing into Syrian Army territories, and if so, what consequences will this hold for the region? Will they coordinate their actions with the US to push Western interests but also establish a semi-independent Kurdish-governed region? Will they even go further and make a deal with Western-backed Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham—formerly affiliated with Al-Qaeda and ISIS?
The likelihood of the SDF advancing into territories under Syrian Army control remains unclear. Historically, the United States has advocated for the SDF to position itself southwest of the Euphrates River, a move aimed at strengthening control over critical supply routes. This strategy aligns with broader U.S. objectives to secure the Syria-Iraq border and disrupt the movement of Iranian and Iraqi militias aiding Assad.
However, the Kurds have resisted such positioning for now to avoid triggering hostilities with Iran and Syria, especially given the fragile dynamics in Aleppo.
As Fehim Tastekin analyzes, one possibility still under consideration involves the SDF moving from the Deir ez-Zor–Al-Bukamal corridor along the Euphrates to the Jordan-Iraq-Syria border triangle. In tandem, U.S. forces stationed at Al-Tanf could push northward to align with Kurdish forces. This scenario would enable U.S. control of the strategic Syrian border crossing into Iraq. If executed, this would deal a major blow to the Syrian government, leaving it vulnerable to both the SDF and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The U.S. is actively working to prevent direct conflict between the SDF and Turkish-backed extremist groups, possibly to further this strategic objective. The Al-Bukamal crossing—a critical link between Iraq and Syria—is central to U.S. efforts to sever Iranian supply routes to Hezbollah in Lebanon and reinforce security for Israel.
During the Trump administration, initial plans to withdraw U.S. forces were reversed, emphasizing the need to maintain leverage against Iran, avoid a regional power vacuum, and preserve strategic options for future contingencies—much like those unfolding today.
Alleged Agreements Between SDF and HTS in Aleppo
Recent reports from Arab sources suggest an agreement for the SDF to vacate Kurdish neighborhoods in Aleppo, specifically Ashrafiyeh and Sheikh Maqsoud. As of 03.12.2024 it is claimed that HTS and the SNA (Syrian National Army) have reached an understanding in these areas with the SDF.
On December 5, 2025, Salih Müslüm the co-chairman of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) stated: “We are ready for dialogue with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to build a future of coexistence in Syria.” He also remarked that HTS appears to be more disciplined and conciliatory.
The statements from leading Kurdish politicians, coupled with the recent lack of significant clashes between HTS and the Kurdish-led SDF forces, suggest that some form of agreement may already exist. As political scientist Thomas Schmidinger summarized: ‘They managed to make very difficult deals with the regime, so it is not completely unthinkable to make deals with HTS as well‘.
Power Struggles in Aleppo
According to Fehim Tastekin, the battle for control of Aleppo had intensified, with Turkish-backed groups, HTS, and Kurdish forces all vying for dominance. Turkish MP and Grey Wolves leader Devlet Bahçeli has claimed historical ties to Aleppo, insisting the city is Turkish.
However, within Aleppo, HTS has consolidated its power, detaining SNA members and barring neo-Ottoman factions like the Sultan Murad Division from entering the city.
HTS has also demanded that the SNA vacate territories north of Aleppo, prompting public accusations from the SNA that HTS is establishing its own hegemony. These internal divisions indicate that an escalation among these factions could erupt at any moment.
The shifting dynamics in Northern Syria, marked by competing alliances and power struggles, foreshadow significant and potentially explosive developments in the region.
Diplomatic Dimensions and Broader Context
A pivotal meeting on December 6–7 in Doha will bring together Iranian, Turkish, and Russian foreign ministers to deliberate on Syria’s ongoing crises. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appears to hold a strategic edge, skillfully leveraging his position to extract concessions from all sides. Yet, tensions between Turkey and Iran are escalating, with Tehran accusing Ankara of falling into a “trap” orchestrated by Israel and the U.S.
Russia, cautious and calculating, has refrained from revealing its comprehensive strategy, while Iran has taken a more definitive stance, openly opposing Turkey’s maneuvers in the region.
The region’s intricate web of alliances, rivalries, and objectives makes northern Syria a volatile tinderbox. Turkey’s actions—especially its apparent collaboration with HTS in select contexts—have further muddied the waters. However, HTS itself remains an unpredictable wildcard, driven by its own extremist agenda.
As military shifts and diplomatic negotiations unfold, the stakes for Syria and the broader Middle East grow ever higher. Each new development has the potential to reshape the region’s already fragile balance of power, making this a critical moment in Middle Eastern history.
The Kurdish Butterfly Effect
The potential shift of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) toward alignment with the U.S. to sever the critical supply line connecting Iranian and Iraqi resistance groups to Syria could unleash a cascade of destabilizing events across the Middle East. While the broader region would face significant repercussions, the Axis of Resistance, Syria, and especially Iran would bear the brunt of these consequences.
At the core of this scenario is the isolation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Without access to logistical and military support, Assad’s forces would be left stranded, facing an array of adversaries, including Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Syrian National Army (SNA), Turkey, and the U.S. Deprived of morale and ground reinforcements, the Syrian Army’s collapse on the battlefield would likely become a matter of “when,” not “if.”
For Hezbollah in Lebanon, the loss of its vital supply route—Iran–Iraq–Syria–Lebanon—would compound its current crisis. Already politically and militarily strained, Hezbollah would be left without the critical breathing room needed to reorganize and regain strength. As former U.S. President Donald Trump issues ominous threats of “Hell” upon Hezbollah and Israel prepares to flagrantly violate ceasefire agreements, the group’s ability to endure Israel’s mounting aggression remains highly uncertain. Even in the best-case scenario, Hezbollah may find itself forced into strategic concessions.
The implications of a weakened Hezbollah and a defeated Syrian Army ripple far beyond Lebanon. For Palestine, this shift could signify an existential threat. An emboldened Israel, secure in a new buffer zone on its western border with Syria, would face diminished resistance as it employs jihadist militant factions to neutralize its adversaries. This environment could hasten the annexation of the West Bank and solidify the occupation of Gaza. Israeli politicians, who have long championed the settlement of both areas, would encounter little international opposition, especially with Trump in the White House.
In this precarious framework, Iran would face its gravest challenge since the Islamic Revolution. The country is already battling mounting internal pressures: social unrest, economic hardship intensified by Western sanctions, and widening political fractures. Its regional allies—distracted Russia in Ukraine and Syria and a risk-averse China avoiding confrontation—are unlikely to offer meaningful support. For the first time in decades, Iran could become vulnerable to the possibility of regime change, a scenario that seemed almost unthinkable until now.
It is important to highlight that without close coordination with the United States and Turkey, Turkish-backed forces, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and other extremist groups would not have been able to advance so rapidly. The U.S. strategy in Syria is deeply interconnected with its broader geopolitical objectives, particularly in countering Russian influence in the region.
By supporting these extremist jihadist groups in Syria and simultaneously intervening in Georgia, the United States—along with the European Union / NATO—is effectively waging a three-front strategy against Russia. As Zagros Hîwa the KCK spokesperson said in a recent interview that US led NATO reportedly plans to divide Syria into three parts: a Sunni region in the northwest to cut Iran’s link to Lebanon and Hezbollah, a Kurdish region east of the Euphrates for trade with Turkey, and an Alawite region for President Assad. The goal is to limit Iran’s influence in the region. According to Besê Hozat, co-chair of the KCK, Turkey is using jihadist militias for this, coordinated with other NATO states.
This strategy appears aimed at:
- Halting Russia’s advance in Ukraine
- Creating controlled chaos in Russia’s periphery to divert Moscow’s attention
- Establishing buffer zones and securing/installing Western-aligned regimes as part of a long-term strategy to counter potential escalations with China in the future
- Breaking the axis of resistance and their influence in the region
This multifaceted approach reflects the growing entanglement of global power dynamics, with Syria emerging as a critical battlefield in the larger geopolitical chessboard.
