The argument presented by Donald Trump for pulling out his troops in Rojava and Syria was made on the basis of being true to the promise he made to his voters. This move came at an important moment with congressional elections due to be held later this year. When Donald Trump called for preparations to be made for American soldiers to pull out from Syria, supposedly he believed regional countries should protect the security of Syria and the broader region, especially now that ISIS has been defeated. Trump presumably thought the US shouldn’t spend more money on these places, but on making America great again. This way, Trump wanted to please his voters in the US as well as Turkey in the region. Regional countries are not really prepared to send troops to Syrian places under US supervision, although Turkey wants to do so. Its desire to end the authority of the PYD will have then been realized. The Turkish ambassador in Baghdad said last week that the referendum proved the truth that Turkey should have a direct land route with the Iraqi government. Close relations between American and French presidents indicate that the US wants France to have a bigger role in Syria after the US exits the country. The trips made by the British ambassador Nicholas Hopton from Iran to Iraq also show that the US wants the UK to have a bigger role in Iraq. It’s also said that there is some kind of secret and indirect dialogue between the US and Iran, although they haven’t acknowledged this yet. According to sources, following the recent security and military meetings held by the US, the American president has agreed to prolong the presence of US troops in Rojava and northern Syria for six months, during which time Iraqi elections will also be held. These elections are important for the security and future of the people of Iraq. They will also have regional significance. Some regional powers have been betting that Iraq will no longer be under the hegemony of Iran or at least this influence will weaken. This way, Iran’s land route to Syria and Lebanon will be compromised. But these predictions are probably not accurate. It is likely that these elections will lead to the formation of a government like the one Iraq has now, if current political rivalries and those that will transpire during election campaigns and formation of a government do not lead to an internal war in Iraq as a result of increasing armed groups in the country. In this way, the situation in Rojava has only been given another chance, and there is no solution in sight for Syria because what goes on in Syria is neither a revolution nor an internal war. It is rather an international war and a problem which isn’t easy to settle. This is why the parties in Syria are being clever to prolong their existence until this problem is resolved. The experience of the Kurdistan Region from 1991 to 2003 is an important example. The situation of Iraq was not resolved during those years. Saddam Hussein’s regime was in a better position to remain and integrate with the international community during the democrats’ rule. The authorities of the Kurdistan Region were able to stay in power during these years. Repeating this experience in Rojava requires another way of thinking and fundamental changes in its power structure such that it is acceptable to elite countries and doesn’t upset regional powers too much. The formula designed according to the agreement made in Erbil and Duhok can be a good solution to commence this phase quickly and protect Kurdish authority in Rojava while separation and formation of a Kurdistan state hasn’t become a declared objective of Kurdish parties. That is why if groups like Jaish al-Islam can have dialogue in Ghouta with Russia, Syria, and Turkey and can find a place for their survival, why can’t Kurdish parties do this on their own territory? The words of an American expert were very interesting, that the US had told Syrian Kurds that they had to have relations and be good with their neighbours, including the Kurdistan Region and Turkey. This expert had also said that they were aware that Syrian Kurds are old communists and hence look to Russia. These two statements deserve close consideration, especially by Rojava parties. I have heard this several times from experts within former US administrations that Kurdish authorities east of the Euphrates in Syria should cement their relations with Barzani and improve their relations with Turkey through this way. Unfortunately, they didn’t listen to this. Some parties in the Kurdistan Region contributed to this situation, letting party politics drown out such warnings. That is why the Rojava administration didn’t have internal political support from within Rojava nor did it have normal relations with its surroundings. Nowadays, all the regional powers are either publicly or indirectly in contact with one another because no country can be at war with all. That is why the Kurds everywhere should reach an agreement, work together, and have dialogue with regional countries in order to protect their interests. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
