With the onset of the Arab Spring, the Syrian people revolted in large numbers, demanding better governance and the opportunity to live in a free country. This aspiration for change was quickly intercepted by the efforts of external powers with influence over Syria, who sought to create chaos, sow division and occupy Syrian territory.
In the early days of the popular uprising, almost 90% of the population was opposed to the Assad regime. Those who sought change included Sunnis, Kurds, Armenians, Christians and even Nusayris, all of whom united in the desire for a shift in the political landscape. Türkiye, Iran and Russia have all engaged with Syria through previous contacts, each with distinct expectations for the country's future. Türkiye sought that the Syrian system transform, advocating for a democratic framework where the people could live under an elected government, ensuring their rights and freedoms.
Iran wanted the Assad regime to remain on the stage in favor of Iran, no matter what the circumstances, especially for fear of breaking what they called the "Axis of Resistance" between Iraq and Lebanon. Since Iran invited Russia to Syria and acted more as a guide in between, what Russia wanted was in line with Iran's targets.
The United States of 15 years ago wielded far more significant influence than it does today. In fact, the Obama administration mishandled the Syrian civil war that paved the way for Russia's resurgence on the global stage. Rather than focusing on building alliances with established states or fostering more robust governance structures, the Obama administration chose to engage with tinier, fragmented groups.
While the U.S. expended its energy on organizations like the PKK/YPG and Daesh, Russia seized the opportunity to project its power, establishing a naval presence in the Mediterranean and solidifying a strategic foothold in Syria. This marked a significant geopolitical shift as Russia secured access to warm-water ports and reasserted itself as a formidable regional player.
Fifteen years have passed, and a people's revolution in Syria continues to gain momentum and consolidate with each passing day. Those who have languished in Damascus's prisons, those who have endured the harsh reality of exile, and those who have suffered mistreatment and torture have become unwilling participants in this tragic cycle – much like the story of Prophet Joseph, whose trials and tribulations ultimately paved the way for redemption and justice.
The Assad regime has collapsed, and the army has surrendered to the newly established government. However, building a stable and lasting order is not an overnight process; it will take time and careful effort.
Meanwhile, discussions about Syria’s future are ongoing. Iran and Russia have withdrawn from the visible political stage, effectively losing their influence and de facto control over the country. Israel appears to be gradually testing its position and that of the newly established Syrian revolution and government by strategically occupying particular points. Step by step, it seems to solidify its stance in an occupation-like posture.
The United States' intentions remain ambiguous. Will it continue to use Daesh as a pretext to protect the PKK, or will it shift its focus toward fostering a strong, unified Syrian state? A clearer perspective on U.S. policy may only emerge with the potential return of Trump to office.
Türkiye, on the other hand, takes a contrasting approach. To maintain its own stability, it prioritizes ensuring the security of its neighbors, standing firmly against Iran's chaotic regional strategy. While Iran thrives in fostering disorder, Türkiye consistently upholds its role as a proponent of stability and order in the region.
Of course, we do not know what the global or regional powers – the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France or Iran – want today. But if they fight against sociology and favor chaos, the revolution, which is 15 years overdue, may fall back a little more, but eventually, sociology's demands will prevail in Syria.
Türkiye's stance did not emerge by chance. From the beginning, it prioritized the well-being of the Syrian people and the future of Syria. Türkiye has consistently upheld the principle of Syria's territorial integrity, firmly believing that a unitary state structure would benefit Syria and enhance stability for its neighbors and the entire region.
There are undoubtedly numerous issues to address regarding Syria’s future: Will the PKK/YPG relinquish its occupation and surrender? What stance will the United States adopt? How will European states position themselves? These dilemmas persist, but the overwhelming momentum toward unity and order in Syria signals the emergence of a strong, centralized government.
It is crucial for global powers, Syria’s neighbors and Arab nations to come together to rebuild a unified Syria – a goal that serves the interests of all regional states. Türkiye’s dedicated commitment to Syria’s territorial integrity is a model of constructive and principled engagement. One can only hope that Arab countries and Iran will join this collective effort to shape Syria’s brighter future.
