As a clarification of what I briefly noted in my previous article ("Is There a Trap in the Paris Dialogues?"), I find it necessary to deepen the analysis of the political agendas being pushed through the ongoing dialogues, and what national forces—foremost among them the Kurdish movement, the Autonomous Administration, and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—must uphold to thwart this scheme. At the core of the current proposals lies a clear intent to abort the federal project and return Syria to a centralized authoritarianism, albeit this time cloaked in extremist Islamist garb.

A firm commitment to the demands presented by the representatives of the Autonomous Administration and the SDF Commander, which revolve around establishing a politically decentralized federal system—or its equivalent—is the only way to foil the plan being pushed by the transitional government. This government is the political front of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, formerly known as al-Nusra Front in a new disguise. These demands are rooted not only in legal and national logic, but also form part of a vision that enjoys clear support from international coalition forces, primarily the majority within the U.S. administration. This is despite the attempts by its envoy, Thomas Park, to impose a biased formula that contradicts official U.S. State Department statements and the Congress, which continues to renew the Caesar Act as a sign of distrust in any new centralized system bearing extremist Islamic traits.

We must not forget the vital French role, which largely reflects the broader European stance, in supporting the project of the Autonomous Administration and the SDF. Despite diplomatic challenges and regional pressures, France has embraced the Paris dialogues—not just as a platform for discussion, but as a political bulwark against the onslaught led by Turkey and certain Gulf powers against the Kurdish side. This French support is not mere diplomatic courtesy, but comes within the context of a growing European conviction that any sustainable solution in Syria must go through the gateway of acknowledging pluralism, accepting federalism as a framework for salvation, and breaking away from the ethnic and sectarian unilateralism that led the country to disaster. Thus, the French role is currently a strategic pillar for pressuring conspiratorial parties and achieving a necessary balance of power at the negotiation table.

The Pentagon’s continued field operations, military and logistical support for the SDF, and the allocation of large budgets confirm a clear stance that contradicts what the U.S. envoy is trying to promote. Therefore, the firm stance of the Autonomous Administration’s delegation—represented by Ms. Ilham Ahmed and SDF Commander General Mazloum Abdi—and the principles of the project carried by the Kurdish body emerging from the Qamishlo Conference, form an essential foundation not only to thwart the conspiracy, but to turn the dialogues into an opportunity for victory—not just for the Kurdish people, but for all of Syria.

The journey is neither easy nor simple. At the spearhead of this scheme is the so-called Syrian Interim Government led by al-Jolani, which is today the political arm of an extremist takfiri movement backed by Turkey and planned in parallel with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, diplomatically covered by pressures from the U.S. envoy. However, the essence of this alliance is not solely targeting the Kurdish people in Western Kurdistan, but is also driven by a phobia of the potential spread of this democratic experiment—the Autonomous Administration and the decentralized political system—into Turkey itself. That is why Erdogan’s government has, for years, pursued a regional project aimed primarily at eliminating the SDF, isolating the Autonomous Administration, and dismantling the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), in order to sever the national, political, and social lifeline of the Kurdish community and turn it into an isolated group without international protection or legitimacy—reduced once more to mere “migrants without history,” as Baathist propaganda used to claim.

Today, Erdogan’s government, through “al-Jolani’s government,” is resurrecting this narrative through field tools and suspicious diplomatic support. They are trying to shuffle the cards by forging alliances that have nothing to do with Syrian national logic and portraying the Kurds as a problem rather than part of the solution. If they succeed in passing this vision, they will have marginalized the Kurdish cause, linked it to extremist movements, and dragged the rights of other Syrian components to the chopping block, paving the way for the reproduction of a regime even more extreme than the Baathist one.

What makes matters worse is that some international powers, notably certain wings of the U.S. administration, are approaching the scene from a short-term pragmatic angle. Instead of supporting democratic and secular Kurdish forces, they have resorted to empowering radical Sunni Islamist factions to counter Iranian proxies—as a supposed transitional stage not meant to exceed its designated boundaries. This dangerous tactic undermines the relevance of Turkey as a liberal-Islamic ally, especially after its decade-long alliances with Iran and Russia, which have practically served the Syrian regime and its allies against the true revolutionary forces, particularly the Kurdish ones.

This pragmatic shift in Washington’s strategy, which implicitly enjoys Israeli support, aims to weaken Iran’s influence, but it passes through a dark tunnel where Salafist movements—until recently on terrorism watchlists—are being rehabilitated. How can a country like the United States, fully aware of al-Nusra and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham’s history, allow its envoy to meet with their political arm and present them as a potential alternative in Damascus? Does this administration not realize that “al-Jolani” and his comrades are products of the same school that led to 9/11? Or has memory become a political luxury?

But let’s be realistic: neither the United States, nor Israel, nor any European country can accept a takfiri government on its borders or near its interests. Such a government will never gain long-term legitimacy, and the Western mind cannot comprehend the notion that the alternative to the Baath regime is a “rebranded al-Qaeda.” Thus, upholding Kurdish demands is not just a defense of a partial issue, but a genuine defense of the new Syria project—and indeed, a defense of American, European, and Israeli security.

The continued participation of the Kurdish delegation in the dialogues, repeated emphasis on federalism as a comprehensive national solution, and refusal to compromise on political decentralization is the rock upon which this conspiracy may break—especially since both the Autonomous Administration and the SDF represent a broad Syrian project, not a narrow ethnic one. They are now the last fortress of a pluralistic, secular, democratic Syria.

From here, we direct our message clearly to all coalition countries:
The danger of radical Sunni Islam—currently embodied in “al-Jolani’s government”—is no less than the threat of the Iranian project and its regional proxies. In some respects, it may be more insidious and deadly, as it seeks to reshape societies in the name of religion and create a ferocious version of the state that assassinates the individual from within before attacking his body. If the U.S. administration continues down this path, it may face catastrophes no less severe than 9/11, possibly even darker versions in Europe or at the heart of Washington.

Therefore, there is no alternative but to support the true democratic forces—SDF, YPG, Peshmerga, and YPJ—because they represent not only the Kurds but all components of the Syrian people. These forces are the remaining hope to save what is left of Syria and to prevent the region from falling into the abyss of darkness and extremism.

Dr. Mahmoud Abbas