In 1980, in the concluding chapters of my analytical work (Kurds and the Khomeini Revolution), I documented with letters of anger and betrayal how the outstretched Kurdish hand towards the nascent Islamic Republic was crushed, not through intellectual discourse, but with a sword raised in the name of religion. Today, after more than four decades, the same scene returns – but on a Syrian stage – with different faces, changing slogans, and similar tools.

Oh, transitional government of Ahmed al-Shar'a, it is unwise to read the Iranian revolution as one reads fleeting political stories, nor the model of Erdogan's racist Islamic government. Instead, view it as the historical disasters that have transformed into profound lessons on how to destroy the unity of nations from within when political justice is replaced by a closed doctrine, and the constitution by a fatwa.

Khomeini relied on doctrinal Shiite political Islam to build his new state, transforming the popular revolution into a religious totalitarian regime, framing the state within concepts of "Velayat-e Faqih" and divine governance, where plurality is eliminated, and citizenship is redefined according to sectarian loyalty to the center. Is the religious authoritarian discourse we witness today, which the al-Shar'a government seeks to establish, merely a mirrored reflection of the same Iranian experience? The same tools, the same goals, and the same inevitable catastrophe.

Frantz Fanon, in his profound critique of post-colonialism, warned of a moment when national liberation transforms into a tool for internal domination, stating: "Revolution turns into another mask for power when it is monopolized by one spectrum, excluding others in the name of the correct affiliation."

This is exactly what happened in Tehran, and it is what is feared to repeat in the new Damascus: invoking a narrow religious legitimacy to justify domination, and excluding the Kurds, Alawites, Druze, and other Syrian components under the pretext of protecting national unity.

But what unity can be built on the ruins of diversity? And what nation can be built on the principle that the Kurdish people are merely a security issue, devoid of historical rights?

Dr. Abdul Rahman Qasimlo stated clearly in the face of Khomeini: "We are not a religious minority seeking a fatwa, but a people seeking recognition." This may very well be the same message that the Kurds in Syria are conveying today.

The Kurdish people in Syria are neither newcomers nor imports; they are the very fabric from which the geography of this nation was written before its maps were drawn. Denying them, as Khomeini denied, will not lead to stability but to a wounded memory and perpetual resistance.

So, Al-Shar'a government, if you want to save Syria from Iran's fate, do not repeat its great sin. Do not make political Islam a tool for national domination, nor govern with legalistic instruments what requires the tools of constitutional justice. A state cannot be built on a singular interpretation of religion, but rather on just human consensus among peoples and components.

National reconciliation will only be achieved by recognizing the full Kurdish rights, not on paper, but in the text of the constitution, on the ground, in the distribution of powers, in language, in education, in culture, and in symbols.

Lenin once said, while trying to save the Bolshevik revolution from falling into the traps of Russian nationalism: "Nothing hinders the solidarity of the proletariat more than the oppression of small nationalities, even in the name of revolution."

And as Omar ibn al-Khattab said, in one of history's most just stances: "When did you enslave people, when their mothers bore them free?"

The Kurds, like all the peoples of Syria, were not born to be subjects of a centralized sectarian state, but free people, on their land, in their languages, with their history and culture.

Nelson Mandela, from the ruins of prisons and the struggle for dignity, stated: "Freedom is indivisible; when one is denied their rights, the rights of all are threatened."

So, new Damascus government, if you are talking about revolution, know that true revolution begins with recognizing those who were not recognized. And if you claim to represent the new Syria, start by returning rights to their owners, and stop the massacres... Do not build a homeland on the ruins of their pain.

From the standpoint of the Kurdish intellectual, who has not taken up arms but has carried words like embers in his hand, I say to you with the voice of memory and the future: 

Stop the massacres being carried out in your name or with your silence on the Syrian coast and in areas trampled by the boots of extremist, criminal organizations. No one who wants to overthrow a tyranny can remain silent about sectarian massacres or endorse the crushing of minorities, as is happening today against the Alawite minority in its 

Stop tampering with the fate of the Kurds in Serekaniye (Ras al-Ain) and Gire Spi (Tal Abyad). Return the displaced to their homes before you talk about the return of refugees. Return the cities to their people before you demand the dignity of the homeland.
And free yourself from Turkish dictates, which have turned your national struggle into an arm of a regional security project.
Those who base their decisions on Ankara will not write a free future for Damascus.
And do not repeat what Khomeini did in the name of religion, or what the Shah did in the name of nationalism.
Whoever thinks they can build the future of Syria without the Kurds does not understand the meaning of Syria, knows nothing about its history, and lacks the moral legitimacy to build it.
And do not bet on time to forget the tragedy. Blood does not forget, and the land knows its children, and the peoples who are oppressed today are secretly writing the map of the future. Either you build a Syria of pluralism and justice, with a decentralized federal system, or you will discover, too late, that you have built nothing but another version of tyranny, disguised as an opposition.
Levant Dr. Mahmoud Abbas