US-Türkiye clash over Syria’s Kurdish dilemma deepens rift between allies

By Akbar Novruz

The battle for Syria has become a microcosm of broader geopolitical struggles, where alliances are tested, and territorial ambitions collide. At the heart of this conflict lies an increasingly bitter rift between the United States and Türkiye—two NATO allies whose strategic interests are growing ever more incompatible. Tensions have entered a new phase after the Free Syrian Army, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) led by Ahmed al-Sharaa a.k.a. Abu Mohammad al-Julani, ended Assad's rule. Many experts and politicians are patiently watching the trajectory of the situation. As Syria remains uncertain, the US’s support for Kurdish militias, notably the YPG, has caused a new threat for Türkiye, determined to prevent what it sees as the rise of a terrorist state on its borders. The latest development—US senators proposing sanctions on Türkiye—marks a new chapter in this long-standing and increasingly volatile conflict.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have introduced a sanctions bill in response to Türkiye's potential operation against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northern Syria. They believe the U.S. should work with Turkiye to establish a demilitarized zone along the Syrian border to achieve a ceasefire.

The bill, titled "Countering Türkiye's Aggression Act 2024," aims to prevent support by Turkiye and its allies, as such actions could lead to the resurgence of ISIS, threatening U.S. interests. Van Hollen highlighted the importance of supporting Kurdish partners in regional security efforts.

In a post on his official X account, Van Hollen stated, "The attacks by Turkish-backed forces against our Syrian Kurdish partners undermine regional security. If Türkiye does not accept the ceasefire and demilitarized zone, we must impose sanctions."

SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) Commander Mazloum Abdi has proposed a U.S.-controlled demilitarized zone in Kobani, where the SNA is preparing for an operation. He indicated that if a ceasefire is reached, non-Syrian fighters could be removed from the country.

Senator Chris Van Hollen mentioned that he discussed the ceasefire proposal with Abdi. He warned that if Turkiye rejects this, they may consider sanctions similar to those imposed in 2019 for Türkiye’s purchase of Russian S-400 systems, which halted its F-35 program and led to additional sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

US support for Kurdish Militias, a long-standing history

For years, the US has justified its military presence in Syria under the banner of defeating ISIS. But as the Syrian conflict drags on, questions have emerged about whether the US’s true objectives lie beyond the defeat of a single extremist group. Türkiye, long suspicious of US intentions, has grown increasingly wary of American backing for Kurdish groups like the YPG, which it considers an extension of the PKK, a terrorist organization. To Türkiye, this is not just about a fight against ISIS—it’s about the creation of a Kurdish corridor that could one day evolve into a so-called independent "Kurdish state", a scenario it will never accept.

This territorial control—around 33-35% of Syria—is not merely a coincidence but a calculated move by Kurdish groups, who have used the power vacuum in Syria to assert their authority. It has been there since the end of 70s'. But for Türkiye, and also Syria it always represents itself as a direct threat. The notion of a Kurdish state stretching from Syria into Iraq and potentially destabilizing the region is a scenario that Türkiye is determined to prevent at all costs. Despite repeated protests, Türkiye’s NATO ally, the US, continues to embrace these Kurdish groups as essential partners in the fight against ISIS. This enduring contradiction between alliance and action has led to growing frustration on both sides, with Türkiye escalating its military presence in northern Syria as a direct response.

The US-Türkiye relationship is far more complex than just a disagreement over Syria. The US has long used proxy forces to achieve its geopolitical aims, and its support for Kurdish militias in Syria is part of a broader pattern of interventionism. From the creation of groups like ASALA in the 1970s to the rise of ISIS, the US has used these organizations to destabilize regions and punish states that defy American interests. It is a method that has stood the test of time, though the consequences are often far-reaching, creating instability and fueling extremism. Whether or not the US intended to create a Kurdish state, its actions in Syria have undeniably given Kurdish groups the leverage they need to push for greater autonomy. With Syria already fractured by years of civil war, the possibility of a Kurdish state taking root in the region is not a distant dream but a real threat that Türkiye is determined to crush.

So we can understand where this sanction threat emerges...

The introduction of a bill by US senators proposing sanctions on Türkiye is a reflection of this growing divide. With the US framing the situation as a matter of national security, it is once again using its economic leverage to pressure Türkiye into compliance. But this strategy could backfire. Türkiye, already accustomed to Western sanctions, is unlikely to yield to external pressure, especially when its national security is at stake. The growing military presence in northern Syria is a clear indication that Türkiye will do whatever it takes to protect its borders and prevent the creation of a Kurdish state on its doorstep.

In many ways, this is a battle for the future of Syria—a future where global powers use proxies and terrorism as tools in their struggle for influence. The US, in particular, has a long history of fostering instability through the support of terrorist organizations. From the Taliban to ISIS, the US has often found itself backing groups that it later deems enemies. In Syria, this paradox has reached its peak. The US’s support for Kurdish militias, despite their links to the PKK, is seen by Türkiye as a betrayal. Meanwhile, the US continues to label countries like Syria as “terrorist states,” a designation that, when examined closely, seems to serve a broader strategic purpose of isolating certain governments and undermining their stability.

What holds for the future?

The question now is how far Türkiye is willing to go to confront this growing threat. With the US showing no signs of backing down, and Syria remaining a battleground for various international interests, the future of US-Türkiye relations hangs in the balance. The US-Türkiye rift over Syria is about far more than just territorial disputes. It is about regional power, national sovereignty, and the larger game of influence that global powers continue to play. Well, for now, the fate of the situation is predominantly in the hands of Türkiye. The current frame shows that Türkiye is on the way to benefiting from the latest developments in Syria. But of course, she must act accordingly. The consequences for both Türkiye and the US could be profound, reshaping the future of the Middle East for years to come.