The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries.

Northern Syria is in a cataclysmic crisis. Kurdish communities in Rojava are facing relentless attacks by Turkish-backed militias and Syrian regime forces. Villages are being razed, civilians executed, women raped, and entire neighbourhoods systematically targeted.

Turkey’s involvement is central: Erdoğan manipulates proxies and leaders, such as Syria’s interim president Al-Jolani, to press his agenda, pursuing Ottoman-style expansionist ambitions while advancing a ruthless campaign to erase Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds, who have built pluralistic and stable governance systems in a region dominated by authoritarianism and sectarianism, now face existential threats.

What is unfolding against the Kurds in Syria carries lethal implications throughout the Middle East and beyond. The Kurdish struggle underscores a larger geopolitical reality: unchecked aggression here emboldens expansionist and Islamist forces throughout the region.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey are moving to form a NATO-style alliance, called the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), whereby any attack on one party is considered an attack on all.

Turkey’s destabilising ambitions, combined with Pakistan’s support for Islamist networks and Saudi Arabia’s regional influence, are forming a bloc whose goals clash directly with the security and values of Israel, India, and the UAE — three powers on the Middle-East-Asia Corridor with shared strategic and democratic imperatives. For these three countries, the threat and consequences of extremism are immediate.

Israel and India maintain solid defence cooperation, forged over decades of shared security challenges and strategic alignment. India and the UAE have recently strengthened economic and security partnerships, including agreements in energy, defence collaboration, and trade, with the aim of doubling bilateral commerce to $200 billion over the next six years.

Together, Israel, India, and the UAE form a natural coalition committed to protecting citizens, countering extremist ideologies, and preserving regional stability.

The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries. Kurdish forces bravely fought off ISIS between 2014 and 2017, when much of the region collapsed, protecting religious minorities and detaining thousands of terrorists on behalf of the international community.

Today, these efforts are under severe strain. Prison breaks in north-eastern Syria, escalating attacks on Kurdish-held territory, and the vulnerability of displacement camps signal a potential resurgence of ISIS.

ISIS had never truly disappeared. Since losing its territorial caliphate in 2019, it restructured into a decentralised global network with regional affiliates. By the end of 2024, it remained the most lethal terrorist organisation worldwide. Its digital presence, financial networks using cryptocurrencies, and ideological influence over minors and lone actors make it a persistent global threat.

Weakening Kurdish control creates space for ISIS to regroup and export violence far beyond the Middle East — to Europe, India, and beyond.

ISIS has also preserved and expanded its digital capabilities. Through social media, encrypted messaging platforms, and online propaganda, the organisation radicalises and recruits globally, particularly among minors.

ISIS-inspired attacks involving teenagers in Europe, including Austria and Germany, demonstrate how rapidly online radicalisation can translate into real-world violence, often beyond early detection by security services.

Geopolitics, however, is not just about land and strategy; at its heart lies a spiritual dimension that is often overlooked. The current chaos is unfolding around the Euphrates, a river whose surrounding lands are historically sacred. This was where Abraham, the father of monotheistic faiths, settled, amassed wealth and influence, and lived in coexistence with people of different faiths.

The values Abraham embodied, such as respect, dignity, coexistence — continue to shape the cultural DNA of the Kurds. Today, those same values, reflected in the Kurdish society, which I have personally witnessed in their respect for human dignity, women’s rights, and pluralism, are under direct threat from extremist ideologies seeking to destroy them.

The Kurds’ defence of pluralism, coexistence, and local governance mirrors values shared by Israel, India, and the UAE. Failing to protect them is not neutral; it constitutes strategic negligence with consequences that will be felt far beyond Syria.

The opportunity for trilateral cooperation is clear. Israel and India already maintain strong defence ties, sharing expertise in counterterrorism, military technology, and intelligence operations. India and the UAE have deepened strategic, economic, and security partnerships, building a foundation for coordinated action in the region. The existing intelligence-sharing framework between Israel, India, and the UAE is a critical asset.

Strengthened and fully integrated, it could become a force that regional aggressors would approach with caution, knowing that any misstep against the trio carries immediate, precise consequences. Such strengthened coordination would allow pre-emption of terrorist operations, disruption of financing channels, prevention of further prison breaks escalating into global attacks, and early identification of radicalisation in vulnerable populations.

This is not abstract geopolitics; it is about protecting citizens under threat, whether in Kobane in Syrian Kurdistan, Tel Aviv, Delhi, or Dubai.

The Kurdish crisis also has profound moral resonance. Jews and Kurds are both ancient peoples shaped by exile, persecution, and the longing for homeland and dignity. Both have survived through resilience, shared values, and a commitment to coexistence rather than domination. This shared ethos should compel Israel to safeguard regional allies by building strong, long-term partnerships with stable partners such as the UAE and India.

The systematic dismantling of Kurdish society is not only a regional tragedy — it is a blow against the principles that govern other modern, pluralistic nations. For India, which faces Pakistan-sponsored jihadism and digital radicalisation, the Kurdish struggle mirrors its own fight against extremist ideologies that weaponise religion and erase pluralistic traditions.

For me personally, these countries matter deeply. My Indian background and consistent time spent in Israel give me a unique perspective on the stakes involved.

The UAE has proven to be a strong and reliable Middle Eastern partner, and I hope for even closer trilateral cooperation with Israel and India. Together, these nations have both the strategic capability and the moral imperative to act decisively.

But the capability should not just be expressed in words, but through concrete, coordinated action to prevent further atrocities and the resurgence of ISIS.

The human toll is urgent. Displacement, executions, and destruction in north-eastern Syria (Rojava) are accompanied by women’s lives in grave danger and children living amid trauma and extremist influence.

ISIS’s adaptability, both digital and operational, means that failing to act now risks renewed terror reaching far beyond Syria. Supporting the Kurds is about defending humanity against an extremist ideology that threatens us all.

The question is simple: will the world stand by, or will it recognise the moral and strategic necessity of supporting those on the front lines of extremism? The Kurdish crisis is a stark reminder that regional ambitions must be firmly contained.

For India, Israel, and the UAE, strengthening trilateral cooperation is not only about countering ISIS. It is also about ensuring that Pakistan’s proxies and Turkey’s expansionist ambitions remain within their own borders and fantasies. Coordinated intelligence, rapid-response networks, and strategic alignment can send a clear message: no aggression will go unchecked, and no extremist ideology will reshape the region. The time to act is now.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

What began as a local criminal dispute has now escalated into a multi-layered confrontation involving sectarian militias, Syrian government forces, Israeli airstrikes, and competing Druze factions.

Over five days of relentless violence, more than 100 have been killed and hundreds more injured. Yet, beneath the fog of war, a clearer pattern is emerging—one that reflects the geopolitical fault lines running through Syria and the region at large.

A Spark That Ignited a Firestorm

The violence erupted on July 11, when Bedouin gunmen ambushed a vegetable truck on the Damascus–Suwayda highway, assaulting the Druze driver and stealing his goods. The following day, Druze militias retaliated by kidnapping eight Bedouins, triggering a tit-for-tat spiral of abductions that quickly deteriorated into full-blown armed clashes.

Although such conflicts between Bedouin clans and Druze militias have simmered for years—largely over control of drug trafficking routes, weapons smuggling corridors, and disputed lands—this incident unleashed an unusually brutal wave of violence.

By July 13, mediation efforts by local notables collapsed. Armed clashes intensified in western rural Suwayda and in the provincial capital. In just 24 hours, over 30 were killed and nearly 100 injured. Bedouin areas were besieged while Druze villages were shelled in retaliation.

Until this flare-up, the Syrian government had largely kept its forces out of Suwayda, honoring an uneasy power-sharing arrangement with local Druze leaders. But as lawlessness spiraled, Damascus deployed military and Interior Ministry units to reassert control.

The response from Druze militias was swift and brutal: ten government soldiers were ambushed and executed, while eight others were paraded in humiliation before reportedly being killed.

That move triggered direct Israeli involvement. On July 14, Israeli drones began striking Syrian military convoys—first armored vehicles, then Interior Ministry trucks. The strikes coincided with the Syrian army’s ground operations in Druze-dominated areas and appeared to provide air cover for anti-government Druze factions.

As fighting intensified, a ceasefire was declared by Suwayda’s Druze, Christian, and civil council leaders. But within half an hour, Hikmat al-Hijri, a powerful Druze cleric, rejected the agreement and called for renewed fighting. Almost immediately, Israeli airstrikes resumed—this time across Suwayda city and beyond.

Power Struggles, Foreign Backers, and the Drug Trade

At the heart of this crisis lies Hikmat al-Hijri, spiritual leader of the Suwayda Military Council (SMC)—a faction founded after Assad’s weakening in 2012 and composed of former regime generals. The SMC has long been suspected of controlling large segments of Syria’s Captagon, heroin, and crystal meth trade, which serves as a lucrative shadow economy for armed groups.

Hijri’s repeated rejection of ceasefire efforts has angered rival Druze leaders. Sheikh Yousef al-Jarbou accused him of seeking to monopolize Druze leadership, while Laith al-Balous condemned him for destabilizing Suwayda under the influence of “subversive elements.”

The extent of Israeli coordination with Hijri’s faction is significant. Israel has traditionally struck targets in Syria to counter Iranian and Hezbollah entrenchment near its northern borders. However, its active support of a local militia implicated in narcotics and rebellion raises questions about Tel Aviv’s evolving strategy. Rather than merely deterring Iran, Israel now appears to be empowering anti-Assad factions that could help divide and destabilize southern Syria—a dangerous gamble that risks dragging the region into deeper chaos.

By July 16, Syrian government forces managed to take control of Suwayda city and Qanawat, Hijri’s stronghold. In retaliation, Israeli airstrikes expanded to Damascus, even hitting areas near the Presidential Palace and Syria’s Defense Ministry, killing at least three.

Meanwhile, the United States began mediating what became the third ceasefire attempt in 36 hours. The framework remains largely unchanged: government forces withdraw, local Druze security handle internal policing, and the Interior Ministry maintains nominal authority. Still, Hijri rejected it again, and Israeli strikes followed almost instantly.

The timing of these airstrikes—immediately after each ceasefire rejection—points toward a troubling synergy between Hijri’s tactical decisions and Israel’s military actions, amplifying the conflict and weakening Syria’s transitional government.

Beyond Suwayda: A Microcosm of Syria’s Collapse

While the Suwayda conflict is often described as sectarian—Druze versus Bedouin, or Druze versus Sunni Arab communities—it is just as much about economics and influence. The province is located on key southern smuggling routes leading into Jordan, Iraq, and the Gulf, and control over these routes is a high-stakes game. Notably, on July 15, the Jordanian military clashed twice with drug smugglers crossing over from Suwayda, reflecting the conflict’s transnational dimensions.

At the same time, the information war around Suwayda has become as intense as the conflict itself. Social media has been flooded with sensationalist claims—massacres, organ mutilation, women and children burned alive—all of which independent monitors like SOHR and other long-standing observers have debunked. Verified casualty figures suggest that combatants make up over 75% of the dead, with 6–8% being women and children.

What could have been resolved diplomatically has instead become a case study in how local power struggles, war economies, and foreign interventions intersect. A ceasefire brokered 48 hours ago might have prevented much of the bloodshed. But Hijri’s rejectionism and Israel’s airstrikes have thrown fuel on a tinderbox.

As of now, Suwayda’s future remains uncertain. If the ceasefire holds, the province may cautiously rejoin Syria’s transitional framework. But if Hijri continues to resist and foreign powers persist in exploiting local divisions, Suwayda risks becoming a permanently destabilized zone, threatening Jordan’s security and complicating Syria’s fragile peace process.

Ultimately, Suwayda illustrates the broader tragedy of post-war Syria: a nation where governance has eroded, warlords thrive, and every local conflict becomes a proxy battlefield for regional powers. Peace here won’t be achieved by airstrikes or militias. It requires a new social contract—rooted in accountability, disarmament, and regional diplomacy—to prevent yet another province from sinking into permanent instability.

The announcement, made Monday by the Syrian presidency, marks a breakthrough in efforts to reunite the country after more than 13 years of civil war and internal fragmentation. The deal signals the beginning of the end of parallel administrations in Syria’s north and east and reasserts central authority over critical regions long outside Damascus’ direct control.

A statement published by the presidency emphasized that “all civilian and military institutions in the northeast, including border posts, airports, and oil and gas fields, will now be integrated under the administration of the Syrian state.”

State media also released a photograph of President Sharaa shaking hands with SDF commander Mazloum Abdi, underlining the significance of the agreement. The document declared that “the Kurdish community is an essential component of the Syrian state” and reaffirmed its rights to full citizenship and constitutional protections.

End of Division?

The agreement comes just days after severe violence erupted in Syria’s coastal Alawite heartland — the community from which former president Bashar al-Assad hailed. This outbreak, sparked by attacks from Assad loyalists, represented the most serious internal security challenge since Assad was ousted in December.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, over 1,000 civilians—primarily Alawites—were killed in a brutal crackdown by new government forces. Additionally, 231 security personnel and 250 pro-Assad fighters lost their lives during the clashes.

Despite the bloodshed, the government declared the operation concluded on Monday and shifted its focus to stabilizing the country through national integration. The timing of the SDF agreement suggests a strategic pivot toward unity, following the decapitation of Assad-era loyalist resistance.

SDF’s Strategic Role

The SDF, which emerged during the civil war as a U.S.-backed force, had established a de facto autonomous administration across much of northern and eastern Syria, including areas rich in oil and gas — resources critical to Syria’s post-war reconstruction.

The group, led largely by Kurdish forces, was instrumental in defeating ISIS in its final territorial stronghold in 2019. However, the SDF’s refusal to disarm had led to their exclusion from a recent national dialogue conference hosted by Syria’s new authorities.

The current agreement, however, offers a compromise: recognition and inclusion in exchange for institutional integration. The document also stresses support from the SDF in the government’s campaign against “remnants of Assad’s forces and all threats to Syria’s unity and security.”

A Reversal of History

For decades under the Assad regime, Syria’s Kurdish population was systematically marginalized. Many were denied citizenship, barred from using their language, and forbidden from celebrating their cultural identity.

The tide turned during the civil war, when the Syrian military’s withdrawal from the north enabled Kurdish groups to establish local governance. Yet, their ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—a group designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S., and the EU—complicated relations with regional and international powers.

Despite Ankara’s concerns, the SDF insists it operates independently of the PKK. However, its backbone—the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG)—is widely considered by Turkey to be an extension of the PKK. Turkish forces have routinely targeted Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria and supported proxy militias against them.

The agreement with Syria’s new authorities, who have established close ties with Turkey since Assad’s fall, could reduce Ankara’s justification for continued military action—provided the SDF’s integration is fully realized and verified.

A Step Toward Peace?

The timing of this deal is also significant in light of a recent call from jailed PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan, urging the group to disband and abandon armed struggle. If realized, the dissolution of the PKK could signal a new era of regional stability, and the SDF’s absorption into Syrian state structures may mark a move away from militia rule toward centralized governance.

While challenges remain, including Turkish military presence and latent sectarian divisions, the agreement could serve as the first genuine blueprint for Syria’s reunification — built not on military might, but on negotiation and mutual recognition.