Syria, long plagued by civil war, foreign interventions, and deep sectarian divides, is entering a new and uncertain chapter. Recent statements by key actors in the country underscore the growing fragmentation of authority and the crystallization of competing visions for Syria’s future. From the Druze-led resistance in Suwayda to the Kurdish push for federalism in the northeast, and with international powers recalibrating their positions on the ground, the path ahead points increasingly toward a weakened and potentially divided Syrian state.
The bold remarks by Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, the leading Druze religious authority in Suwayda, mark a significant moment in the province’s defiance against the transitional Syrian administration led by Ahmad al-Shara (Julani). In an interview with NPR, al-Hijri described the current government as “terrorist” and questioned its legitimacy both domestically and internationally. More strikingly, he emphasized the determination of local Druze forces to maintain their autonomy and defend the borders of Suwayda, even against the Syrian army if necessary.
This resistance is not isolated rhetoric. According to Bassam Abu Fakhr, spokesperson for the influential “Men of Dignity” movement, Suwayda’s factions are deeply skeptical of Damascus, now controlled by men who were members of al-Qaeda and are actively preparing for potential military confrontation. While Abu Fakhr reaffirmed a desire for national unity and rejected foreign, particularly Israeli, intervention, his comments reflect a profound disillusionment with the central government’s ability to represent or protect Syria’s diverse communities.
Parallel to these developments in the south, Kurdish factions in northeastern Syria are coalescing around a shared political vision: the formal adoption of a federal, pluralistic, and democratic parliamentary system. According to senior SDF official Daran Jiya Kurd, this agreement, backed by both the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the Kurdish National Council (KNC), envisions local legislative councils, autonomous internal security forces, and the constitutional enshrinement of regional cultural and political identities.
This Kurdish consensus represents the first formal acknowledgment by the Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria (AANES) that federalism is no longer just an aspiration—it is a strategic imperative. The announcement comes amid frustrations with the new interim government’s draft constitution, which many Kurds feel ignores Syria’s ethnic and sectarian diversity. With Western backing, particularly from the U.S. and France, the Kurds are preparing to present their federalist blueprint in Damascus, signaling a likely confrontation with the unitary vision held by the transitional authorities.
The risk of Syria becoming a battleground for foreign powers continues to grow. Most recently, Turkey and Israel initiated behind-the-scenes negotiations in Azerbaijan to prevent direct military conflict in Syria. This comes after Israeli strikes targeted Turkish positions near Palmyra, which were reportedly being developed into long-term military bases. While no agreement was reached, the very fact that such talks are happening reveals the high stakes of the current power struggle in Syria.
Turkey, for its part, claims its actions are coordinated with the Shara government and aimed at bolstering Syria’s defense capabilities. However, Israel views any Turkish military expansion—especially permanent installations—as a threat to the delicate regional balance. This geopolitical friction adds yet another layer of complexity to an already volatile domestic landscape.
What emerges from this tangled mosaic of internal dissent and external pressure is a picture of a Syria that is increasingly disjointed. The central government, struggling to assert control, faces resistance from both ends of the country—Druze militias in the south and a well-organized Kurdish administration in the north. Meanwhile, sectarian massacres along the coast and calls for international protection further erode the credibility of any central authority.
Though official rhetoric still clings to the goal of national unity, facts on the ground suggest that Syria is drifting toward de facto partition. Whether through negotiated federalism, as envisioned by the Kurds, or through localized autonomy, as enforced in Suwayda, Syria’s future may well be one of decentralized governance, with power shared—or contested—by a mosaic of regional actors.
If these trajectories continue, Syria may formally adopt a federal system—or it may fracture into semi-autonomous zones under the influence of foreign backers. Either outcome would represent a historic transformation, away from the centralized Ba’athist model that has defined Syrian governance for decades.
In the end, the greatest challenge may not be preserving Syria’s borders, but reimagining a shared national identity in a landscape that seems increasingly fractured—by ethnicity, by ideology, and by war.
