Syria doesn't work. It never worked, and it never will work. It needs to be partitioned. Its major ethnic and religious groups – Alawite Muslims, Christians, Sunni Arabs, Druze, and Kurds – deserve self-determination. They should have the right to go their separate ways. The alternative is more bloodshed. Yet, the US is stubbornly and ridiculously trying to maintain Syria's territorial integrity following a decades-long civil war.
Hence, President Trump has embraced Syria's new leader, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, an Islamist terrorist, who, until December last year, had a $10 million bounty on his head. Al-Sharaa has promised that under his rule, "The Syrian state is committed to protecting all minorities and communities in the country." But his actions and those of his regime say otherwise. In March of this year, forces linked to Al-Sharaa's regime ruthlessly massacred over 1,000 Alawite Muslims in the Syrian coastal region of Latakia. A few months later, in July, Bedouin tribesmen and other forces loyal to Al-Sharaa brutally murdered hundreds of Druze in Syria's Sweida province. And just recently, Alawite Muslims were forced from their homes in Damascus.
Despite these atrocities, however, all of Syria's minorities have expressed their willingness to remain part of the country. All they ask is that they have some autonomy to govern their own communities and not be subject to tyranny at the hands of Syria's Sunni Arab majority. But Al-Sharaa refuses to discuss any possibility of regional autonomy for Syria's minority communities, and insists on a unitary Syrian state. So does the Trump Administration, whose special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, declared that there must be "One nation, one people, one army, one Syria." Why does the US ridiculously insist on maintaining the territorial integrity of a country that should never have been created in the first place?
After the First World War, the victorious Allied Powers decided to divide the spoils of the defeated Ottoman Empire in the Middle East amongst themselves, drawing up arbitrary borders with no regard for the aspirations of the different peoples living in the region. This is how Syria and much of today's Middle East was created. The result: A century of long and bloody conflict between competing ethnic and religious groups.
Putting an end to this vicious cycle of conflict means correcting the injustice committed against the peoples of the Middle East by Western colonial powers a hundred years ago. In the case of Syria, it means allowing the various groups in the country the right to self-determination – deconstructing the Syrian state in its entirety and replacing it with separate states for the Alawites, Druze, Sunni Arabs, Christians, and Kurds. This is the only option for Syria's minorities to gain or maintain autonomy, since Al-Sharaa refuses to consider any form of decentralization.
Fortunately, all of these groups are geographically concentrated – the Alawites in Latakia, the Kurds in Rojava (north and northeastern Syria), the Druze in Sweida, the Christians in Wadi Al-Nasara (Valley of the Christians), and the Sunni Arabs in the rest of present-day Syria. Thus, creating borders for these new states should not be too difficult.
What will be difficult, however, is ensuring the viability of the newly-independent states. Latakia, Wadi Al-Nasara and Sweida have few natural resources, and the latter two have small populations. Rojava has significant natural resources and a sizeable population, but is landlocked and faces a powerful enemy in Turkey, which detests the idea of any part of Kurdistan obtaining independence. Wadi Al-Nasara and Sweida are also landlocked, as will the new Sunni Arab state be. All of these new states will need help from abroad to secure their independence.
The new Sunni Arab state can probably expect ample support from other Sunni Arab states and Turkey. Latakia can expect support from Russia as it still hosts vital Russian air and naval bases.
Israel will surely help the Druze of Sweida maintain their security and develop their economy. It has already taken action against Al-Sharaa's forces to protect the Druze from further atrocities. It would also be advantageous for the Jewish state to secure new allies by aiding the new states of Wadi Al-Nasara, Latakia, and particularly Rojava, as Israel and the Kurds have a long history of friendship.
In fact, Israeli support for Rojava may be a necessity as Turkey will almost certainly use military force to prevent the now semi-autonomous region from achieving independence – unless another major power, such as Israel, promises to defend it. Indeed, Turkey and its proxy, the Syrian National Army, already occupy large parts of northern and northeastern Syria, where they have massacred and displaced thousands of Kurds. Moreover, there is no guarantee that US troops now stationed in Rojava will remain there. President Trump has already reduced their numbers, and eventually, wants all US troops to leave the area. Israel can secure a very strategically advantageous alliance with Rojava by arming its forces and guaranteeing its security from Turkey and the Islamic State group (ISIS).
But neither Rojava nor any part of present-day Syria stands a chance of achieving prosperity if they are all forced to remain part of the same country. By insisting that Syria remain united, the US and its allies will be condemning its people to many more years of tyranny and bloodshed. President Trump has consistently stated that he aims to see a new, more prosperous Middle East. He can start by allowing and encouraging the peoples of the present-day Syrian Arab Republic to seek self-determination in their own independent states.
