In an interview with ANF, Rıza Altun, a member of the KCK (Kurdistan Communities Union) Executive Council, stated that Turkey is at an impasse with regard to Idlib: "Turkey must either sell its mercenaries and concede the failure of its Syria policy, or it must stand behind its mercenaries and fight against the Syrian regime, Russia and Iran."

The region is undergoing a new transformation. The Idlib operation, which plays a key role in the Syrian crisis, is slowly coming on the agenda. What phase will the upcoming Idlib operation initiate from the point of view of the actors represented in the region?

Idlib is not only a problem for Syria. It is a problem for all the forces active in Syria. Idlib is definitely a turning point for Syria. In Syria, apart from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), there are many small active groups and forces. These groups were largely defeated and gathered in the region between Idlib and Jarablus. An armed force of 100,000-150,000 men is there at the moment. They basically gathered under the umbrella of HTS (Heyet Tehrir al-Sham). This group has long been controlled by many states. The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have relations with them. Over time, Turkey established itself as the sole monopoly on these militias. Turkey undertook a lot in the Astana negotiations to gather all these groups in Idlib. In this way, Turkey was able to control most of the armed groups in Syria. Except for the SDF, today all groups in Syria, which we can call oppositional, are in Idlib. There are no more such groups in the other parts of Syria. Neither in Ghouta nor in other areas there are oppositional groups. Idlib is therefore an important area.

In the face of this situation, has the position of the Syrian regime become stronger? How was the regime kept standing on its feet?

In a situation in which the regime itself no longer had power, an attempt was made to restore it with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. Even now, the regime is not really a crucial force. Its power on the ground is merely ensured by Hezbollah and Iran. The regime's own contribution is very limited and is rather in the field of international diplomacy. In political-military aspects, Russia keeps the regime on its feet. The war waged by these forces and their support has brought about the present situation in which the armed groups are gathered in Idlib. So the regime has power through support from Russia and Iran. However, this power is not one that can be expressed independently of its supporters. Iran and Russia speak on behalf of the regime.

How is the US doing in this situation?

While Russia has gained significant influence over Syria, the US would rather open up a sphere of influence through its relations in Northern Syria. With regard to the developments in Syria, the two actors are both in contact and in contradiction with each other. Both are trying to solve the problem without getting directly into a warlike conflict with each other.

In northern Syria are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Is the SDF not an independent organization?

As the SDF has been independent since their founding, they are guided by the demand for a democratic, federal Syria. They are therefore open to a change in Syria in the context of negotiations. They are indeed in a strong position. They control a large area and their international relations cannot be underestimated.

Is there no chance of solving the Idlib problem through dialogue?

In Syria, there is such a problem: First, the beginning of a process to ensure Syria's unity, including those controlled by the SDF. Second, to find a solution to the situation in Idlib. It does not look like the situation in Idlib can be resolved by negotiation because the forces in Idlib are striving for power. They demand the overthrow of the current regime and seek their own seizure of power.

Many of the groups in Idlib are officially recognized as 'terrorist' and therefore have no legitimacy whatsoever. Even if the regime and Russia accept to integrate some of these groups into the regime, most of the groups will have to be forced to surrender in a war. There is a consensus in the international arena in this regard. The relations between Turkey, Russia and Iran make both a solution and a war seem complex options. By means of the mercenary groups, Turkey is trying to secure its influence in shaping the future of Syria. However, Russia, the regime and Iran see these groups as 'terrorists' and want to eliminate them. For this reason, all sides of the war in Idlib awaits a great test in Idlib. Without solving this problem, together with the question of the status of the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, no force in Syria can exercise influence.

The Syrian Democratic Council (MSD) and the regime have had their first official talks. What political situation do these talks express?

There have been some reports in the media about these talks. The talks can open the door for a negotiation phase. As I said, this area is more likely to be the topic of a negotiated solution. However, this is not the case in Idlib. Idlib really represents a turning point in Syria. For this turning point, politics played a role, which led to the emergence of the current situation in Idlib.

Iran, Russia and the regime also play a role in the gathering of so many armed groups in Idlib. They have made agreements and deals with Turkey in this regard. Turkey initially supported these forces in Idlib in the fight against the regime. It has been steadily supporting Idlib. But then there developed an alliance between Turkey, Russia and Iran.

On which agreement is this alliance based?

This alliance is based on the gathering of all the mercenaries from all parts of Syria in Idlib and Turkey’s gaining control over them in return for the handover of Afrin to Turkey. In this way, Turkey could secure all groups as a trump for itself. That seemed like an attractive solution. On the basis of this agreement, all armed groups from Ghouta and other places were brought there and Afrin was left to Turkey. In this course, it came to the present situation in the area extending from ​​Jarablus to Idlib.

Of course, one can ask how long a ceasefire of these forces and the control of them can be maintained. This would work as long as all groups in the other parts of Syria are defeated and settled in Idlib. So it came to the present situation. Idlib has now become the main issue in Syria.

Will all turn towards Idlib now?

If the regime really wants to become a power again, then it must bring Idlib under its control and crush the armed groups there. If the 150,000-man force wants to gain in importance again, it must continue the war with the regime in one way or another. The previous agreements between Russia and Turkey were in line with the conjuncture of the time. This has now changed. Russia no longer accepts this balance. The forces in Idlib want to use Aleppo to move against the regime. The regime in turn pursues a policy of encircling Idlib. It wants to either force the local groups to surrender or make Turkey push it to the task. This means that an armed conflict could erupt at any time.

Has Turkey not been able to convince the US?

Turkish-American relations are in a very critical situation. As long as these contradictions persist, Turkey will not be able to change its policies and build new relations with the international coalition and NATO, which may include armed groups. Turkey is not able to do that. Because the international powers do not accept Tahrir al-Sham and similar groups. Turkey wanted to give them legitimacy. The plan of Turkey was actually to make a calmer tone after the elections and to relax relations with the United States. In this context, the status of these groups would be equipped with legitimacy. But Turkey did not succeed. Turkey alleged that their relations with the US were good and that they had agreed to hand over Manbij. But relatively quickly it became clear that these statements were lies. Because Turkey failed to reach political agreement with the US, it suddenly became even more condemned to the relationship it had previously established with Russia and Iran. Russia is now exploiting this state of affairs. Russia wants to use Turkey against the US and the EU. At present, we see that Russia and Iran are doing two things: First, they are putting pressure on Turkey to give up Idlib. On the other hand, in the context of the Turkish-American tensions, they declare that they are on the side of Turkey. In this situation, Turkey has nothing against the US, nor against Russia and Iran.

What do Russia and Iran intend to say when stating that they are on the side of Turkey?

Russia and Iran neither have the money to give to Turkey nor would they go to war against the US or NATO for the sake of Turkey. So their public statements do nothing more than encouraging Erdogan. Erdogan, on the other hand, tries to create a mood among the population by describing relations as stable and serious. At the same time they are aware of the difficult situation in Turkey and therefore also make the situation in Idlib and Turkish presence in Syria a topic of discussion. According to media reports, Russia demands that Turkey withdraw quickly from Syria. With its attacks on Idlib, the regime puts Turkey in a predicament. It tells Turkey something like this: "There is no force left for you to rely on. If you bring us up against you, you will collapse completely. So accept what we suggest. Let's plan together how to completely eliminate the armed groups." They want to get Turkey to this point. Even if this scenario does not happen, they are ready anyway for an operation against Idlib. Preparations for the operation are under way. All important points in Idlib are under the siege of the regime. This ultimately means that an operation against Idlib can begin at any time.

Does the future of Syria depend on Idlib?

the future of Syria will be shaped depending on how the Idlib problem will be solved. So far, Idlib has been only one of many battlefields. Today Idlib stands for all of Syria. Anyone who wants to be involved in shaping the future of Syria must inevitably be in a strong position during or at the end of the operation. Turkey is neither in a position to participate in the Idlib operation, nor will it be in a strong condition at the end of the operation. Turkey does not have much room to move. Apart from omnipresent Kurdish hostility, there is nothing on which Turkish politics is based. It is therefore facing a bankruptcy.

In an interview in January, you said that Turkey had gone into a deep quagmire through its intervention in the area between Jarablus and al-Bab. What will happen in Afrin, also in the context of Idlib?

Afrin is definitely a problem. When we speak of Idlib, we mean this whole contiguous region. Afrin is certainly a problem in itself. As much as Afrin is part of our assessments of the situation in Idlib, we must also pay attention to the distinctness of the situation in Afrin. Russia, Iran and the regime have used Turkey to get to Afrin. At that time, the SDF positioned themselves against them. In this context, we must not forget the following: in the case of Afrin, it is not only Turkey that plays a role. We must not be fooled. Turkey, Russia, Iran and the regime are all guilty. As part of a dirty deal, they handed over Afrin to Turkey. The freedom forces have resolutely resisted this deal and the occupation in Afrin. This resistance continues today. These forces defend their political approach while fighting the Turkish and Islamist occupiers.

What will happen to the presence of Turkey and the Islamist groups in Afrin?

This is related to the developments mentioned above. These developments will also include Afrin. The presence of Turkey in Afrin will be called into question. Undoubtedly, the regime forces will want to take over Turkey's position in Afrin. But YPG forces will never give up Afrin.

What consequences will this bring?

This will be demonstrated by practical developments, relationships and contradictions on the ground.

You said that the Syrian crisis is also a crisis of the forces active there. Iran is also part of this crisis. Most recently, Iran said it would help Turkey in the face of the crisis. In addition, Iran itself is in crisis. How will this crisis situation, in which Iran is located, continue?

The US and Israel, as well as Iran, have set out a clear position. Iran is the target of international forces. Iran and Turkey have a special position in the Middle East. The central forces that have been made influential in the Middle East within the nation-state system are the Arabs, Iran, and Turkey. These are the ruling forces in the Middle East.

For historical reasons, the Arabs were divided and weakened, but not denied. Iran and Turkey have become two most influential powers in the Middle East as a result of the power they get from their imperial tradition. When we talk about the Middle East crisis, we are basically talking about a situation that is related to Iran and Turkey. The situation of Turkey and Iran will determine the quality and solution of the crisis in the Middle East. In addition, the situation of the Arabs and the Kurds is significant. Not as a state, but as a society. Because the Arabs are divided so they have no great effect. The Kurds, on the other hand, are surrounded despite their dynamism. The situation of Iran and Turkey has a key role in changing the status quo. With their methods used for centuries they became the main cause of the crisis. Today's crisis is a consequence of the policies of these two forces. It reflects their politics and ideological-political hegemony. From this perspective, we can understand the problem of Turkey and Iran.

You spoke of the interventions against the nation states in the Middle East. In which way is Iran intervened?

Iran has been completely targeted because it cannot be controlled. Its ideological-political structure is not suitable for it. Iran is today the fundamental target in the Middle East. For a long time, it was wanted to downgrade and weaken the influence of Iran in the Middle East. There was an American and international policy to defeat an inward-looking Iran or force a regime change. Because the Middle East crisis has so far been conducted in a different way, Iran has perhaps been able to survive. It was not quite on the agenda. Iran has been able to use the various crises in hotspots in the Middle East, such as the Gulf States, Yemen and Syria in its favor.

After seven years, the Iranian space was restricted. The international forces have now increasingly targeted Iran and are trying to establish supremacy in the Middle East with policies based on Turkey and Iran. Turkey and Iran are now experiencing problems resulting from this situation. Their alliances with Russia and contradictions with the international coalition stem from this situation. In the coming phase, these contradictions will deepen even more. The US and Iran have each set out their position. It's hard to find a point for a compromise. Even when the US declares that talks with Iran are possible, it's all about pushing Iran into the corner. It's not about solving the problem. Knowing this, Iran has rejected talks with the US without conditions. It did not do that because of his strength, but out of the knowledge of the intention of the USA. So ,the problem is very serious. It is as serious as the contradiction between Turkey and the US. Iran is wanted to be surrounded militarily, politically, diplomatically and economically and thus integrated into the world system. Iran has positioned itself against it. That means that Iran will have a hard time in the Middle East. This applies to many areas such as Yemen, the Gulf and Lebanon. Because the clear position of the Arab League, of Israel and the US puts Iran in a complicated situation.