Israeli army spokesperson Arye Sharuz Shalicar has sparked controversy with a provocative proposal for a three-state solution in Syria, suggesting the establishment of a Kurdish state along Israel’s border and an ”Alawite State” in western Syria, while advocating for Turkey’s exclusion from the region. In a recent Facebook post, Shalicar outlined his vision for a more peaceful Middle east by 2025, which includes the kurds launching an offensive into Syria and Iraq, the downfall of the Iranian regime, and a peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and the proposed kurdistan.His remarks, which reference the historical Sykes-Picot Agreement, have ignited discussions on the future geopolitical landscape of the middle East.
Q&A with Dr. Miriam Calder, Middle East Political Analyst
Editor (Time.news): Dr. Calder, thank you for joining us today. Recently, Israeli army spokesperson Arye Sharuz Shalicar proposed a controversial three-state solution for Syria, advocating for a Kurdish state along Israel’s border and an Alawite state in western Syria. what are your initial thoughts on this proposal?
Dr. Miriam calder: Thank you for having me. Shalicar’s proposal is certainly provocative and reflects a meaningful shift in the conversation surrounding Middle Eastern geopolitics. The idea of a Kurdish state is particularly noteworthy, as Kurds have long sought autonomy and recognition in the region. Though, the implications of splitting Syria into distinct states raises questions about feasibility, especially given the complex ethnic and sectarian landscape.
Editor: He outlines a vision for a more peaceful Middle East by 2025, suggesting that Kurdish forces might launch offensives into Syria and Iraq, and he calls for the downfall of the Iranian regime. How realistic is this vision?
Dr. Calder: The timeline of 2025 might be overly optimistic.While the Kurdish forces have demonstrated resilience and capability, launching large-scale offensives would require substantial support and coordination. Additionally, the idea of overthrowing the Iranian regime is fraught with complications, both domestically and internationally. iran plays a central role in the region’s dynamics, and any attempts to displace its influence would provoke significant backlash.
Editor: Shalicar references the historical Sykes-Picot Agreement. What relevance does this have in today’s context, and why might it resonate with people?
dr. Calder: The sykes-Picot agreement symbolizes the arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers, which disregarded the ethnic and sectarian realities on the ground. By invoking it, Shalicar appeals to those who believe that existing borders are outdated and need to be redrawn. However, while historical references can be powerful, the reinterpretation of maps without careful consideration of the people affected can lead to more conflict rather than resolution.
Editor: There’s chatter about possible exclusion of Turkey from these discussions. How might this impact regional stability?
Dr. Calder: Excluding Turkey from regional discussions could destabilize the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. Turkey has significant interests in both Syria and Iraq, particularly concerning Kurdish autonomy. Ignoring Turkey’s role could provoke tensions, especially if Kurdish movements gain momentum. Dialogue involving all stakeholders, including Turkey, is crucial for any sustainable solutions.
Editor: Shalicar also mentions a peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and the proposed Kurdistan. What does this entail,and how could it reshape alliances?
Dr. Calder: A peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and a Kurdish entity would mark a significant shift in regional alliances. Saudi Arabia has been traditionally wary of Iranian influence and might see a Kurdish state as a counterbalance. Such a partnership could enhance security cooperation and economic ties, but it also risks alienating other regional players, including Sunni arab states uneasy with empowered Kurdish factions.
Editor: As we dissect this proposal, what practical advice would you give to policymakers navigating these complex discussions?
Dr. Calder: Policymakers must approach these discussions with a nuanced understanding of the regional dynamics.Engaging all relevant parties,fostering dialogue among diverse ethnic and sectarian groups,and prioritizing humanitarian concerns will be essential. Additionally, any plans should be rooted in the aspirations and welfare of the local populations rather than solely geopolitical interests. Effective communication and an inclusive strategy can help pave the way for a more stable future in the region.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Calder, for your insights. As Shalicar’s proposal continues to spark debate,it’s clear that the path forward is both challenging and multifaceted.
Dr. Calder: Thank you for having me. It’s essential to keep these discussions ongoing as we navigate such a complex landscape.