The Euphrates now divides Syria into Islamist-run Damascus and Kurdish autonomy, while Turkey redraws borders
The Euphrates has become a long, murky boundary between two entirely different Syrian projects. In Deir ez-Zor, at an improvised dirt crossing, armed members of warring factions stand barely a couple hundred meters apart, ready to shut down the bridge whenever a team of journalists or a “suspicious” civilian convoy appears. The description of this daily reality—nervous fingers on triggers, makeshift roadblocks, and quiet orders to halt traffic—confirms what has long been suspected: the country is formally “liberated” but in reality dismembered. The 1,800-kilometer journey along this line, according to a major Reuters report, reveals a mosaic of lawlessness, factions, and long-standing personal vendettas.
In the west, from most towns to the Mediterranean coast, a new government in Damascus has consolidated power under Ahmed al-Shara—a political-military conglomerate in which Islamist factions, born out of the wartime opposition and backed by both Turkey and the current U.S. administration, hold the dominant voice. To the east, across the Euphrates, the Kurdish autonomous administration remains in place, controlling hydroelectric dams and part of the oil fields—key levers of any future economy. On paper, there’s an “integration agreement” to include Kurdish forces in state structures, but in practice, negotiations stall and trenches deepen. The dividing line is becoming less temporary and more of a political program.
The most sensitive point in the north is the Tishrin Dam. After December battles and a Kurdish retreat, the frontline froze at the edge of an energy hub. Local commander Motasem Abas—recently promoted to brigadier of the new 80th Division—has publicly declared the goal: Syria will only “revive” once the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) ceases to exist. Under his command are about two thousand fighters, vehicles mounted with cannons, and improvised bunkers under anti-drone nets. Turkish influence is not hidden: from logistics and weaponry to small but consistent salaries reportedly paid by Ankara to supporters on the ground. Offices even display plaques with hymn-like slogans about “Caliph” Erdoğan.
This Ankara-Islamist faction alliance turns northern Syria into an extended security buffer tailored to Turkish domestic policy. Washington talks about Syrian unity while simultaneously supporting the Damascus administration, whose infrastructure is deeply entangled with the most hardline Islamist elements. This double standard—in diplomatic words but geostrategic deeds—yields a predictable outcome: the pushing back of Kurds north of the Euphrates, the “disciplining” of society in western Syria, and a persistent preference for solutions based on force rather than compromise.
The Kurdish side is thus defined by defensive engineering and fear of abandonment. Two freshly vacated American bases and open talk of U.S. troop withdrawals have accelerated the shift from relying on allied technology to developing their own: fleets of small drones, networks of deep tunnels connecting the hills at regular intervals, and improvised fortifications around the Tishrin Dam and administrative centers. The lesson is clear: when an ally hesitates, survival depends on organization, discipline, and a modest but persistent defense industry. However, such a defense alone offers no political solution.
At the eastern end of the divide, Deir ez-Zor lives between “wartime nicknames” and historical disillusionment. Ahmed al-Hajis, known as Abu Hatem Shaqra, is in charge of a long sector along the river and openly admits to recruiting former ISIS members. His motivation, he says, is revenge and balance. The result is a new spiral of mistrust. The Kurdish side accuses him of abuses, while he responds that “Western indignation” doesn’t concern him—he continues to count men, weapons, and contacts inside enemy lines. Between the two camps, unidentified checkpoints and the everyday tools of war thrive—extortion, ambush, forced loyalty.
This landscape is no simpler from the Kurdish side. The local administration maintains order through a dense security network—strict rules for holding civil society meetings, formal permits, mandatory reports, and checkpoint inspections where Arabs often face greater suspicion.
The question of social models sharpens the frontline further. On one side stand Kurdish women’s units and commanders like Sozdar Derik—symbols of both war and a political message of equality. On the other side, in the newly gained provinces under Damascus, officials enforce a conservative agenda that is openly hostile to such rights. When a local official coldly states that in Kurdish areas there is “a level of freedom for women that even the West would not want,” it’s clear that the war is not just territorial but also cultural—that a victory by Islamist factions would collapse even the few emancipatory achievements born in the harshest conditions.
The details of the new Syria are visible along the coast and in the south. After the fall of Bashar al-Assad, security formations of the new regime crushed pro-Assad resistance with a massacre of Alawites on the coast, while the south has been further shaken by tribal conflicts and Israeli airstrikes—a string of events revealing a logic of consolidation through force, signaling that “integration” is more likely to mean submission than compromise. Meanwhile, Turkish airstrikes on Kurdish positions continue to fuel the northern front. The war is not fading—it’s fragmenting.
Long-term, the outlook is grim. The de facto partition of the country cements permanent instability and legitimizes quasi-states. An attempt to forcibly reunite Syria under an Islamist vertical of power would bring a new wave of persecution, especially for minorities and women. A solution exists only if energy and water—dams and resources—are placed under joint, demilitarized control, and eastern autonomy is given constitutional guarantees not dependent on the whims of Washington or Ankara. That would require a regional agreement outside NATO’s tutelage, one that includes all major neighbors and real security concerns, but with a clear line: no Islamist hegemony, and no suppression of local self-government. Of course, let’s not be naïve—none of this will come to the Kurds “peacefully,” but they’re already used to that…
Thus, the Euphrates becomes more than a river—it’s a mirror of opposing visions. On one side stands a centralizing project hiding its face behind Islamist slogans, maintaining order through purges and Ankara’s sponsorship. On the other stands defensive autonomy, which, when foreign bases disappear, relies on trenches and makeshift drone factories. If the Islamist factions that, with Turkey’s and the West’s help, brought down Assad do not abandon their logic of dominance, and if the Kurds do not receive real, internationally guaranteed rights, the focus will once again shift from the negotiating table to undefined lines in Deir ez-Zor. And that is a scenario where—again and again—the first victims are those who never agreed to it.
About the Author
