In analyzing global politics, it is necessary to reflect on the fundamental paradigms that shape state behavior. Neoliberals and democrats have long advanced a paradigm of a "fragmented world.” Their thesis argued for the statehood of various ethnic groups through smaller political structures. Since Condoleezza Rice’s tenure as U.S. secretary of state, democrats, in one way or another, have continued to develop this thesis.

Republicans, on the other hand, appear to frame their policies more around nation-states and strong central governments. Their tendency is to engage with strong nation-states as legitimate interlocutors. Thus, the Republican and Trumpian preference for strong states stands in direct conflict with the Democratic thesis of fragmentation and ethnic state-building.

When the Syrian state was first established, there was an apparent perception of complete alignment between U.S. policies and those of Türkiye. At the same time, however, Washington seemed to pursue a policy of avoiding direct confrontation between Türkiye and Israel.

New state, Trump, Barrack

After the Syrian people overthrew the Assad regime and the government under Ahmed al-Sharaa took control, the new state was recognized in broad measure across the Middle East, Türkiye, the U.S., the U.K. and France, with international legitimacy consolidated in a relatively short period. Yet, we know that state-building and institutionalization in the Middle East are inherently painful. Even the most established states of the world have required decades to recover from destruction and occupation. It would therefore be unrealistic to expect Syria to transform into a strong state within a matter of months.

At this moment, one must carefully consider whether the U.S. is undergoing a paradigm shift. When an unconventional leader such as Donald Trump came to power, for instance, the first months or even the year of his administration gave the impression that his paradigm might dominate and shape regional policies.

Looking at Trump’s policies, the core thesis can be summarized as follows: pacify the Middle East, move closer to Russia, and compete with China. Yet in practice, Israel has worked to keep the U.S. anchored in the Middle East "by the horns,” while no significant progress has been made in rapprochement with Russia.

Focusing specifically on Syria, one recalls Trump’s meetings with Arab leaders and the statements of the U.S. Special Representative for Syria and Ambassador to Türkiye, Thomas J. Barrack. These pronouncements rejected the Anglo-French vision and instead echoed more of the Ottoman perspective, emphasizing Syria’s territorial integrity. In fact, Barrack’s statements were closely aligned with Trump’s central idea: to build ties with strong nation-states and support their governance.

However, an examination of the developments since Barrack's appointment raises a pivotal question. Whereas just months ago the discussion centered on Syria's territorial integrity and unitary state structure during its reformation, the new reality engineered by the U.S. – forging the SDF from the PKK terrorist organization – has cast doubt. This policy has effectively planted a seed of uncertainty in the public consciousness, forcing a reevaluation of whether a unified Syrian state remains a viable outcome.

Burying hatchet

My view is that Trump is unlikely to overcome the entrenched establishment. It remains open to question whether a genuine dichotomy existed within Washington, but what is evident is a short-lived positional shift during Syria’s state formation process.

When a new president takes office in the U.S., everyone seems to bury the hatchet and wait, only for the system to gradually revert to its former course over time.

As the Turkish sociologist and writer Niyazi Berkes once remarked: "Tradition hides under the shell of a tortoise, waiting patiently until it finds the opportunity to emerge.”

Territorial integrity

Türkiye’s position on protecting Syria’s territorial integrity and unitary structure is clear. While the PKK/SDF and Israel favor a divided Syria, the U.S. appears increasingly flexible on this issue. From now on, American policy, Barrack’s stance and Syria’s trajectory must be followed closely. Will Washington remain committed to the principle of Syria’s unity, or will it drift toward a position closer to Israel’s expansionist designs?

Today, Israel has attracted widespread animosity worldwide, and the streets across the globe are increasingly filled with anti-Israel demonstrations. This hostility is gradually turning into anti-Jewish sentiment in the eyes of European Christians. Never before have Jewish lobbies – which spend vast sums on lobbying and communication to maintain influence over the U.S., U.K., Germany, and other states – found themselves in such a precarious position.

How much is it in America’s interest to base its policies entirely on Israel? It is likely that in the coming period, Trump’s East Asia/China strategy will clash with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on keeping the U.S. engaged in the Middle East. Returning once more to Syria from Türkiye’s perspective: under no circumstances will the Republic of Türkiye allow the creation of a divided Syria, being fully aware that such a scenario is nothing more than an Israeli project.