Since Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria immediately, Turkish and American delegates discussed this topic very intensively. However, the U.S. soon changed its mind from a full imminent withdrawal to a slow troop reduction. Turkey and the U.S. focused on the establishment of a safe-zone along the Turkish-Syrian border. Without going into other details like depth and territorial control, the Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Special Envoy for the International Coalition, James Jeffrey, made it clear that the YPG will have to withdraw from the zone leaving the areas to other forces, which have not yet been decided. While negotiations continue, the U.S. has already started constructing facts. The YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces began to change its name, again.

On June 14, the Syrian Democratic Forces announced the formation of the ‘Tal Abyad Military Council’ in the border town of Tal Abyad. The conference was organized in a hall attended by the Syrian Democratic Forces, the YPG and the women wing of the YPG. Two days later, the SDF held a ceremony on open terrain, announcing the formation of the ‘Kobane Military Council,’ again attended by representatives from the Syrian Democratic Forces, the YPG and the YPJ.

The Syrian Democratic Forces officially argued that, “The main goal of establishing these councils is to unify the military and security forces in the region, to involve local leaders in decision-making and to consolidate and institutionalize the institutional work within Syrian democratic forces by empowering and activating the military institutions within it,” proving the Turkish argument that locals are excluded from the decision-making process in YPG-held areas.

This move by the U.S. and the Syrian Democratic Forces is not new. After the PKK changed its name in Syria to the YPG, they re-branded themselves as the Syrian Democratic Forces. In Manbij, where Turkey and the U.S. had an agreement that the YPG will withdraw, the SDF formed the Manbij Military Council. The SDF also formed the Deir Ezzor Military Council, the Al-Bab Military Council and the Jarablus Military Council showing the aim of the YPG-dominated SDF to attack Turkey-secured areas in northern Aleppo.

This new attempt to re-name the YPG once again is a desperate act as proven by the experience of the Manbij Military Council, which is involved in clashes with the Turkey-trained National Army and as shown by the Turkish insistence that the YPG has to withdraw from Manbij. Similarly, current attempts by the U.S. and the Syrian Democratic Forces to form alleged local councils in border towns to Turkey will neither ease Turkey’s concerns, nor have any meaningful change for Turkey-U.S. negotiations, except for useless debate, the U.S. winning some time and sabotaging negotiations.

Some experts in Washington, such as Nicholas A. Heras, labeled the formation of military councils as, “a milestone along the road toward achieving the US (not Turkish) vision for the so-called Safe Zone,” but even for the U.S. vision, this move is meaningless. What is currently being done is only the formation of an YPG-front group upon the YPG model – a make up with no real life implications apart from the production of new flags and banners. The alienation of the local people will just continue after this.

If the U.S. wants to have any real change on the ground in order to step forward for the discussed safe zone, the U.S. should first start by forbidding the entry of the YPG into Tal Abyad. If the U.S. fails to do this, it’s useless to talk about any safe zone.

The political atmosphere in the Middle East has been increasingly fragile. Recent developments in the Persian Gulf, Israel’s aggressive policies towards Palestine and continuing confrontation between Iran and the United States have created a new environment where the possibility of a region-wide conflict is more obvious than ever. In addition to these dynamics, mutual tensions, rivalries and hostilities have been dragging a number of regional actors to resort to new ways of confrontation. There are a number of developments that have an impact on the current stalemate in regional politics.

First of all, the Arab revolutions process has had the biggest impact on today’s political atmosphere in the region. While the revolutionary uprisings that started in Tunisia and then spread to Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen shook the political structures in these countries, they also forced regional forces to implement a new Middle East strategy. During this period, Turkey and Qatar supported the revolutionary wave, in opposition to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, which supported counter-revolutionary movements. The most obvious example of this was in Egypt. Mohammed Morsi, who came to power with a democratic election, received Doha and Ankara’s support, while Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Tel-Aviv were behind the military coup on July 3, 2013.

Recent developments in the Persian Gulf, Israel’s aggressive policies towards Palestine and the confrontation between Iran and the U.S. have created a new environment where the possibility of a region-wide conflict is more obvious than ever.

The conflicts in Syria and Yemen have also led tension to grow between regional rivals. In both cases, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have taken a sharp stance against Iran, fearing the expansion of Tehran’s regional influence. While Riyadh and Abu Dhabi tried to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, they embarked on a military operation to stop the advance of the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen.

The leadership change in Saudi Arabia has also had a lasting impact on Middle East politics. Following the death of King Abdullah in January 2015, King Salman became the ruler of the monarchy. During King Salman’s rule, Saudi Arabia has been undergoing a serious transformation in both domestic and foreign policy. King Salman’s appointment of his son Mohammad bin Salman as the defence minister and then as Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was a decisive moment for the Saudi leadership. Mohammad bin Salman soon became the most influential figure in the country as he eliminated domestic opposition with widely criticized crackdowns on influential figures in the Kingdom. Bin Salman also tried to dominate the political arena in the Arab world by forcing smaller Gulf and Middle Eastern nations to follow Saudi foreign policy, which prioritized anti-Iranian strategies.

Another dynamic that had an impact on the current status of Middle East politics is the rise of the United Arab Emirates as a foreign policy actor. Since the start of the Arab revolutions, it can be observed that the United Arab Emirates has followed an active and aggressive foreign policy and directly involved in regional political developments. With the support of Saudi Arabia and Israel, the UAE’s hostile policies target countries like Turkey and Iran.

The power struggles in the post-Arab revolutions period has led to the establishment of new political alliances, thanks to the support of external actors such as the U.S. & Russia.

Last but not least, Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency in the United States in 2017 had a significant impact on Middle East politics. Trump’s policy towards the Middle East was significantly different from his predecessor, Barack Obama. While Trump strongly backed Israeli policies in Palestine by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the U.S. embassy to the city, he also targeted Iran by withdrawing from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and bringing new sanctions against Tehran. Trump also supported Saudi Arabia and the UAE and forced these countries to work together with Israel.

It is obvious that Middle East politics is on the brink of a serious breakdown. The starting point of this regional transformation was the Arab revolutions of 2011. The recent popular uprisings in Algeria and Sudan illustrate that the spirit of the Arab revolutions is still alive and has the potential to affect regional political dynamics. The power struggles in the post-Arab revolutions period in the region has led to the establishment of new political alliances, thanks to the support and instigation of external actors such as the United States and Russia. Therefore, the Middle East has come to a point where the possibility of a violent conflict between powerful forces in the region is higher than ever. It is not known whether on-going tensions will create a conflict environment, but it is certain that the search for a new regional order will continue.