ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - The Syrian transitional government must hold elections, and all religious and ethnic groups should be represented in the future cabinet, a former senior US diplomat said on Wednesday.
“There do need to be elections. All populations need to be represented. Kurds, Christians, Druze, you name it, Alawites even, need to be represented in the future government in Damascus,” Clarke Cooper, former US assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, told Rudaw’s Naif Ramazan on the sidelines of the Middle East Peace and Security (MEPS) forum in Duhok.
Following the fall of longtime Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad last year, the new authorities in Damascus, mostly former members of the now-dissolved jihadist group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have come under repeated criticism for their treatment of minority groups. After his appointment as Syria’s interim President in late January, Ahmed al-Sharaa said he would respect the rights of all ethnic and religious groups.
Since Sharaa's term, Syria’s Kurdish, Alawite and Druze communities have been advocating for decentralization, citing decades of repression under the Assad-led Baath regime and the violence against minorities that followed the regime’s collapse.
Syria held its first election last month, but it was not a direct vote. It was an invite-only process and excluded Kurdish and Druze areas.
“Right now you essentially have HTS as the government in Damascus. That is not sustainable. And this is a conversation that has been had between officials in Washington and officials in Damascus,” added the former diplomat who is also a fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.
Sharaa was received by US President Donald Trump at the White House earlier this month. Cooper said the Syrian leader “did hear consistently from Americans of all parties that there needs to be a representative government that's reflective of a modern Syria. There isn't just one population or one party in Syria.”
Addressing US concerns about the marginalization of Syrian Kurds by the interim government in Damascus, Cooper stated: “from a Washington holistic perspective, we're going to be concerned not only about the Kurds; we are going to be concerned about the Druze, the Christians... All populations are going to be a concern.”
On security threats, Cooper warned that the risk of Islamic State (ISIS) resurgence remains. “There are always elements that are still there, which is why governments, central governments, law enforcement, and military need to be acutely aware of the risk,” he said. He emphasized that the threat is trans-regional and concerns not only Damascus, Baghdad, and Erbil but also Western states with stakes in preventing its return.
Turning to Iraq, he expressed concern over militia influence and Iranian involvement. “The longer Iranian influence is in Baghdad, it poisons civil society, and it poisons democracy, and it makes it more challenging for Iraq to be stabilized for economic development,” he said. Cooper added that Washington has diplomatic tools, including sanctions and blacklisting, to address such challenges.
Regarding regional tensions with Israel and Iran, he said the risk of war is currently low. “Iran's conventional capabilities have been degraded. The risks are there, but there's seemingly a pause on that desire,” Cooper noted, adding that Israel is likely to focus on reconstruction and reconciliation domestically.
The following is the full transcript of the interview with Cooper:
Is there the threat of ISIS resurgence in Syria and in the region in general?
So yes, in a very general sense, and not to scare anybody, we should not relax and assume that that threat is dissipated. There's always elements that are still there, which is why governments, central governments, law enforcement and military need to be acutely aware of the risk. This also means Western states that have a stake and interest in preventing a trans-regional threat because the proto-state, the Islamic State at the time, was a trans-regional threat. It crossed borders. And so that is a shared interest not only in Damascus, in Baghdad, in Erbil, it is actually shared outside the region.
How do you see the future of Kurds in new Syria?
Well, this goes back to the necessity for an elected assembly in Syria. Right now you essentially have HTS as the government in Damascus. That is not sustainable. And this is a conversation that has been had between officials in Washington and officials in Damascus. So interim space right now, but there do need to be elections. All populations need to be represented. Kurds, Christians, Druze, you name it, Alawites even, need to be represented in the future government in Damascus.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa was in Washington. What do you think the US has told him about Kurdish, about the future of Kurdish, as US allies in the region?
Well, similar to what we just discussed, I promise you that when that series of meetings occurred, and there were several, not just at the White House. He did hear consistently from Americans of all parties that there needs to be a representative government that's reflective of a modern Syria. There isn't just one population or one party in Syria.
In your point of view, what's the US's position about neglecting Kurds in Syria by the new government?
Well, again, that goes back to a concern. I would say from a Washington holistic perspective. We're going to be concerned not only about the Kurds, we are going to be concerned about the Druze, the Christians, you name it. All populations are going to be a concern, so I go back to the need for an elected assembly for them to form government.
Regarding the peace process in Turkey, do you think this process will go on and will succeed?
It is too early to make that assessment. One would hope as a NATO ally state and again as a regional player we would want to see this success occur. But of course this is in an earlier state for me to make that assessment.
PKK says that the steps that have been taken in the peace process have been unilateral. Turkey is not as fast as we are. What's your comment? How do you assess it?
Well, again, I think the key word is here is first, right? So it's just one step, right? It's not the next steps. One can look parallel to a much more difficult process in Gaza. That's only a first step in a ceasefire. Realistically, pragmatically, we need to look at additional further steps in the near future.
Regarding Iraq, there is chaos in the Middle East, especially Iraq is heading to form a new government, and the US wants a government far from the militias. How do you see the future government or the new government of Iraq?
So we've heard we've heard this week. I mean, we had [Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’] Sudani come up from Baghdad to talk about the formation of government. There were promises about a government formation in March, which would be very fast by precedent. There was discussions about addressing the Constitution. There's legal reforms that need to be addressed. And he did address the concern that we not only have in Washington, it's also a concern in Erbil, is the PMFs or the militias. That does have to be addressed because the longer Iranian influence is in Baghdad, it poisons civil society and it poisons democracy and it makes it more challenging for Iraq to be stabilized for economic development.
In your view, if Iran's influence is effective in the new government, what will be the US's reaction in your point of view towards the new government of Iraq?
Well, right now, there are tools that can be applied toward elements or challenges to a stable democratic government. There's a sanctions regime that's available. There's blacklisting that's available. These are diplomatic tools. What I would be concerned about as someone who has lived several years in this country is to see resources be taken away. And that is a real risk. We are at a time where patience is not long in Washington, and this is regardless of who's the political power in Congress or in the White House. The days of long commitments are no longer there. So the idea of PMFs having a stronger, longer role and Iran having better levels of influence in Baghdad will be a great risk to the bilateral relationship and could cause an asymmetric imbalance between Kurdistan and southern Iraq.
Do you think there is a possibility of war between Israel and Iran again?
No, for now, because Iran's posture has been measurably degraded. So their proxy forces like Hamas, Hezbollah are still existent. One could say very loosely they're tired and they're degraded in posture. Iran's conventional capabilities have been degraded. The risks are there, but there's seemingly a pause on that desire. So I would say earlier you asked about the risk of resurgence by ISIS. There's a risk of resurgence by the Iranian regime's proxy forces. There's a risk of resurgence. But right now, we're in an interesting state where you have a weakened Iran that is seemingly less interested to prosecute externally. And you have an Israel that's now going to be very busy with reconstruction and reconciliation in its own backyard.
