After more than four decades of armed conflict with the Turkish state, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has taken the extraordinary step of publicly burning its weapons, a gesture widely viewed as the symbolic beginning of a potential path to peace. The move, while not unprecedented in the Kurdish struggle, is being described by experts as a significant and possibly historic turning point. Yet across the wider Middle East, the landscape of armed militias tells a more fragmented and volatile story.
This is a symbolic step, but a very important symbolic step
“This is a symbolic step, but a very important symbolic step,” Kawa Hassan, a nonresident fellow at the Stimson Center, told The Media Line. “An enormous gesture of goodwill toward the Turkish state … and potentially the beginning of a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish issue in Turkey,” he added.
The PKK’s disarmament announcement followed renewed dialogue between Kurdish parliamentarians and the group’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Öcalan. A faction led by senior female commanders ceremoniously burned weapons in northern Iraq, a symbolic act meant to signal the end of armed struggle and the start of a new political chapter.
Turkey’s official response, however, has been subdued. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described the act as “symbolic,” while signaling that a post-terror era could usher in new dynamics with the Kurdish community.
Each side still maintains its own narrative. PKK speaks of a democratic society; Erdoğan calls it the end of terror. … What matters is what will happen on the ground.
“For the first time, we are hearing from a Turkish president a new discourse about Kurds being part of Turkey,” Hassan noted. “But each side still maintains its own narrative. PKK speaks of a democratic society; Erdoğan calls it the end of terror. That’s normal in any negotiation. What matters is what will happen on the ground,” he added.
Jean Marcou, professor emeritus at Sciences Po Grenoble and associate researcher at the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, emphasized the contradiction in Turkey’s current approach. “We are seeing two processes at once,” he said. “On one hand, the PKK disarmament; on the other, a political crackdown on opposition figures. It’s paradoxical,” he said to The Media Line.
While Erdoğan has gained politically from the end of the PKK’s armed campaign, it remains unclear what concessions the Kurds will receive. “There’s talk of a parliamentary commission involving Kurdish and nationalist parties to discuss reforms,” Marcou explained. “But so far, no concrete commitments have been made,” he added.
The gesture has stirred hope among many Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, though reactions are far from uniform.
“Some Kurds are upset and see this as a defeat,” said Hassan. “But many others view it as a rational, responsible move. Armed struggle has brought nothing but destruction. People are exhausted,” he added.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
In Syria, the picture is more complicated. While PKK-affiliated groups—the People’s Defense Units (YPG) and the Democratic Union Party—have expressed a willingness to engage politically, the broader Syrian Democratic Forces remain cautious. Some factions initially distanced themselves from Öcalan’s call, citing operational independence.
Marcou noted that Syria’s internal political fragility compounds the uncertainty. “There are negotiations between Kurdish groups and Damascus to include YPG forces in a future Syrian national army,” he said. “These talks are also tied to the potential inclusion of Kurdish authorities in a restructured Syrian political system,” he added.
Recent days have seen renewed violence in Syria, with clashes involving Druze militias and factions linked to al-Sharaa, the former al-Qaida figure who now serves as the de facto president of Syria. Reports of attacks against Kurdish civilians have raised alarm about whether the fragile peace frameworks are being undermined by militia resurgence.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a Middle East and Islam expert, expressed skepticism over the transformation. “Minorities in Syria—Druze, Christians, Alawites—continue to be targeted,” he said. “If leaders like al-Sharaa can’t even protect their own citizens, how can we expect them to treat Israelis or the international community differently?” he added.
While the PKK’s move has generated cautious optimism, other armed actors across the region are navigating vastly different trajectories.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been engaged in direct conflict with Israel for nearly a year. Diplomatic efforts led by the US, France, and Qatar are focused on implementing a ceasefire agreed in late 2024, which calls for Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the redeployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). While thousands of LAF troops have moved into the area and begun dismantling Hezbollah sites, full implementation remains uneven. A new US proposal for nationwide Hezbollah disarmament by late 2025 is under review by the Lebanese government, though Hezbollah has not formally agreed.
The PKK is negotiating with a centralized state that can enforce agreements
Still, Marcou noted, Hezbollah operates within a very different political context: “It exists in a weak, sectarian state with fragmented institutions. The PKK is negotiating with a centralized state that can enforce agreements,” he said.
In Yemen, the Iran-backed Houthis have engaged in diplomacy with Saudi Arabia, but the current truce remains fragile. “It’s a truce born of fatigue,” said Hassan. “Not an ideological transformation. They haven’t disarmed or changed their identity,” he added.
In Gaza, despite devastating Israeli military operations, Hamas remains militarily active and politically entrenched. Israel continues to demand complete disarmament as a prerequisite for any truce or postwar reconstruction.
“Hamas must be erased,” said Kedar. “Israel will never agree to leave them in power with weapons. The only way they survive is by leaving or surrendering,” he added.
Kedar also dismissed the idea that the PKK’s move signals a regional trend. “There is no connection between what happens with the PKK and groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis,” he said. “The PKK disarmed through negotiation with a functioning state they ultimately want to join. These other groups are ideologically entrenched, serve foreign agendas, and only shift course when militarily pressured. It’s not diplomacy they respond to—it’s deterrence,” he added.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, pro-Iranian militias retain substantial power, despite pressure from Washington and Baghdad to integrate them into formal security structures. With national elections approaching, the Iraqi government faces a delicate balancing act between asserting sovereignty and appeasing Iranian influence.
“Iran has lost leverage in Syria and Lebanon, but Iraq remains its stronghold,” warned Hassan. “Disarmament there will not come easily,” he added.
The disarmament of the PKK may mark a meaningful step in resolving one of the region’s oldest conflicts. But as the three analysts agree, it should not be seen as part of a sweeping regional trend.
“We witnessed the weakening of the Iranian-led axis,” Hassan said. “But each case—Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, PKK—has its own context. This is not a uniform trend,” he concluded.
The Kurdish process is unique. If it works, perhaps it could inspire others. But we’re far from that point.
Marcou reinforced that point: “The Kurdish process is unique. If it works, perhaps it could inspire others. But we’re far from that point,” he concluded.
Kedar was more categorical. “The PKK wants recognition and integration; they’re negotiating from within a national framework,” he said. “Hezbollah, Hamas, and others operate as proxies—their goal isn’t inclusion, it’s confrontation. That’s why diplomacy works in one case and fails in the other,” he concluded.
Whether symbolic gestures translate into lasting peace depends not only on those laying down arms, but on whether states offer justice, dignity, and inclusion. As renewed violence in Syria reminds us, disarmament alone does not end conflict unless accompanied by real political transformation.