There is a large KCK structure that continues to exist in Iraq.

For certain reasons, Iraq views this presence as a strategic equation within itself; I do not wish to go into that here, as it is a sensitive issue.

However, it is impossible to say that the continued heavy PKK presence in Sinjar and its establishment in certain areas is sustainable.

No sovereign country would accept this.

The US has a clear desire to withdraw from Syria. Now everyone knows that the YPG cannot maintain this kind of presence in the new process.

It is very interesting; now they are talking to France, they are talking to that side, they are talking to this side, they are talking to Senators, but they never listen to the voice coming from Ankara.

These people have this inherent problem.

Netanyahu was opposed to our President being part of the Board of Peace, and he was opposed to me being part of the Gaza Executive Council.

He is always opposed, and he will continue to do so.

We will carry on with our own struggle and see where this goes.

If this is to be achieved by establishing a security platform or an alliance pact, we believe that this is the way forward. The broader the participation, the better; but it is also possible to start with a core group initially.

However, this should evolve into a structure that reduces polarisation rather than causing it in the region; one that increases trust.

Now people ask, "Are you establishing security pact as a hostile structure against others? Who will be your rival?"

I always respond by saying: When you enter a security pact, you do so precisely to prevent harm from coming to the countries within that pact.

What we see is this: No outcome that other countries expect will come from these demonstrations. But are these real demonstrations? Yes.

Should their needs and demands be taken into account? Yes. Our recommendation is along these lines. There are steps that Iran needs to take.

Firstly, I believe that an agreement can be reached with the United States on the nuclear issue. But the Americans are currently bringing other issues to the table alongside the nuclear issue.

As long as the territorial issue concerning Donbas is not resolved, the deadlock appears unlikely to be broken.

Several scenarios are being discussed, such as demilitarization or the creation of a joint economic zone.

However, the Russian side asks: “Fine, we can demilitarize—but under whose sovereignty will the territory remain?”

The Syrian PKK used civilians as human shields.

Throughout the operation, the Damascus administration acted with the seriousness of a state.

The Damascus administration did not enter Hasakah and Ayn al-Arab in order to prevent harm to civilians.

While restoring Syria’s territorial integrity, it is also trying not to create resentment in the hearts of the Kurdish population.

The Syrian PKK cannot integrate into Damascus by demanding autonomy.

If the Syrian PKK had complied with the March 10 agreement, it would be in a much stronger position.

Either they will lay down their arms and comply with the fourteen-point agreement, or they will disappear altogether.