The Euphrates River and Tigris River are the longest rivers in West Asia. Originating in Türkiye, they flow through the region known as the "two river basin" and have been the birthplace of human civilization since ancient times. The region has a long history of water resource disputes, and the world's first "water war" occurred here. Currently, water resources in the two river basins are facing severe challenges, and dam construction is the main source of pressure. Since the 1960s, coastal countries have been competing to construct large-scale water conservancy projects, neglecting the sustainability and coordination between water conservancy projects. The United Nations report points out that if coastal countries continue to implement their own large-scale water conservancy projects, the two rivers may eventually dry up completely upon reaching Iraq. The World Resources Institute predicts that by 2025, the water resources along the Euphrates River will deteriorate eight times compared to 2010. With the increasing scarcity of water resources, the game of Türkiye, Syria and Iraq around water rights will likely further escalate, posing a potential threat to regional stability. The research on water resource disputes in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin started earlier and has yielded more abundant results in foreign academic circles, while related research in China is relatively weak. Existing research can be divided into three categories: firstly, focusing on the geopolitical competition and strategic game among the three disputing countries; The second is to study the construction of water resource utilization systems and cooperation mechanisms among disputing countries; The third is to explore the impact of discourse construction on the recognition of the legitimacy of water resource allocation. However, traditional water resource governance between countries faces many limitations. It overly emphasizes "rational national choices under anarchy", simplifies water resource disputes into zero sum games, ignores the diversity of governance subjects, and is difficult to explain the multidimensional interaction mechanisms in cross-border water resource governance. As a highly political natural resource, the development and utilization of cross-border river water resources are closely related to the national security, strategic interests, and geopolitical landscape of the basin countries, and constitute an important variable affecting the geopolitical and economic relations of the basin. International water resources governance presents multi-level characteristics, covering multiple levels such as national, regional, and international, and traditionally mainly controlled by coastal sovereign states. However, as the regional situation evolves, non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations and armed groups are increasingly demonstrating their ability to influence water political relations and international governance in both peaceful environments and violent conflicts. This article will systematically analyze the evolution mechanism of water resource disputes in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin from 1960 to 2024 from three levels: international, domestic, and non-state actors, providing theoretical references for predicting the direction of water resource disputes in the basin and exploring solutions.

1、 International level: asymmetric game among Türkiye, Syria and Iraq

The countries along the Euphrates Tigris River basin consider water resources as strategic resources and political tools, forming an asymmetric game structure between upstream and downstream countries. Türkiye uses its upstream geographical advantages to build a water hegemony system, while Iraq and Syria downstream are in a state of resistance and balance. Türkiye regards the development of water resources as an important lever in its domestic and foreign policies. It controls rivers, takes a tough stance in international water resource governance, and converts water resources into geopolitical influence. Syria maintains its historical water rights through diversified water diplomacy strategies, including using the Kurdish issue to contain Türkiye, uniting with Iraq to build a downstream national alliance, and using regional organizations to exert pressure on Türkiye at the multilateral diplomatic level. Iraq adopts multidimensional balancing strategies such as economy, diplomacy, and discourse to maintain its water rights, including utilizing economic leverage, constructing water conservancy projects to achieve water resource autonomy, and adjusting strategies in the competition for discourse power, economic leverage, and exchange of security interests. These strategies reflect the different positions and actions of countries in water resource disputes, as well as how they maintain their water rights and regional influence through various means.

2、 Domestic level: the internal game of Türkiye, Syria and Iraq

In the dispute over the Tigris Euphrates River basin, water resource issues are closely related to the domestic political ecology of each country. The government of Türkiye promotes economic development and social welfare in Kurdish populated areas through the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP). At the same time, it responds to Kurdish issues as a national security asset, triggering international and domestic protests. The Syrian government's use of water resource policies as a tool to consolidate political legitimacy and promote ethnic assimilation has led to the failure of the water resource management system, and further strengthened the political instrumentalization of water resources after the civil war. The central government of Iraq has institutional deficiencies in water resource governance, and the water resource game between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government exacerbates governance difficulties. The internal contradictions among the three countries constrain their ability to respond to the water resource crisis, affecting their stance and strategies in the international water resource game.

3、 At the level of non-state actors: the water resource game of non-state armed organizations

The increasing role of non-state actors such as agricultural tribes, armed militias, and terrorist organizations in the water resource dispute in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin has made the water resource game more complex and uncertain. Agricultural tribes have been constantly in conflict over scarce water resources, and water resources have become strategic resources between tribes, triggering confrontations from individuals to collectives. The uneven allocation of water resources in Iraq has led to tribes relying on traditional authorities to resolve disputes, resulting in frequent conflicts between tribes within or adjacent provinces. The government is calling on the federal government to intervene. The anti-government armed forces have used water resources as a strategic weapon in the Syrian civil war, using dams and water sources to exert pressure. The government army and anti-government armed forces are engaged in a fierce game over water resources. Terrorist organizations such as ISIS weaponize water resources as a tool for territorial expansion, consolidating illegal rule by controlling water infrastructure, gaining public support for water supply, linking water supply with extortion, exploitative taxation, and systematic exploitation of local residents. The insufficient water resource governance capacity of central governments in the basin countries creates conditions for non-state actors to intervene, achieve goals through competition, control, and weaponization of water resources, and challenge national authority, which is a micro manifestation of regional geopolitical competition.

4、 The Development Trend and Resolution Path of Water Resource Disputes in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin

Discussed the development trend and resolution path of water resource disputes in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin. With globalization and changes in geopolitical patterns, water resource disputes in river basins have shown multi-level game characteristics, including international, domestic, and non-state actors. Climate change and population growth have exacerbated water scarcity, prompting all parties to reconsider cooperation models. After the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, the dispute over water resources in the basin may enter a more complex and pragmatic stage, and Türkiye has a more stable advantage as an upstream country. Iraq and Türkiye have signed a water resources management framework agreement, but there is no effective implementation mechanism. The new Syrian government is seeking to re-examine its water resource agreements with neighboring countries and seek a mutually beneficial water resource security mechanism. Non state actors may occupy a more important position in the watershed water resources game, agricultural tribes may form alliances, and anti-government armed groups and terrorist organizations may shift from violent rule to governance infiltration. To achieve long-term stability in watershed water security, it is necessary to establish a comprehensive governance framework that includes international coordination mechanisms, domestic political reforms, and non-state actors' control. At the international level, a basin wide treaty framework and management system should be established; At the domestic level, countries need to promote adaptive reforms in their water resource governance systems; At the level of non-state actors, the construction of multi-level joint security mechanisms should be promoted.

conclusion

The water resource dispute in the Euphrates Tigris River Basin is a complex game between international, domestic, and non-state actors, which affects the allocation of water resource control rights and the balance of political power. Türkiye uses its geographical advantages to build a water hegemony system, and Syria and Iraq adopt a diversified diplomatic strategy. Water resource governance reflects the fragility of the domestic power structure, with local armed forces vying for water rights. The involvement of non-state actors blurs the boundaries of international governance, and water resources have become a tool for geopolitical games. It is necessary to analyze disputes from a three-dimensional framework of international power structure, domestic political ecology, and interaction with non-state actors, in order to provide methodological insights for understanding the dilemma of international water resource governance. The strategic choices of various actors are based on the rational calculation of immediate interests and the strategic layout of long-term power patterns. The outcome of the game will shape the regional political landscape and global governance order.