A groundbreaking agreement was signed on 10 March between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian transitional government. This development comes in the aftermath of the recent massacres in western Syria and marks a pivotal moment in the country’s ongoing conflict. The agreement outlines the integration of the SDF into the newly structured Syrian Army and the incorporation of northeastern Syria – currently controlled by the SDF – into the governmental structures of Damascus. This move aims to unify Syria’s military and administrative institutions under a single state entity and might have significant implications for the future of the country.
Several key factors have contributed to this unexpected yet crucial agreement. One major element is the reported decision by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to cease its hostilities against Turkey. For years, Ankara has strongly opposed the SDF due to its ties to the PKK, demanding its dissolution as a precondition for any political settlement. However, with the PKK’s announced stepping back from its operations against Turkey, Ankara appears to have dropped its resistance, allowing negotiations between the SDF and the Syrian transitional government to move forward.
Another significant factor behind the agreement is the need for a strong and experienced military force under the transitional government. The transitional president, Ahmed al-Sharaa (also known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani), faces the enormous task of securing the country amid ongoing instability. Al-Sharaa’s recently dissolved Organisation of the Liberation of the Levant (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham or simply HTS) and its affiliates, including foreign jihadist groups, do not have the necessary manpower to consolidate their rule over the entire Syrian territory. In addition, the transitional government’s ongoing attempts to restructure the Syrian Army through the integration of various former rebel groups and the recruitment of civilians into the country’s newly established security forces require time to yield results. At the same time, recent clashes with pro-Assad insurgents in western Syria demonstrate the necessity of having a large and efficient military force. The SDF, with approximately 100,000 well-trained fighters, represents an invaluable asset in achieving this objective. Having been trained extensively by the United States, the SDF brings crucial combat experience and organisational discipline that could contribute to restoring order in Syria.
The role of the United States in facilitating the agreement cannot be understated. Washington has reportedly applied pressure on both Damascus and the Kurdish leadership to compromise, ensuring that both sides see the benefits of cooperation. The U.S. has long supported the SDF in its fight against ISIS, but its strategic interests in Syria go beyond counterterrorism. By promoting the integration of the SDF into the central government’s military structure, the U.S. aims to foster stability while maintaining influence in the region. Moreover, by securing the fate of its Kurdish allies, the U.S. administration can now move toward withdrawing from Syria.
The recent massacres in western Syria have also played an important role in shaping the political landscape. These tragic events have placed immense pressure on the transitional government to demonstrate its ability to protect civilians and foster national unity. The integration of the SDF into the new national army is seen as a step toward reconciliation and inclusivity. By working with the Kurdish forces rather than marginalising them, the government hopes to present itself as a legitimate and unifying authority, both to the Syrian people and the international community. Winning the trust of Syrians across ethnic and sectarian lines is essential for the success of the new administration, and this agreement is a move in that direction.
Thus, resolving the status of northeastern Syria through peaceful negotiations enhances the legitimacy of the new administration. The region has been under SDF control for years, operating with a level of autonomy from Damascus. Its reintegration into the Syrian state represents a significant shift that could lead to broader diplomatic recognition of the transitional government. Stability in this region is also crucial for economic recovery, particularly given its rich oil and gas reserves. More than 90% of Syria’s oil are under SDF control. Therefore, bringing these resources under at least partial state control is vital for rebuilding Syria’s war-torn economy and ensuring a more equitable distribution of national wealth.
This agreement is expected to benefit both the Kurdish component of the SDF – mainly represented by the People’s Defence Units (YPG) – and the transitional government. Regarding the Kurds, this could lead to a cessation of hostilities with Turkey and its backed groups in northern Syria, although there have been reports of Turkish airstrikes against Kurdish targets after the announcement of the deal. In addition, although the final details are not clear, the announcement of the agreement indicates that the SDF will maintain its de facto operational autonomy and control over most of the territory comprising the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), the self-declared autonomous region established by the alliance of Kurdish and Arab militant groups that founded the SDF, with the support of the U.S. On the other hand, the al-Sharaa-led transitional government is gaining more legitimacy both domestically and internationally. The reported agreement that Damascus reached with the Druze community in the Suwayda Governorate is also important for al-Sharaa’s legitimacy, especially following the events in coastal Syria, where more than a thousand civilians lost their lives.
Despite the optimism surrounding the agreement, several challenges remain. Turkey’s stance, though appearing to have softened, is unpredictable, and its long-term acceptance of the SDF’s role within the Syrian military is uncertain. The ceasefire promised in the agreement must also be effectively enforced, which is easier said than done, given the presence of multiple armed factions with competing interests. Additionally, while the U.S. has played a critical role in brokering the deal, Russian, Israeli and Iranian reactions to this development remain unclear. Both countries have vested interests in Syria and may view this agreement as a threat to their influence.
If successfully implemented, this agreement could mark the beginning of a new chapter for post-Assad Syria. The unification of military forces, the reintegration of northeastern Syria into the central government, and the inclusion of all ethnic and religious groups in governance could lay the groundwork for long-term stability. However, the path forward is fraught with obstacles. The next few months will be critical in determining whether this agreement will be upheld or if new complications will arise.
