Enab Baladi – Khaled al-Jeratli
The signing of the agreement by the Syrian transitional president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, alongside the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Mazloum Abdi, marked the beginning of a resolution to the stalemate in northeastern Syria that has been a concern for the Syrian government since its arrival in Damascus in December 2024.
While the agreement’s terms did not appear clear in practical terms and focused on generalities, the last clause indicated that committees from both sides would work on implementing the provisions by the end of this year, leaving the specifics of these provisions to leaks and analyses.
The statements from the political factions of the SDF in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) and the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) reinforced the ambiguity surrounding the agreement, as they contradicted the official narrative.
SDF.. Contradiction between military and politics
In his first comment on the historic agreement for the integration of the SDF under the Syrian Ministry of Defense, SDF Commander Mazloum Abdi wrote on his X account on March 11, “In this sensitive period, we are working together to ensure a transitional phase that reflects our people’s aspirations for justice and stability. We are committed to building a better future that guarantees the rights of all Syrians and fulfills their aspirations for peace and dignity. We consider this agreement a real opportunity to build a new Syria that embraces all its components and ensures good neighborliness.”
Abdi also mentioned in an interview with the Saudi Al-Majalla magazine that Ahmed al-Sharaa is the president of the transitional phase in Syria, and that the “delay in congratulating” president al-Sharaa occurred due to “our absence” from the Victory Day celebration during which al-Sharaa was inaugurated on January 29.
While Abdi focused on the positive developments that followed the agreement with Damascus, the political wings of the SDF expressed a different opinion. Ilham Ahmed, co-chair of the Foreign Relations Department in the Autonomous Administration, stated on X that “the agreement between our forces (SDF) and the Syrian transitional administration comes in light of the painful events our people are witnessing in the coast region, and it aims to stop these, as well as all military operations on Syrian ground.”
She added, “We hope this agreement paves the way for comprehensive national reconciliation, and a genuine transitional justice process that ensures the participation of Kurds and all other components in the political process, and achieves the safe return of the displaced and expatriates.”
For its part, the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) stated in a statement following the announcement of the agreement, “We in the SDC commend this agreement as a step toward a political solution, affirming that its success depends on the commitment of all parties to the spirit of genuine change, working to build a modern democratic state that respects the will of its people, fulfills their aspirations, and is part of the free world that believes in justice and human rights.”
The SDC did not miss the opportunity to remind of one of the fundamental disagreements that had obstructed reaching a consensus: the SDF’s demands for decentralization in Syria, which Damascus has always refused.
The recently announced agreement between the parties did not address this particular aspect, and one of its clauses stated that the institutions of the Autonomous Administration, both service and civil, along with the military and security institutions of the SDF, would join Damascus.
The SDC noted in its statement that “Syria is for all Syrians, a democratic and pluralistic state that befits the sacrifices of its people and takes its rightful place among nations.”
With American support
On March 12, shortly after the signing of the SDF-Damascus agreement, Reuters reported that six unnamed sources stated that the United States encouraged its allies in the SDF to reach an agreement with the government in Damascus amid uncertainty about the future of US forces stationed there.
Three American officials told the agency that the US encouraged the SDF to move toward an agreement to resolve its status in a new Syria, which is the focus of multi-track discussions that began after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad.
A senior regional intelligence source indicated that “the United States played a crucial role,” according to Reuters.
The intelligence source and a diplomat based in Damascus anticipated that the agreement would ease the Turkish military pressure on the SDF, which Ankara views as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) listed as a terrorist group.
Despite two days passing since the agreement was signed, as of this report’s release, military operations continue between factions that recently joined the Syrian army (the Syrian National Army) which were previously supported by Turkey, according to a statement released by the SDF announcing ongoing military escalation in the eastern countryside of Aleppo.
Reuters also quoted an American defense official stating that General Michael Kurilla, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), played a role in pushing the SDF toward the agreement.
Hours before the announcement of the agreement, CENTCOM reported that General Kurilla visited northeastern Syria, meeting with American military commanders as well as SDF leaders, in his second visit of this nature within less than two months.
This visit was part of a regional tour from March 5 to 8, which also included Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, according to the CENTCOM.
A “historic agreement” for both parties
The agreement between the SDF and Damascus marked a qualitative shift in the ongoing events in Syria, described by researcher Osama Sheikh Ali at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies as a “historic agreement attributed to both President Ahmed al-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi.”
Sheikh Ali added to Enab Baladi that al-Sharaa revitalized the centrality of Damascus in resolving internal issues, especially since the file has long been considered a complex issue intertwined with the interests of local parties alongside other regional and international ones.
He highlighted that the agreement’s terms are still unclear, but the significant aspect is that the parties reached a public agreement without the discussions that had been conducted away from the light of day, which were often obstructed by foreign parties.
Sheikh Ali noted that the recent message from Abdullah Öcalan, calling for a resolution of the PKK and the laying down of arms, positively contributed to resolving the SDF file in Syria, by sidelining foreign elements from the PKK who dominated the decision-making of the SDF and hindered the dialogue process.
The PKK previously stipulated that the SDF should enjoy a leading role in Syria in exchange for agreeing to leave Syrian territory.
In mid-January, Reuters reported an unnamed PKK official saying that the PKK would agree to leave northeastern Syria if the SDF, allied with the United States, retained a leading role.
Moreover, Mzahem al-Saloum, an expert in government contracting who previously worked with the International Coalition against the Islamic State in Syria, attributed the conflicting statements between the SDF and AANES to the presence of factions within the northeastern Syrian authorities.
Al-Saloum stated to Enab Baladi that the settlement in which Abdi engaged with Damascus was due to several reasons, primarily that the PKK is in a state of uncertainty regarding the US stance on Syria.
He added that Mazloum Abdi does not want to exit the equation without gains, so his interest aligned with that of Damascus.
Two wings in the SDF
This is not the first time conflicting statements have emerged from northeastern Syria, as this situation was previously observed during the military clashes in Deir Ezzor between the SDF and tribal components from within the province itself.
This contradiction in statements was then linked to a disagreement over the stance towards the developments occurring at that time in Deir Ezzor, between a pro-US stream led by Mazloum Abdi and the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), which has extensive influence in northeastern Syria. Experts even suggested that the PKK’s influence outweighs Abdi’s ability to impact the region.
Mzahem al-Saloum stated in an interview with Enab Baladi that the opposing stance issued by SDF and AANES towards the agreement with Damascus, including Ilham Ahmed’s linking of the agreement to events in the Syrian coast, is due to the influence of the wing led by Aldar Khalil in northeastern Syria.
He added that Aldar Khalil’s current stream is considered the pivotal point connecting Bafel Talabani (the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) and Cemil Bayık (the PKK), and it holds significant sway within the SDF.
Al-Saloum pointed out that Mazloum Abdi received assassination threats from the PKK when he tried to push for a peace agreement that would lead to the removal of the party’s leaders from northeastern Syria, according to information he accessed.
He also mentioned that Ilham Ahmed’s recent statements are not only a message to public opinion but also to the deposed Assad regime officers, who operate from/through areas controlled by the SDF, in coordination with the PKK, which is in turn working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iranian-backed Iraqi militias.
In early March, violence erupted in the Syrian coast, initiated by groups loyal to the deposed Assad regime attempting to seize control of areas along the coast. The Syrian government launched military operations against these pro-regime groups in the region, resulting in hundreds of casualties and injuries.
Important in terms of timing
Commenting on the al-Sharaa-Abdi agreement, researcher at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, Sasha al-Alou noted on his personal Facebook account that it came at an important time regarding timing and security context, “generally clear, vague in details, cautious in application, interrupting a potential wave of violence, and perhaps delaying it, not surprising concerning the political and military data on the ground.”
In the framework of negotiations that began after the regime’s downfall, the researcher referred to a research paper he published at the Omran center in mid-February, concerning the negotiating position and possible scenarios, the foremost of which is the success of the negotiations and the possibility of integrating forces from both sides.
The paper at that time suggested that while the scenario of negotiation success seems “arduous and complex,” it could be the optimal exit for various parties, as it may spare the region from worse scenarios, primarily military confrontation, and the subsequent security, political, social, and humanitarian repercussions that local parties would prefer to avoid under current conditions.
It added that if the scenario of agreement succeeds, it is expected to include an initial agreement on several issues, including the withdrawal of the SDF from predominantly Arab areas (Deir Ezzor, Raqqa), the deployment of Damascus’s forces in their place, as well as the integration of SDF members, both Arabs and Kurds, into the Ministry of Defense under agreed-upon mechanisms from both sides, along with granting some SDF leaders military ranks in the army, and the departure of foreign leaders from Syrian territory.