A new security agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) comes at what officials describe as one of the most sensitive periods since the conflict began and could signal a broader shift in northeastern Syria, which has long remained outside full state control.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
The new agreement, described as a “qualitative shift,” differs in both form and substance from previous understandings reached in recent years.
While earlier arrangements focused on ceasefires or the temporary management of contact points, the current accord moves toward a deeper restructuring of security and military relations.
It aims to accomplish this through a comprehensive ceasefire, troop redeployment, and the organized integration of entire units into the Syrian army, rather than the selective, individual integration previously practiced.
Since 2012, the relationship between Damascus and the SDF has been complex, marked by cautious tension and situational understandings.
SDF estabilisshed own administrative structures
While the SDF established its own administrative structures and military control with international backing, the Syrian government maintained a limited and largely symbolic security presence in certain cities, notably Al-Hasakah and Qamishli.
This relationship, which never matured into a genuine partnership, has remained contingent on regional and international power dynamics, shaped by both the US presence and Damascus’ internal calculations.
A key aspect of this agreement is the understanding that regular Syrian army forces will be absent from major city centers in al-Hasakah and Qamishli, with internal security forces assuming responsibility for security matters in coordination with the SDF.
This arrangement reflects an effort to avoid direct clashes and provides the local population with temporary stability.
At the same time, it raises questions about the nature of actual control, the boundaries of influence between the two parties, and the sustainability of this security model.
The military dimension of the agreement appears to be the most sensitive, as it stipulates the formation of a new unit comprising full SDF brigades, including one in Kobani (Ain al-Arab), to be integrated into the Syrian army as cohesive formations.
If implemented, this would set a precedent in the Syrian conflict, reflecting a shift from temporary containment toward institutional reconstruction. However, it also raises concerns about the loyalty of these formations, command-and-control mechanisms, and how military doctrine will be managed within an institution long characterized by strict centralization.
At the administrative and political levels, the agreement paves the way for integrating self-administration institutions into Syrian state structures, securing the positions of civilian employees and regularizing their legal status.
It also points to the need to address sensitive cultural and rights issues, such as recognition of the Kurdish language and adoption of the Nowruz holiday, matters long steeped in political and symbolic contention, and a real test of Damascus’s willingness to move from a purely security-focused approach to a broader political one.
A careful reading of the agreement reveals gaps that cannot be ignored, most notably the absence of a clear implementation timeline and of monitoring mechanisms and guarantees to ensure mutual compliance.
This ambiguity creates room for divergent interpretations and may lead to future clashes if differing visions collide in practical application, particularly on contentious issues such as border crossings, oil resources, and detainee files that are not explicitly addressed in the agreement.
On a broader scale, this agreement cannot be separated from rapidly evolving regional and international developments.
The relative decline in US attention to the Syrian issue, alongside attempts by some Arab countries to reintegrate Damascus into their regional orbit, has prompted local actors to reassess their positions.
For Damascus, the agreement offers an opportunity to gradually strengthen sovereignty without a costly military confrontation, while the SDF views it as an effort to preserve its gains within a new framework that ensures a role within the state rather than isolation or confrontation.
Nonetheless, the fundamental question remains: Does this agreement represent a first step toward a sustainable internal settlement, or is it merely a temporary political truce imposed by the circumstances of the moment? The answer depends on both parties' ability to translate the texts into tangible outcomes and their willingness to make genuine concessions beyond narrow security calculations.
In conclusion, the security agreement between Damascus and the SDF marks a pivotal moment in the trajectory of the Syrian crisis, one where the desire for stability intersects with a long legacy of mistrust.
Between cautious optimism and legitimate skepticism, the future of this understanding hinges on what unfolds on the ground in the coming weeks and months, rather than on what is written in official statements.