On March 10, Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa and the commander-in-chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Mazloum Abdi, signed an agreement marking a pivotal moment in Syria’s military restructuring. The deal, which mandates the integration of the SDF into the Syrian state’s armed forces, raises critical questions about its strategic significance, operational challenges, and long-term implications for the region.
The agreement comes amid a rapidly evolving military landscape. The Syrian armed forces, still grappling with insurgent threats and internal instability, have sought to consolidate their hold over the country. The SDF, a force that emerged as a key US partner in the fight against ISIS, has long maintained operational autonomy in the country’s oil-rich northeast, currently under the authority of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES).
By integrating the SDF into its command structure, Damascus is extending its military control into a region long outside its direct influence. However, the practical implementation of this deal remains uncertain, particularly regarding whether the SDF will be fully absorbed as individual recruits or maintain a distinct command structure within the national military apparatus.
A tactical move or a long-term military integration?
Following the deal, all SDF-controlled civilian and military institutions, including border crossings, airports, and oil and natural gas fields, are to be integrated into the Syrian government. The Syrian government thereby gains control over energy reserves and transportation infrastructures—critical assets for consolidating its rule during this transitional period. The United Nations and the United States have welcomed the deal, which Washington reportedly encouraged, possibly influenced by Trump’s push for a US troop withdrawal.
While the agreement has been framed as a step toward national unity, security and military necessity were key drivers. Damascus, already overstretched with counterinsurgency operations in the coastal regions and pursuing negotiations with Druze militias in southern Syria, likely saw an opportunity to secure northeastern Syria with minimal additional deployments. By integrating the SDF, the government effectively neutralizes a potential adversary while redirecting its military resources to other fronts, including insurgencies in Latakia and Tartous.
For the SDF, the calculus is different but equally pressing. With speculations about a potential US military withdrawal gaining traction, the Kurdish-led force faces growing uncertainty regarding its long-term security. By striking an agreement with Damascus, the SDF secures a pathway for its fighters to continue operating under a national framework rather than being left vulnerable to Turkish military action. However, the ambiguity surrounding the integration process raises concerns about whether the SDF will be absorbed as a cohesive force or broken into smaller units within the Syrian military.
Wladimir van Wilgenburg, an on-the-ground-based reporter and analyst specializing in Kurdish affairs, noted that “the US played a role in pushing the SDF towards this agreement, though the deal itself remains temporary and largely vague.” According to him, Washington has consistently encouraged dialogue between the SDF and Damascus, particularly as contingency plans for a US withdrawal remain under discussion. Still, SDF sources denied that the agreement was linked to a potential withdrawal of US forces.
However, Damascus’s introduction of an interim constitution without adequate Kurdish representation has raised serious concerns within the SDF, particularly given the concentration of executive power and the lack of any actual provisions for decentralization. This ultimately led to the rejection of the draft constitution by the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the SDF’s political wing, just three days after its announcement.
Command structures and operational challenges
One of the most contentious aspects of the agreement is the question of military command and control. Aron Lund, a fellow at Century International, explained to The New Arab that the deal is preliminary, setting a framework rather than offering a definitive resolution. “The major point of contention was how SDF should [be part of the new Syrian army]. Would it be by dissolving and entering as individuals, or should they join as a bloc and retain their own organization inside the new army? Has that been resolved now? I can’t see that it has”.
The Syrian government has historically pushed for complete absorption of the SDF into the national army, while the SDF has sought to retain a degree of autonomy within the armed forces. The agreement does not explicitly state how this will be resolved. If the SDF is integrated as a separate corps within the Syrian military—something Damascus has historically opposed—it could retain internal cohesion and operational independence. However, if its forces are dispersed into existing Syrian army units, it could face challenges maintaining command continuity and discipline.
Operationally, the transition also raises logistical concerns. The SDF has operated under a different command doctrine from the Syrian military, with an emphasis on asymmetric warfare, counterinsurgency, and coalition-based operations with US support. A shift toward a centralized, conventional structure will require training and restructuring, which may face resistance. The status of non-Kurdish units within the SDF, particularly Arab-majority formations, remains unclear. If integration is seen as Kurdish-dominated, it could provoke dissent among Arab communities in eastern Syria.
Regional and strategic implications
The agreement’s impact extends beyond Syria’s borders, particularly concerning Turkey, the US, and Israel. Turkey’s reaction was swift—top Turkish officials, including the foreign and defense ministers, made an unannounced visit to Damascus just days after the agreement was signed. Ankara, long wary of the SDF due to its ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), now faces a scenario where its primary adversary in Syria is absorbed into a recognized military structure. This could limit Turkey’s ability to justify further operations in northern Syria. However, it may also push Ankara to increase pressure on Damascus to curtail any remaining Kurdish autonomy.
The United States, which has backed the SDF as a counterterrorism force, now faces the dilemma of either continuing its support for an entity that is aligning itself with Damascus or reassessing its military footprint in the region. This comes at a time when Washington faces pressure to recalibrate its Middle East strategy, balancing its commitments to allies like the SDF while avoiding prolonged military entanglements in the country.
Van Wilgenburg further pointed out that the deal is as much about political maneuvering as it is about military integration: “The Kurds see this as a way to buy time, particularly as Turkey remains a looming threat. Damascus, on the other hand, is focused on consolidating its control over other regions, including dealing with instability in the coastal areas and negotiating with the Druze in the south.” The agreement, then, serves as a strategic pause rather than a definitive resolution.
Meanwhile, the agreement has heightened tensions between Turkey and Israel as both states vie for influence in post-Assad Syria. Israeli officials have expressed concern that the deal cements Iranian and Syrian control over territories that were previously beyond Damascus’ reach.
The way forward
Despite its significance, the agreement faces substantial hurdles. The Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) has already resumed attacks on SDF positions, signalling opposition to integration efforts. Moreover, internal opposition within the SDF could emerge if fighters perceive the deal as undermining their autonomy.
Another key uncertainty lies in the future of military operations. The SDF has been a critical force in securing northeastern Syria from ISIS remnants, managing detention centres holding thousands of ISIS fighters. With current command structures, questions remain over counterterrorism coordination under the new arrangement. Additionally, the Syrian government’s ability to integrate SDF fighters into broader military campaigns remains untested.
Ultimately, while the agreement marks a shift in Syria’s military landscape, it remains far from settled. The lack of specificity on command structures, unresolved tensions between Damascus and the SDF over political representation, and Turkey’s continued military ambitions suggest that implementation will be fraught with challenges. Whether this deal becomes a stepping stone toward long-term stability or merely a fragile ceasefire before renewed tensions depends on how Damascus and the SDF navigate the coming months—and whether external actors like Ankara and Washington decide to accept or challenge this evolving status quo.
Francesco Salesio Schiavi is an Italian specialist in the Middle East. His focus lies in the security architecture of the Levant and the Gulf, with a particular emphasis on Iraq, Iran, and the Arab Peninsula, as well as military and diplomatic interventions by international actors
Follow him on X:Â @frencio_schiavi
