Follow us on social

SDF kurds syria

Kurds in Syria avoid demilitarization and Turkish hammer, for now

The deal was brokered between SDF and Damascus with US help for a reason

Middle East


The signing of an agreement between General Mazloum Abdi, the commander-in-chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and interim Syrian ruler Ahmed al-Sharaa on March 10 comes at a critical juncture. It follows nearly two weeks after Kurdish militant leader Abdullah Öcalan called on his followers in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to lay down their arms and dissolve the group.

Is there a connection between these two events?

Öcalan’s call for disarmament was not limited to the PKK but extended to “all groups.” Although Abdi distanced himself from this call, stating that it is “not related to us in Syria,” the Turkish ruling parties were quick to claim that Öcalan’s appeal includes the SDF. This assertion plays into Ankara’s long-standing strategy to equate the SDF with the PKK, thereby justifying its continued aggression against Kurdish self-rule in northeastern Syria, known as Rojava (Western) Kurdistan. According to Turkey, Öcalan’s call should lead to the dissolution of all PKK-affiliated groups, including those operating in the Şengal (Sinjar) Mountains in Southern Kurdistan (in Iraq). Ankara has long viewed the SDF as an extension of the PKK, justifying its repeated military interventions in the region. However, the persistence of these groups, despite Turkish pressure, underscores the broader resistance to Ankara’s influence across Kurdistani territories.

Turkey has consistently sought to dismantle Kurdish autonomy in Syria, aiming to establish a pro-Turkish administration in the region. The agreement signed by Abdi serves to counteract Ankara’s maneuvering. Although it does contain a provision about integrating “all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria into the administration of the Syrian state, including border crossings, the airport, and oil and gas fields,” the merger of the SDF with the Syrian army does not outright imply disarmament. However, it strongly suggests that the SDF will no longer function as an independent entity. If all “civil and military institutions” are to be integrated into the Syrian army, it casts serious doubt on the future of self-administration in the region. Additionally, the fate of Rojava’s unique political institutions remains uncertain.

The agreement also includes a commitment to a “ceasefire on all Syrian territories.” This is a crucial clause, particularly in light of recent massacres committed by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the dominant force in Damascus. Alawite forces loyal to the ousted Assad regime had launched attacks against the government forces, prompting this retaliation, underscoring the necessity of such a provision. For the Kurds, this ceasefire is more than a political statement. It is a protective measure ensuring their survival under Rojava self-administration, which has been in place since 2012.

Another significant dimension of this agreement is the role of the United States. A U.S. helicopter shuttled General Abdi to Damascus to sign the memorandum. The presence of U.S. forces in SDF-controlled areas means that the implementation of any agreement must not put American troops at risk of confrontation with Turkey or Turkish-backed factions, including HTS and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The FSA has long been a tool of Turkish influence in Syria, waging relentless attacks against Kurdish forces around Tishreen dam and Kobani since the fall of the Assad regime last December. Given this complex landscape, any agreement that preserves Kurdish autonomy while maintaining American support is a diplomatic success for the SDF. While Abdi’s maneuvering secures Kurdish protection, it may not align perfectly with the strategic goals of Israel, which has extended its support to the Kurds. However, none of the agreement’s provisions poses a threat to Israeli interests. Historically, the Kurds’ struggle for self-determination, either in form of autonomy or independence, has not conflicted with Israeli security concerns.

For Israel, a stable and secular Kurdish-controlled region is preferable to an Islamic Sunni regime aligned with Turkey or extremist factions. The prospect of a Turkey-backed Sunni Islamist government on Israel’s borders is a scenario Israelis would strongly oppose. Although the SDF-controlled areas do not share a border with Israel, unlike the Druze community to whom Israel has already committed to defending, the agreement ultimately does not undermine the broader strategic alignment between Israel and the Kurds.

The agreement is set to be implemented by the end of 2025, leaving a nine-month window during which developments in Syria’s volatile landscape could prompt adjustments. Given the absence of implementation guarantees, domestic or international, and the limited information about behind-the-scenes developments among all involved parties, various players such as Israel, Turkey, Iran, Russia, the UK, France, and Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Qatar, and the interim government itself could push for modifications.

However, General Abdi’s pre-emptive engagement with Syria’s interim government is a strategically calculated maneuver, designed at least for now to block Turkey’s regional aspirations and efforts to disarm the Kurds and dissolve their self-rule. By ensuring a ceasefire and maintaining U.S. approval, the deal serves as a counterweight to Ankara’s plans. Although it introduces new variables into the regional equation, its ultimate impact could be positive in the long run. For this strategy to be truly sustainable and legitimate, any future political framework for Rojava Kurdistan should be carried out in direct consultation with the Kurdish people there.

This article was republished with permission by Foreign Policy in Focus


Top photo credit: A member of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) sits inside a military aircraft at Qamishli International Airport, after rebels seized the capital and ousted Syria's Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, in Qamishli, Syria December 9, 2024. REUTERS/Orhan Qereman
Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.