Follow us on social

google cta
Syrian defense forces syria kurds

Kurds sign deal in Syria: Case for US troops there 'weaker than ever'

New leadership brings SDF into central govt, leaving little reason for Washington to keep protecting it

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Amid all of the violence on the Syrian coast this week, there was one development Monday that may reduce the chaos in the northeast: the new Sunni leadership has struck a deal with the Kurdish-led Syrian Defense Forces to merge with the central government in Damascus.

This is big, since the Kurds had been fighting throughout the Syrian civil war to stake out independent territory in the north. Not only had they been clashing with the former Assad regime, but up until now, with Turkish-led forces, which had vowed to destroy them. More importantly they sit on the oil and gas fields that are critical to a new Syrian economy. And, they have been the benefactors of U.S. military assistance the entire time. That includes airpower and reportedly 2,000 troops sitting in the middle of the conflict who should be coming home, say critics who increasingly see the mission as ill-defined, dangerous, and not in the U.S. interest.

"With Syria’s territorial control restored under a central government backed by Turkey, the case for keeping U.S. troops there to fight ISIS is weaker than ever," said the Quincy Institute's Adam Weinstein, who surmises that the U.S. likely played a role in mediating the SDF agreement with Syria's new interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, who hails from the former al-Qaeda-linked rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). He is currently battling accusations that militias linked to his government have been rampaging through villages killing Assad "loyalists" that include hundreds if not thousands of Alawite civilians.The violence had been sparked by government clashes with opposition fighters late last week.

Details of the deal reportedly struck between al-Sharaa's government and SDF were still emerging Tuesday morning, but the outline is this: the Kurdish forces will integrate “all civil and military institutions” into the new Syrian state by the end of the year (it is not clear whether they will remain together as a separate division/units), including the oil and gas fields. According to the New York Times, the SDF will be expected to "to help Damascus combat remnants of the Assad regime." They are also being promised inclusion in the new political process — of course that pledge is already being tested by the violence by Islamist militias on the coast today.

"One must hope the Kurds will enjoy lasting peace thanks to this deal, but one must also be skeptical of the enigmatic Mr. al-Sharaa, especially after the bloodshed in Syria's coastal regions," points out John Allen Gay, director of the John Quincy Adams Society.

However, he added, "the new deal between the Kurds and the authorities in Damascus opens space for America to withdraw from Syria. We did not come to Syria to establish Kurdish autonomy in the northeast. We came to destroy ISIS, and we destroyed ISIS years ago."

Washington has used both its Kurdish partners and battling ISIS as excuses to stay in the country. Indeed, the SDF has helped the U.S. with those ISIS remnants, while the U.S. has helped maintain the Kurds territorial claims, which include the energy resources, and the prisons that hold thousands of Islamic State fighters. “Concerns may still remain over ISIS prisoners in Al Hol and the potential infiltration of Iran-backed militias," said Weinstein, referring to sporadic attacks against the U.S. outposts in Syria and Iraq by Iranian-supported groups — attacks that have been dramatically reduced over the last year.

Anything can happen in year, and the instability in Damascus suggests that anything can happen to this deal even in a day. If the agreement holds, and Kurds have reason to celebrate as they were, reportedly, in the streets yesterday, the U.S. will have to manufacture more reasons — a larger ISIS threat? — to stay, if it wants to. Or, as President Donald Trump has suggested, it might just be time to leave.


Top photo credit: A person holds flags as people celebrate after the Kurdish-led and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)signs a deal agreeing to integrate into Syria's new state institutions, the Syrian presidency said on Monday, in Damascus, Syria March 11, 2025. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade

QiOSK

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled against the White House on a key economic initiative of the Trump administration, concluding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the right to impose tariffs.

The ruling was not really a surprise; the tone of the questioning by several justices in early November was overwhelmingly skeptical of the administration’s argument, as prediction markets rightly concluded. Given the likelihood of this result, it should also come as no surprise that the Trump administration has already been plotting ways to work around the decision.

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Lucas Parker and FotoField via shutterstock.com

No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war

QiOSK

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.

Here’s why this won’t work.

keep readingShow less
As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius, with the stipulation that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).

As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base

QiOSK

As the U.S. surges troops to the Middle East, a battle is brewing over a strategically significant American base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would oppose any effort to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, arguing that a U.S. base on the island of Diego Garcia may be necessary to “eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous [Iranian] Regime.” The comment came just a day after the State Department reiterated its support for the U.K.’s decision to give up sovereignty over the islands while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.