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
Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran
Top image credit: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby speaks at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Screengrab via armed-services.senate.gov)

Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran

QiOSK

The U.S. is pursuing “scoped and reasonable objectives” in its military campaign against Iran and is not seeking regime change through force, argued Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby in a Tuesday Senate hearing.

When pressed about why the campaign began with the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Colby declined to comment directly. “I’m talking about the goals of the American military campaign,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Those are Israeli operations.”

keep readingShow less
US missiles
Top photo credit: . DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force.

Trump: We have 'unlimited' weapons to fight 'forever' war

QiOSK

In a startling Truth Social post overnight on Monday, President Donald Trump defied reality and claimed that U.S. weapons were "unlimited" and the U.S. could fight "forever" with "these supplies."


keep readingShow less
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

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.