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
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

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.