Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | QiOSK
Thomas Barrack
Top image credit: U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and U.S. special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (not pictured) at the presidential palace in Baabda, Lebanon August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Tom Barrack has an offer that Lebanon simply can't refuse

Middle East

A tale of two envoys recently unfolded in Beirut, encapsulating the crossroads at which Lebanon now stands. Tanned and sporting a pink tie, the U.S. Envoy Tom Barrack arrived with Deputy Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East, Morgan Ortagus in mid-August. Their meetings with top Lebanese officials underscored Washington’s insistence that lasting stability in Lebanon depends on consolidating state authority, and disarming Hezbollah.

Days earlier, Ali Larijani, the head of Iran’s National Security Council, had departed, leaving a message equally blunt but diametrically opposed: Hezbollah’s arms are a red line and are necessary tools for its “resistance” to Israel. These visits represent the opposing magnetic poles pulling at the country.

Lebanon is reeling from a confluence of catastrophes. A devastating scuffle with Israel last year decapitated Hezbollah’s leadership and ravaged its strongholds. Compounding this military blow was a strategic amputation: the swift collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which severed the critical land bridge that for decades funneled Iranian arms and support to Iran’s most prized regional proxy. Into this vortex has stepped Barrack, a 40-year friend of Donald Trump and a businessman by trade, embodying a U.S. strategy that is quintessentially Trumpian in its DNA.

keep readingShow less
Afghanistan withdrawal
Lloyd Austin, Kenneth McKenzie, and Mark Milley in 2021. (MSNBC screengrab)

Turns out leaving Afghanistan did not unleash terror on US or region

Military Industrial Complex

It will be four years since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, ending a nearly 20-year occupation that could serve as a poster child for mission creep.

What began in October 2001 as a narrow intervention to destroy al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and topple the Taliban government for refusing to hand over al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, morphed into an open-ended nation-building operation that killed 2,334 U.S. military personnel and wounded over 20,000 more.

keep readingShow less
Francois Bayrou Emmanuel Macron
Top image credit: France's Prime Minister Francois Bayrou arrives to hear France's President Emmanuel Macron deliver a speech to army leaders at l'Hotel de Brienne in Paris on July 13, 2025, on the eve of the annual Bastille Day Parade in the French capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe facing revolts, promising more guns with no money

Europe

If you wanted to create a classic recipe for political crisis, you could well choose a mixture of a stagnant economy, a huge and growing public debt, a perceived need radically to increase military spending, an immigration crisis, a deeply unpopular president, a government without a majority in parliament, and growing radical parties on the right and left.

In other words, France today. And France’s crisis is only one part of the growing crisis of Western Europe as a whole, with serious implications for the future of transatlantic relations.

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.