Amid Syria’s ongoing complex situation, the March 10 agreement between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has resurfaced in discussions, especially with its operational effectiveness ending while limited understandings remain without a comprehensive political or field-level translation. This raises a crucial question for many Syrians: are we witnessing an unannounced renegotiation on new terms, or the beginning of a tense phase that could return relations between the two sides to square one?
The March 10 Agreement emerged in two main contexts: internally, it addressed the administrative and security control in northeastern Syria, and externally, it reflected international and regional power balances. According to official announcements, the agreement included broad points related to Syrian territorial unity, partial integration of institutions, and limited security coordination. However, the agreement was not built on a deep-rooted political vision or a long-term solution; rather, it aimed to manage disputes and prevent escalation.
The expiration of the agreement’s specified timeframe does not necessarily mean its official cancellation, according to journalist Amer Al-Homsi of Al-Thawra newspaper, who spoke to +963. Instead, it signifies the end of its operational effectiveness on the ground. The remaining functional understandings are limited to technical or specific security issues, such as coordination in certain areas or managing service files, while major files – such as administrative structures, integration, resource-sharing, and the sovereign role of the state – remain frozen.
“Current reality reflects that the March Agreement did not transform into a sustainable track but remained a temporary framework directly affected by changing local, regional, and international conditions,” Al-Homsi explains. He notes that the end of the agreement in practical terms does not mean communication between the government and SDF has stopped, but it does reveal the limitations of temporary understandings in the absence of a comprehensive political solution. At this crossroads, the relationship between the two sides faces multiple possible scenarios.
Yasser Al-Suleiman, spokesperson for the Autonomous Administration’s negotiation delegation with Damascus, told +963 that the first ten days of this month would host decisive meetings with the Syrian government, addressing several pivotal issues to reach a mutual understanding between the two parties.
Farouk Yassin, writer and journalist, adds that the current dynamics between the SDF and the government represent an unannounced renegotiation, in which each side seeks to improve its position before entering any new publicly declared agreement. He emphasizes that the previous period of stalemate functioned as a tool of mutual pressure rather than a direct prelude to escalation.
Read also: SDF Integration into the Syrian Army: Political, Military, and Societal Aspects
Yassin further notes that the lack of a clear political horizon in Syria, combined with accumulated disputes and the absence of resolution mechanisms, could gradually lead to increased tensions. Limited security understandings alone are insufficient to manage a complex scenario influenced by numerous internal and external factors.
He stresses that the fate of any agreement between the government and SDF cannot be separated from external factors. The U.S., although less assertive than in previous years, remains a key balancing actor. Russia also plays a role as mediator and pressure factor according to its interests, while Turkey indirectly influences any domestic understanding. These intertwined pressures make any internal renegotiation contingent upon broader regional and international understandings that are not yet fully matured.
Yassin outlines two primary scenarios if the current stalemate continues without escalation or political breakthrough: the first involves gradual renegotiations leading to a revised agreement, less ambitious than the previous one but more feasible for implementation. The second scenario anticipates rising tension triggered by a security incident or sudden decision that could return the relationship to a confrontational state.
