Calm After a Night of Clashes
Recent developments in Aleppo’s Kurdish-held Ashrafieh and Sheikh Maqsoud districts have highlighted once again the complexity of northern Syria’s political and security landscape. While the city appeared calm on Tuesday morning following hours of violent clashes between the Internal Security Forces (Asayish) and the Syrian Interim Government forces, the situation remains tense.
According to Syria’s state broadcaster “Al-Ikhbariya” the two sides reached a ceasefire agreement shortly after midnight, following intense exchanges that lasted several hours. A government source confirmed that the aim was “to restore calm and return life to normal in both districts after the latest escalation.”
Protests Demand Reopening of Roads
The clashes reportedly began after demonstrations broke out in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh, calling for the reopening of routes that had been blocked for two days, with only one passageway remaining accessible.
A field correspondent for +963 reported that “government forces shelled the outskirts of Sheikh Maqsoud with mortar fire,” adding that “more than ten protesters suffered from tear gas inhalation after the Internal Security Forces used gas to disperse the crowd.”
The Ministry of Defence in the Interim Government said the army’s movements were “part of a redeployment plan in northern Syria” and reaffirmed its “commitment to the 10 March agreement” signed with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The ministry stressed there were “no intentions of launching new operations,” according to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA).
Read more: Kurdish, Government Forces Agree to Ceasefire in Aleppo
Meanwhile, the “Hawar” news agency reported that a delegation from the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria would travel to Damascus following the latest escalation.
The Interim Government’s Defence Minister announced on platform “X” that he had “met with General Mazloum Abdi in Damascus, and both sides agreed to a comprehensive ceasefire across all northern and north-eastern fronts, to take effect immediately.”
Government sources confirmed to Agence France-Presse that SDF Commander Mazloum Abdi met with Syrian Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa in Damascus. Aleppo Governor Azzam al-Gharib later posted that an “important meeting” was held in the capital to discuss developments in the city, reiterating the “importance of implementing the 10 March agreement and restoring normal life across Aleppo.”
The 10 March Agreement: Core of the Dispute
The 10 March Agreement remains one of the key frameworks governing coordination between the Interim Government and the SDF, designed to regulate administrative and security cooperation in northern Syria. Yet, delays in implementing its clauses have repeatedly triggered field tensions; as demonstrated by the Aleppo events.
Syrian political writer Darwish Khalifa told +963 that “postponing implementation of the 10 March Agreement will inevitably lead to more military violations between both sides.” He warned that “further delays risk deepening the societal divide between communities loyal to the current authorities and those opposing them.”
Khalifa argued that “Syria today faces a division that cannot be overcome except through full implementation of the agreement, followed by new national understandings leading to a re-drafted constitution and the integration of SDF forces into the state’s official institutions: the army, police, and ministries.”
He added that “the Syrian authorities have expressed a clear desire for national reconciliation despite internal and external obstacles,” and that Damascus “continues to implement agreements signed with the SDF and with Jordan, under the supervision of the U.S. envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack.”
“The objective,” Khalifa said, “is to end division, rebuild state institutions, and activate political and investment processes.”
He concluded that “American sponsorship has given the 10 March Agreement both political and popular momentum, securing regional acceptance. However, the SDF’s slow implementation remains an obstacle to a final settlement.”
“Progressive implementation,” Khalifa added, “could resolve nearly 90 per cent of local Syrian problems and gradually restore the country to stability and normalcy.”
SDF Reaffirms Commitment to a Unified Syria
In response, General Mazloum Abdi, Commander of the SDF, reiterated his forces’ commitment to “a unified Syria for all Syrians.” In a statement on “X,” he said he had discussed with U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack and CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper “the Syrian situation, continued counter-terrorism efforts against ISIS, and political integration efforts to preserve Syria’s unity and create a safe environment for all communities.”
Abdi added that “President Donald Trump and Ambassador Barrack have played a sincere and effective role toward the Syrian people in their efforts to reach a peaceful solution and a better future for Syria.”
Abdi’s remarks align with Khalifa’s assessment: consolidating the 10 March Agreement is vital to ensuring national unity and stabilising the northern region.
Aleppo Clashes Reflect Broader Regional Deals
Expanding the analysis beyond local dynamics, security researcher Brigadier General Naji Malaab told +963 that the recent Aleppo clashes appeared to have erupted “shortly after the meeting between Presidents Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Donald Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.”
According to Malaab, “what was exchanged between the two leaders signalled a U.S.–Turkish understanding that had immediate field repercussions, including approval for Turkey’s participation in certain defence and technology programmes previously under dispute.”
He added that this new alignment came alongside “U.S.–Israeli disagreements over Syria’s future and the so-called ‘David Corridor’ project.” Washington, Malaab explained, seeks to “maintain Syria as a unified state within the American orbit, enabling U.S.-aligned actors and states to invest under secure conditions; with Turkey allowed investment access, provided Ankara receives security guarantees, chiefly the prevention of a Kurdish entity hostile to it.”
By contrast, “Israel prefers a multi-administrative Syria, localised autonomous zones and provincial authorities, partly to preserve Kurdish autonomy in the north and establish a third self-governing entity in the south under sectarian or pragmatic pretexts.” Such a design, he warned, could “pave the way for demographic changes involving Palestinian or minority populations.”
Israel, Malaab continued, “also aims to link these southern zones with the Kurdish administration through a corridor running via the al-Tanf area, what is referred to as the ‘David Corridor’, designed to control vital transport routes from the Gulf and influence regional gas and energy pathways.”
“This divergence,” he concluded, “illustrates conflicting U.S. and Israeli priorities. Washington will accommodate Turkish security demands to prevent a Kurdish statelet, while Israel prefers decentralisation to justify its influence and ensure its control over regional energy and logistics routes.”
Analysts agree that the events in Aleppo mirror a complex intersection of local, regional, and international interests. The alignment between Abdi’s call for a unified Syria, Khalifa’s emphasis on implementing the 10 March Agreement, and Malaab’s insights on geopolitical manoeuvres suggests that the northern situation is far from a contained local issue.
While local residents in Aleppo cautiously welcome the current calm, the future of northern Syria remains uncertain; dependent on whether political agreements can be translated into practical commitments, and whether local unity can withstand the weight of competing regional agendas.
