Khorshid Dali
With the end of the agreement between interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) commander General Mazloum Abdi approaching later this year, meetings between the SDF leadership and Sharaa’s government have intensified in search of a mutually acceptable framework to resolve persistent disputes. Signs of possible progress have emerged following the involvement of the United States, particularly after U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack’s visit to Hasakah in northeastern Syria and his meeting with Abdi, followed by expanded discussions in Damascus.
These developments coincide with growing diplomatic exchanges between Damascus and Ankara, which monitors every move and statement closely, viewing the process as directly tied to its national security concerns and regional influence.
The SDF Speaks, Damascus Remains Silent
Those following Mazloum Abdi’s recent remarks and those of other SDF and Autonomous Administration leaders, will notice an air of optimism about reaching lasting understandings with Damascus. Discussions about integrating SDF forces and Asayish security units into Syria’s defence and interior ministries have become more realistic, as committees begin examining the details and mechanisms of such integration.
Abdi’s statements about informal understandings and the formation of a committee to amend the constitutional declaration, ensuring equal rights for all Syrian communities and involving SDF counterterrorism units in nationwide operations, all align with the SDF’s vision. That vision has consistently rejected unilateral steps taken by the new authorities in Damascus, from the national dialogue to the constitutional declaration and parliamentary elections.
What stands out, however, is the contrast between the SDF’s active public engagement and Damascus’s silence. The government has made no official statements confirming or denying what SDF leaders have said, nor has state media mentioned the latest Shaar–Abdi meeting. This silence raises questions about the motives behind it; whether it reflects a strategic calculation or hesitation over the potential consequences of a deal with the SDF.
The ambiguity could also be linked to renewed tensions in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh in Aleppo, sporadic clashes near Deir Hafer, and fresh unrest in Deir ez-Zor. Above all, Damascus appears to be listening carefully to Ankara’s position, as Turkey presents itself as the primary stakeholder in any such agreement, framing it as a matter of national security and part of its ongoing struggle with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
Meanwhile, the United States continues to act as a balancing force; defusing tensions, narrowing political gaps, and mediating between competing regional interests, particularly those of Turkey and Israel.
Read also: International Recognition of Syria’s Elections: Between Necessity and Influence
Is There a Way Out?
Rigid positions cannot yield national solutions, nor can all-encompassing ideological visions create the practical compromises needed for countries emerging from conflict, especially one as socially and historically diverse as Syria. The tension between Damascus’s insistence on centralised control and demands from other sides for autonomy or federalism reflects a formula for continued conflict rather than national recovery.
Finding a viable exit therefore depends on crafting a political framework that can reconcile these competing forces. Military solutions have only brought devastation, as seen in the atrocities committed in coastal regions and Suwayda; reminders of the cost of failing to reach political consensus.
Many analysts believe the path forward lies in a gradual, participatory decentralisation that balances central authority with local autonomy, shaped by Syria’s specific social and political realities. Such an approach requires an inclusive political process with constitutional and legal guarantees, ensuring balanced regional interests and stability among all actors involved in the Syrian file.
The Autonomous Administration in north-east Syria, with its civil, military, and security institutions, is now a tangible reality that cannot be ignored. Any framework based on submission or domination would only lead to renewed conflict, division, and chaos.
Therefore, the best path forward lies in managing the transition through shared governance and constitutional order; easing tensions, fostering stability, and rebuilding a state shattered not only in its infrastructure but in its social and human fabric.
