Translated by Irene Cecchi
Following the historic agreement signed in March between the interim government in Damascus and the Kurdish Authority in northeastern Syria, the truce now appears to be in jeopardy. Recent political and military tensions, culminating in the Kurdish conference held in Qamishli and Damascus’s harsh reaction, are endangering an agreement that had offered a glimmer of hope for stability in one of the Middle East’s most strategic and turbulent regions.
The March Agreement: a significant step forward. On March 11th 2025, Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa and the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Mazloum Abdi, signed a deal described as “historic”. The agreement included an immediate ceasefire and the gradual integration of Kurdish civil and military institutions into Syria’s central administration. Key points included constitutional recognition of Kurdish minority rights, the use of the Kurdish language, political participation and joint control over strategic infrastructure such as oil fields, airports and border checkpoints.
The agreement marked a major advance after decades of conflict and marginalization and was viewed as a potential model for national reconciliation following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024. In this context, the integration of the SDF into the Syrian army and guarantees of cultural and political rights were seen as essential for a peaceful and unified future.
Early signs of implementation were encouraging: the SDF began withdrawing from key urban areas, transferring security control to the Damascus government, and both sides initiated a prisoner exchange.
The Qamishli conference and political fracture. However, the truce took a major hit with the Kurdish conference held in Qamishli on April 26th, which brought together over 400 Kurdish representatives from across Syria. The final document reaffirmed the call for a “democratic and decentralized” Syria that ensures the national rights of the Kurdish people, raising suspicions in Damascus.
Despite reassurances from Mazloum Abdi, who ruled out any separatist intentions, the Syrian government responded with a firm rejection. On April 27th, the interim presidency condemned the conference as an attempt to “impose a separatist reality”, reaffirming that “the unity of Syria is a red line” and that no autonomy threatening national sovereignty would be tolerated.
Rising tensions on the ground: resource control and military presence. Political tensions quickly translated into concrete actions. The Syrian army reinforced its presence around the Tishrin Dam, a key water infrastructure previously controlled by the SDF. This move was seen as Damascus’s attempt to reassert control over vital northeastern resources, especially oil and water, critical for the country’s reconstruction.
Meanwhile, former commanders of the Syrian National Army, now integrated into government forces, assumed leadership roles, heightening Kurdish fears of potential repression. These officers are known for their adversarial history with Kurdish militias and are under international sanctions for human rights violations.
U.S. role and risk of instability. The United States maintains a limited military presence in northeastern Syria, with special forces engaged in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State, which remains a real threat. SDF-run prisons and camps hold thousands of jihadist detainees, and the collapse of the agreement could lead to escapes and a new wave of violence.
Washington thus finds itself in a delicate position, trying to mediate between the parties to prevent an escalation that could endanger regional stability and the progress made in counterterrorism.
Uncertain prospects for Northeastern Syria. The future of the dialogue between Damascus and the Kurds remains uncertain. The new Syrian constitution proposed by the interim president centralizes power and does not foresee a significant role for the Kurds, who are instead demanding participation and recognition. Prominent Kurdish leader Ilham Ahmed stated that “building a united Syria requires the participation of all its components, including the Kurds”.
If the March agreement were to completely collapse, the risk is a return to open hostilities, with repercussions not only domestically but also for the broader geopolitical stability of the Middle East.
What to Expect? The truce between Damascus and the Syrian Kurds had offered a concrete hope for stability and reconciliation after years of civil war. However, recent political and military tensions are challenging this fragile balance. Control over strategic resources, political disagreements about the nature of the Syrian state and international pressures are making the future uncertain.
The international community —especially the United States— will continue to play a crucial role in preventing escalation and promoting an inclusive dialogue that could bring peace and stability to a region long ravaged by conflict.
Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025