By Saadula Aqrawi
Yes, for over a decade, US policy in Syria was anchored to its partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces SDF a multi-ethnic coalition dominated by Kurdish units primarily to defeat the Islamic State ISIS and stabilize the northeast. The SDF proved one of Washington’s most effective local partners in dismantling the ISIS territorial “caliphate” and managing detention facilities holding thousands of suspects and family members. However, recent developments have dramatically altered Washington’s calculus.
The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024 and the rise of a new Syrian government, has reshaped the conflict’s political dynamics. At the same time, Syria’s new leadership officially joined the US-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS in late 2025, signaling willingness to cooperate with Washington on counterterrorism, a major shift from prior years. Support for Syria’s reconstruction, reintegration of former combatants, and normalization of state functions after 13+ years of conflict. While Washington once supported autonomy for Kurdish-led forces and even hosted SDF commanders in diplomatic talks the United States now sees the foundation for its Syria mission as having shifted. According to the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, the original rationale for the US-Kurdish alliance (a lack of a functioning central government) is no longer valid. He has urged Kurdish leaders to embrace integration into a unified Syrian state Administration. Although differences persist such as Kurdish demands for genuine local autonomy and security guarantees both sides have signaled willingness to continue dialogue with the United States.The diplomacy often acts as a mediator.
The shift in US strategy has left Kurdish communities in a precarious position. Many feel abandoned by their former ally after years of partnership against ISIS, and the end of sustained US support has weakened the SDF’s territorial autonomy. Integrating Kurdish fighters into a centralized Syrian army raises security and identity concerns among Kurds who had administered their regions with semi-autonomy for years. And of course supporting a unified Syrian state as a bulwark against further fragmentation and external interventions, whether from Iran, Russia, or other actors.I believe that neighboring states, especially Turkey, have underscored the ceasefire’s importance amid the transfer of detainees and ongoing tensions, hoping to prevent renewed conflict and instability on their borders.
I do believe that the United States’ evolving strategy in Syria signifies a historic pivot: from a proxy alliance with Kurdish forces toward a broader endorsement of Syria’s central government. This reflects shifting realities on the ground, the changing nature of American geopolitical interests, and the desire to consolidate counterterrorism and state stability efforts under a singular national authority. While this approach offers a potential pathway to a more unified and stable Syria, it also raises complex questions regarding Kurdish rights, regional balance, and the durability of peace in a theater long marked by conflict. The success of this strategy will depend on negotiations, protections for minorities, and inclusive governance that can address the legacy of distrust and division left by years of war.