logo
SDF Factions: Uncertain Scenarios in Complex Relations with Damascus

SDF Factions: Uncertain Scenarios in Complex Relations with Damascus

Asharq Al-Awsat14-02-2025

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) pose the main challenge to Syria's new administration, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, as it seeks to move past the conflict and rebuild the state.
While efforts focus on forming a unified army under state control, most factions have agreed to join the Defense Ministry. However, the SDF insists on keeping its independent military structure and refuses to disband or integrate its fighters individually. Instead, it wants to remain a single unit within the new army.
This stance contradicts the administration's position, which rejects any military force outside the new national army.
Syrian Administration's Stance on the SDF
The new Syrian administration has repeatedly emphasized that negotiations remain its primary approach to resolving its dispute with the SDF, with several rounds of talks held in recent months.
Syrian government sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that 'negotiations are still the main option, and preparations are underway for new rounds in an effort to reach a comprehensive solution that eliminates any risk of future conflict.'
They added that the government's policy is based on 'unifying the country and preventing any military factions from operating outside the Defense Ministry's authority.'
The sources also stressed that 'the Kurdish issue is an internal Syrian matter and should not rely on external actors for a resolution.
Competing Agendas
Khaled al-Shuayti, one of the few Arab military commanders within the SDF in Deir Ezzor, said Arab tribes involved in the SDF through alliances and fighters 'will not engage in a confrontation with the new Syrian state.'
Given the geography in which the SDF operates, it has forged alliances with local Arab communities and tribes in surrounding areas. Arab fighters number around 2,000 or slightly more, but they have little influence over the SDF's internal and external policies.
'If the Kurdish leadership insists on pursuing non-Syrian agendas, Arab fighters will break away from the SDF,' al-Shuayti told Asharq Al-Awsat.
A faction within the SDF, led by Mazloum Abdi, supports talks with Damascus but faces opposition from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leadership, which refuses to disarm before securing key demands.
These include keeping the SDF as a single unit within Syria's Defense Ministry and granting Kurds some form of autonomy.
Abdi, born Ferhad Abdi Sahin in Ain al-Arab (Kobani) in 1967, fought alongside the PKK and is a close associate of its jailed leader, Abdullah Ocalan. He helped establish the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which later became the military wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD).
Abdi's push for negotiations with Damascus coincides with expectations that Ocalan may soon call for disarmament and an end to military action.
Al-Shuayti believes Abdi is stalling to ease pressure while securing political gains for Syria's Kurds, including a role in governance and constitutional guarantees.
Researcher Firas Faham from the Abaad Center for Strategic Studies told Asharq Al-Awsat that the new Syrian administration prefers diplomacy with the SDF, using Türkiye's military threats as leverage to push the group into talks with Damascus.
However, the SDF is unlikely to make major decisions until US President Donald Trump clarifies his stance on withdrawing American troops from Syria.
'The SDF wants to retain its military structure within the Syrian army and maintain special administrative control over its territories,' Faham said.
'Damascus, on the other hand, may be open to granting Kurdish local councils some autonomy and recognizing certain cultural rights. But when it comes to military control, the Syrian government remains firm on maintaining a unified command,' he added.
Possible Scenarios
According to Faham, the future of relations between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces hinges largely on whether Trump decides to keep or withdraw American troops from Syria.
The first scenario is a negotiated agreement in which the SDF drops what Damascus considers unrealistic demands, including maintaining its forces as a unified bloc within the Syrian army and abandoning its push for federal autonomy in areas under its control.
The second scenario is military confrontation if the SDF refuses to reach an agreement with Damascus. In this case, Türkiye could intervene alongside the new Syrian army, leading to a likely military defeat for the SDF without securing any gains.
The third scenario is maintaining the status quo, with the SDF retaining control over its forces and continuing to govern areas east of the Euphrates separately from the new Syrian administration. Currently, the SDF operates like a state within a state, with its own military and security forces and territory beyond Damascus' control.
Internal divisions within the SDF further complicate the situation. One faction, led by Abdi, aligns with the West, while another, the Qandil faction—considered the most powerful—maintains close ties with Iran. This faction is dominated by PKK leaders from both Syria and Türkiye.
Faham noted that Iran is strengthening its alliance with the Qandil faction within the SDF, viewing it as a tool to maintain influence in Syria after the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Kurds within Hayat Tahrir al-Sham
Kurdish activist Kurdi Ayubi, an Islamist who opposes the nationalist ideology represented by the SDF and who previously fought with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), estimates that only a few hundred Kurds share his views.
He argues that the real power in SDF-controlled areas remains in the hands of the PKK.
Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Ayubi explained that 'cadres' — fighters who initially served with the PKK and later joined the SDF after the Syrian revolution began — became involved in fighting with the start of the battle of Kobani against ISIS.
These cadres come from various nationalities, including Turkish, Syrian, and Iranian Kurds.
'The Syrian cadres work almost openly, as seen with figures like Abdi, Farhad Shami, and Bulat Jan, alongside prominent women leaders such as Ilham Ahmed, who was a key fighter in the PKK,' added Ayubi.
Ayubi said any agreement with the Syrian government would need approval from Qandil, with the final solution depending on the relationship between Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan and imprisoned PKK leader Ocalan.
He suggested the best approach for Damascus is to follow two paths: one, direct talks with the Qandil faction, and two, engaging with Kurdish tribal leaders in Kobani, Qamishli, and nearby areas.
Ayubi said: 'Qandil wants a normal relationship with Damascus, as long as it remains discreet.'
He added that reaching an agreement with Qandil would allow Damascus to enter the region peacefully.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule

Saudi Gazette

time8 hours ago

  • Saudi Gazette

The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule

DELHI — In the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the state of emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country — not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralized state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book. In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system — one that would centralize executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus. Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy — even if it never fully materialized. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system, the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure". What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president — freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes. The model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France — concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights — right to equality or freedom of speech, for example — of their justiciability. Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have a two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted — was unimpressed. When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" — effectively neutering the Supreme Court. Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognized it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual session. The idea never fully crystallized into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralized executive authority. The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's power. It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend the President's Rule — direct federal rule — from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's reach. This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint — a powerful executive, marginalized judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favor of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defense Minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976. "The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof Raghavan. By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president. After Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party — a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces — moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances. Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system. In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus". Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency. Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy — especially after 1967 — grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallized into serious political thinking. "The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design — most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC. "During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way." The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance — even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy. — BBC

Russia Says its Troops Reach Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk Region
Russia Says its Troops Reach Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk Region

Asharq Al-Awsat

timea day ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

Russia Says its Troops Reach Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk Region

The Russian Defense Ministry said on Sunday that Russian forces reached Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region and continued their advance there. It also said that Russian troops captured the village of Zoria in Ukraine's Donetsk region. Moscow, which has the initiative on the battlefield, has repeatedly refused calls by Ukraine, Europe and US President Donald Trump for a full and unconditional ceasefire. At talks in Istanbul last week it demanded Kyiv pull troops back from the frontline, agree to end all Western arms support and give up on its ambitions to join the NATO military alliance. Dnipropetrovsk is not among the five Ukrainian regions over which Russia has asserted a formal territorial claim. It is an important mining and industrial hub for Ukraine and deeper Russian advances into the region could have a serious knock-on effect for Kyiv's struggling military and economy. Dnipropetrovosk was estimated to have a population of around three million people before Russia launched its offensive. Around one million people lived in the regional capital, Dnipro.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store