As tensions rise, fate of Syria's SDF hangs in the balance
Following the recent unrest in Sweida, questions have resurfaced about the future of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led militia based in northeastern Syria.
Before the outbreak of violence in Suwayda, the SDF's path toward integration into the Syrian state had already faced major obstacles.
The group has maintained several key demands: political recognition of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, preservation of its military structure, and its incorporation into state institutions without disarmament.
However, the Syrian government's position remains firm.
Damascus has repeatedly rejected any federal or autonomous governance model, viewing it as a step toward partitioning the country.
The government also opposes the idea of the SDF retaining its weapons.
That was the status quo before the Sweida clashes. Did the events there alter the trajectory of SDF's potential integration into the Syrian state?
According to several analysts, the unrest in Sweida has not derailed the integration process but has further complicated it.
The SDF reportedly sees the escalation as justification to double down on its demands for political and security guarantees, particularly concerning the preservation of its military forces.
These concerns were echoed by SDF military spokesperson Abgar Daoud, who stated that in light of ongoing tensions, rising violence, and renewed threats from ISIS, disarming the group is not an option.
In the end, and according to observers who spoke to LBCI, a military confrontation remains on the table if efforts to disarm the SDF fail—especially with Turkey now involved.
Ankara views the SDF as a direct threat to its national security.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently warned, 'If you seek to divide and destabilize [the region], we will consider it a direct threat to our national security and we will intervene.'
Despite the heightened tensions and mutual distrust, military action remains a last resort for both Turkey and Syria.
For now, the door remains open for negotiations, which both sides may still view as the least costly path forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LBCI
19 hours ago
- LBCI
Hezbollah's arsenal through the years: A historical overview of its rise and impact
Report by Nada Andraos, English adaptation by Mariella Succar Since its founding in 1982, Hezbollah's arsenal has evolved from basic tools of local resistance into a fully integrated military system, now considered a key component of regional deterrence dynamics. This transformation was not just a result of technical battlefield advances but stemmed from sustained external support—first from Iran, then Syria—in weapons, training, and supply routes that ran from Iran to Lebanon via Syria. The development of Hezbollah's arsenal occurred in six phases: Phase One began during the organization's formation, with direct Iranian military assistance. Iran capitalized on the political and security vacuum created by the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, deploying its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps via Syria into the Bekaa Valley. There, members of what became known as "The Faithful Amal"—a group that split from the Amal Movement—underwent training in guerrilla warfare, ambush tactics, and the use of improvised explosive devices against the Israeli army, which was occupying large swaths of southern Lebanon. Iran began supplying Hezbollah with light and medium-range weapons. Phase Two spanned from 1990 to 2000. Following the Taif Agreement, Hezbollah's weapons remained the only arms outside state control, justified under the banner of resisting occupation. During this period, regional supply lines were expanded, providing the group with Katyusha rockets and anti-armor guided munitions. With Syria overseeing Lebanese political affairs at the time, Hezbollah assumed responsibility for security and military resistance. In 1996, Hezbollah's confrontation with Israel during 'Operation Grapes of Wrath' marked the first time its rockets were used as part of a deterrent strategy. The Israeli army's full withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 further solidified the group's legitimacy as a resistance force in the eyes of many Lebanese, instead of prompting disarmament. Phase Three, from 2000 to 2006, saw a qualitative leap in Hezbollah's arsenal, culminating in the July 2006 war with Israel. The group used medium-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets with ranges of 45 to 75 kilometers, along with Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles, which proved decisive in battle. Hezbollah also employed naval missiles to hit the Israeli Sa'ar warship and introduced tunnel networks and ground communication systems. Phase Four, from 2006 to 2012, reflected Hezbollah's shift toward strategic regional weaponry. Long-range missiles like Zelzal and Fateh-110, and even Scud missiles, reportedly entered the group's arsenal. Hezbollah also unveiled reconnaissance drones, such as the 'Mirsad.' Phase Five, from 2013 to 2020, coincided with Hezbollah's military involvement in Syria. Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, aware of the implications of Bashar al-Assad's potential fall, intensified efforts to preserve the group's advanced weapon supply routes. This period further expanded Hezbollah's battlefield experience and access to strategic weapons. Phase Six, from 2020 until just before the September 24 war, marked the height of Hezbollah's stockpiling. Reports during this period estimated its arsenal at over 150,000 missiles, including precision-guided munitions and drones capable of penetrating air defense systems. All of this weaponry was sourced from Iran and transported through Syria to Lebanon. However, in the most recent conflict, this arsenal proved insufficient against Israel's advanced technological capabilities, particularly its AI-driven warfare systems. This has raised questions: What remains of Hezbollah's rocket and aerial capabilities? Have they fulfilled their strategic purpose? Is it time to transition this arsenal toward the service of state-building?
Nahar Net
a day ago
- Nahar Net
Israel says it killed Hezbollah operative in east Lebanon
by Naharnet Newsdesk 06 August 2025, 11:54 The Israeli army said Wednesday that it killed a Hezbollah operative in the Bekaa region of east Lebanon who it said was directing militant cells in Syria. "Yesterday evening (Tuesday), the (Israeli air force)... struck the terrorist Hossam Qasem Ghorab, a Hezbollah terrorist who operated from Lebanese territory to direct terrorist cells in Syria," the army said in a statement. The Syria-based cells "planned to launch rocket attacks toward the Golan Heights," it added, referring the area annexed by Israel following the 1967 war with Syria. Lebanon's cabinet on Tuesday tasked the army with developing a plan to disarm militant group Hezbollah by the end of the year, an unprecedented step since civil war factions gave up their weapons decades ago. The decision followed heavy U.S. pressure and came as part of implementing a November ceasefire that sought to end more than a year of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah including two months of all-out war. The confrontation left the militant group badly weakened, though it retains part of its arsenal.
LBCI
2 days ago
- LBCI
Hezbollah's Qassem: Lebanon's interest lies in restoring sovereignty, while Israel's interest is in weakening Lebanon
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem ruled out accepting any new agreements with Israel, insisting that the original deal, referring to the November 27 understanding, must be implemented first. "We reject any new agreement. Any proposed timeline that falls under the shadow of Israeli aggression is unacceptable," he declared. Qassem accused Israel of reneging on its commitments and said developments in Syria have pushed Israel to reconsider its previous stance. "Israel reversed the agreement and did not abide by it. What happened in Syria greatly influenced the steps Israel took, and it now regrets formulating the agreement," he added. In response to recent statements by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, Qassem said, "What Barrack proposed serves Israel entirely. His conditions—disarming Lebanon, the resistance, and the people—are completely in Israel's favor." He revealed that Barrack's proposal includes disarming Hezbollah within 30 days, even down to hand grenades and mortar shells, which he described as "simple weapons." He also warned of a wider conflict: "If Israel launches a broader war on Lebanon, rockets will fall upon it." Qassem emphasized that Hezbollah had facilitated the Lebanese state's responsibilities under the November 27 deal, but stressed that Lebanon's priority remains "restoring sovereignty and achieving liberation," while "Israel's interest lies in weakening Lebanon." Qassem reiterated that Lebanon's interest lies in restoring sovereignty and liberation, while Israel's interest is in weakening Lebanon. He also stressed that the issue of resistance against Israel must be decided through national consensus and that disarmament should not be tied to any timeline.
