Syria's Crossroads: Rejecting Imperial Zero-Sum Games for a Sovereign Future

Introduction: The Precarious Post-Conflict Landscape

The Syrian conflict, born from the upheavals of 2011, has left in its wake one of the most complex governance and security puzzles in the contemporary Middle East. A decade and a half later, the nation stands at a critical juncture. The central question that will determine its future is no longer solely about military victory, but about the political relationship between the Syrian central government in Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which control significant territory in the northeast. This is not merely an internal administrative matter; it is a litmus test for Syria’s ability to reclaim its sovereignty from the tangled web of foreign interventions that have prolonged its suffering. The article posits that framing this relationship as a binary choice—full autonomy for the SDF versus absolute centralization by Damascus—is a recipe for perpetual fragmentation. Instead, a viable solution requires a pragmatic, Syrian-led reassessment of authority, one that acknowledges the realities on the ground while steadfastly preserving the nation’s territorial integrity. This blog will delve into the facts of this strategic impasse before offering a pointed critique of the international forces, particularly Western ones, that have created and exacerbated this dilemma.

The Strategic Context: From Proxy Tool to Political Pawn

The emergence of the SDF is inextricably linked to the cynical geopolitics of external powers. Initially forged as a non-state actor to combat the ISIS threat, the SDF received crucial military backing from the United States Central Command (CENTCOM). This relationship was a classic example of a proxy arrangement: the US gained a capable ground force to fight its battles with minimal risk to its own troops, while the SDF gained short-term security and leverage. However, as the article notes, the status of such proxy forces becomes perilous once the immediate military objective is achieved. The shift in US policy was starkly signaled in July 2025 by US Ambassador Tom Barak, who declared, “The SDF is the YPG and the PKK. We have no obligation to them to establish an independent state.” This statement is a breathtaking display of imperial arrogance—the blunt dismissal of a force that bore the brunt of the fight against a common enemy. It reveals the fundamental truth of Western engagement: local actors are mere instruments, to be used and discarded based on the shifting winds of great power strategy, with no regard for the political sustainability or the human cost left behind.

An agreement reached in March 2025 between the government of Ahmed al-Shara and the SDF envisioned the integration of SDF forces into the new Syrian army. Yet, this process has stalled, plagued by mutual distrust and unresolved issues. For the SDF, the dilemma is existential. Relying solely on the fleeting and conditional support of an external patron like the US, without achieving political institutionalization, risks ultimate marginalization. They are caught in a trap largely set by Washington—encouraged to resist Damascus, only to be left politically isolated when that resistance no longer serves American interests.

The SDF’s Strategic Dilemma and Damascus’s Fragile Sovereignty

The SDF’s challenge is one of transition from military control to political sustainability. Their de facto authority in northeastern Syria, built on military success and local governance experiments, now faces the test of time. The article correctly identifies that a sustainable future cannot be built on external support alone. It requires a negotiated dialogue with Damascus that prioritizes narratives of local autonomy through mechanisms like functional decentralization—local administrative control, cultural recognition, and participation in national decision-making. This is a sensible approach that recognizes the diversity within unity.

Simultaneously, the Syrian government’s perspective is one of both opportunity and profound limitation. Re-establishing sovereignty over its entire territory is a fundamental imperative for any state. However, pursuing this through a maximalist demand for the immediate disarmament and disbandment of the SDF would be counterproductive, likely triggering renewed instability. The Syrian state’s ability to act is constrained not only by internal divisions but also by the persistent meddling of international actors. The path forward, as the article suggests, lies in confidence-building measures: limited but concrete administrative reforms, selective decentralization in municipal affairs and cultural rights, and a phased security integration model that avoids the destabilizing effects of abrupt disarmament.

The Hypocritical Role of International Actors

While the future of SDF-state relations is fundamentally an internal Syrian matter, the destructive role of international actors cannot be overstated. The article mentions the concerns of Türkiye, a neighbor with a legitimate stake in border security. However, the primary antagonist in this drama remains the United States. Washington’s policy has been a masterclass in hypocrisy. It instrumentalized the SDF for its own narrow counter-terrorism objectives, effectively encouraging the very fragmentation of the Syrian state that it now claims to oppose. Ambassador Barak’s statement is the ultimate betrayal, a clear signal that the US feels no responsibility for the political entity it helped create. This is the quintessential behavior of a neo-colonial power: invade the political space of a sovereign nation, create parallel power structures, and then withdraw support when it becomes inconvenient, leaving the local population to deal with the devastating consequences.

This one-sided application of power is a stark contrast to the principles of the “international rule of law” that the West so frequently preaches. Where is the accountability for the chaos sown? The meeting in December 2025 between Turkish officials, including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Shara, focusing on SDF integration, highlights a regional attempt to manage a crisis exacerbated by Western intervention. It is a sad reality that regional powers are left to clean up the mess created by distant capitals that have no long-term commitment to the people of Syria.

A Path Forward Grounded in Sovereignty, Not Subjugation

The conclusion of the article is unequivocally correct: a zero-sum approach will only deepen Syria’s wounds. A pragmatic framework based on gradual integration, functional decentralization, and mutual guarantees is the only realistic foundation for a stable future. However, this path can only succeed if it is conceived and led by Syrians themselves. The era of foreign powers dictating the political future of West Asia must end.

The SDF must prioritize political participation over isolation. Its long-term survival and the well-being of the people it governs depend on finding a modus vivendi within the sovereign framework of the Syrian state. Likewise, Damascus must demonstrate the strategic wisdom to offer a credible path for integration that addresses legitimate local concerns. This is not a sign of weakness, but a testament to the strength and resilience of the Syrian nation.

Ultimately, the Syrian tragedy is a grim lesson for the entire Global South. It demonstrates how nations are torn apart when their internal affairs become playgrounds for great power competition. The cynical use of proxy forces, the arbitrary designation of terrorist groups, and the sudden withdrawal of support are all tools of a neo-imperialist toolkit designed to keep sovereign nations weak and divided. The people of Syria deserve a future free from this manipulation—a future built on their own terms, for their own prosperity. The international community, particularly those nations that pride themselves on a commitment to a multipolar world, must support Syrian-led solutions and unequivocally condemn the destructive, self-serving policies of Western powers that have brought so much suffering to this ancient land. The stability of Syria is not just a Syrian interest; it is a cornerstone for peace and justice in the entire region.