Damascus–SDF deal remains temporary security arrangement – Syrian politician
QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Anas Joudeh, head of the Nation Building Movement, said on Sunday that the agreement between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) remains, at its core, a temporary security understanding, stressing that the real test “lies in the ability to transform this agreement into a sustainable national political process, rather than merely a transitional management of contradictions.”
Speaking to North Press, Joudeh said the agreement does not constitute a full political solution, but rather an attempt to temporarily manage deep-seated and dangerous contradictions that have accumulated over years of war.
He noted that “the value of this agreement lies in the fact that it opens a narrow window for the possibility of breaking the cycle of violence and division.”
The Syrian politician said the success of the Damascus–SDF agreement depends on turning it from a security arrangement into a genuine political track, “something that is not guaranteed so far.”
Joudeh added that the SDF now stands at a difficult crossroads after being relieved of the burden of direct military confrontation with the Islamic State (ISIS), which creates political space that had not previously been available.
He explained that the most important opportunity offered by the agreement is the expansion of political action beyond defending the rights of a specific region, toward presenting a comprehensive national vision for decentralization and pluralism across Syria.
“This path requires a shift from the logic of closed local administration to that of national political engagement,” Joudeh said, calling for the activation of political offices in Damascus and the governorates, the building of relationships with other Syrian forces, and possibly the formation of a broader national political framework.
He also stressed the need to open a wide debate on the shape of the state and the future of local governance.
Joudeh warned that the real danger lies in the process stalling at the level of a “cold truce,” with neither open war nor genuine integration, while each side retains its own structures and influence—leaving tensions postponed rather than resolved.
On the seriousness of the agreement, Joudeh said it is more credible than previous attempts, not because it is more complete, but because all parties are compelled by current circumstances to pursue it.
“I anticipate a scenario of partial and fragile success,” he said, “based on achieving limited positive steps while sensitive files remain unresolved.”
He noted that tensions are likely to resurface whenever discussions approach issues of resources or local governance, predicting an outcome that would be neither a return to full-scale war nor the achievement of real stability.
Regarding regional factors, Joudeh described Turkey as the most significant challenge to the continuity of the agreement, arguing that Ankara does not view the Kurdish issue in Syria as a political matter open to settlement, but rather as an existential national security concern.
“Turkey possesses direct tools of pressure, including military presence, allied factions, and political influence, along with a constant readiness to intervene,” he said, adding that any formula that preserves an organized Kurdish political–military structure, even within the framework of the Syrian state, will be met with deep suspicion and intense pressure.
Joudeh concluded that the absence of clear political and constitutional guarantees makes the agreement “vulnerable to erosion at the first serious test,” stressing that turning it into a sustainable process requires a genuine shift from the local to the national, and from the military to the political sphere.
“While success is not guaranteed,” he said, “the alternative—returning to the logic of war—is far more costly and dangerous for everyone.”