A few days ago, it seemed that the fighting between Syrian government forces and Kurdish militias was over. The Syrian army announced on January 11 that it had taken control of several neighborhoods in Aleppo that were previously under the control of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The Kurdish forces of the SDF were defeated and withdrew. During the fighting, many buildings were destroyed, there were deaths, and according to some reports, more than 140,000 people left the region, at least temporarily.
On Tuesday, the army accused the Kurds of regrouping militarily, supposedly acting in coordination with remnants of the former Assad regime. With this argument, the Syrian transitional government declared the territories east of Aleppo a military zone with limited access. Subsequently, there have apparently been further clashes and targeted bridge destruction, although the two sides' claims differ. The conflict is expected to escalate in the coming days.
Agreement reached between Damascus and the Kurds fails
The reason for the escalation of tensions was another failed negotiation between the government in Damascus, led by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, and the Kurdish leadership on the political and military integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces into the state system of governance. While the central government insisted that they be fully subordinate to the Syrian army, the Kurds demanded guarantees of autonomy, local self-government and their own security structures. Although the two sides signed an agreement in principle in March 2025, the issue of military integration remained controversial, so this agreement was never implemented.
The Kurdish self-government in northern and eastern Syria emerged in 2012 in the context of a power vacuum caused by the country's civil war. The SDF gained international importance in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, which it managed to repel with the support of the United States. Since 2018, the territory has operated autonomously as the Democratic Federation of Northern and Eastern Syria.
An agreement concluded in October 2025 with the mediation of the United States opened the way to resolving the dispute through the military integration of the Kurds into the Syrian army. The document provides for the inclusion of the SDF as independent units with their own command structure. In this way, their collective identity would be preserved, while Damascus would officially regain control over the corresponding territory in the northeast of the country and the military units operating there.
Kurds want to guarantee their rights
Many of the Kurds' demands are politically understandable, says historian and Middle East expert Birgit Schäbler from the University of Erfurt. "The Kurds demand reliable cultural and political rights based on their historical experience. They were discriminated against by both Assad governments, their language was temporarily banned, and although they represent a significant part of the population, they were never able to realize their potential."
After these traumatic experiences, they wanted to prevent a repeat of marginalization and sought a limited form of self-government, such as cultural participation and recognition in the education system, says the history professor, who until 2022 directed the Institute of the Orient in Beirut.
However, Schebler also understands the interests of the Syrian transitional government - any form of decentralization carries the risk of provoking similar demands in other parts of the country, she says. In addition, powerful neighbor Turkey rejects any form of Kurdish self-government and considers the Syrian Democratic Forces to be an offshoot of the PKK.
Ankara supports the integration of Kurdish fighters into the Syrian army individually, rather than as unified Kurdish formations. The disagreements on this issue are the main reason for the failure of the negotiations, the expert claims.
What is the US position?
So far, the US has followed a rather ambivalent line. On the one hand, it strives for a united Syrian state and explicitly supports Syrian interim president al-Sharaa despite his past as a leader of a jihadist militia. On the other hand, for security reasons, it continues to rely on the Kurds, especially in the fight against the resurgent "Islamic State".
The role of the United States at the moment is difficult to assess, says Schebler: "The most striking thing is their silence. It is not clear whether they are consciously keeping a low profile or simply letting the conflict develop. The second option would be problematic."
A new civil war would be devastating for Syria
A number of analysts are calling for quick steps to build trust to prevent further escalation. The Kurds must recognize state sovereignty, for example by handing over border crossings and regulating oil supplies, the Washington-based think tank "Arab Center" wrote in an analysis. At the same time, Damascus must involve the Kurds more closely in the political process and take responsibility for security in the northeast of the country. Without progress, Syria risks fragmenting again - with very serious consequences for the region.
Birgit Schebler shares this view. In the worst case, open war could break out, says the Middle East researcher. "I still think that is unlikely, but the risk is real. And since it concerns about about 30 percent of Syrian territory, the consequences of an escalation would be very serious." For Schebler, a new civil war would be devastating for the development of all of Syria.
Author: Kersten Knip