BEIRUT – More than seven months after the March 10 agreement between Syria’s de facto ruler Ahmad al-Sharaa (al-Jolani) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) commander Mazloum Abdi, the deal lies in tatters.

Despite pledges to reduce its presence, Washington has intensified both diplomatic and military activity in northeastern Syria. 

CENTCOM officials, including Admiral Brad Cooper, are mediating to ensure gradual SDF–Syrian army integration. However, recent U.S. base fortifications, troop reinforcements, and new deployments expose a stark contradiction between America’s public withdrawal rhetoric and its continued strategic entrenchment, reflecting uncertainty over its long-term influence and objectives in post-war Syria.

Contradictions in policy: Withdrawal announcements vs. military buildup

Since early 2025, U.S. convoys have visibly moved across the Iraqi border—ostensibly to relocate equipment as part of the downsizing plan. However, Kurdish field sources confirm that the process of dismantling U.S. bases abruptly halted nearly four months ago. 
The reasons are multilayered: the resurgence of ISIS cells in Deir Ezzor and Hasakah, the fragility of local governance under the transitional Syrian administration, and rising internal unrest, particularly in Suwayda and the coastal regions. 
From Washington’s perspective, the growing instability in Syria provides both a justification and an opportunity—one that allows it to extend its stay under the pretext of “ensuring security.”

Strategic motives behind the U.S. presence

The American calculus goes beyond counterterrorism. By maintaining a stronghold east of the Euphrates, the U.S. preserves leverage over both Damascus and its allies, particularly Iran and Russia. 
This presence enables Washington to monitor and potentially block the “land corridor” connecting Tehran to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria.
Recent movements, such as the arrival of over 100 U.S. trucks carrying logistical and military equipment through the al-Waleed crossing and the deployment of advanced radar and air-defense systems, suggest preparation for a long-term stay, not an imminent departure. 
Three major bases in Hasakah (Tel Baydar, Khirab al-Jir and al-Shaddadi) now serve as logistical hubs linking smaller outposts across Deir Ezzor and Raqqa.
U.S. forces have reactivated air defense systems, increased live-fire exercises, and introduced new surveillance technologies, signaling readiness for potential escalation rather than withdrawal.

Political dimensions: “Integration” of SDF and the U.S. leverage game

At the political level, Washington’s current policy is closely tied to the fate of the SDF. According to reports, U.S. officials are pushing to finalize the March 10 Agreement, an initiative aimed at integrating SDF units into the new transitional government’s army.
SDF Commander Mazloum Abdi confirmed that an “initial agreement” had been reached with Damascus to merge SDF forces into the national military while maintaining their operational control in northeastern Syria.
The U.S. sees this arrangement as a strategic hedge in a way that it ensures a friendly military force remains in the region even if U.S. troops are reduced. 
This model mirrors Washington’s approach in Iraq after 2011, where “security partnerships” replaced direct military occupation but continued to ensure American influence.

Broader geopolitical context: A controlled stalemate

Ultimately, the U.S. military posture in Syria reflects a broader geopolitical logic rather than a clear endgame. The Biden and now Trump administrations have both relied on ambiguity to sustain flexibility, neither committing to withdrawal nor admitting to an indefinite presence. 
The “reduction” narrative appeases domestic audiences tired of foreign wars, while the ongoing buildup reassures regional allies such as Israel and the Kurdish leadership. Yet this strategy risks deepening Syria’s fragmentation, preventing the emergence of a unified state, and perpetuating the cycle of insecurity Washington claims to combat. 
The quiet reinforcement of bases, new air-defense installations, and intensified coordination with SDF forces point to a sustained American military architecture east of the Euphrates, one designed to maintain leverage in any future political settlement.