TEHRAN — The main Kurdish fighting force in northeast Syria — commonly known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — has reached a centralization agreement with the government under Ahmed al-Sharaa, reflecting a shift in how several key areas in the northeast will be managed following recent developments on the ground.

For years, Kurdish-led authorities oversaw large parts of the northeast, including oil fields, border crossings, and key towns. That arrangement has now changed. Kurdish forces have withdrawn from areas such as Deir al Zor and Raqqa, and their fighters will join state institutions as individuals rather than as organized units. This method aims to prevent the creation of separate armed structures and to unify different groups under a single administrative system after a prolonged period of division.

This development is closely linked to the role of regional powers. Turkey has welcomed the agreement, but its actions throughout the Syrian conflict — which began after the Arab Spring protests in 2011 and unfolded during the previous government — have been mixed. Early in the war, Ankara supported armed opposition groups, which helped turn political unrest into a full-scale conflict. Later, Turkish military operations in northern Syria created new areas of instability and displacement. Although Turkey now speaks about stability, its policies have often focused on its own security concerns rather than the long term needs of Syrians.

Arab states also influenced the direction of the conflict. Their support for armed groups in the early years of the Syrian conflict weakened state institutions and deepened regional rivalries. Over time, many of these states shifted their positions, moving from calls for regime change to restoring ties with Damascus. This inconsistency left many Syrians doubtful about their intentions. While Arab governments now talk about reconstruction and unity, their earlier involvement played a major role in the fragmentation that Syria is still trying to overcome.

The most powerful outside actors, however, have been the United States and Israel. Under the Bashar al-Assad government, the United States used sanctions, political pressure, and covert programs that weakened Syrian institutions without offering a realistic political path forward. These policies made internal tensions worse and left the country more vulnerable to conflict. Israel’s repeated airstrikes inside Syria, both before and after the fall of al-Assad in December 2024, were aimed at shaping regional power balances rather than supporting Syrian stability. These actions disrupted security and added to the country’s long-term instability.

During the current period, the United States has continued to influence events in the northeast. Its military presence shaped local governance and complicated efforts to rebuild a unified system. Washington’s shifting approach — supporting Kurdish forces while also working with the al-Sharaa government — created confusion and mistrust. Israel’s ongoing air operations have further limited Syria’s ability to restore security and rebuild damaged areas.

Across the country, Syrians are tired. More than a decade of conflict has destroyed infrastructure, weakened the economy, and left most people living in poverty. Reports of relief in some cities after the agreement between the SDF and the al-Sharaa administration show how desperate people are for calm, not because they support any one side, but because they want daily life to become more stable and predictable.

The road ahead is difficult. Integrating fighters from different backgrounds will require careful planning. Tribal politics in the east remain sensitive and could challenge the agreement. Oil and gas fields must be secured if Syria hopes to rebuild its economy, but these sites remain vulnerable. The presence of foreign militaries, especially U.S. forces, continues to complicate Syria’s sovereignty. And the shift from military operations to civilian governance will require patience, discipline, and a commitment to protecting all communities.

The centralization deal is an important moment, but it is not the end of Syria’s challenges. It may help reduce fragmentation, but it also highlights the heavy impact of foreign intervention and regional competition. Turkey and several Arab states played major roles in the instability that made such agreements necessary. The United States and Israel, through years of pressure and military action, repeatedly weakened Syria’s sovereignty and prolonged the conflict. Whether this agreement leads to real recovery will depend on how Syrian institutions manage the next phase — and whether outside powers finally allow Syria the space to rebuild on its own terms.