What is happening in Syria’s north and who decides next?

 

Northern Syria is entering a transitional phase marked by negotiated political change rather than large-scale warfare. After more than a decade of fragmented military and administrative arrangements, the current trajectory points toward recentralization through dialogue, confidence-building measures, and gradual governance integration. This shift reflects the waning of exceptional wartime conditions linked to the fight against ISIS and prolonged foreign military involvement.

The Syrian government has reasserted control over most major population centers and strategic corridors, with recent extensions into areas previously governed by parallel security arrangements occurring with limited civilian disruption. Security challenges, such as underground tunnel networks, remain localized and are being addressed selectively as part of stabilization efforts rather than nationwide combat operations.

The future of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) appears increasingly tied to political accommodation rather than military confrontation. Structural fragmentation and weak social cohesion make their collective survival as a unified entity unlikely. The most probable outcome is the individual integration of fighters into state institutions, alongside a political process focused on local governance, representation, and constitutional guarantees. The success of this transition will depend primarily on inclusive internal negotiations rather than external pressure.

Commenting on the issue in an interview with News.Az, Dr. Ammar Kahf, co-founder and executive director of Omran Center for Strategic Studies and a board member of the Syrian Forum, said Northern Syria is moving through a fluid transitional period, shifting away from fragmented military control toward negotiated political recentralization rather than renewed large-scale warfare.

He noted that current developments do not amount to a sudden collapse of existing structures, but rather a gradual unwinding of parallel armed and administrative systems that emerged under exceptional circumstances, primarily the fight against the Islamic State and years of international military involvement. “As those conditions change, the situation is increasingly defined by limited military pressure, political signaling, confidence-building measures, and early negotiations on a future governance model,” Kahf said.

According to Kahf, the process is not a zero-sum contest. Instead, the overall direction points toward constitutional, political, and administrative integration, with decentralization discussed as a governance mechanism rather than a path to separation. While fragile and uneven, he said, the current phase differs fundamentally from earlier cycles of escalation.

Kahf added that the central government has reasserted control over most major population centers and strategic corridors, including Damascus, Homs, Hama, Aleppo, coastal regions, and much of the south. “Recent moves have extended state control into areas previously managed through parallel security arrangements, including two Kurdish-majority districts of Aleppo, with minimal disruption to civilians,” he said.

On security issues, Kahf noted that underground tunnel networks remain localized, mainly in former front-line zones where non-state groups had anticipated prolonged confrontation. Clearance efforts, he said, are proceeding selectively, prioritizing urban safety, critical infrastructure, and the prevention of sabotage, and are linked to stabilization rather than nationwide combat operations.

Addressing the future of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Kahf said he does not expect their fate to be decided through renewed large-scale fighting. He argued that the group has already fragmented as a unified political-military project, weakened by internal contradictions, limited social roots, and strained relations with Arab tribes. “The most likely outcome is selective and conditional integration of individuals into the Syrian Arab Army under a unified command, followed by political participation through local governance structures, parliament, and constitutional guarantees,” he said.

Kahf also commented on Israel’s position, arguing that it should be viewed through a strategic lens. He said Israel’s primary concern has been preventing hostile actors from establishing a military foothold in Syria, rather than sustaining non-state armed groups. In his assessment, Israel is unlikely to support prolonged fragmentation and may instead tacitly accept a managed integration process that avoids new security threats along its borders.

“Overall, the key issue is not identifying winners or losers, but whether Syria can move from militarized governance toward political integration — a process that will depend primarily on the success of internal negotiations rather than external intervention,” Kahf said.