Syria's Kurds Shift to Political Struggle After SDF

The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has formally announced its dissolution as part of an integration process into the Syrian state. Interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa subsequently appointed SDF commander Mazlum Abdi as a presidential adviser.

This move ends the SDF's role as a major military actor in the Syrian conflict, a role it held for over a decade, notably in the fight against the Islamic State. For Syria's Kurds, the struggle now shifts decisively from the military arena to the political sphere.

A Process Marked by Distrust

The integration process, which began in January 2026, has not been smooth. The Arab Digest report states it has been marked by distrust, tensions, and occasional violence. Government measures like recognizing Kurdish as a national language and granting citizenship to those stripped of it in 1962 are seen as commendable but insufficient. The report argues these steps are not enough to make Syria's Kurds feel they have a meaningful stake in national politics.

The developments are not viewed as part of a genuine, inclusive political transition. Instead, they are seen as the product of converging pressures. These include Damascus's desire to recentralize power, Ankara's insistence on the SDF's dissolution, and Washington's preference to move away from its SDF partnership and redirect support toward Damascus.

Kurdish Demands and the Autonomy Question

Historically, Kurdish demands focused on basic ethnic, cultural rights, and political representation. Successive Damascus governments are accused of restricting the Kurdish language, confiscating lands, and suppressing cultural expression.

The Syrian war allowed Kurds to establish de facto self-rule across nearly one-third of Syria's territory for over a decade. This experience expanded their demands to include greater autonomy, self-government, and decentralization. The SDF's dissolution and its abandonment of pursuing a decentralized system should not be mistaken for Kurds no longer wanting these forms of governance, the report cautions. It also notes the SDF and its political affiliates should not be assumed to represent all segments of Syria's roughly three million Kurds.

Decentralization as a Broader Safeguard

For Syrian Kurds, decentralization is both a means of protecting their political gains and a broader safeguard against a return to authoritarian centralism. The report argues it is not solely about securing special arrangements for Kurds. It is also about preventing a return to a heavily centralized system that allowed Damascus governments to suppress political freedoms, marginalize minorities, and concentrate power.

This distinction is important. Even if Damascus addressed domestic Kurdish demands on language, representation, and culture, those gains would remain vulnerable if the broader political system continued to concentrate power in the capital. Without meaningful political participation, institutional checks, and decentralized governance, Kurdish rights could depend on the central government's goodwill rather than durable institutions.

The Wider Minority Context

The situation of other communities in Syria reinforces this concern. The report states Damascus is not close to resolving tensions with the Druze in the south, where the Druze-majority area of Swaida is effectively under siege. The situation among Alawites in the coastal region remains tense following violence in March 2025. Christians across the country continue to face occasional harassment and intimidation by armed groups affiliated with the government.

These challenges demonstrate that political inclusion and power-sharing extend well beyond the Kurdish issue. Syria's transition must address how different communities exercise meaningful political agency while remaining part of a unified state. The report concludes that long-term security for Kurds cannot be guaranteed solely by an agreement between Damascus and the SDF. Gains will be sustainable only if Syria develops a political system where power is dispersed, local communities have a meaningful voice, and political rights are protected by a modern constitution, regardless of who controls the central government.