Washington’s priorities are now limited and explicit: protect U.S. and coalition personnel, prevent cross-border attacks, secure ISIS detention facilities, keep major transit routes open, and avoid direct confrontation between state actors. If those conditions hold, the United States will tolerate local power resets, even at the expense of former partners.
A former national security adviser to President Donald Trump spoke to Joe Kawly and put it plainly: “The U.S. moved from being a military guarantor to a political referee. If the counter-ISIS mission isn’t threatened, Washington will not intervene.”
That shift set the conditions for what followed. Syrian government forces launched a rapid offensive against the Syrian Democratic Forces, pushing Kurdish-led units out of territory they had controlled since the fight against ISIS. Oil fields in Deir al-Zor, neighborhoods in Raqqa, and approaches to Hasakah fell quickly. Arab tribal fighters joined the advance, allowing Damascus to reassert control along roughly 150 kilometers of the eastern Euphrates.
A Turkish official told MBN the outcome was predictable. “Damascus would not have moved without clarity on Washington’s limits,” he said. “Once it was clear the U.S. would not intervene militarily, the outcome was inevitable.” Regionally, the sequence was read simply: Damascus moved because Washington would not stop it.
An Agreement Already Failing
The collapse followed months of stalled implementation of the March 10, 2025 framework agreement to integrate the SDF into Syria’s reconstituted national army.
The deal never resolved its core contradictions. Damascus demanded individual absorption of SDF fighters under centralized command. The SDF insisted on joining as intact formations with retained local authority. Control of oil fields, border crossings, and internal security remained unresolved.
For nearly ten months, nothing moved. Israeli airstrikes on Syrian state targets reinforced Kurdish hesitation. According to a Turkish official, the SDF believed Damascus lacked the capacity or freedom to force compliance. That assumption ignored Ankara’s calculus.
Turkey’s domestic process with the PKK, including calls by its imprisoned leader for disarmament, was tied directly to the SDF’s status in Syria. “As long as the SDF remained armed and autonomous, our internal track could not move forward,” the official said. “The files were inseparable”, the Turkish official added.
None of the escalation crossed U.S. red lines. American personnel were not threatened. ISIS detention facilities remain secure. The fighting stayed localized. That restraint mattered.
Consolidation, Not Chaos
From Ankara’s perspective, the outcome was decisive. The rollback eliminated the prospect of a permanent Kurdish autonomous belt along Turkey’s border and removed a central obstacle to its domestic peace process. “What we prevented,” the Turkish official said, “was a slow-motion derailment of that process.”
The timing was deliberate. President Ahmed al-Sharaa signed the ceasefire on January 18, one day before departing for Davos. The signal was clear: Damascus could consolidate territory, neutralize armed challengers, and re-enter international forums as a government in control.
From Washington’s perspective, the result was acceptable. “This is burden-shifting,” the former Trump adviser said. “Turkey contains the Kurds, Israel constrains the south, and the U.S. watches ISIS. It’s not elegant, but it’s stable enough.”
What Changed
The United States did not approve the offensive. It stopped blocking it.
Washington still mediates and deconflicts. What it will not do is underwrite Kurdish autonomy at the cost of relations with Ankara or intervene where core U.S. interests are not directly threatened. Former national security adviser to President Donald Trump ended by “The Kurdish project in Syria did not collapse overnight. It was traded, quietly, for narrower objectives and fewer liabilities.”
Joe Kawly
Joe Kawly is a veteran global affairs journalist with over two decades of frontline reporting across Washington, D.C. and the Middle East. A CNN Journalism Fellow and Georgetown University graduate, his work focuses on U.S. foreign policy, Arab world politics, and diplomacy. With deep regional insight and narrative clarity, Joe focuses on making complex global dynamics clear, human, and relevant.
