It seems that the sound of gunfire is louder than calls for dialogue to resolve the conflicts between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), amidst massive military mobilization in eastern Aleppo by both sides. After the Syrian army settled the Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh incidents in its favor, it announced yesterday, Tuesday, that Deir Hafer, Maskanah, and Babireh were closed military zones, calling on Kurdish forces to withdraw towards eastern Euphrates.

Amidst this development, it is evident that the government of Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa has made its decision to clear the city of Aleppo of Kurdish fighters and restrict their presence to the Jazira region (Hasakah and Qamishli). This opens the door to the possibility of a major confrontation between the two sides if the SDF refuses to comply, especially with the absence of any possibility of implementing the March 10 Agreement, which appears to be “clinically dead,” despite talks from leaders in the Autonomous Administration and the SDF that they are open to dialogue.

Ilham Ahmed: Open to Dialogue

Ilham Ahmed, co-chair of the External Relations Department in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, tells “An-Nahar” that the situation is critical and extremely difficult due to the bloodshed between them and the government. However, they are open to dialogue and negotiations, on the condition of acknowledging what happened and halting the attacks immediately.

She adds, “Security must be provided to the residents in Kurdish areas, and if these guarantees are available, we will resume negotiations with the participation of the United Nations and international organizations.”

She continues, “We monitor large military gatherings in areas like Maskanah and Deir Hafer and their surroundings, where there are more than 40,000 armed people belonging to these formations (referring to the Syrian army). They are besieging these areas and preparing for new operations... The current Syrian government insists on a military solution, imposing its will by force. This approach will only lead to greater chaos that will not be limited to Syria but will extend to Iraq, Turkey, and the entire region.”

Ahmed insists on international guarantees for any dialogue or agreement with Damascus, as “there are no guarantees or legislations to protect the Kurds in the Syrian constitution,” and the government “has not formed a genuine negotiating delegation, refuses serious discussion, and operates with a single logic: surrender, and we will decide what to give you,” noting that this is “the same logic of the previous regime, which ruled Syria with tyranny and ended in civil war.”

Ilham Ahmed during a meeting with a group of journalists. (An-Nahar)

Dismay from Washington
The warning of the situation exploding and the spread of fire in the region highlights the seriousness of the situation. Is there any solution or guarantees being discussed?

It doesn’t seem possible at the moment, as the “friend” across the ocean merely watches and tries to smooth things over without making a real effort to stop the battles between the two sides until now.

Ahmed’s words reflect clear dismay towards Washington’s stance on the battle of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh, as she says in one of her responses that “the American special representative, Tom Barrack, should clarify his position against these attacks.

The Syrian government targeted civilian neighborhoods during the negotiations, and the United States did not clearly condemn these attacks but only demanded the SDF to take a step back.” She adds, “It’s unacceptable to be fighting ISIS with the United States on one front while being left alone to face these attacks on the other front... This is a double standard and unacceptable.”

Even the American request for the SDF to withdraw from west of the Euphrates to its east was not accompanied by any guarantees. Ahmed confirms, “Every time we are asked to withdraw, no guarantees are provided. The only condition is to protect civilians, as happened in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafieh, but we witnessed massacres of civilians by the army.”

Thus, it cannot be predicted if Damascus’s military campaign against the SDF will stop at the west of the river only.

A Syrian soldier in Sheikh Maqsoud neighborhood. (AFP)

Damascus's Vision: Decisiveness First and Then Politics
On the other hand, Damascus does not seem to treat the current confrontation as a local skirmish but rather as part of a broader plan to rearrange the military and political map in the northeast.

A Syrian official source says to “An-Nahar” that the declaration of Deir Hafer, Maskanah, and Babireh as closed military zones and the explicit call for SDF forces to withdraw east of the Euphrates reflect an “official direction to restrict armed Kurdish presence within a specific geographical scope,” in preparation for later reintegration into the state structure.

From the Syrian government’s perspective, this option aims not only at regaining control but also at dismantling what it considers a “non-Syrian” structure within the SDF, meaning networks associated with the “Kurdistan Workers Party,” which Damascus sees as the main obstacle to any real political settlement. Therefore, this current military escalation is used, according to this logic, as a pressure tool to force the other side to accept the restructuring of its military and political presence.

This logic is also rejected by the Kurds, as Ahmed points out that they use the Kurdistan Workers Party as a pretext for attacks every time. The party has dissolved itself and there is a peace process going on in Turkey between the two sides. But in Syria, they use this argument as if there are forces of the Kurdistan Workers Party.

In summary, what seems to be an open confrontation on the riverbanks is nothing more than a transitional phase between two paths in the eyes of the Syrian government: wide but calculated field escalation and a political settlement imposed from a position of strength. While SDF leaders talk about openness to dialogue, Damascus believes that the balance of power after Sheikh Maqsoud allows it to redraw negotiation terms so that the March 10 Agreement is nothing but a page turned in favor of new arrangements being built based on the realities being created on the ground today.