Political analysis by Ibrahim Mustafa (Kaban)
Amid the rapid transformations shaping the Syrian landscape, support for the Syrian Democratic Forces can no longer be understood merely as a legacy of the war against ISIS. It has become an expression of a far more complex international equation, one in which major powers navigate between the logic of security necessity and the calculations of incomplete political settlements. Within this context, the contrast between the American and French approaches reflects a deeper divergence in how the role of the SDF is perceived and how its place in Syria’s future is envisioned. At the same time, this contrast sheds light on the strategic factor that continues to sustain the international coalition, despite clear signs of American political engagement with the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa.
The United States, as the de facto leader of the international coalition, does not view the SDF as a temporary local actor, but as an indispensable security pillar in managing one of the most fragile regions of the Middle East. American support emerged from a clear operational need: a disciplined, organized force capable of maintaining territorial control without dragging Washington into a large-scale direct intervention. Yet, despite the solidity of this military partnership, it has consistently remained bound by a low political ceiling, imposed by the need to balance relations with Turkey, the broader confrontation with Russia and Iran, and the fluctuations of American domestic politics.
At its core, US support for the SDF is driven less by full political conviction than by the absence of viable alternatives. Every attempt, explicit or implicit, to identify substitute forces capable of filling the security vacuum in northern and eastern Syria has proven ineffective or deeply limited. Turkish-backed factions have remained constrained by narrow agendas, the Syrian regime lacks the capacity to reassert control without triggering renewed chaos, and no other local actor has demonstrated the ability to combine military effectiveness with a degree of international legitimacy. In this reality, the SDF has become an unavoidable choice rather than a comfortable one for Washington.
This unavoidable nature of American support explains the apparent contradiction between the continued military partnership with the SDF and the growing political outreach to the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa. The United States is attempting to manage the Syrian file through the logic of grey settlements, where neither decisive victory nor complete rupture is pursued. Within this framework, Washington separates the track of territorial control and counterterrorism—where the SDF remains central—from the track of open-ended political engagements, through which it seeks to keep communication channels with Damascus available in anticipation of future regional or international shifts.
Yet this separation, however pragmatic it may appear, is inherently fragile. Political engagement with the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa does not negate the fundamental reality that any settlement lacking a stable force on the ground will remain vulnerable to collapse. It is precisely here that the strategic value of the SDF becomes evident, not only as a military partner but as a balancing factor preventing a slide into security vacuums that could regenerate extremist organizations or enable the expansion of rival regional powers. From this perspective, continued American support for the SDF is not a contradiction to political settlements, but an unspoken precondition for their viability.
France, by contrast, operates within a different conceptual framework. With more limited military tools but a clearer political vision, Paris does not treat the SDF merely as an instrument for managing a transitional phase. Instead, it views the SDF as part of a potential answer to the unresolved question of the Syrian state after years of conflict. This outlook explains why French discourse toward the SDF has been more consistent and less subject to the tactical fluctuations that characterize US policy.
France recognizes that the international coalition cannot sustain itself indefinitely without a political and moral foundation that justifies its presence. From this standpoint, French support for the SDF is rooted in the belief that the model emerging in northern and eastern Syria, despite its shortcomings and internal challenges, represents a barrier against both the return of centralized authoritarianism and the resurgence of extremism. Although France lacks the capacity to impose new military realities, its position grants the SDF a degree of European political legitimacy that Paris continues to reinforce in international forums.
The decisive factor in this complex equation remains the continuity of the international coalition itself. Despite its diminished visibility in public discourse, the reasons for its existence have not disappeared. ISIS has not been defeated as an ideology, Syria has not reached stability, and proposed settlements remain partial and vulnerable to reversal. Under these conditions, the SDF constitutes the backbone upon which the coalition relies to justify its continued presence, both before Western public opinion and within the strategic calculations of participating states.
Any fundamental retreat from the role of the SDF would not simply represent a shift in a local alliance; it would effectively dismantle the operational structure underpinning the international presence east of the Euphrates. This reality is well understood in both Washington and Paris, even if it is articulated through different political languages. Consequently, sustained support for the SDF reflects not only a position toward a local actor, but also the limitations of the current international system in producing stable alternatives in conflict zones.
Ultimately, the Syrian Democratic Forces stand today at a highly sensitive strategic crossroads. They are supported by the United States out of necessity, backed by France out of conviction, and embedded within an international coalition that sees them as the minimum guarantee of stability in an era of grey settlements. The ability of the SDF to transform this layered support into a sustainable political position will shape not only its own future, but also the credibility of the international coalition itself, and the broader capacity of global powers to move from crisis management toward genuine solution-building in Syria.
Amid the rapid transformations shaping the Syrian landscape, support for the Syrian Democratic Forces can no longer be understood merely as a legacy of the war against ISIS. It has become an expression of a far more complex international equation, one in which major powers navigate between the logic of security necessity and the calculations of incomplete political settlements. Within this context, the contrast between the American and French approaches reflects a deeper divergence in how the role of the SDF is perceived and how its place in Syria’s future is envisioned. At the same time, this contrast sheds light on the strategic factor that continues to sustain the international coalition, despite clear signs of American political engagement with the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa.
The United States, as the de facto leader of the international coalition, does not view the SDF as a temporary local actor, but as an indispensable security pillar in managing one of the most fragile regions of the Middle East. American support emerged from a clear operational need: a disciplined, organized force capable of maintaining territorial control without dragging Washington into a large-scale direct intervention. Yet, despite the solidity of this military partnership, it has consistently remained bound by a low political ceiling, imposed by the need to balance relations with Turkey, the broader confrontation with Russia and Iran, and the fluctuations of American domestic politics.
At its core, US support for the SDF is driven less by full political conviction than by the absence of viable alternatives. Every attempt, explicit or implicit, to identify substitute forces capable of filling the security vacuum in northern and eastern Syria has proven ineffective or deeply limited. Turkish-backed factions have remained constrained by narrow agendas, the Syrian regime lacks the capacity to reassert control without triggering renewed chaos, and no other local actor has demonstrated the ability to combine military effectiveness with a degree of international legitimacy. In this reality, the SDF has become an unavoidable choice rather than a comfortable one for Washington.
This unavoidable nature of American support explains the apparent contradiction between the continued military partnership with the SDF and the growing political outreach to the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa. The United States is attempting to manage the Syrian file through the logic of grey settlements, where neither decisive victory nor complete rupture is pursued. Within this framework, Washington separates the track of territorial control and counterterrorism—where the SDF remains central—from the track of open-ended political engagements, through which it seeks to keep communication channels with Damascus available in anticipation of future regional or international shifts.
Yet this separation, however pragmatic it may appear, is inherently fragile. Political engagement with the government of Ahmad al-Sharaa does not negate the fundamental reality that any settlement lacking a stable force on the ground will remain vulnerable to collapse. It is precisely here that the strategic value of the SDF becomes evident, not only as a military partner but as a balancing factor preventing a slide into security vacuums that could regenerate extremist organizations or enable the expansion of rival regional powers. From this perspective, continued American support for the SDF is not a contradiction to political settlements, but an unspoken precondition for their viability.
France, by contrast, operates within a different conceptual framework. With more limited military tools but a clearer political vision, Paris does not treat the SDF merely as an instrument for managing a transitional phase. Instead, it views the SDF as part of a potential answer to the unresolved question of the Syrian state after years of conflict. This outlook explains why French discourse toward the SDF has been more consistent and less subject to the tactical fluctuations that characterize US policy.
France recognizes that the international coalition cannot sustain itself indefinitely without a political and moral foundation that justifies its presence. From this standpoint, French support for the SDF is rooted in the belief that the model emerging in northern and eastern Syria, despite its shortcomings and internal challenges, represents a barrier against both the return of centralized authoritarianism and the resurgence of extremism. Although France lacks the capacity to impose new military realities, its position grants the SDF a degree of European political legitimacy that Paris continues to reinforce in international forums.
The decisive factor in this complex equation remains the continuity of the international coalition itself. Despite its diminished visibility in public discourse, the reasons for its existence have not disappeared. ISIS has not been defeated as an ideology, Syria has not reached stability, and proposed settlements remain partial and vulnerable to reversal. Under these conditions, the SDF constitutes the backbone upon which the coalition relies to justify its continued presence, both before Western public opinion and within the strategic calculations of participating states.
Any fundamental retreat from the role of the SDF would not simply represent a shift in a local alliance; it would effectively dismantle the operational structure underpinning the international presence east of the Euphrates. This reality is well understood in both Washington and Paris, even if it is articulated through different political languages. Consequently, sustained support for the SDF reflects not only a position toward a local actor, but also the limitations of the current international system in producing stable alternatives in conflict zones.
Ultimately, the Syrian Democratic Forces stand today at a highly sensitive strategic crossroads. They are supported by the United States out of necessity, backed by France out of conviction, and embedded within an international coalition that sees them as the minimum guarantee of stability in an era of grey settlements. The ability of the SDF to transform this layered support into a sustainable political position will shape not only its own future, but also the credibility of the international coalition itself, and the broader capacity of global powers to move from crisis management toward genuine solution-building in Syria.
