On the security and personnel side, the plan calls for the integration of the QSD’s military and security units into Syria’s defense and interior ministries, with individual vetting to address security concerns. This is paired with a commitment to preserve the rank structure, salaries, and logistical rights of those who join, while also protecting the distinctive needs and sensitivities of Kurdish regions. In other words, the framework seeks to balance national unity with regional autonomy in a way that preserves livelihoods and reduces incentives for parallel loyalties among armed actors.
The document also contains several governance-specific provisions. It tasks the QSD leadership with removing remnants of the former regime from their ranks and with handing over lists of former regime officers ahead of integration, a step aimed at consolidating a coherent national security apparatus and mitigating the risk that residual loyalists could undermine the transition. Meanwhile, the presidency would issue a decree appointing the Hasakeh governor as a political representative to assure local participation and legitimacy in this transition, an assertion of political inclusion within the redefined framework.
A notable feature concerns the heavy security presence surrounding the towns of Ayn al-Arab (Kobani) and the surrounding area. The agreement calls for the removal of heavy military deployments in these locales and the formation of a civilian security force drawn from residents in the area, under the administrative jurisdiction of Syria’s Interior Ministry. This clause reflects an attempt to normalize governance and reduce the friction that can arise from militarized zones on the edge of contested spaces.
On detainees and camps tied to ISIS, the framework specifies that cadres responsible for these facilities would be integrated into the Syrian government’s security apparatus to ensure the legitimate protection of these objects. The aim is to ensure that the state assumes full legal and security responsibility for these camps and prisons, a move that has major implications for regional security and humanitarian policy in the aftermath of years of complex counterterrorism operations in the region.
Another dimension of the plan is the centralization of personnel into the central state. The fourteen-point list includes the initial presentation of a slate of QSD leaders for high-level military, security, and civilian posts within the central state, intended to safeguard national partnership and prevent power monocultures at the top echelons of government. This provision signals a commitment to inclusivity but raises questions about how regional leaders and minority communities will navigate a power-sharing model within a centralized structure.
The document also makes explicit reference to cultural rights and minority protections. It notes the 2026 presidential decree recognizing Kurdish cultural and linguistic rights and addressing civil and legal matters for restricted populations, while restoring property rights that accrued from prior agreements. This emphasis on cultural rights reflects an acknowledgement of the deep-seated grievances that have often fueled tension between Kurdish communities and central authorities, and it signals a symbolic and practical attempt to address those grievances in a formal legal framework.
Additionally, the plan requires the removal of all non-Syrian PKK leaders and members associated with the Kurdish Workers’ Party from the QSD umbrella, a demand framed as essential to Syria’s sovereignty and regional stability. By targeting external actors linked to Kurdish groups, the document aligns with regional concerns about cross-border militant influences and the broader calculus of neighboring states invested in Syria’s outcome.
On regional and international dimensions, the agreement reaffirms ongoing cooperation with the international coalition fighting ISIS, including the United States, underscoring the continued centrality of external partners in Syria’s security architecture. The document also commits to a process of secure and dignified returns for residents of Afrin and Sheikh Maqsoud, two areas with long-standing displacement and demographic sensitivities. The return framework implies both humanitarian safeguards and practical steps to restore normalcy for residents who have endured protracted displacement in the wake of the conflict.
Signatures on the document attach the legitimacy of these arrangements to the heads of state and factional leadership. The text bears the signatures of the Syrian Arab Republic’s president, Ahmad al-Shara, and Mazloum Abdi, the commander of the Kurdish-led forces involved in the QSD. The precise status and binding force of the document remain a subject of debate among regional observers and international partners, with some viewing it as a blueprint for a negotiated settlement while others warn that the real challenge lies in implementation, trust-building, and the management of competing political narratives on the ground.
The plan also situates Hasakeh as a focal point of the transition. Hasakeh, a province home to a diverse mix of Arab, Kurdish, and other communities, has long been a theater of competing jurisdictional claims and security concerns. The proposal to appoint a Hasakeh governor as a political representative underscores a desire to stabilize local governance and provide a continuity of public administration, even as new security arrangements and civil oversight begin to take shape. Critics are likely to scrutinize whether such governance reforms can be sustained in an environment where external actors and internal power dynamics remain in flux, and where local trust in the central government’s promises has historically been fragile.
From a humanitarian and human rights perspective, the agreement raises important questions about accountability, property restitution, and civil liberties. While the text promises the restoration of property rights and cultural protections, it also presumes a stable security environment that allows populations to return to previously emptied or militarized areas. Humanitarian organizations will be watching how returns are managed and how civilians are protected in a context where security forces and local militias may operate under overlapping authorities. The risk of renewed displacement, or of coercive measures in areas undergoing demobilization and reintegration, remains an operational concern for international partners and local communities alike.
In the broader strategic context, this agreement could reshape regional alignments and the balance of leverage among the key actors within Syria. Washington and its European partners have long sought to ensure that any settlement preserves state sovereignty while addressing the needs of Kurdish communities and other minorities. Ankara’s own regional calculus, including its concerns about Kurdish autonomy along its border, will also shape how such a framework is received and how it might influence ongoing Turkish diplomacy and security operations in neighboring regions. The next phase will require careful diplomacy, credible security guarantees, and the establishment of a tested mechanism for implementing complex power-sharing provisions across multiple jurisdictions.
It is important to note that, as with any high-stakes agreement in a conflict zone, the path to implementation will hinge on practical steps, credible monitoring, and domestic political will. The 2026 timeframe referenced by some provisions adds a sense of urgency to the process, but it also raises questions about the sufficiency of time to implement sensitive reforms and to build the trusted institutions that such reforms require. Civil society groups, local officials, and ordinary residents will be watching closely to see whether promises translate into tangible improvements in security, access to services, and the protection of rights that have long been the subject of contestation in Syria’s northeast.
In sum, the document presents a comprehensive, if ambitious, blueprint for a phased reintegration of Kurdish-led governance within a centralized Syrian state. Its fourteen points touch on ceasefire mechanics, territorial handovers, administrative reforms, security sector integration, and cultural and legal rights. The success or failure of this initiative will depend on how faithfully the steps are implemented, how disputes are managed, and whether all parties can translate political commitments into real changes on the ground. As Syria and its regional partners navigate these uncharted waters in 2026, observers will be watching not only for the letter of the agreement but for the durability of the commitments behind it—and for the ways in which ordinary Syrians experience the prospect of a more centralized, yet potentially more inclusive, constitutional order.
https://azat.tv/siriayi-naxagah-gulanii-ev-qrderi/