The peace agreement between Syria’s government and the SDF aims for stability, democracy, and equitable political participation for all Syrians. While embraced by Iraqi Kurdish leaders for regional stability, analysts question its viability due to differing goals between the parties involved, geopolitical tensions, and the Syrian government’s genuine commitment to peace.
A significant peace agreement was reached between Syria’s transitional government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), raising cautious optimism among Iraqi Kurdish leaders. Finalized in Damascus by interim president Ahmed Al-Sharaa and SDF Commander Mazlum Abdi, the agreement aims for stability, unity, and democratic reforms in Syria, a nation recovering from prolonged conflict.
Key provisions of the agreement include political equality for all Syrians, with state roles determined by merit rather than ethnic or religious identity. This move recognizes the marginalized Kurdish community, granting them full citizenship rights and constitutional protections. Furthermore, it calls for a nationwide ceasefire and the integration of northeastern Syria’s civil and military institutions into central government control, centralizing infrastructure—such as border crossings and oil fields—under Damascus’s authority.
Iraqi Kurdish leaders have broadly welcomed the agreement, seeing potential beneficial effects on regional stability. Fethullah Husseini from the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria announced the deal’s positive implications for Iraq, highlighting the victory of Kurdish rights. President of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Pavel Jalal Talabani, described the agreement as a move towards coexistence, while Nechirvan Barzani emphasized the Kurdistan Region’s support for a stable Syria.
However, analysts express skepticism regarding the implementation of the agreement. Kamaran Mantik, a political professor, points out the substantial differences in vision between the Kurds and the Syrian government, questioning Damascus’ commitment to peace. He suggests that the Syrian government might utilize the agreement as a tactical move to divert international scrutiny following crises, rather than a genuine step towards stability.
Furthermore, geopolitical rivalries, particularly among Russia, Turkey, and Israel, complicate Syria’s political landscape, with each seeking to shape the future of the country in alignment with their interests. Concerns about Israel’s expansionist policies and the potential influence of weakened Iranian proxies in the region intensify these complexities. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reinforced support for the deal, describing non-sectarian governance as essential for preventing further conflict.
In a backdrop of political intricacies, this agreement holds crucial implications for Syria. Its success or failure will dictate not only Syria’s path towards lasting peace but also the regional stability involving nations like Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, as entrenched divisions threaten to persist in the face of historical conflicts.
The recent peace agreement in Syria signifies a pivotal moment for the Kurdish community and has implications for regional stability in Iraq. While Iraqi Kurdish leaders express optimism about the agreement fostering peace, skepticism among analysts about the agreement’s implementation and the broader geopolitical context highlights the challenges ahead. The agreement’s ultimate success may reshape the future of Syria and its relations with neighboring countries.
Original Source: www.newarab.com
