BEIRUT – More than seven months after the March 10 agreement between Syria’s de facto ruler Ahmad al-Sharah (al-Jolani) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) commander Mazloum Abdi, the agreement is in tatters.
Despite vowing to reduce its presence, Washington has stepped up both diplomatic and military operations in northeastern Syria.
CENTCOM officials, including Admiral Brad Cooper, are intervening to ensure the gradual integration of the SDF and Syrian forces. However, recent fortifications of US military bases, troop reinforcements, and new deployments reveal a clear contradiction between the US’s public withdrawal rhetoric and its continued strategic entrenchment, reflecting uncertainty over its long-term influence and goals in post-war Syria.
Policy contradiction: announcement of withdrawal vs. military buildup
Since early 2025, U.S. convoys have apparently been moving across the Iraqi border, ostensibly to relocate equipment as part of a downsizing plan. However, Kurdish local sources confirm that the process of dismantling the US military base came to an abrupt halt about four months ago.
The reasons for this are multilayered. The resurgence of ISIS cells in Deir Ezzor and Hasakah, the weakness of local governance under Syria’s interim government, and the growing internal instability, especially in Suweida and coastal areas.
From the U.S. government’s perspective, the destabilizing situation in Syria provides both a justification and an opportunity to extend its presence under the pretext of “ensuring security.”
Strategic motives behind the US presence
America’s calculations go beyond just counterterrorism. By maintaining a stronghold east of the Euphrates River, the United States maintains influence over both Damascus and its allies, particularly Iran and Russia.
This presence allows Washington to monitor and potentially cut off the “land corridor” that connects Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea through Iraq and Syria.
Recent developments, such as the passing of more than 100 American trucks carrying logistics and military equipment through the Al-Waleed crossing, and the deployment of advanced radar and air defense systems, suggest preparations for a long stay rather than an imminent departure.
Hasakah’s three main bases (Tel Baidar, Kirab al-Jil, and al-Shadadi) currently serve as logistics hubs linking smaller outposts across Deir Ezzor and Raqqa.
The U.S. military has restarted its air defense systems, conducted more live-fire exercises and introduced new surveillance technology, showing preparations for possible escalation rather than withdrawal.
Political aspects: “integration” of the Self-Defense Forces and the US leverage game
At the political level, Washington’s current policy is closely tied to the fate of the Self-Defense Forces. According to reports, U.S. officials are moving forward with the March 10 Agreement, an effort aimed at integrating Self-Defense Forces forces into the new transitional government’s military.
SDF commander Mazloum Abdi confirmed that an “initial agreement” had been reached with Damascus to integrate SDF forces into the national army while maintaining operational control in northeastern Syria.
The United States views the arrangement as a strategic hedge that ensures that friendly forces remain in the region even if U.S. forces are reduced.
This model mirrors Washington’s approach in Iraq since 2011, where a “security partnership” replaced direct military occupation but continued to ensure American influence.
Broader geopolitical context: controlled stalemate
Ultimately, the US military posture in Syria reflects a broader geopolitical logic rather than a clear end goal. Both the Biden administration and the current Trump administration have relied on ambiguity to maintain flexibility, neither committing to a withdrawal nor allowing an indefinite presence.
The “reduction” narrative reassures domestic audiences tired of foreign wars, while the ongoing military buildup reassures regional allies such as Israel and the Kurdish leadership. But this strategy risks deepening Syria’s divisions, preventing the emergence of a unified state, and perpetuating the cycle of insecurity that the United States claims to fight.
The quiet consolidation of bases, new air defense facilities, and increased cooperation with the Self-Defense Forces signal the persistence of America’s military structure east of the Euphrates and is designed to maintain influence in future political settlements.