Syria's government and Kurds still at odds over merging forces after latest talks, US envoy says
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, who is also a special envoy to Syria, told The Associated Press after meetings in Damascus, the Syrian capital, that there are still significant differences between the sides. Barrack held talks with Mazloum Abdi, head of the Kurdish-led and U.S. backed Syrian Democratic Forces, and Syria's interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
The development comes after a move by the Trump administration took effect this week, revoking a terrorism designation of the former insurgent group led by al-Sharaa, which was behind a lightning offensive last December that ousted Syria's longtime autocrat Bashar Assad.
Revoking the designation was part of a broader U.S. engagement with al-Sharaa's new, transitional government.
A deal vague in details
In early March, the former insurgents — now the new authorities in Damascus — signed a landmark deal with the SDF, a Kurdish-led force that had fought alongside U.S. troops against the militant Islamic State group and which controls much of northeastern Syria.
Under that deal, the SDF forces would merge with the new Syrian national army. The agreement, which is supposed be implemented by the end of the year, would also bring all border crossings with Iraq and Turkey, airports and oil fields in the northeast under the central government's control. They are now controlled by the SDF.
Detention centers housing thousands of Islamic State militants, now guarded by the SDF, would also come under government control.
However, the agreement left the details vague, and progress on implementation has been slow. A major sticking point has been whether the SDF would remain as a cohesive unit in the new army — which the Syrian Kurds are pushing for — or whether the force would be dissolved and its members individually absorbed into the new military.
Barrack said that is still 'a big issue' between the two sides.
'Baby steps'
'I don't think there's a breakthrough,' Barrack said after Wednesday's meetings. 'I think these things happen in baby steps, because it's built on trust, commitment and understanding."
He added that "for two parties that have been apart for a while and maybe an adversarial relationship for a while, they have to build that trust step by step.'
Also, Turkish-backed factions affiliated with the new Syrian government have over the years clashed with the SDF, which Turkey considers a terrorist group because of its association with the Kurdish separatist Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which had waged a decades-long insurgency within Turkey before recently announcing it would lay down its weapons.
The United States also considers the PKK a terrorist group but is allied with the SDF.
Barrack said that though 'we're not there' yet, Damascus had 'done a great job" in presenting options for the SDF to consider.
"I hope they will and I hope they'll do it quickly,' he said.
From skepticism to trust
A key turning point for Syria came when U.S. President Donald Trump met with al-Sharaa in Saudi Arabia in May and announced that Washington would lift decades of sanctions, imposed over Assad's government.
Trump took steps to do so after their meeting and subsequently, the U.S. moved to remove the terrorist designation from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, al-Sharaa's force that spearheaded the offensive against Assad.
The U.S. played a key role in brokering the deal announced in March between al-Sharaa's government and the SDF and has urged the Syrian Kurdish authorities to integrate with Damascus.
Barrack said Washington has 'complete confidence in the Syrian government and the new Syrian government's military,' while the SDF has been a 'valuable partner' in the fight against IS and that the U.S. 'wants to make sure that they have an opportunity ... to integrate into the new government in a respectful way.'
The U.S. has begun scaling down the number of troops it has stationed in Syria — there are about 1,300 U.S. forces now — but Barrack said Washington is in 'no hurry' to pull out completely.
Prospects of Syria-Israel ties
In the interview with the AP, Barrack also downplayed reports of possible breakthroughs in talks on normalizing ties between Syria and Israel.
'My feeling of what's happening in the neighborhood is that it should happen, and it'll happen like unwrapping an onion, slowly ... as the region builds trust with each other,' he said without elaborating.
Since Assad's fall, Israel has seized a U.N.-patrolled buffer zone in Syria bordering the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights and has launched hundreds of airstrikes on military sites in Syria. Israeli soldiers have also raided Syrian towns outside of the border zone and detained people who they said were militants, sometimes clashing with locals.
Israeli officials have said they are taking the measures to guard their border against another cross-border attack like the one launched by the Palestinian militant Hamas group on Oct. 7, 2023 in southern Israel that triggered the latest war in the Gaza Strip.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mike Huckabee, Israel's Passionate Defender as Gaza War Drives Allies Away
International condemnation of Israel for its nearly two-year-long war in Gaza is growing. Outrage over starvation in the enclave has led to calls from Israel's allies for a Palestinian state. The U.N. secretary general said the situation was 'a moral crisis that is challenging the global conscience.' And yet there are few more passionate defenders of the country right now than Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, a Baptist minister and the first evangelical Christian to serve in the role. Even after his boss, President Trump, broke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and acknowledged 'real starvation' in Gaza, Mr. Huckabee did not. 'There is hunger and there are some serious issues that need to be addressed,' Mr. Huckabee said this past week at his official residence in central Jerusalem. But, he said, 'it's not like Sudan or Rwanda or other places where there has been mass starvation.' The Gaza Health Ministry has said scores of people, including many children, have died of malnutrition. It is not clear how many also had other illnesses. Mr. Huckabee defended the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an aid group led by his longtime friend Johnnie Moore, another evangelical Christian. The group, backed by Israel and run largely by U.S. contractors, has been widely criticized for shootings by Israeli troops near its food distribution sites. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
A viable Palestinian state remains far off, despite growing international clamor
The Middle East Israel-Hamas war UK Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow First France, then the United Kingdom, and now Canada. Three of the world's most powerful Western nations have added their economic and geopolitical clout to calls for a Palestinian state, an idea already endorsed by more than 140 other countries. The moves have many motives, from a sense of frustration with Israel, to domestic pressure, to outrage over the images of starving Palestinians. Whatever the reason, Palestinians have welcomed the announcements as a boost for their cause. The Israeli government has rejected the calls, describing them as tantamount to rewarding terrorism. US President Donald Trump meanwhile seems increasingly frustrated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly over the starvation in Gaza that the Israeli leader denies, but has disturbed Trump. Trump wants regional peace, as well as the accolades – namely a Nobel Peace Prize – for making it happen. He wants Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel, expanding the Abraham Accords he cemented between Israel and several other Arab states during his first term. But Riyadh has been firm that this cannot happen without an irreversible path to a Palestinian state. But the latest moves by US allies France, Britain and Canada – while in many ways largely symbolic – have left Washington increasingly isolated over its backing for Israel. Palestinian statehood could help bring an end to a war that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza since Hamas's brutal October 7 attack killed around 1,200 people in Israel almost two years ago, as well as bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. But one of the toughest challenges is imagining what it looks like, because a modern Palestinian state has never existed before. When Israel was founded in the aftermath of World War II it quickly gained international recognition. That same period, for Palestinians, is remembered as al-Naqba, or 'the catastrophe' – the moment when hundreds of thousands of people fled or were forced from their homes. Since then, Israel has expanded, most significantly during the 'Six Day War' of 1967, when Israel turned the tables on a coalition of Arab states and gained East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian territory has meanwhile only shrunk and splintered. The closest to what a future Palestinian state may look like was hashed out in a peace process in the 1990s which came to be known as the Oslo Accords. Roughly speaking, the Palestinian state envisaged in Oslo, agreed to by both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators, would be based on Israel's 1967 borders. The broad outline of Oslo was to have some land trades, a little bit given in one place for the removal of an Israeli settlement, in a negotiated process. The historic handshake on the White House lawn by Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hosted by then-US president Bill Clinton remains one of the triumphs of modern diplomacy. Rabin's assassination by a far-right fanatic in 1995 robbed Israel of its peacemaker leader. And while the framework of Oslo lived on in negotiations and academia, there is little initiative now. What was on offer back then is no longer realistic. In recent years, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank have expanded massively, often with the encouragement of the Israeli government, threatening the chances of creating a contiguous Palestinian state in the region. Then there is the question of who would govern a future Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, is distrusted by many Palestinians who view it as weak or corrupt. Even without all these complications, Netanyahu won't accept a Palestinian state, which he has recently claimed would be 'a launch pad to annihilate Israel.' Some members of his cabinet are far more hard-line, not only refusing to countenance an independent state but wanting to annex the territory. These ministers propping up Netanyahu's government have said they would starve Palestinians in Gaza rather than feed them, and would collapse the coalition if he so much as suggested giving in to the growing international pressure on Israel. Netanyahu has shown no intention of backing down, and will wear whatever France, the UK, and any others force on him as a badge of honor. Without a partner in the Israeli government, recognition of a Palestinian state will fall flat, and could even entrench Netanyahu further. It would be a big price to pay if the outcome were Israel making the possibility of a Palestinian state all the more distant. But at the same time, with a growing number of angry ex-partners in the international community who are likely to increase their pressure on Trump to shift his position, it is Israel that may find itself disadvantaged, however strongly it protests.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lammy not accepting Iran's claims over enriched uranium
Foreign Secretary David Lammy says he does not accept Iran's claims that the country is enriching uranium for academic purposes. Representatives from the United Kingdom, Germany and France held talks with Iran last week to try to break the deadlock over the country's nuclear programme. Tehran maintains it is open to diplomacy, though it recently suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). A central concern for western powers was highlighted when the IAEA reported in May that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% – just below weapons-grade level – had grown to more than 400kg. In a wide-ranging interview with The Guardian, Mr Lammy said: 'Its leaders cannot explain to me – and I've had many conversations with them – why they need 60% enriched uranium. 'If I went to Sellafield or Urenco in Cheshire, they haven't got anything more than 6%. The Iranians claim it's for academic use, but I don't accept that.' Mr Lammy warned that Iran developing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of tensions in the Middle East. Israel and the United States carried our strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. 'Many of your readers will have watched Oppenheimer and seen the fallout of (the US building an atomic bomb),' he said. 'So it's what (a nuclear Iran) might mean in terms of other countries in the neighbourhood who would desire one, too. And we would be very suddenly handing over to our children and grandchildren a world that had many more nuclear weapons in it than it has today.' The Foreign Secretary said he had heard Israeli arguments in favour of regime change in Tehran, but did not believe that was behind the US decision to strike. The Tottenham MP added any decision to topple the government was one for the Iranian people, with his focus 'on what the UK can do to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power'. Last month, Mr Lammy suggested that Britain, France and Germany could 'snap back' on sanctions against Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. He told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: 'Iran face even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'