Unity or conflict: Where are fragile HTS-SDF talks headed?

Progress and setbacks

Since the regime's collapse, diplomatic efforts have sought to bridge the gap between the SDF and the HTS-led caretaker authority. Reports indicate that direct negotiations have occurred, including a meeting between SDF commander Mazloum Abdi and Ahmed al-Sharaa, the de facto transitional leader.

Read more: Sharaa and Abdi face off over SDF's future. Who will blink first?

Initial talks showed promise, with both sides engaging in goodwill gestures. The SDF adopted revolutionary flags in areas under its control to demonstrate solidarity with the broader Syrian revolution. Additionally, Commander Abdi expressed willingness to transfer control of Syria's fuel resources, provided the resulting revenues are distributed equitably across all provinces.

Despite these positive steps, core disagreements remain unresolved. The SDF's insistence on decentralised governance and military autonomy has clashed with HTS's vision of centralised control. To address these tensions, a joint military committee was reportedly established to explore pathways for integrating SDF fighters into Syria's defence framework.

Core demands

Despite initial goodwill, negotiations between the SDF and HTS have stalled, largely due to sharp disagreements on several critical issues. These include the integration of SDF fighters into Syria's security forces, the administration of territories under SDF control, the handling of IS detainees, and the future of foreign fighters and PKK cadres in northeastern Syria.

The SDF's primary demands centre on maintaining a local, decentralised military, security, and administrative autonomy. While expressing a willingness to operate under a unified Syrian army, Commander Mazloum Abdi has made it clear that dissolving the SDF is not an option. Instead, he has proposed linking the SDF to the Ministry of Defence as a "military bloc" that would operate according to national defence policies while preserving its internal structure.

The SDF also insists on retaining direct control over the management of IS detainees, which it views as critical to maintaining its influence both domestically and internationally. Additionally, the SDF advocates for decentralised governance, allowing it to administer areas under its control. Addressing concerns from HTS and other factions, Commander Abdi has emphasised that this model of decentralisation would not threaten Syria's territorial unity. He has clarified that the SDF is not seeking the kind of federalism seen in Iraq, where Kurds have their own regional government.

In contrast, the HTS-led caretaker authority has rejected many of the SDF's proposals. HTS insists that all armed groups, including the SDF, must fully integrate into Syria's official forces under a unified and centralised command structure. Defence Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra has explicitly dismissed the SDF's proposal to remain a distinct military bloc, warning that such arrangements could lead to instability or even a coup.

HTS also opposes the idea of decentralised governance, insisting on bringing all Syrian territories and administrative structures back under centralised state control. Ahmed al-Sharaa, the transitional leader, has been particularly adamant, stating, "There will be no division of Syria and no federalism in any form."

Additionally, HTS demands that the management of camps and prisons housing IS detainees be transferred to its control. Al-Sharaa has accused the SDF of leveraging its role in detaining IS fighters and their families to maintain its autonomy.

Another significant point of contention is the presence of foreign PKK cadres in Syria. Al-Sharaa has made it clear that the new Syrian administration will not tolerate foreign armed groups within its borders, aligning closely with Turkey's demands to prevent northeastern Syria from becoming a base for attacks on Turkish soil.

Read more: Armed Kurds next door? Syria's new leaders know Türkiye's red line

Path forward

Despite their stark differences, the SDF and HTS have shown a willingness to remain at the negotiating table. The SDF has signalled flexibility on some issues, including agreeing to the eventual removal of foreign PKK fighters once an agreement is reached. However, the divides over military autonomy and governance remain substantial.

HTS has grown increasingly assertive, with Defence Minister Abu Qasra stating that while dialogue remains the preferred route, the caretaker authority reserves the right to use force if necessary. Al-Sharaa echoed this sentiment, stating, "We leave room for negotiations with the SDF, but we have the right to use all means to restore the unity of our territories."

Despite the escalating tone, an immediate resort to violence appears improbable. Both sides appear to recognise the catastrophic consequences of a violent confrontation. Continuing negotiations not only reduces the risk of bloodshed but also creates space to gradually bridge the significant gaps in their visions for Syria's future.

External factors

While talks between HTS and the SDF continue, several external factors loom large and could shape the outcome. Chief among them is the stance of the United States regarding its military presence in Syria. A US withdrawal would shift the balance of power, complicating talks and potentially emboldening HTS.

Read more: Will Trump withdraw US troops from Iraq and Syria?

Similarly, Turkey's ongoing dialogue with the PKK will weigh heavily on the situation. A breakthrough in these discussions could ease tensions and foster progress, while a breakdown would likely harden HTS's stance and complicate negotiations further.

The anticipated national dialogue conference in Syria could also prove pivotal. If decentralisation emerges as the preferred governance model, HTS may face internal and external pressure to abandon its insistence on centralised authority. Such a shift would address one of the SDF's core demands and could pave the way for a more collaborative framework.

While the challenges to reconciliation are immense, both the SDF and HTS have expressed a commitment to dialogue, offering a fragile but real hope for a peaceful resolution. Success would stabilise northeastern Syria, set a vital precedent for resolving other contentious issues, and pave the way for national unity.

Failure, however, risks plunging Syria back into chaos, exacerbating its humanitarian crisis and undermining regional stability. With the stakes higher than ever, patience, diplomacy, and mutual concessions will be essential to building a stable and unified future for Syria.