Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has formally responded to the 10 March peace agreement between the Syrian interim government and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), expressing conditional support while maintaining Turkey’s counterterrorism narrative. The deal, signed by Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Julani) and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Commander Mazloum Abdi, has been widely welcomed by international actors, including the United Nations, US, France, Germany, the Gulf states and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq.
UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen described the deal as “a significant step toward an inclusive political framework that respects Syria’s diverse communities and provides a foundation for lasting stability”. However, Turkey, a pivotal actor in Syria, remained conspicuously silent for over 24 hours before issuing a response on the evening of 11 March.
Erdoğan first addressed the agreement in a speech during an event in Ankara:
“The signed memorandum must be implemented in full. The more we elevate our brotherhood as Arabs, Turks and Kurds, the more we can thwart all plots and secure our future. Please, let us not forget that there is no path forward other than [by] respecting each other’s sensitivities.”
Reiterating Ankara’s security concerns, he added:
“The implementation of yesterday’s memorandum will serve Syria’s security and stability. The winner in this will be all our Syrian brothers and sisters. We consider every effort to rid Syria of terrorism a step in the right direction.”
Following this public statement, Erdoğan posted an official response on X platform, reinforcing Turkey’s security-centric approach:
“We see every effort to cleanse Syria of terrorism as a step in the right direction. The memorandum reached yesterday must be fully implemented for the security and stability of Syria. The winners in this will be all our Syrian brothers and sisters.”
Despite its extensive military and political involvement in Syria, Ankara’s delayed response contrasts with the swift endorsements issued by other global actors. Analysts suggest that Turkey used this period to evaluate the implications of the agreement for its strategic interests, particularly in relation to its longstanding opposition to Kurdish-led governance structures in North and East Syria.
Political scientist Sinan Önal, speaking to veteran journalist Günay Aslan, argued that Turkey must now immediately reassess its policies towards northern Syria. Önal suggested that Ankara has no viable alternative but to end its aggression and initiate a phased withdrawal from the regions it has occupied since 2018. Given the international support for the peace deal, he contended that Turkey risks further diplomatic isolation if it continues its current strategy of military interventions and proxy warfare in northern Syria.
Related Articles:
Arab countries welcome agreement between SDF and Damascus Iraq: Barzani welcomes Syria agreement as ‘transition step’ Syria’s first official recognition of Kurdish rights: a pivotal step toward post-Assad political reconfiguration
While Erdoğan’s endorsement of the agreement marks a rhetorical shift, his continued emphasis on counterterrorism raises doubts about Ankara’s true intentions. Since 2018, Turkey has occupied key regions in northern Syria, including Afrin (Efrîn), Bab, Azaz, Tell Abyad (Girê Spî) and Ras al-Ayn (Serêkaniyê), areas where multiple reports from international human rights organisations have documented systemic forced displacement, extrajudicial killings, torture and demographic engineering. A recent People’s Tribunal on Rojava (North and East Syria) formally found Turkey guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in these occupied areas.
So, though Turkey formally supports the peace agreement, questions persist regarding whether it will facilitate de-escalation or continue its military incursions and proxy interventions. Historically, Ankara has used the Syrian National Army (SNA) and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to maintain influence in the region, contributing to cycles of instability. Observers are now closely watching whether Erdoğan’s endorsement is a strategic move aimed at maintaining diplomatic leverage or a genuine commitment to supporting peace.
On one hand, Turkey presents itself as a proponent of Syrian stability, but its military actions suggest otherwise, with cross-border drone strikes and targeted assassinations of Kurdish political and military figures continuing despite Ankara’s public backing of the agreement. The persistence of Turkish military operations raises concern over Ankara’s potential dual-track strategy—using diplomatic engagement to maintain regional legitimacy while maintaining targeted aggression against Kurdish regions in northern Syria, notably the against the Tishreen (Tişrîn) Dam, a vital civilian infrastructure.
Analysts argue that Erdoğan’s shift from silence to endorsement was a calculated move to sustain Turkey’s geopolitical leverage, with Ankara delaying its response in order to seek assurances regarding the agreement’s implications for its broader security concerns. Erdoğan’s persistent counterterrorism rhetoric highlights Turkey’s ongoing attempts to delegitimise Kurdish political structures while maintaining its foothold in northern Syria.
The international community has yet to observe substantial policy shifts from Ankara to indicate a genuine commitment to a long-term peace process, noting that a failure to halt military operations against Kurdish forces risks undermining the very stability envisioned by the peace deal.
While Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its core military units, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), are allied with the US-led Global Coalition against ISIS (Da’ash), Turkey has maintained backing for HTS, a designated terrorist organisation. This paradox raises further concerns over Ankara’s objectives in Syria, as Turkey continues to justify its military presence in the region under the pretext of combating terrorism while simultaneously supporting designated extremist groups.
