Another agreement has been reached between the Damascus administration and the YPG/SDF. This time, they formulated the spirit of the agreement as "gradual integration". 

Therefore, we can consider this more of a compromise than an agreement. A compromise between individual integration and holistic integration: gradual integration.

Brigade-level integration

Syrian state television announced the agreement with the following points:

• Military forces will withdraw from the contact lines.
• Forces affiliated with the Ministry of the Interior will enter the city centres of Hasakah and Qamishli. 
• A military division comprising three brigades affiliated with the YPG/SDF will be formed.
• A brigade affiliated with the Aynularab (Kobani) forces will be organised within a division affiliated with the province of Aleppo. 

In summary, the SDF will be integrated into the Syrian army in the form of brigades.

HTŞ and SDF's compliance with US strategy

The YPG/SDF interpreted the 10 March agreement as "integration into the Syrian army in divisions while maintaining their integrity". The HTŞ/Damascus administration, on the other hand, argued that it meant "the integration of the SDF into the Syrian army individually, one by one". 

Ankara supported the HTS/Damascus regime's view, while Israel supported the YPG/SDF's view.

The US, meanwhile, has set its objectives as achieving normalisation between Israel and Syria, establishing Turkey-Israel cooperation from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and ultimately forming a front against Iran. Therefore, the "value of alliance" of both HTŞ and SDF depends on their compliance with this strategy.

The US investment

The conflict-ridden process, in which the US did not defend the SDF starting from Aleppo and turned a blind eye to HTŞ crossing to the east of the Euphrates, was interpreted by various PKK centres as "selling out" and "betrayal".

In my article dated 22 January, where I analysed why the US did not defend the SDF, in which it had invested, I stated: "From an imperialist perspective, the question is this: Will the US want the SDF to be completely 'individually integrated' and thus eliminated, or will it ensure that it maintains a presence centred in Qamishli in case it regains 'utility value'?"

This is the latest compromise announced by both Damascus and US Ambassador Tom Barrack as "gradual integration"; Washington has invested in maintaining a presence centred in Qamishli in case the SDF's "use value" emerges... 

But is it only Washington?

Turkey-Israel arm wrestling

It is also possible to interpret this compromise as arm wrestling between Turkey and Israel in Syria.

The process began with the 6 January Paris agreement between Israel and Syria. HTŞ took action against the SDF in Aleppo two days later, on 8 January. 

But the operation was not limited to Aleppo, nor even to the west of the Euphrates. With Ankara's influence, it appears that this move was extended to the east of the Euphrates. This is why there have been successive ceasefires and fragile agreements. 

Interestingly, for several days now, Israel has been bombing southern Syria, despite the Paris agreement. This could be interpreted as pressure on HTŞ to make a "new agreement" in favour of the SDF. 

It is clear from various statements that CENTCOM, like Israel, is strongly in favour of the SDF maintaining a presence centred on Qamishli. 

This "phased integration" is the result of this compromise, but it is not final, it is fragile, and it is variable depending on the reflection of power multipliers on the ground.  

In short, this issue will take more time to resolve.