The past few days have witnessed an important development in the process that began with the March 10, 2025 agreement between the Syrian authorities in Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

On the day the March 10 Agreement was announced, the People’s Will Party issued a press statement expressing its position on the agreement. It stated, among other things:

“At the People’s Will Party, while we view this agreement very positively and see it as an important step toward thwarting the intentions and plans for partition pursued by ‘Israel’, we emphasize that this effort must be reinforced and completed by preventing the recurrence of any events of a sectarian nature, such as the tragic events that took place in the Syrian coastal region in recent days.

The agreement signed today confirms what we have repeatedly stated: that the only correct path for bringing Syria out of its catastrophe and enabling it to rise again is the path of dialogue among Syrians—not the path of fighting, armed conflict, and destruction, which has brought nothing but catastrophe upon Syria and Syrians”.

Today, approximately a year and a half after the March 10 Agreement, and after everything this period has brought, dialogue and partnership once again demonstrate that they remain the only correct path toward resolving the crises facing the country.

Understanding the actual dimensions of this agreement requires looking not only within Syria’s borders, but also at the region as a whole and the developments taking place there, so that these developments can be placed in their proper context:

First: The agreement is a step toward preventing the partition of Syria and thwarting the “Israeli” projects in Syria, including what has been referred to as “David’s Corridor”, as well as the larger project known as “Greater Israel”.

Second: This step is neither isolated nor sufficient on its own to thwart the “Israeli” projects. Rather, it is moving in a direction consistent with the ongoing reconciliation process in Turkey, based on the Öcalan–Bahçeli initiative. In essence, this means preventing the negative exploitation of the Kurdish issue—which is a legitimate cause—precisely by pushing toward resolving it through a genuine solution based on cooperation and fraternity among the peoples of the region, rather than through their fighting and mutual conflict.

Third: This step also comes within a broader, compatible context: that of the general American retreat and withdrawal from the region following the resounding and unmistakable defeat in the war against Iran, alongside the beginning of new arrangements for a new, post-American regional order. The “Mecca Agreement” among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan constitutes one of its initial building blocks, and it is expected to expand later to include Egypt and Iran, with overt support from China and Russia.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the “Israeli” side would seek mechanisms for retaliation and compensation, such as the actions taken by Katz on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon, the bombing of Abu al-Duhur Airport, or the statements made by Hikmat al-Hijri, particularly his most recent ones. We should expect the response to encompass measures that are more extensive and dangerous than these, including in the security, economic, and social spheres.

Despite the importance of this step, the risks facing the country remain substantial. They cannot be addressed without closing the internal gaps by moving rapidly and in parallel on three fronts:

First: A genuine political participation process through a national unity government and a general national conference.

Second: A new economic model that breaks with widespread corruption and with the formulas of neoliberalism, and whose defining features are deep social justice and high, genuine growth.

Third: A correct regional and international positioning on the victorious side of history, in a manner that serves the unity and sovereignty of the country and its people.