What comes after the liberation of eastern Syria?
22. January 2026
The return of the state to eastern Syria may have secured territory and resources, but it has yet to answer the harder question of people. Without putting citizens – not oil – at the centre of reconstruction and decision-making, liberation risks becoming a missed political moment.
What unfolded in recent days east of the Euphrates marked a pivotal moment in contemporary Syrian political history, where military solutions intersected with law, and economics converged with politics. On 16 January 2026, President al-Sharaa issued Decree No. 13 affirming that Kurdish Syrian citizens are an integral and authentic part of the Syrian people, and that their cultural and linguistic identity is an inseparable component of Syria’s unified and plural national identity. This was followed by the signing of an agreement between the government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Together, these steps suggest that the country is entering a new political phase defined by the reassertion of sovereignty and the recovery of economic resources after years of effective state absence from nearly a quarter of Syrian territory.
From military understanding to legal framework
The agreement with the SDF carries significant political weight. It marks a shift towards an official institutional framework that defines the relationship between the state and local communities that had controlled the region for years. This transformation reflects the Syrian leadership’s recognition that military force alone is insufficient to restore effective control, and that any sustainable recovery requires legal and political legitimacy to strengthen the state and establish durable systems for managing strategic resources.
Decree No. 13 represents a tangible step in this direction. Its impact, however, will remain limited unless it is followed by concrete mechanisms that involve local communities in resource governance and oversight, and that ensure residents benefit directly from the economic returns generated in their areas.
Politically, the agreement signals an effort by the government to limit the degree of local autonomy previously exercised in parts of eastern Syria under SDF administration and to restore the primacy of state institutions. From a security perspective, emphasising legal institutions and the state’s legitimate authority aims to reduce potential conflicts between tribes, local factions, and security forces, while establishing a more predictable system for resource management without triggering renewed confrontation.
Nevertheless, a fundamental question remains: is the government’s focus confined to resources and formal legitimacy, or will it translate into concrete plans to rebuild people and rehabilitate local society after years of war and occupation? Amid the current fixation on oil, gas, and billions in revenues, the social and humanitarian file appears relegated to the margins. That neglect threatens the sustainability of any economic or political gains achieved after liberation.
Where is the citizen?
As the army and tribal forces advanced through Raqqa, Deir Ezzor, and parts of Hasakah, government attention appeared fixed on reclaiming the arteries of the national economy: oil and gas. What is striking, however, is the absence of a corresponding concern for the lives of the people from the northeast who endured and sacrificed.
Residents of these regions lost their cities, their livelihoods, and their futures to displacement, repression, poverty, starvation, and siege. They offered martyrs along the road to liberation. Yet the military offensive was not accompanied by an articulated vision for reconstruction, compensation, or even reintegration into local decision-making, nor for securing their economic and social future – despite repeated assurances from Damascus.
Recommendations to the Syrian leadership
Syria’s leadership now needs a comprehensive approach that places people at the heart of reconstruction and development, ensuring that economic plans are not limited to reclaiming oil fields, but are organically linked to education, healthcare, housing, and cultural life.
This also necessitates the genuine inclusion of local communities in decision-making, through representative councils that bring together residents, tribes, and professional expertise in each governorate, thereby setting economic and social reconstruction priorities from the bottom up. Equally unavoidable is the issue of compensating those harmed by the war and building local capacities, through fair compensation schemes and workforce training programmes that enable participation in reconstruction efforts across industry, agriculture, and energy, and turning recovery into a national, collective endeavour.
Syria’s recovery further demands an integrated plan for rebuilding its devastated cities, particularly Raqqa and Deir Ezzor, based on modern urban designs that prioritise essential infrastructure and public services. Only then can sustainable development take root and normal life begin to return for people, not just for concrete.
