Syria’s Transitional Leader Warns of Renewed Upheaval Without Israel Security Deal

By: Fern Sidman

At his first United Nations General Assembly in New York, Syria’s transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa delivered a stark warning: without a credible security arrangement between Israel and his government, the Middle East risks sliding back into renewed turmoil. His remarks, delivered during a forum hosted by the Middle East Institute and reported widely by outlets including World Israel News (WIN), emphasized the fragile equilibrium that has followed the December ouster of Bashar al-Assad after nearly fifteen years of devastating conflict.

Al-Sharaa, a former opposition figure who consolidated power following the collapse of Assad’s regime, sought to project himself as both pragmatic and conciliatory, though not without edge. In his comments, he accused Israel of “dragging its feet” in negotiations while continuing to violate Syrian airspace with recurring reconnaissance and strike missions.

“We are not the ones creating problems for Israel. We are scared of Israel, not the other way around,” he said pointedly. According to the report on Wednesday at World Israel News, the Syrian leader’s choice of words was both unusual and calculated—a mix of vulnerability and veiled accusation aimed at rallying international sympathy without inviting escalation.

Al-Sharaa added that the repeated incursions posed “multiple risks” to stability, from potential miscalculations along the border to emboldening extremist remnants still lurking within Syria. Damascus, he insisted, was “not seeking conflict but stability.”

The transitional president was especially forceful in rejecting any speculation about partitioning Syria into federal zones or ethnic protectorates. “Jordan is under pressure, and any talk of partitioning Syria will hurt Iraq, will hurt Turkey,” he said. “That will take us all back to square one,” undoing the limited progress achieved since the fall of Assad.

As the World Israel News report highlighted, al-Sharaa’s remarks on partition reflect Syria’s enduring fear of Balkanization—a longstanding anxiety dating back to the French Mandate era. He positioned his government as the guardian of territorial integrity, stressing that Damascus would “protect the Druze minority” and safeguard pluralism. The reference to the Druze was not incidental; the minority community, concentrated in the Jabal al-Druze region, has often been caught between government forces, rebel groups, and regional militias.

While al-Sharaa extended an olive branch of sorts toward Israel in the form of a potential security pact, he firmly downplayed the possibility of a larger political breakthrough, such as diplomatic recognition of the Jewish state.

As reported by World Israel News, Syrian officials have emphasized that their immediate objective is to finalize military and security arrangements by year’s end. These would likely involve formal guarantees against Israeli air raids, in exchange for Damascus pledging not to deploy heavy weaponry or advanced missiles near the border region.

Such an arrangement would be a modest but potentially transformative step, reflecting both Israel’s strategic need to prevent Iranian entrenchment in Syria and al-Sharaa’s own imperative to stabilize a war-battered country.

U.S. Special Envoy Tom Barrack, who has been closely engaged in mediating indirect talks, struck a cautiously optimistic tone. Speaking on the sidelines of the General Assembly, Barrack described ongoing discussions as “constructive” and highlighted the contours of a possible “de-escalation” deal.

Under this tentative framework, Israel would halt its air incursions into Syrian territory, while Syria would refrain from bringing heavy military assets into sensitive zones abutting the Golan Heights. “That kind of step could lay the groundwork for a wider agreement,” Barrack told reporters, according to the report at World Israel News.

Barrack’s comments marked the clearest public signal yet that Washington sees a window of opportunity to defuse one of the Middle East’s most enduring flashpoints.

During his New York visit, al-Sharaa also held a private meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. According to accounts cited in the World Israel News report, the meeting revolved around Syria’s immediate humanitarian needs, ongoing counterterrorism concerns, and the potential contours of a security dialogue with Israel.

While no official joint statement was issued, insiders suggested that Rubio pressed al-Sharaa on curbing arms transfers through Syrian territory, particularly to Hezbollah. The transitional president, for his part, reiterated his desire to stabilize relations with Western powers without compromising Syria’s sovereignty.

Perhaps the most symbolic moment of al-Sharaa’s trip will come with his scheduled address to the General Assembly—the first by a Syrian head of state in nearly six decades. In prepared remarks previewed by aides and cited in the World Israel News report, the speech is expected to highlight Syria’s emergence from civil war, its commitment to territorial unity, and its aspiration to serve as a “stabilizing force in a volatile region.”

Yet even as al-Sharaa presents himself as a reformer on the global stage, Israel and Syria remain formally at war, with no peace treaty and a long history of border skirmishes. His outreach, while notable, is thus framed by deep mistrust and decades of hostility.

For Israel, the prospect of a new Syrian leader seeking a deal is both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, the collapse of Assad’s regime—long a conduit for Iranian and Hezbollah operations—could remove one of Israel’s most entrenched adversaries. On the other, al-Sharaa’s government remains untested, its capacity to enforce agreements uncertain, and its internal power base fragile.

As World Israel News reported, Israeli officials remain deeply skeptical of Damascus’s intentions. Jerusalem has made clear that any arrangement must guarantee that Iranian forces and their proxies will not be permitted to reestablish themselves under the guise of Syrian sovereignty. Without such guarantees, Israeli leaders warn, the cycle of airstrikes and retaliations will continue.

Al-Sharaa’s insistence that partition would destabilize Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey is not mere rhetoric. Each of those states has experienced the aftershocks of Syria’s conflict:

Jordan has absorbed waves of refugees and fears spillover violence.

Iraq continues to struggle with militia activity that often intersects with Syrian dynamics.

Turkey faces its own Kurdish insurgency and has intervened militarily in northern Syria.

As the World Israel News report observed, al-Sharaa’s diplomatic pitch is thus aimed not only at Israel but at the broader international community: accept Syria’s territorial integrity as non-negotiable, and Damascus will act as a stabilizer rather than a spoiler.

The months ahead will test whether al-Sharaa’s rhetoric translates into substantive policy. While he has signaled openness to a limited security deal with Israel, he has been equally clear that Damascus will not consider deeper normalization. For Israel, any accord would be judged by its ability to curb Iranian activity and secure its northern frontier.

For the international community, particularly the United States, the priority remains to prevent Syria from sliding back into chaos while averting a wider regional war. As the World Israel News report emphasized, the prospect of a pragmatic deal—however narrow—offers a glimmer of hope in a region where optimism has long been in short supply.

Ahmed al-Sharaa’s debut at the United Nations marks a pivotal moment for Syria and the wider Middle East. His warnings of fresh upheaval if no deal is struck with Israel carry both urgency and subtle leverage. By presenting himself as a cautious reformer intent on stability, he has sought to position Syria as a country ready to move beyond the brutality of Assad’s reign.

Yet as the World Israel News report noted, the path to lasting security will be fraught with obstacles: mistrust between old adversaries, competing regional agendas, and the enduring shadow of Iran and Hezbollah.

Still, for the first time in years, the prospect of dialogue between Damascus and Jerusalem is being openly discussed—not as fantasy, but as a potential step toward easing one of the region’s most dangerous fault lines.