Damascus and Jerusalem Edge Toward Security Understanding: Syrian President Confirms “Advanced Talks”

By: Fern Sidman

In a development that could signal a rare recalibration in one of the Middle East’s most entrenched conflicts, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa confirmed on Sunday that “advanced talks” are underway between Damascus and Jerusalem regarding a prospective security agreement. His remarks, delivered to Arab media representatives, underscore an evolving diplomatic track that may reduce hostilities along one of Israel’s most sensitive borders. According to a report on Sunday at Israel National News (INN), the discussions are widely seen as an effort to renew the 1974 disengagement framework, which has largely defined the Israel-Syria frontier for nearly half a century.

President al-Sharaa stated explicitly that the proposed agreement would be anchored in the 1974 disengagement line, a demarcation established after the Yom Kippur War under U.S. and U.N. auspices. As the INN report highlighted, this line, monitored by U.N. peacekeepers, has served as the practical buffer between Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan Heights, preserving a tenuous but enduring ceasefire despite decades of enmity.

Al-Sharaa described the objective as a renewal of the ceasefire and the establishment of “security arrangements” intended to safeguard Syria’s sovereignty while reducing the risk of cross-border escalation. He carefully noted that while these steps could open the door to broader initiatives, he does not yet foresee the prospect of a full peace treaty with Israel. “If a peace agreement serves the interests of Syria and the Syrian people, I will not hesitate to choose that option,” he said, leaving the possibility open but distant.

The timing of al-Sharaa’s remarks is notable. Just last week, Independent Arabia reported that Israel and Syria are expected to sign a security arrangement on September 25, under American mediation. The reported accord would be limited in scope, designed to stabilize the border and reduce military friction, rather than constitute a comprehensive peace agreement.

As INN reported, Syria’s official news agency revealed that Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani recently met an Israeli delegation in Paris, reportedly led by Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer. These secretive encounters, facilitated by Washington, appear to have laid the groundwork for what could become the most tangible Israeli-Syrian understanding since the 1970s.

According to sources cited by INN, the talks have focused on several core issues critical to regional security:

De-escalation along the border: Ensuring that Syrian and Israeli forces refrain from provocative maneuvers that could ignite clashes.

Non-interference in internal affairs: Israel seeking assurances that its territory will not become a platform for Iranian entrenchment or Hezbollah expansion under Syrian cover.

Stability in southern Syria: Addressing the volatile Druze Mountain area and preventing militias from exploiting local tensions.

Ceasefire monitoring: Renewing mechanisms for oversight and verification that the 1974 disengagement principles are being upheld.

The INN report emphasized that these topics reflect both sides’ mutual interest in avoiding unintended escalation, particularly at a moment when the Syrian state is weakened by years of civil war and Israel remains focused on countering Iran’s regional ambitions.

For Damascus, engagement with Israel represents a pragmatic maneuver rather than an ideological shift. After more than a decade of war that has left much of the country in ruins, President al-Sharaa faces pressing demands for reconstruction and stability. As the INN report noted, the Syrian leader appears intent on consolidating his hold on power by reducing external pressures. Renewing the disengagement framework could ease tensions along the Golan frontier, allowing Damascus to redirect resources inward while signaling to Arab and Western actors that Syria is capable of limited, responsible diplomacy.

Yet al-Sharaa was clear in his remarks: normalization or peace is not on the table for now. Instead, he framed the talks as a security necessity rather than a political reconciliation. His comments appear designed to balance domestic sensitivities—where anti-Israel sentiment remains widespread—with the practical need for quiet borders.

From Jerusalem’s vantage point, any deal with Damascus must be measured against the overriding concern of Iranian entrenchment in Syria. Israel has repeatedly struck Iranian weapons convoys and facilities inside Syria to prevent Hezbollah’s military build-up. A renewed disengagement framework would allow Israel to press Damascus to curtail Iranian or Hezbollah activity in proximity to Israeli territory.

As the INN report observed, Israeli officials are cautiously weighing the opportunity to achieve greater stability on the northern frontier without making sweeping concessions. With Lebanon teetering on the edge of collapse and Hezbollah continuing its provocations, a limited understanding with Damascus could reduce the risk of simultaneous escalations on multiple fronts.

The United States has long played a pivotal role in managing the Israel-Syria relationship. From Henry Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy in 1974 to the Clinton-era peace efforts of the 1990s, Washington has consistently viewed the Golan Heights as a flashpoint requiring careful oversight.

According to the information provided in the INN report, the Trump administration is eager to demonstrate diplomatic engagement in the region at a time when U.S. influence is being challenged by Russia and Iran. By mediating an Israel-Syria security accord, Washington could reaffirm its role as the indispensable stabilizer in the Middle East while signaling support for Israel’s security concerns.

Despite the apparent progress, formidable obstacles remain. Al-Sharaa’s insistence on preserving Syrian sovereignty could conflict with Israel’s demand for robust monitoring of Iranian activity. Trust between the two states remains minimal, and the legacy of decades of conflict cannot be erased by technical agreements alone.

Furthermore, as the INN report pointed out, the broader regional context—ranging from Hezbollah’s posture in Lebanon to Iranian ambitions in Syria—could undermine any bilateral deal. If Damascus is unwilling or unable to restrain Tehran’s presence on its soil, the value of an agreement could be limited.

President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s confirmation of “advanced talks” with Israel represents one of the most significant diplomatic developments between the two countries in decades. While the proposed agreement is far from a peace treaty, it reflects a mutual recognition that stability along the Golan frontier is in both nations’ interests.

As the INN report indicated, the potential accord would renew the spirit of the 1974 disengagement agreement while adapting it to today’s realities: the need to contain Iranian influence, preserve Syrian sovereignty, and prevent spirals of escalation.

For Syria, the talks offer a path toward limited regional reintegration and domestic stability. For Israel, they provide a chance to reduce immediate threats while preserving freedom of action against Iran. For Washington, the process represents an opportunity to reaffirm its role as guarantor of Middle Eastern order.

Though still tentative, the negotiations highlight a paradox of Middle Eastern diplomacy: even adversaries with decades of enmity can find common cause in the pursuit of quiet borders. Whether these talks succeed will depend not only on signatures but on the capacity of both sides to enforce their commitments in a region where ceasefires are fragile and mistrust is abundant.