By: Ariella Haviv

In a development that underscores the volatile and constantly shifting dynamics of the Middle East, direct security talks between Israel and Syria are reportedly underway in Amman, Jordan, according to a detailed report by the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. Though conducted far from public scrutiny, the negotiations mark a rare episode of bilateral contact between two nations still technically at war—and suggest that pragmatic security concerns may be nudging old adversaries into a tactical dialogue, if not yet toward formal peace.

As reported by Israel National News on Tuesday, the talks focus primarily on security stabilization along Israel’s northern frontier, particularly with regard to the gradual withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) units currently operating in southern Syria. The region—plagued by militia activity, Iranian proxy entrenchment, and remnants of jihadi factions—has remained a persistent flashpoint even after the formal collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime and the rise of President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

High-ranking officials from both sides, including senior Syrian military commanders and Syria’s defense minister, are said to be participating in the discreet discussions, which have reportedly been facilitated by Jordanian mediation. Sources cited by Israel National News suggest that while the agenda is narrowly framed around tactical disengagement and de-escalation, the very fact that such talks are taking place represents a potential strategic inflection point.

Despite the apparent momentum, the Syrian government remains firmly resistant to any broader rapprochement. Syrian officials close to the regime told Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that President al-Sharaa has no intention of pursuing a peace agreement with the State of Israel at this time. His government’s demands are unequivocal: a complete Israeli military withdrawal from all Syrian territory seized following the 2022 regional collapse of Assad’s rule, and a categorical refusal to accept any expanded buffer zones that would, in Damascus’s view, amount to territorial concessions.

The report at Israel National News emphasized that this rejection of normalization reflects deep-seated Syrian policy, rooted in both historical grievance and contemporary political calculus. The Sharaa regime, still consolidating its fragile legitimacy after years of civil war and regional fragmentation, remains under intense domestic and ideological pressure not to be seen as capitulating to what many within Syria still regard as “the Zionist entity.”

In a recent public statement, President Sharaa acknowledged the existence of indirect and direct talks with Israel, but insisted that their scope is strictly limited to de-escalation objectives. “Whether direct or indirect,” he stated, “the purpose is to prevent loss of control and dangerous escalation. This does not involve recognition of Israel or progress toward peace at this stage.”

His comments were reported by Israel National News, which noted that while such language is typical of Damascus’s rhetorical posture, it also indicates a degree of realpolitik creeping into Syria’s regional strategy—especially amid mounting Iranian and Hezbollah-related tensions along the Israeli border.

From Israel’s standpoint, the situation in southern Syria remains highly volatile, with Iranian-backed militias and Hezbollah elements attempting to entrench themselves under the cover of ongoing instability. Over the past year, the IDF has conducted dozens of precision strikes inside Syrian territory aimed at neutralizing weapons shipments and disrupting terrorist command structures, actions frequently confirmed by Israeli defense officials in interviews with Israel National News.

According to military analysts cited by the outlet, Israel’s continued presence—whether via covert units, intelligence infrastructure, or short-term operational deployments—is driven not by imperial ambition but by necessity. “Israel is not looking for land in Syria,” one senior defense official told Israel National News, “but we cannot allow Iranian forward bases just kilometers from the Galilee.”

That calculus, however, is being weighed against the increasing international and regional pressure to avoid open-ended military commitments in foreign territory. A phased withdrawal, under specific security guarantees, would allow Israel to reduce its footprint while maintaining strategic deterrence. That, sources suggest, is likely what is being explored in the Amman talks.

Still, there is no illusion—at least in Jerusalem—that a diplomatic breakthrough is imminent. As the Israel National News report observed, these talks are not akin to the Abraham Accords or even the cold but enduring peace treaties Israel maintains with Egypt and Jordan. They are tactical, not transformational. The goal is not normalization, but containment.

Yet some observers believe that even limited understandings with Damascus could yield meaningful dividends, particularly in reducing the chances of a multi-front conflict. In recent months, Israel has faced an uptick in northern threats, including rocket launches from southern Syria and skirmishes along the Lebanese border. With Gaza in flux and the Iranian nuclear file unresolved, any de-escalation in the north could free Israeli strategic bandwidth to confront more immediate and existential threats.

“It’s not about making friends,” a former Israeli diplomat told Israel National News. “It’s about keeping the war from spreading. If you can stabilize the Syrian front, even temporarily, that’s a win.”

Jordan’s role as intermediary is also notable. Long positioned as a quiet broker in regional diplomacy, the Hashemite Kingdom maintains relations with both Israel and Syria, and has a vested interest in preventing the Syrian conflict from reigniting or spilling across its borders. As per the information in the Israel National News report, Jordanian intelligence officials have played a crucial role in securing these preliminary dialogues and in ensuring that both parties can speak under a protective cloak of deniability.

According to regional analysts, Amman’s involvement lends legitimacy and stability to a process that would otherwise be dismissed by hardliners on both sides. It also reflects Jordan’s desire to position itself as a gateway for post-war regional normalization, particularly as global powers recede from direct involvement in the Levant.

While no peace accord is on the horizon, the ongoing talks between Israel and Syria, as reported by Israel National News, reflect a pragmatic attempt to lower the temperature in one of the region’s most combustible theaters. The issues remain thorny, the distrust palpable, and the political costs high for any hint of compromise.

Yet in a region often defined by zero-sum narratives, even the possibility of a limited security arrangement grounded in mutual deterrence could mark a step forward. Whether this initiative evolves into anything more durable—or collapses under the weight of mutual suspicion—will depend on the capacity of both governments to recognize that sometimes, the absence of war is the closest thing to peace available.