By: Ariella Haviv

The prospect of an Israeli-Syrian security agreement — something once considered politically impossible given decades of hostility and open war — has returned to the forefront of Middle Eastern diplomacy. According to multiple reports, Damascus is accelerating negotiations with Jerusalem under strong U.S. pressure, in the hope of securing a limited pact that might curb Israel’s recent advances into Syrian territory while falling far short of a comprehensive peace.

Sources briefed on the discussions told Reuters that Washington is eager to see tangible progress before the United Nations General Assembly convenes later this month in New York, where President Donald Trump hopes to announce a “breakthrough” in regional diplomacy. As The Algemeiner noted in its report on Tuesday, even a modest accord between Israel and Syria would be a remarkable feat, not least because the two states remain technically at war and have not engaged in such direct talks for decades.

The Trump administration, according to diplomats and regional intelligence sources, views the Syrian track as an extension of its earlier Abraham Accords framework. That series of deals normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. By pressing Syria’s leadership to negotiate, Washington hopes to expand that circle, or at least show incremental progress, thereby reinforcing America’s diplomatic credibility.

One Israeli security source told Reuters that the pressure was “personal for Trump.” According to this official, the White House sees the UN General Assembly as the perfect stage for the president to portray himself as the architect of another Middle Eastern breakthrough. Yet, as The Algemeiner report emphasized, Israel has little incentive to offer sweeping concessions, having solidified a strong military presence in southern Syria following years of conflict there.

Indeed, on December 8 of last year, Israel effectively abandoned the 1974 disengagement agreement by sending troops within 20 kilometers of Damascus and striking Syrian military infrastructure. These moves followed the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the rise of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose Islamist past remains a major concern for Jerusalem.

Syrian officials have floated a limited proposal: Israel would withdraw from territory seized in recent months, reinstate the demilitarized buffer zone established under the 1974 truce, and cease its air strikes and ground incursions. In return, Damascus would strengthen border controls and commit to reducing militant activity in southern Syria.

Notably, the talks have not broached the subject of the Golan Heights — territory Israel captured in 1967 and later annexed, with formal recognition from the Trump administration in 2019. A Syrian source told Reuters that the Golan would be “left for the future.” The Algemeiner report observed that any agreement excluding the Golan is bound to face skepticism in Damascus, where public opinion has long treated its return as non-negotiable.

Israel, for its part, has indicated a firm unwillingness to retreat from the Golan even in the long term. An Israeli official told Reuters that feelers sent through U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack about a possible southern Syria withdrawal in exchange for relinquishing the Golan were deemed “a non-starter.”

Trust remains the most formidable obstacle. As The Algemeiner has repeatedly reported, Israeli leaders view Syria’s Islamist-led government with deep suspicion, citing Sharaa’s jihadist links and his reliance on militias tied to Iran and Hezbollah. Jerusalem fears that even limited agreements could give cover to hostile actors operating under Damascus’s umbrella.

Syrian officials, meanwhile, accuse Israel of using any pretext to justify continued strikes, pointing to recent bombings in Sweida and Damascus as evidence of bad faith. One Western diplomat quoted in the negotiations described the atmosphere in Paris, where the two sides resumed talks after sectarian violence in southern Syria, as “tense and joyless.”

The phased process now under discussion resembles the model used in the late 1970s with Egypt: incremental troop withdrawals, buffer zones, and external guarantors. Yet, as The Algemeiner report noted, the analogy falters since Israel and Egypt shared no internal civil war at the time, and Egypt’s sovereignty was less fragmented than Syria’s is today.

A key development reshaping the negotiations is the Druze community in Sweida. After reports of Syrian forces carrying out execution-style killings of Druze civilians, local leaders have increasingly sought independence and proposed a humanitarian corridor linking Sweida with the Israeli-controlled Golan.

Two Druze commanders and a Western intelligence source told Reuters that Israel has supplied arms and paid salaries to Druze militia fighters — claims that Jerusalem has not confirmed but has not explicitly denied either. The Algemeiner report observed that Israel’s cultivation of Druze militias strengthens its leverage in southern Syria and places additional pressure on Damascus.

President Sharaa, according to Syrian insiders, cannot afford to concede a corridor, viewing it as an infringement on sovereignty. Yet he also recognizes that antagonizing Israel could invite devastating reprisals. One aide summarized his calculus: “Avoiding confrontation is central to his plan to rebuild and govern.”

For the United States, the immediate goal is symbolic: demonstrating that its diplomatic heft remains unmatched in the Middle East. A senior administration official told Reuters that Trump personally informed Sharaa in Riyadh this past May that he expected Syria to “work towards peace and normalization with Israel.”

As The Algemeiner reported, Washington’s support reflects a broader strategy of integrating regional adversaries into a framework that reduces opportunities for Iranian influence. By coaxing Damascus into a limited pact, the U.S. could potentially weaken Hezbollah’s foothold and reduce Tehran’s role in Syria’s reconstruction.

The State Department has been cautious in public statements, stressing only its support for “any efforts that will bring lasting stability and peace.” Yet the timing of Trump’s push — aligning a potential announcement with the UN General Assembly — reveals a strong desire for political theater as well as substance.

Syria’s capacity to negotiate from strength is severely limited. Years of war have hollowed out its military and fractured its society. While Sharaa has consolidated nominal power in Damascus, his government faces strong centrifugal pressures from Kurds in the northeast, Druze in the south, and Sunni militias in scattered enclaves.

As The Algemeiner report pointed out, this fragmentation creates opportunities for Israel but also complicates diplomacy. Any pact that appears to trade sovereignty for survival could further delegitimize Sharaa among his supporters. Western diplomats believe Sharaa is therefore unlikely to consider broader normalization soon, preferring narrow agreements focused on de-escalation.

Economically, Syria remains desperate for aid. Former Turkish diplomat Erdem Ozan told Reuters that Sharaa’s need to attract Gulf and Western investment may push him toward pragmatic concessions, including demilitarization near Israel’s border. Yet balancing such concessions with the need to maintain legitimacy will prove difficult.

Israel approaches the talks from a position of strength. Its military controls key posts near Mount Hermon and enforces wide buffer zones modeled on those it created in Gaza and Lebanon after the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. Defense Minister Israel Katz has stated publicly that Israel will not relinquish its Hermon surveillance post.

From Jerusalem’s perspective, a security pact that freezes gains in southern Syria while demanding minimal concessions would be an optimal outcome. The Algemeiner has reported that Israel’s leadership remains deeply reluctant to withdraw troops absent ironclad guarantees — something Syrian negotiators are unable to provide.

Moreover, Israel’s successful cultivation of Druze militias ensures that any Syrian attempt to reassert full control in Sweida will face stiff resistance. As one Israeli analyst told The Algemeiner, “Jerusalem can afford to play a waiting game. Time is not on Sharaa’s side.”

Despite the obstacles, the talks themselves mark a significant departure from decades of hostility. Direct negotiations in Paris represented the first public acknowledgment by Damascus of formal dialogue with Israel. While trust is low and concessions are limited, even incremental agreements — such as restoring elements of the 1974 buffer zone — would alter the regional landscape.

For President Trump, a modest pact may suffice. The Algemeiner report noted that the White House has long prioritized optics: an announcement of progress, however limited, could be framed as another diplomatic triumph alongside the Abraham Accords. Whether such framing aligns with reality remains an open question.

For Israel, the calculus is straightforward: maintain security dominance in the south, neutralize immediate threats, and avoid entanglement in Syria’s broader instability. For Syria, the stakes are existential: secure breathing room for reconstruction while avoiding concessions that could fatally undermine the regime’s legitimacy.

The accelerating Israeli-Syrian negotiations reflect a complex interplay of military realities, diplomatic ambitions, and political theater. U.S. pressure has forced Damascus to move faster than it otherwise would, while Israel, emboldened by territorial gains and regional leverage, remains cautious about offering concessions.

The talks highlight both the possibilities and limitations of Middle Eastern diplomacy. They show that even adversaries with decades of bloodshed can find areas of pragmatic cooperation under sufficient pressure. Yet they also reveal the enduring barriers of mistrust, ideology, and contested sovereignty.

Whether the talks yield a narrow security pact or collapse under the weight of conflicting demands, the process itself has already reshaped regional dynamics. For Washington, it is a chance to showcase relevance; for Damascus, a gamble for survival; and for Jerusalem, a test of how far it can secure its interests without offering peace in return.

In the end, the fate of these negotiations may hinge less on goodwill than on cold calculations of power — calculations that both sides know too well.