Recent developments point to a gradual, step-by-step approach in U.S. policy toward Syria under President Donald Trump’s current term, following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This approach appears clearly defined, combining discreet messages exchanged behind closed doors with carefully calibrated public statements carrying pointed political signals.
This strategy is particularly evident in the phased easing of U.S. sanctions on Syria, which has unfolded in calculated steps alongside persistent leaks about progress in negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv, as well as hints at Syria’s potential integration into the Abraham Accords; a framework that has reshaped the region’s priorities.
Last Monday, President Trump signed an executive order lifting sanctions on Syria, according to the news site Axios. U.S. officials stated that the Syrian government had taken “significant steps to promote stability,” prompting Washington to end the national emergency status regarding Syria, which was first declared in 2004.
The decision also includes a potential review of Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism and directs the U.S. State Department to reassess the status of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s former affiliate in Syria). The executive order eases export controls on certain goods and grants specific exemptions from foreign aid restrictions, while also instructing the State Department to explore ways to further ease sanctions through the UN to support stabilization efforts.
President Trump declared that the United States is committed to support “a Syria that is stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors, a united Syria that does not offer a safe haven for terrorist organizations and ensures the security of its religious and ethnic minorities will support regional security and prosperity,”
Read also: Secret Syria-Israel Talks Consider U.S. Troops on Golan Buffer Zone
Security Talks and Sovereignty Dilemmas
Axios also reported that the Trump administration has opened preliminary talks with both Israel and Syria on a possible security arrangement. According to the report, while these talks do not yet amount to formal normalization, they lay the groundwork for future diplomatic efforts to ease tensions and update security arrangements along the Israeli-Syrian border.
An Israeli official confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu conveyed to the U.S. envoy to Syria, Thomas Barrack, Israel’s interest in negotiating a security agreement with the Syrian government, with the U.S. serving as the primary mediator.
This American strategy hinges on gradually reintegrating Syria into the global political and economic order, using the lifting of sanctions as leverage to secure U.S. objectives in the Middle East. It also closely monitors Damascus’s commitment to building state institutions, ensuring stability, and genuinely integrating the country’s diverse communities.
In this context, Dr. Samir Al-Taqi, a researcher at the Middle East Institute, revealed that direct negotiations have been taking place between Syria and Israel, some brokered by Turkey and others facilitated by Gulf states. These talks have directly addressed the issue of the Golan Heights.
Speaking to +963, Al-Taqi explained that Israel continues to view the Syrian leadership through a strictly security-focused lens, demanding the removal of all heavy weapons from areas extending up to 80 kilometers from the Golan border, including the capital Damascus. Israel also insists on keeping jihadist fighters and Palestinian groups out of this zone.
Al-Taqi noted that managing the jihadist issue poses a complex challenge for Syria’s new leadership, particularly since the government has incorporated some of these fighters into the army, while the underlying jihadist ideology remains an unpredictable factor.
He added that Israel is now seeking deeper involvement in Syria’s communications and intelligence infrastructure, requesting direct cooperation from the Syrian authorities in this area.
A core sticking point remains the renegotiation of the 1974 disengagement agreement. According to Al-Taqi, Israel wants new security provisions that would allow it to continue carrying out strikes inside Syria, as it does in the south; a demand that remains highly contested.
Read also: Trump Lifts U.S. Sanctions on Syria Effective Today
Al-Monitor reported on Tuesday that secret talks between Syria and Israel, conducted through indirect channels, include proposals to involve U.S. forces in the Golan buffer zone as part of a broader rethink of the 1974 disengagement agreement.
The outlet noted that these talks are currently being handled at intelligence and diplomatic levels, focusing on a gradual security settlement under international sponsorship rather than a comprehensive peace treaty. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are reportedly mediating the negotiations, while Washington has signaled its readiness to apply diplomatic pressure to keep the process on track.
Should these efforts stall, an alternative plan is said to involve altering the current ceasefire mechanism by redefining the role of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and adjusting Syrian force deployments on the Golan to reflect new regional balances.
Al-Taqi stressed that Syria’s potential participation in the Abraham Accords raises serious sovereignty concerns, particularly over the Golan Heights. He argued that Syria cannot abandon its claim to the Golan for deeply rooted political and national reasons.
He added that Israel’s approach to the Abraham Accords assumes any future Syrian claims will be nullified; a scenario that remains highly unlikely under current conditions. Syria is unlikely to join the accords until major Arab powers, including Saudi Arabia, have done so, according to Al-Taqi
He pointed out two main obstacles: the first is the renegotiation of the 1974 disengagement agreement; the second relates directly to the Abraham Accords. For now, he said, the U.S. has not explicitly linked its engagement with Syria to a peace deal with Israel but does demand basic security guarantees, including Israel’s freedom to carry out strikes inside Syria and assurances over Golan security.
A Possible Security Pact
Meanwhile, Israeli Channel 12 reported that the first phase of negotiations could result in a security agreement between Syria and Israel, with talks still underway behind closed doors. Sources suggest that relations between the two sides could gradually develop by the end of the year.
According to these reports, Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has shown an unprecedented openness to the idea of peace with Israel, as he conveyed during his meetings with President Trump and U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack. However, this peace would hinge on a broader regional deal that meets all sides’ demands.
Read also: Israel Confirms Direct Talks and Security Coordination with Syrian Government
Rami Abdulrahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, mentioned the possibility of a meeting this September between Al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Tom Harb, director of the American Middle East Coalition for Democracy, argued that the fate of the Golan Heights was sealed during Trump’s first term, asserting, “There are no current negotiations over this issue, and Al-Sharaa must acknowledge the U.S. position.”
On sanctions, Harb explained that these were originally imposed on Bashar al-Assad, his regime, and their allies, and that the decision to lift them depends on Washington’s assessment of the new Syrian government’s commitment to regional stability and its willingness to break ties with extremist groups.
Regarding normalization, Harb added, “Israel fully understands the lack of functioning state institutions in Syria, such as a unified parliament and constitution, which makes it difficult to sign an agreement with a single individual like Ahmed Al-Sharaa without a broader, legitimate political framework.”
He concluded, “This is why Damascus must work seriously to reactivate its official institutions so it can implement international agreements within a regionally and globally acceptable legal context.”
