Regional and international positions on southern Syria increasingly converge around one idea: the future of the region is tied to a wider reshaping of the Middle East’s security landscape. While Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan frames the south’s stability around removing what he calls the Israeli threat, Syrian diplomats emphasise the need to keep any external role within the limits of national sovereignty. Analysts believe the file is being negotiated between three capitals – Ankara, Tel Aviv and Washington – with Damascus remaining a central actor that cannot be bypassed.
Against this backdrop, recent statements by officials and experts appear to answer questions raised by current field developments and behind-the-scenes talks.
Redefining Security in the South
Fidan’s recent comments outlined Ankara’s view of its role. He said the main issue in discussions with Washington is “removing Israel as a threat to Syria, ensuring Syria is not a threat to Israel, and guaranteeing respect for Syria’s territorial integrity”. He stressed that part of Syrian land is currently under occupation and that “this situation must end without adopting any approach that threatens the rest of Syria”. He also called on the United States to pressure Israel accordingly.
Fidan criticised Israeli activity in the south, describing “provocations towards our Druze brothers” and pointing to longstanding historical complexities in the area. Turkey, he added, is following developments closely and warns against attempts to exploit Syria’s transitional period to create new risks from within or through external actors “who have an interest in chaos”.
Read also: Government-Led Suwayda Investigation Extended: Key Questions Ignored
A Turkish Role – Negotiable but Bound by Sovereignty
Former Syrian diplomat Bashar al-Hajj Ali told +963 that Damascus approaches any proposal involving an indirect Turkish role “with realism”, given the regional nature of today’s security challenges. Any possible role, he said, would depend on three conditions: clear limits to the political and security role; no link whatsoever to Turkish influence on the ground; and the presence of a regional guarantees framework ensuring cooperation leads to stability rather than competition.
He said Syria could, in principle, offer guarantees if Israel withdrew from Mount Hermon, but only if conditions allow them to be implemented. These include restoring full state authority in the south, creating monitoring mechanisms with a Syrian, regional or international character, and agreeing political arrangements that prevent the south from turning into a battleground for external actors.
Turkey, meanwhile, insists it has no military presence in the south. Analyst Hisham Rustum said Ankara’s focus is on political and diplomatic support for the Syrian government while respecting shared interests. He added that some Druze groups have moved closer to Israel, which occasionally uses them to influence developments in the south.
Rustem said Turkey’s approach is independent of U.S. guarantees and rooted in its own national interests, noting that all Turkish state institutions align with President Erdoğan’s position on Syria.
Israel Signals No Withdrawal
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has made Israel’s stance explicit, declaring that its forces “will not withdraw from Mount Hermon” and will remain in the southern security zone. His statement followed reports by Axios that Israel offered Syria a plan including a large, demilitarised zone and a no-fly zone stretching from south-west Damascus to the border. Damascus rejects the proposal entirely.
Israeli media, meanwhile, have expressed concern that U.S. President Donald Trump could pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make concessions following Syrian interim president Ahmad al-Sharaa’s historic visit to the White House. Yedioth Ahronoth reported that Israeli bulldozers have moved further into Syrian territory on Mount Hermon for fortification works ahead of winter. It recalled that Israeli forces crossed into Syria after the collapse of the Assad government in December 2024. Quiet indirect talks between the two sides, according to the report, have made no progress.
The Times of Israel wrote that the improving relationship between Trump and Sharaa has become a serious challenge for Tel Aviv as Washington redraws its strategy in Syria, forcing Israel to re-evaluate its security posture in the north.
Read also: Balancing Justice and Strategy: Assad’s Fate
Difficult Talks, but Ongoing
President Al-Sharaa told The Washington Post that negotiations with Israel face major obstacles but continue with U.S. and international backing. He said he prefers an agreement that returns Syrian lands occupied since December 2011 but does not include broad regional normalisation efforts seen elsewhere under the Trump administration. Speaking about a possible demilitarised zone in the south, he asked: “If chaos breaks out in the demilitarised zone, who will protect it? Who will be responsible for it?” Southern Damascus, he stressed, is Syrian territory and the state must be able to act freely within its own borders.
Al-Sharaa said the United States remains the only country capable of restraining Israel and expressed hope for a lasting peace that preserves the unity of Syrian territory.
Three Capitals Shape the Scene
Egyptian expert Dr Ahmad Fouad Anwar told +963 that the regional dynamics in Syria are driven by three main centres – Ankara, Tel Aviv and Washington. He argued that Turkey’s stance is partly aimed at justifying and strengthening its position in northern Syria, using discussions about the south to present an image of international tolerance. He also said Washington views the Eastern Mediterranean as one continuous security zone, stretching from Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase to facilities in Israel and potentially Syria, intended to contain Russian influence.
Regarding Israel, he said Tel Aviv’s narratives about U.S. pressure to reconsider its deployment in Syria are linked to securing its own long-term security. He added that such guarantees could be provided through mechanisms like those used in Sinai, such as international monitoring forces or early-warning centres.
