The visit of the Syrian Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa to Washington and his meeting with the American president did not yield any progress in the track of security negotiations with Israel. On the contrary, the discussions grew more complicated and reached a dead end, according to the Israeli Broadcasting Authority. It revealed new Israeli demands linked to signing a comprehensive peace agreement as a main precondition for the security accord with Syria, a requirement rejected by the Syrian administration due to the absence of an appropriate political environment for such conditions.
Despite the expectations placed on the American role in resolving the security talks with Israel, this did not materialize during the two visits al-Sharaa made to the United States. It had been anticipated that an agreement on a security framework in southern Syria would be announced during the United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York on September 22, yet no outcome emerged. The visit ended and Tel Aviv subsequently announced new conditions for Damascus concerning the opening of a humanitarian corridor with Sweida, a demand Syria rejected. The same scenario followed the Washington visit on November 9 and the meeting with the American president. Israel again raised its demands, making the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement, not merely a security accord, the main condition for a “limited” and not a full withdrawal from Syria. This indicates either an American position supportive of Israel or an ineffective American pressure mechanism on Israel regarding the Syrian file.
Washington’s Strategy
From the outset, the American president set normalization of relations with Israel as a principal condition for lifting sanctions on Syria, a policy the new administration pledged to implement in line with surrounding circumstances. Yet Syrian goodwill was met with Israeli exploitation. Israeli incursions increased, seven fortified military bases were established in the south, and additional demands surfaced, including a humanitarian corridor to Sweida and an active Israeli role in protecting the Druze community.
President al-Sharaa succeeded in presenting the American president with a clear picture of Israeli conduct toward Damascus. This led Washington to pressure Israel to withdraw from Syria after securing its security guarantees. These pressures were noted by the Maariv newspaper, attributing them to the growing Syrian American rapprochement. Tel Aviv, however, swiftly countered the narrative through Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, asserting that Israel would not withdraw from Mount Hermon nor from the areas it had occupied in southern Syria. This was interpreted as a direct response to American pressure.
It has become evident that Israel is not negotiating with Damascus but rather stalling and distracting without any real intention of signing a security agreement. The strategy of Israeli force projection has shaped its operational mindset. Israel no longer feels obligated to enter into any agreement that might restrict its presence in Syria, especially after securing full control over the strategic Mount Hermon, establishing a network of military bases along Quneitra and Daraa, fostering instability, and supporting armed factions in Sweida. Consequently, Israel has become the primary power in the south, with no practical need to consult Damascus.
Read also: Why Israel Is Massing Forces in the North
Shared Concerns
Washington is working diligently within its Middle East strategy to engineer political alignments with its allies. This applies to Syria, which has entered the framework of American political and military tools in the region, particularly after its incorporation into the International Coalition forces, even if only in a political sense. The American Israeli agenda cannot proceed without coordination with Syria, given the many shared objectives, foremost among them curbing Iranian influence.
With Syria’s accession to the coalition, it effectively becomes an American shield along the Syrian Iraqi border and a pressure tool on the movements of the Popular Mobilization Forces along the eastern frontier. This also aligns with the possibility of a future American escalation in Lebanon aimed at disarming Hezbollah and the potential for Syria to take part in any future military action on the Lebanese border, now that it is part of the International Coalition. Washington thus works to achieve full coherence among its tools and allies in the region.
The Old Friend
It was no coincidence that the Israeli Broadcasting Authority announced that negotiations with Syria had reached a dead end only hours after Russian military delegations entered the southern region to inspect military points previously occupied by Israel and converted into checkpoints. This indicates a reactivation of the Russian role without the need for direct negotiations with Damascus, effectively freezing the region under its current conditions with Moscow as the guarantor.
Russia has been for Israel a trusted ally since the 2018 Jassim Agreement, under which Russian military police entered southern Syria, curtailed Iranian influence there, and facilitated numerous Israeli strikes on Hezbollah positions. As a result, Tel Aviv views Moscow as a reliable partner, balanced with all parties involved in the Syrian file, especially Turkey, which Israel seeks to keep geographically distant. At the same time, Russia serves as a deterrent to Iranian militias and as a protector of Israel’s northern borders, while benefiting from renewed strategic weight in Syria as a security and military guarantor accepted by all sides.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of +963.
