In Baku, the Azeri capital where interests intersect and quiet diplomacy unfolds behind closed doors, something shifted. There were no flags, no handshakes captured by the press, no official statements. But the meetings happened. According to Israeli and international media, officials from the Syrian government under President Ahmad al-Shara recently held talks with Israeli representatives.
These meetings didn’t come out of nowhere. They are the product of new regional equations, where old taboos are falling away. Syria, now under Shara’s leadership and after the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the retreat of Iranian influence, is experimenting with a different approach, one that doesn’t reject political bargaining, but seeks to turn it into leverage.
This isn’t about an Israeli desire for “peace without concessions.” It’s a sign that the rules of the game have changed. In Riyadh, Shara shook hands with Donald Trump, returning to office with a clearer vision. Washington lifted sanctions on Damascus, not out of affection, but to “give it a chance,” as Trump put it. And those who know America understand: chances come with a price, paid in sovereignty, geography, and often, in memory.
Read also: Israel–Turkey Deal in Syria: Deconfliction or Division of Power?
Nearly fifty years ago, Anwar Sadat did the unthinkable. He went to Jerusalem, addressed the Israeli Knesset, and signed a peace treaty that pulled Egypt out of perpetual war and onto a path of stability. Some hailed him as a statesman; others labeled him a traitor, and one of them killed him. Shara hasn’t boarded a plane to Tel Aviv just yet. But peace seems closer than ever, even if the outlines of a deal remain unclear.
Like Sadat, who needed a political victory to secure his rule after Nasser’s assassination, Shara is looking for a win that restores Syria’s lost weight, after the country passed through the fire of war and emerged battered and fragmented. Just as Sadat understood that endless war is unsustainable, Shara knows that Syria’s ruins can’t be cleared with slogans, and that nation-building can’t begin while domestic and regional conflicts rage on.
What Shara is trying to do isn’t surrender, it’s a leap into the unknown, fraught with risks, but potentially a lifeline for a regime in search of internal and external legitimacy.
Nothing in the Middle East comes for free. Israel, which quietly expanded its presence in southern Syria after Assad’s fall, has met no resistance from Shara, not in rhetoric, nor on the ground. No “defensive” missiles, no fiery condemnations, no speeches from the pulpits of “resistance.” In return, Damascus has been sleeping through quieter nights. Supply lines, carrying medicine and food, have reportedly begun sneaking in from Israel to Suwayda and Daraa, and deeper into the country.
The real question now is: What does Syria stand to gain from peace with Israel? There’s no single answer, but it likely begins with stability. Stability allows rebuilding. Lifting sanctions allows breathing room. A smart deal could help Syria recover some of what it lost since the 1974 Golan disengagement agreement.
Yes, peace could be Shara’s way of securing his presidency and rebuilding a shattered state. It could open doors for refugee returns, international reconstruction funds, and better negotiation positions for what remains of contested Syrian territory.
Syria today has many faces. And among Syrians, Israel is no longer seen by all as the eternal enemy. Among some Druze and Kurds, a new realism is emerging. Some view ties with Israel as a potential security umbrella or a platform to advance long-suppressed demands. From Mount Druze to Rojava, voices are rising, not to curse Tel Aviv, but to ask: What could a relationship bring? Security? Recognition? Autonomy?
Even in Damascus, where the name “Israel” was once uttered only in whispers, the tone is starting to shift, even if quietly.
Read also: America and Iran: A Contradiction in Terms
Hostility is no longer a given. Peace is no longer betrayal. The world has changed. The region has changed. So have we. Clinging to outdated rhetoric while the ground shifts beneath our feet only traps us in the past.
So, what could grow from this fragile peace? Is it a fleeting deal, or the start of a longer path? Will Ahmad al-Shara become the leader who signs Syria’s version of Camp David? Or will the process stall at the first political crisis or media flare-up?
We’ll find out soon enough. But that future need not be bleak, if the cards are played right. A state rising from the ashes needs pragmatism, not grandstanding. Israel, which reads regional shifts with clinical precision, won’t abandon a partner open to dialogue. And the people, though weary from endless war, do not forget. That’s why peace must be fair, not submissive; balanced, not fragile. Built on mutual recognition, not denial.
Will Shara take the leap? Will he write a new chapter in the ever-evolving saga of the Middle East, like Sadat did in that autumn of 1977? Or will the window close, and the region return to square one?
In Baku, no flags were raised, no papers signed. But one thing is certain: peace is being quietly stitched together, far from the cameras and headlines.
