Following the fall of the Assad regime and the establishment of a transitional government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, Syrian-Israeli relations have entered a critical and unprecedented phase. At this juncture, three potential scenarios are emerging, ranging from the continuation of a state of “neither peace nor war” to gradual negotiations that could ultimately see Syria join the Abraham Accords. Between these possibilities, regional and international powers are playing pivotal roles amid Syria’s shifting geopolitical alignment in the Middle East.
“Half Peace” and the Continuation of the Status Quo
In the first and perhaps most immediate scenario, the transitional government in Damascus maintains a nationalist, anti-Israel posture. In March 2025, President Ahmed al-Sharaa called on the international community to pressure Israel to withdraw from southern Syria, rhetoric that reflects the government’s enduring ideological stance.
Simultaneously, Israel has intensified airstrikes on military installations across Syrian territory, expanding its de facto security presence to over 460 square kilometres within the UN-administered separation zone. Yet, despite the rising tension, both sides have so far avoided open warfare, with mediation by the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and mutual adherence to unwritten tactical limits preventing further escalation.
President al-Sharaa disclosed the existence of “indirect negotiations” mediated by third parties, focusing on de-escalating border tensions. The talks primarily concern security arrangements, such as formalising military incursions and preventing unintended clashes between Israeli forces and various armed factions.
Following Assad’s ouster in December 2024, Israel began implementing a strategic plan to establish a 15-kilometre-deep “security strip” within southern Syria, coupled with an extended intelligence buffer zone reaching up to 60 kilometres. This includes military deployments in key areas like Mount Hermon and outreach efforts to local communities, particularly the Druze, in a bid to stabilise the region and counter threats from Iran-aligned militias.
Israel argues these measures are necessary to fill the security vacuum left by Assad’s departure and to safeguard its northern border and minority groups. However, the expansion has sparked international concern over Syrian sovereignty. Tel Aviv insists the actions are strictly defensive, intended to contain volatility amid rapid regional changes.
Read more: Syria at the Heart of Global Health Debates
Regionally, Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia have cautiously welcomed the transitional government, viewing it as a potential counterweight to Iranian influence. Türkiye, meanwhile, continues to support armed opposition groups and is lobbying for the incorporation of Kurdish forces into the future structure of the Syrian state.
Russia aims to retain its strategic foothold in Tartous and Hmeimim, while the United States has adopted a position of conditional engagement. Washington has outlined clear prerequisites for easing sanctions, including the dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal and the expulsion of foreign militias.
International relations expert Mumtaz Suleiman told +963 that the relationship between the transitional government and Iran has turned “hostile.” According to Suleiman, Damascus is determined to assert its sovereignty and distance itself from Tehran’s influence, developments that have placed Iran on the defensive.
Israel, for its part, continues to pursue what it calls a “complete disarmament policy” in southern Syria, with particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable minorities such as the Druze.
This scenario provides the Syrian transitional government with a degree of flexibility to rebuild state institutions and collaborate with international organisations to contain extremist threats. Yet the path forward remains precarious.
Deep-rooted mistrust, the ongoing burden of Western sanctions, and the absence of a formal security arrangement with Israel all contribute to a highly volatile environment. Any misstep or miscalculation could quickly ignite broader conflict.
Gradual Peace Negotiations
In this scenario, the Syrian transitional government cautiously moves toward indirect negotiations with Israel, facilitated by regional mediators amid conditional international support. According to Western diplomatic sources, the United Arab Emirates has assumed a quiet mediating role between Damascus and Tel Aviv following President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s visit to Abu Dhabi in April 2025. These preliminary contacts have centred on security coordination and counterterrorism efforts.
The United States has expressed tentative approval of this approach, but insists on strict preconditions: the full dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons program, an end to support for extremist factions, and the exclusion of any armed Iranian presence on Syrian soil. Conversely, Russia has shown reluctance toward the process, particularly as it unfolds outside Moscow’s sphere of influence.
Domestically, the path of negotiation reveals internal contradictions. Syrian politician Burhan Nassif remarked that “the flexible rhetoric adopted by the transitional government does not indicate a strategic reorientation, but rather a pragmatic response to current realities.” While he dismissed the likelihood of a full peace agreement, citing the continued Islamic orientation of the new ruling coalition, he acknowledged the potential for limited, technical understandings aimed at avoiding military escalation.
This gradualist path allows for confidence-building measures and mutual security assurances. It also opens the door for regional actors such as Egypt and Jordan to contribute constructively, particularly in areas related to border coordination and security oversight.
Nevertheless, the Golan Heights remains the most contentious issue, compounded by deep-seated mistrust between the parties. Concerns persist on both sides, Damascus about Israeli intentions, and Israel regarding the influence of Islamist factions within the transitional government. Israel has also set firm preconditions, including the demilitarisation of southern Syria and tight control over armed groups operating in the area.
Read more: Brig. Gen. Ahmed Rahal on Syria’s Post-Sanctions Shift
Syria’s Accession to the Abraham Accords
This scenario represents the most radical shift under consideration, and, at present, the least likely. Nevertheless, it has formally entered the realm of political discourse. In a surprising statement, President Ahmed al-Sharaa announced that his government was “interested in joining the Abraham Accords under appropriate conditions,” a declaration widely viewed as a signal of readiness for a potential diplomatic breakthrough.
Should this step materialise, it would signify a profound transformation in Syria’s strategic orientation, aligning Damascus with the emerging Arab-Israeli alliance backed by the United States. Such a realignment could pave the way for the full lifting of international sanctions and unlock substantial Gulf and European investment in Syria’s reconstruction.
However, legal and political hurdles remain significant. Dr. Raeq Suleiman Shaalan, an expert in international law, emphasised that any political agreement excluding Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights would be “legally invalid.” Speaking to +963, Shaalan argued that “the Abraham Accords cannot be applied to Syria as a one-size-fits-all framework. The root issues of the conflict, particularly the occupied territories, water resources, and refugee rights, must be addressed first.”
While accession to the accords could offer Syria renewed international legitimacy and enhance its regional status, it also carries the risk of igniting internal tensions. The move could deepen rifts between Islamist and nationalist factions within the transitional government, and might trigger a forceful response from Iran and Hezbollah, who would likely view normalisation with Israel as a direct threat to their strategic interests in the region.
Key unresolved issues, including the status of the Golan Heights, the rights of minority communities, and the fate of displaced populations, remain complex legal and political challenges that would need to be resolved for any agreement to gain domestic and international legitimacy.
Read more: France Seeks 10-Year Sentence for Ex-Syrian Rebel Over War Crimes Role
Altered Interactions
The emergence of the transitional government in Damascus has significantly altered the landscape of Syrian-Israeli relations, with the future now tied to evolving regional and international power dynamics.
Political analyst Mumtaz Suleiman noted that “the Syrian people want peace, not war,” arguing that Syria’s participation in regional security arrangements, including those involving Israel, does not necessarily threaten its sovereignty, provided such agreements are based on mutual respect and shared interests.
However, Burhan Nassif warned against reading too much into the current diplomatic signals. “Despite its apparent flexibility, the new authority is likely to pursue only temporary arrangements, rather than a full peace treaty,” he said.
Dr. Shaalan reinforced this view, stating that “any future agreement must address the root of the conflict, especially the status of the Golan Heights. Otherwise, it will remain fragile and lack legitimacy under international law.”
Syria’s transitional phase is reshaping both its internal politics and its regional posture. While none of the three outlined scenarios, continuation of the status quo, gradual negotiations, or full normalisation, has yet materialised, each presents distinct implications for the future of Middle Eastern security.
Damascus now faces a pivotal choice: it can either move toward building a gradual peace that ends decades of conflict, remain mired in a fragile “half-peace,” or embark on an unprecedented path of normalisation that could undermine major traditional alliances.
