International media outlets have revealed that secret meetings were held between Syrian and Israeli officials in Baku, Azerbaijan, with Turkish participation, marking a potentially game-changing shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics after years of overt hostility between Damascus and Tel Aviv.
According to CNN, the meetings included Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Operations Directorate chief, Maj. Gen. Oded Basyuk, and representatives of the Syrian government, in the presence of Turkish officials. Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the talks were mediated by the United Arab Emirates, while the Israeli outlet Ynet described the meetings as part of broader efforts by Israel to coordinate with Turkey on the Syrian file.
These developments come alongside statements from Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar expressing openness to opening communication channels with Damascus, a notable shift in tone towards Syria after the fall of Assad’s regime
The talks reportedly addressed multiple issues, most notably the Israeli military presence in southern Syri, particularly in territories it gained control over following the collapse of previous Syrian regime. Discussions also explored the possibility of reactivating the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, which calls for a cessation of hostilities and the establishment of UN-monitored buffer zone. There was also a focus on security coordination to prevent further escalation amid Israel’s repeated airstrikes on Syrian targets.
These meetings coincided with a state visit by Syrian leader Ahmad Al-Shara to Azerbaijan, during which both sides announced strengthened economic ties, including plans for Azeri gas exports to Syria via Turkey. Reports also suggested that Al-Shara had recently visited the UA, raising questions about the role certain Arab states may be playing in mediating between Syria and Israel.
Meanwhile, during a meeting with Al-Shara in Riyadh last month, U.S. President Donald Trump encouraged Syria to join the “Abraham Accords”, a series of normalization deals between Israel and several Arab nations, and announced a partial lifting of sanctions on Damascus, calling it “an opportunity for Syria to move forward.”
In contrast, Syrian sources denied direct talks with Israel but acknowledged previous indirect negotiations aimed at de-escalation. Israeli officials insist that any future agreement must include strong security guarantees and reaffirm their position that the Golan Heights will remain under Israeli control. Analysts argue that Israel is seeking to capitalize on Syria’s transitional period to boost its regional standing, while Damascus is trying to break out of international isolation and ease crippling economic sanctions.
Despite official silence, both on-the-ground activity and diplomatic signals suggest both sides are testing the waters for a possible limited understanding. While Israel demands security guarantees and a curb on Iranian influence, Damascus seeks stabilization and sanctions relief. Still, the status of the Golan Heights remains the thorniest issue: Israel refuses to withdraw, while Syria considers the territory non-negotiable and under occupation.
Read also: U.S. Push to End ‘Caesar Act’ Sanctions Gains Momentum
A Fragile Path Forward
The region appears to be entering a new phase of negotiations, covert or overt, but their success hinges on whether the parties can overcome decades of hostility and find mutually acceptable compromises.
Adel Shadid, a Palestinian expert on Israeli affairs, told +963 that “Syria is no longer part of the so-called Axis of Resistance”, a regional alliance led by Iran that includes Hezbollah and other militias, which marks a significant blow to the bloc. However, he emphasized this does not mean it has been fully defeated.
He explained that the axis has suffered setbacks in multiple arenas but remains intact in others: Hezbollah still retains its weapons in Lebanon, Iraqi factions have not been significantly weakened, and the Yemeni front remains unresolved. According to Shadid, Iran continues to score points in its shadow war with Israel, while Gaza remains a chronic security headache for the Israeli state.
Shadid argued that “the chances for a successful Syrian-Israeli normalization track remain slim. Israel is unlikely to leave the Golan Heights, and Damascus is in no position to offer major concessions given its fragile political situation.”
He also noted that Israel aims to shape the future structure of the Syrian state to ensure it poses no military threat, potentially transforming southern Syria into a de facto buffer zone with special security arrangements.
Moreover, he suggested that the U.S. and Israel might support restructuring Syria’s military in a way that preserves internal stability but avoids empowering forces that could challenge Israeli interests. Crucially, he noted, “neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has an interest in dismantling or dividing Syria, fearing it could further destabilize the region.”
Shadid concluded that Israel is focused on preventing the reconstitution of the Iran–Iraq–Syria–Lebanon corridor and is equally wary of growing Turkish influence in northern Syria, which could be a launching pad for a broader Turkish regional project in the Levant and Gulf.
Read also: How Do US, Israeli, and Emirati Interests Intersect in Syria and Lebanon?
Resistance: Popular or Regime-Driven?
Ali Thabet Jadid, a political researcher in Damascus, told +963 that the Syrian-Israeli relationship is entangled in a deeper dilemma, one that goes beyond regime calculations and touches on whether resistance to Israel is a genuine popular sentiment or merely a state-driven policy.
Jadid questioned the long-term value of past peace deals such as Camp David (Egypt-Israel), Oslo (Israel-Palestine), and Wadi Araba (Jordan-Israel), asking whether these agreements truly benefited the populations involved. He emphasized that while Syria understands the existential threats it faces, it also fears being forced into dangerous concessions under pressure in a moment of historic weakness.
He cautioned, “It’s difficult to give definitive advice in such a volatile context, but it’s important to send a clear message to Washington: pushing for comprehensive agreements now could harm Syria’s cohesion, particularly in the absence of constitutional and public legitimacy for such deals.” He advocated for postponing sweeping agreements in favor of narrowly scoped security arrangements, such as those outlined in the 1974 Disengagement Agreement.
