The regional political scene is witnessing rapid developments amid reports of Syrian-Israeli negotiations that could culminate in a comprehensive security agreement in September, under U.S. and Gulf sponsorship, according to Israeli Channel 12. These talks, conducted behind closed doors, come at a sensitive moment for Syria after years of war and internal crises, while Israel seeks to consolidate its gains in the Golan Heights and enhance security along its northern border.
Damascus: Any Agreement Based on the 1974 Line
Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa met with an Arab media delegation and confirmed that his country is engaged in “advanced talks with Israel, and any agreement will be based on the 1974 ceasefire line.” He stressed that Damascus “will not hesitate to make any decision serving the interests of Syria and the region,” accusing Israel of attempting to interfere in southern Syria, particularly in Suwayda, to weaken the state.
Meanwhile, the Israeli Defense Minister stated on Monday that “the army will remain on Mount Hermon and in the buffer zone inside Syria.”
Israeli affairs journalist Ismat Mansour told +963 that Tel Aviv “seeks to exploit the weakness of the Syrian regime and internal crises to impose a new security reality. Instead of the 1967 withdrawal line as in previous negotiations, Israel now aims to enshrine the 1974 ceasefire lines as de facto political boundaries through its control of the Golan and Mount Hermon peak.”
He added, “Turning temporary military agreements into long-term political and security understandings effectively weakens Syrian sovereignty.”
Mansour noted that Israel “proposes the idea of humanitarian guardianship over the Druze and opening special corridors for them, paving the way for separating entire regions from the Syrian national fabric, while U.S. recognition of the Golan annexation strengthens Israel’s position and hardens its refusal to discuss withdrawal.”
Read also: Official Syria-Israel Talks in Paris: Has Normalization Begun?
U.S. Mediation: A Path to Stability for Syria and Lebanon
Wael Alwan, a researcher at Jusoor for Studies, told +963 that these negotiations are part of a broader U.S. vision aimed at “ensuring long-term regional stability that includes both Syria and Lebanon.”
He explained, “The absence of security understandings with Israel contributed to rising tensions and internal divisions in Syria. The new agreement could address these internal challenges and give the current Syrian government a chance to demonstrate seriousness in political transition and maintain territorial unity.”
In Lebanon, Alwan added, “The U.S.-Israeli-Syrian understandings could gradually push Hezbollah to abandon its weapons and become a political organization, opening the door for a new phase of cooperation between Beirut and Damascus.” He noted that expected Gulf and Turkish support may place these understandings within a broader regional economic development framework.
U.S. envoy to Syria Thomas Barrack told Axios on Monday that Syria and Israel are still far from reaching a formal agreement but that talks are progressing positively. He highlighted the potential for a joint security agreement, citing mutual interest from Damascus and Tel Aviv, while noting that further effort is needed to finalize the deal.
Ahmed Qasim Hussein, a researcher at Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies, said any prospective security agreement “will be based on a mutual formula: cessation of Israeli airstrikes in exchange for guarantees of no security threats near the Golan.”
He explained to +963 that this could open unofficial coordination channels that maintain some stability without undermining Syria’s sensitive regional alliances.
Also read: U.S. Delegations in Damascus: Signals, Motives, and Implications
Does This Mean a Path Toward Normalization?
Hussein said, “The most likely scenario is gradual normalization at several levels: short-term through security arrangements, medium-term through limited humanitarian or economic cooperation, and long-term if the agreement proves effective, paving the way for a broader political process similar to Egypt and Jordan, but with Syrian specificity.”
He emphasized that international powers will be part of the equation: “Russia will seek to position itself as the main guarantor, while Washington sees the agreement as an opportunity to reintegrate Syria regionally and reduce Iran’s influence. The latter could be the biggest loser if the agreement evolves into a comprehensive political deal, as it would be forced to scale back its military presence and possibly reposition economically or politically.”
