Signs emerging from recent political and military developments suggest growing international efforts to push Syria and Israel toward direct dialogue. The transitional phase underway in Syria, alongside the easing of sanctions on its interim government, is seen as an opening for structured security understandings that do not compromise Syrian sovereignty. Yet Israel’s longstanding reliance on military force continues to complicate the prospects for substantive progress, underscoring that any breakthrough will depend on sustained international pressure and coordinated regional diplomacy within a workable negotiating environment.
Trump Urges Israel to Pursue Dialogue
Washington appears increasingly vocal in its intentions. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that Israel must “maintain strong dialogue with Syria,” expressing satisfaction with what he described as positive developments inside the country. He argued that lifting harsh sanctions on Syria’s transitional government enables it to build a “prosperous state,” adding that Syrian leadership and its people “appreciated the importance” of the sanctions relief and that nothing should undermine the country’s current trajectory.
Trump called the moment a historic opportunity for Syria and Israel to enjoy a long-term relationship, insisting that progress in Syria contributes to peace in the Middle East.
Mumtaz Suleiman, an international law expert, told +963 that Trump’s statements represent a notable shift in U.S. foreign policy since his arrival at the White House. Suleiman argues that Trump is seeking to stabilize the Middle East by promoting dialogue and creating the foundations for broad security arrangements – particularly between Israel and Syria.
He notes that Washington has recently exerted clear pressure to freeze and roll back economic sanctions on Syria as part of Trump’s vision of a “new, stable Syria,” especially after the visit of President Ahmad Al-Sharaa and his foreign minister, Asaad Al-Shaibani, to Washington.
According to Suleiman, the U.S. is pressing Damascus to join the Abraham Accords framework and to normalize relations with Israel, a reflection of Trump’s intent to reshape the regional order – a theme he has emphasized repeatedly. Members of his political team have echoed the same direction.
But while the Syrian interim government appears more receptive to U.S. demands, Suleiman identifies a central obstacle: Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which he describes as “extremist” and unwilling to pursue peace or security arrangements with Syria or neighbouring states. Instead, Israel continues to rely on force, pre-emptive strikes and domestic political manoeuvring framed as minority protection.
Suleiman stresses that genuine Israeli engagement will occur only if the United States applies serious pressure. Further complicating Trump’s project, he adds, is the influence of pro-Israel lobbying networks within key U.S. institutions such as Congress, the Department of Defense and segments of the national security apparatus – pressure groups that may resist efforts to push Netanyahu toward negotiations.
Still, Suleiman argues that the United States, as a major power with established institutions, ultimately retains the capacity to shape its foreign policy, leaving the influence of those lobbies limited when weighed against state-level decisions.
Read also: Will Beit Jinn Recast the Damascus–Tel Aviv Equation?
Direct U.S. Pressure on Netanyahu
New revelations suggest Washington’s pressure is intensifying. According to “Axios,” Trump urged Netanyahu in a Monday phone call to calm tensions and halt military operations in Syria, warning against provoking the transitional Syrian government. Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Trump told Netanyahu: “Calm down and avoid provocative steps. The new Syrian government is trying to make the country better – and must be helped.”
American officials cautioned that continued Israeli strikes could undermine efforts to secure a security agreement between Syria and Israel. One senior official said: “We are trying to convince the prime minister to stop this, because if he continues, he will destroy his own opportunity and lose a massive diplomatic opening.” Supporting President Ahmad Al-Sharaa in stabilizing Syria and encouraging him toward peace with Israel, the official added, are pivotal elements of the Trump administration’s strategy.
On Tuesday, during a visit to wounded soldiers, Netanyahu said: “What we expect from Syria is the creation of a demilitarized buffer zone from Damascus to the disengagement line, including the entrances to Mount Hermon and its summit. With goodwill and understanding of these principles, an agreement is possible – but we will uphold our principles regardless.”
Khaled Khalil, an analyst specializing in Syrian–Israeli relations, told +963 that the current moment is extremely delicate for both sides but offers potential benefits for Damascus. He links this to the weakening of Israel’s far-right influence and the emergence of a new phase built on security and economic integration.
Syria, he notes, is navigating a foundational transitional stage with minimal deterrence capability, while Israel faces a volatile period in the final ten months of Netanyahu’s political tenure – a phase “loaded with landmines” due to aggressive military policies and efforts to cement regional dominance.
Khalil believes the priority is reaching a security understanding that halts Israeli attacks and enables Syria to re-order its internal landscape. U.S. pressure may help produce such an arrangement, he argues, though Washington’s expectations remain tied to Syrian and Lebanese accession to the Abraham Accords and the eventual decline of Israel’s far-right camp.
He adds that the Beit Jinn massacre has pushed Israel to reassess its strategy, reverting to airstrikes and targeted killings. He cites statements by Israeli researchers and security officials urging negotiations with Damascus and advocating a long-term agreement under U.S. supervision in southern Syria.
According to Khalil, U.S. pressure has exposed Israeli evasiveness and strengthened Syria’s position. He argues that Syria poses no strategic threat to Israel and that the Beit Jinn incident marks a turning point – an early rupture in regional understandings and the negotiation track.
Read also: Syria’s Demographic Shift: Is the Country Bracing for Confrontation?
Visit of U.S. Envoy Barrack to Damascus
Meanwhile, U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack has arrived in Damascus and met President Al-Sharaa to discuss the latest developments, according to a statement posted by the Syrian presidency on Facebook.
Hassan Merhej, an expert on Syrian and Middle Eastern affairs, says Washington’s push for Syrian–Israeli dialogue must be understood within a broader reconfiguration of regional power balances, particularly with Russian and Turkish forces still present in Syria.
Merhej told +963 that the U.S. aims to create new strategic alignments by backing Syria’s transitional authority, making the country a central arena in wider geopolitical competition. This recalibration, in his view, places both security and political calculations under new terms that differ from those of the past decade.
He adds that American messaging on Syrian–Israeli dialogue is part of a wider regional deal to rebuild ties among Arab and regional actors, intersecting with shifting relations with Turkey, tensions with Iran and new Arab initiatives toward normalization with Israel.
Yet internal Syrian conditions pose their own challenges. Merhej argues that comprehensive negotiations with Israel face political, economic and social obstacles, as the transitional authority is still consolidating legitimacy and encountering resistance from domestic factions wary of concessions that could be viewed as undermining sovereignty or national rights.
Internal divisions, alongside fears of foreign interference, render such negotiations enormously complex.
Merhej concludes that while international pressure seeks to accelerate a settlement path, it often overlooks internal Syrian dynamics – an omission that opens multiple scenarios for Syria’s future role in the regional order. In this light, Syrian–Israeli dialogue may represent an attempt to redraw the region, but it remains constrained by formidable domestic realities.
At the United Nations, the General Assembly adopted a resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to the 1967 lines, reaffirming that Israel’s 1981 annexation is unlawful. The resolution passed with 123 votes in favour, 7 against and 41 abstentions.
Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, responded: “The General Assembly is detached from reality… Israel will not return to the 1967 lines, nor will it relinquish the Golan – not now, not ever.”
The Syrian Foreign Ministry issued a statement thanking the countries that supported the resolution, emphasizing that Syria’s engagement in any technical discussions with Israel “does not in any way constitute a concession regarding the occupied Syrian Golan.”
