Recent statements by US President Donald Trump regarding the Golan Heights have revived a long-standing dispute over sovereignty, underscoring a clear contradiction between Washington’s political framing of the issue and established international legal principles. While Trump presents recognition of Israeli sovereignty as a decisive political act, international law continues to treat the territory as occupied Syrian land, with unilateral decisions carrying no legal effect. Against this backdrop, Syria maintains its rejection of any concession, prioritising de-escalation and post-war reconstruction.
What does Trump’s statement mean?
Speaking at the White House, Trump said he decided to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights after years of diplomatic efforts failed to yield results. His comments echoed the formal declaration he signed on 25 March 2019, recognising Israel’s sovereignty over the territory during a joint press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington.
Dr Khaled Al-Ezzi, professor of international relations and foreign policy, told +963 that the declaration came amid Trump’s domestic political battles at the time, including accusations against his opponents of anti-Semitism.
Dr Ihsan Al-Khatib, professor of political science at Murray State University in Kentucky, said Trump’s position on the occupied Golan falls squarely within US domestic politics and electoral calculations, stressing that it does not alter the Golan’s legal or political status internationally. He noted that the recognition dates to Trump’s first term and was driven largely by efforts to secure political support and campaign funding, adding that it has received no international backing.
International law expert Majid Boudan told +963 that recognition of territorial annexation does not constitute a legal basis under international law and has no effect on historical or sovereign rights. Any unilateral recognition, he said, whether by the United States or any other state, does not create legal legitimacy, as international law recognises only internationally acknowledged borders and prohibits changes imposed by force or unilateral decision.
What is Trump seeking by reopening the Golan issue?
Trump has claimed that he later realised the vast economic value of the Golan Heights, suggesting it could be worth trillions of dollars, and questioned whether the United States should have sought something in return for recognising Israeli sovereignty. He also said he asked former US ambassador to Israel David Friedman for a briefing on the issue and quickly concluded that the Golan holds major defensive importance for Israel, particularly before the advent of modern radar systems.
Al-Ezzi argues that raising the Golan file at this stage may signal a new US approach based on negotiations and security arrangements, and possibly even a reversal of the earlier recognition, especially considering Syria’s interim government and president. Such a shift, he says, could eventually open the door to Syria’s inclusion in the Abraham Accords that Washington is seeking to expand.
Al-Khatib, however, emphasises that this stance is not entrenched in US law but reflects the policy of a specific administration, which future administrations may revise or abandon. He cautions against interpreting these statements as indicators of long-term US strategic interests rather than short-term domestic political messaging.
Boudan reiterates that linking political or economic considerations to sovereignty has no legal value, stressing that international law does not recognise any alteration of borders or sovereignty outside established legal frameworks.
Read also: What Does Washington Want from Israel?
How do these statements affect Israel?
Trump described the Golan Heights as strategically vital to Israel, noting that Israel occupied the territory in 1967 and formally annexed it in 1981 – a move that has never received international recognition.
Al-Ezzi says Israeli incursions into Syrian territory aim to sustain instability and create security vacuums, alongside exploiting sectarian and ethnic narratives under the pretext of protection, to pressure for a demilitarised zone in southern Syria. He adds that these actions have imposed political and security costs on Israel and may have contributed to renewed scrutiny by the international community.
Al-Khatib points out that US recognition does not change the Golan’s legal reality or grant Israel additional international legitimacy. He stresses that the US military presence in Syria is tied to counter-terrorism objectives and the protection of American interests, not to defending Israel.
Boudan underscores that attempts to impose facts on the ground through force or escalation do not generate legal legitimacy, noting that international law does not recognise statutes of limitation on territorial rights.
What does this mean for Syria’s transitional government?
Al-Ezzi says the interim Syrian government holds multiple pressure cards but remains unwilling to enter new military confrontations, given the exhaustion of Syrian society after years of war. Damascus, he adds, is not seeking alliances that would turn Syria into a platform hostile to its neighbours, instead focusing on recovery and economic reconstruction with Western, US and Arab support.
Al-Khatib maintains that Syria’s position, regardless of the nature of its government, has consistently rejected any concession on the Golan, and that US recognition does not alter this stance or affect the international legal position.
Boudan concludes that no Syrian government – interim or democratically elected – nor any president or parliament has the authority to relinquish any part of Syrian territory. Any agreement involving direct or indirect territorial concession, he says, would be null and void under international law and could expose its signatories to international legal accountability.
