Syria adopts a new realism amid Israeli threats

Backchannel talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv have drawn criticism, but they are crucial to saving Syria from descending into war and chaos, something both it and the region can ill-afford

Syria adopts a new realism amid Israeli threats

Days after Assad fell and fled, Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, received then-Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati. During this meeting, a comment leaked to the press quoted al-Sharaa expressing admiration for the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. This was no passing remark; it signalled a strategic outlook that has since shaped al-Sharaa’s approach to resolving issues with Israel.

But the 1974 disengagement agreement was effectively rendered void when Syrian forces were ordered to withdraw from all positions during Bashar al-Assad’s escape to Moscow. Within hours, Netanyahu publicly declared the accord’s collapse.

Israel seized the moment to dismantle the remnants of the Syrian Arab Army’s infrastructure. Air strikes on Syrian territory resumed with intensity, targeting military installations, equipment, and heavy weaponry.

Yet Netanyahu did not stop there. Exploiting Syria’s internal instability, he began interfering in domestic affairs —evident in both the unrest in Sweida and the politically charged strike on Damascus. The latter was more symbolic than strategic.

Even al-Sharaa's assassination was reportedly considered, only to be dropped after Saudi, Jordanian, and Turkish intervention via Washington, which recognised that such an act would trigger a total collapse in Syria.

Aware of Syria's fragility and the futility of engaging in direct military confrontation with Israel, al-Sharaa avoided grandstanding threats

Shift in rhetoric

Damascus's rhetoric shifted, but its course remained steady. In a televised address delivered early in the morning following Israel's strike on the General Command headquarters and the People's Palace, al-Sharaa stated: "We do not fear war. We have spent our lives confronting challenges and defending our people. But we have prioritised the Syrian people over chaos and destruction."

Notably, he avoided the grandstanding threats and defiant language typical of the Axis of Resistance in response to Israeli actions. Al-Sharaa was evidently aware of Syria's fragility and the futility of engaging in direct military confrontation with Israel.

Backchannel mediation resumed, particularly involving the United States. The most recent meeting in Paris, reportedly not the first of its kind, marked the first instance in which Syria publicly acknowledged such talks. The official national news agency SANA reported that Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani had met with an Israeli delegation to discuss several issues relating to regional stability and southern Syria.

While SANA did not disclose the names of the Israeli representatives, US outlet Axios reported that the meeting involved al-Shaibani, Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer—a close ally of Prime Minister Netanyahu— and US envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack.

Backchannel talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv were slammed by Arab journalists despite the fact that both Hamas and Hezbollah also do the same

Backlash awash in hypocrisy

Mere minutes after the official announcement, an intense media backlash ensued, spearheaded by Arab journalists and commentators sympathetic to the Axis of Resistance, though occasionally critical of Iran's regional conduct. They accused Syria of betrayal, normalisation, and sitting down with an enemy that was actively starving Gaza's children.

However, what these critics overlooked is that Hamas itself negotiates with Israel through intermediaries, and that Hezbollah, too, has engaged in indirect talks via US mediation to reach ceasefires.

According to SANA, the current Syrian–Israeli discussions are focused solely on de-escalation, regional stability, and reactivating the 1974 agreement. There is no indication from any source that normalisation or a peace treaty is on the table.

Syria needs to urgently restore the previous security framework, but so too does the broader region. Reopening a military front in Syria would usher in chaos—a scenario now clearly recognised by Arab states and the US as one that would serve only Iran, by reviving its allied militias, and the Islamic State (IS), which flourishes in disorder and conflict.

font change