Israel and Syria may be on the verge of signing a US-brokered security deal that would reshape the two countries’ relations and further bolster Tel Aviv’s influence in the Middle East.
If signed, the deal would give Israel a buffer and demilitarised zone from southwest of Damascus to the Israeli northern border, increasing its leeway in the region.
For the US, it would be a diplomatic win, while Syria’s new government risks criticism for conceding sovereignty.
While the plan hasn’t been officially released, Axios and Reuters reported last week that the deal would be partly modelled on the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
Under the agreement proposed by Israel, there would be three zones southwest of Damascus, an extended two-kilometre buffer, and a no-fly zone for Syrian aircraft.
In return, Israel would gradually withdraw from recently occupied Syrian territories, keeping, however, a strategic outpost on Mount Hermon. The deal would also include an aerial corridor through Syria to Iran, allowing potential future Israeli strikes.
Unlike the Egypt–Israel treaty, this deal stops short of full peace or normalisation under the Abraham Accords between Israel and Syria, which have technically been at war since 1948, with Syria not recognising Israel as a state.
However, the deal would reportedly replace the 1974 disengagement deal between the two countries.
Syria has not yet responded to Israel’s proposal, but is reportedly drafting a counterproposal. Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa confirmed last week that his government is negotiating a security agreement with Israel that could be reached within days, but also highlighted that a potential deal would need to respect Syria’s airspace and its territorial integrity.
Israeli media have reported that Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer was set to meet Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani in London on Wednesday, alongside US envoy Tom Barrack, to discuss the security agreement.
Al-Sharaa and Israeli officials could also meet during the UN General Assembly this week. Some reports suggest a deal may be reached by the end of the year, while others suggest it is more imminent.
Raphael S. Cohen, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at the Rand Corporation’s Project Air Force, told The New Arab that “a deal could stabilise a long-tense border between Israel and Syria, removing one major flashpoint,” but that other regional tensions will continue to shape the broader security picture.
Any potential deal would come at a pivotal moment in the relations between Syria’s new government and Israel.
After former Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s fall in December last year, Israel moved swiftly to occupy the buffer zone in southwestern Syria adjacent to the already Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and launched a sustained campaign of airstrikes and ground incursions targeting Syrian military positions to secure strategic territory.
It also seized Mount Hermon, a key vantage point, which remains under its control.
The new Syrian government condemned the military initiative as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty but refrained from direct military retaliation to preserve diplomatic channels.
Tensions rose further during the Suweida crisis, from April to July this year, seeing fierce clashes between Druze and Bedouin armed groups, during which Israel carried out attacks against the Syrian military, framed as protecting the Druze community, which has become a strategic asset for Israel’s interests in Syria.
These events increased pressure on the Syrian government while simultaneously strengthening Israel’s leverage in ongoing security talks.
One of Israel’s main strategic goals seems to be keeping Iran and Hezbollah out of southern Syria to protect itself.
Andreas Krieg, associate professor in Security Studies at King’s College London, told TNA that the deal would benefit Israel most, giving it stability without ceding territory, with Syria left to restrain non-state actors, “effectively becoming the party Israel can hold accountable - a pattern seen in Israel’s historic use of ‘triadic coercion’ against neighbouring host states”.
For the US, the deal would stabilise southern Syria while also showing it still has leverage in the region.
But Trump faces a delicate balance: Israel expects full support, while Washington wants Damascus to remain pro-Western and hostile to Russia and Iran.
Krieg, however, warned that this “leaves him turning a blind eye to the risks that Israel may use ‘salami tactics’ - carving out security arrangements piece by piece until Syrian sovereignty in the south is permanently undermined”.
Whether Syria would benefit from a deal remains uncertain, as a potential agreement could turn into a double-edged sword.
By signing a deal with Israel and meeting US diplomatic goals, Al-Sharaa could gain international recognition, secure aid, and boost his stature.
“For Damascus, securing Israeli withdrawal from captured territories and halting airstrikes would boost Sharaa’s legitimacy at home, shield him from hardliner backlash in the short term, and strengthen his standing abroad, especially if sanctions relief follows,” Freddy Khoueiry, global security analyst covering the Middle East and North Africa at RANE Network, told TNA.
However, Aron Lund, a Century International fellow, explained that, depending on the form of the security deal and whether it looks voluntary or imposed under US and Israeli pressure, a potential deal won’t be popular in Syria.
“Many Syrians, including Al-Sharaa’s base, know he must compromise to shore up the government, limit Israeli strikes, and keep US support for economic, political, and military reasons,” he told TNA.
“Syria is broken and defenceless, and Al-Sharaa has to play a very bad hand as best he can. But any deal seen as surrendering sovereignty to Israel will fuel hardline criticism that he’s an Israeli or American tool.”
A security deal between Israel and Syria could also complicate the political agenda of other regional players, particularly Turkey.
Since Assad’s fall, Ankara has expanded its influence in Syria through a military presence and economic and diplomatic initiatives, while also targeting Kurdish forces. But an Israel-Syria security agreement could limit Turkey’s leverage and complicate its regional plans.
Gönül Tol, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told TNA that Israel’s military presence in Syria complicates Turkey’s domestic politics, emboldening Syrian Kurdish militias linked to the PKK and stalling Turkey’s broader Kurdish policy.
“Erdogan’s Kurdish initiative aims to secure his reelection by building alliances, but Israel’s presence in Syria complicates this and also hinders his plans to stabilise Syria and repatriate refugees, which he sees as key to domestic and political goals,” she said.
Since the Gaza war began, Israel has emerged as the region’s most aggressive military power, striking the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran, in an attempt to disrupt its nuclear program, and, most recently, Qatar, targeting Hamas's leadership.
This leaves President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wary of regional competition and the risk of confrontation, Tol explained, “though a strike on Turkish soil would be a huge mistake”.
Khoueiry explained that a deal imposing a no-fly zone and demilitarised south could limit Turkey’s operations in Syria and sharpen rivalry with Israel.
Ankara, which has ruled out withdrawal, is deepening cooperation with Syria’s transitional government, and “may deploy military assets elsewhere in Syria to challenge Israel’s air supremacy”.
The deal could also impact Iran, once Assad’s key ally, with greater Israeli access to Syrian airspace threatening Tehran’s military foothold near Israel’s northern border.
“A diplomatic setup allowing Israel to fly to Iran via Syria at will is clearly useful for Israel,” Lund said, adding that the public leak of this proposal makes it hard for Damascus to accept, as formally conceding airspace is a major step that might have worked only in secret.
Gulf countries could also be affected by a potential deal, as Israel has become a more sensitive issue since the attack on Hamas in Qatar, which in particular may resent any deal that visibly strengthens Israel, according to Krieg, who explained that, while some leaders might quietly welcome limits on Iran, “Arab publics are likely to see the deal as a humiliation for Syria and a licence for Israeli overreach”.
Whether an Israel-Syria security deal will be signed remains uncertain, but some experts suggest that having the US or other states or institutions as guarantors could give Syria confidence that the agreement would be enforced.
But Cohen said that whatever deal is reached between Israel and Syria, and whatever its regional impact, it “will be overshadowed by the Gaza war”.
Dario Sabaghi is a freelance journalist interested in human rights
Follow him on X: @DarioSabaghi