For the first time in over a decade, Syria and Israel are engaging in direct talks - an extraordinary development that unfolds amid deepening Israeli entrenchment in southern Syria and faltering sovereignty of a nascent Syrian government.
The latest diplomatic overture began in May 2025, when the United Arab Emirates (UAE) reportedly brokered secret negotiations between the two sides focused on security coordination and confidence-building.
Then, on 11 June, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally requested US envoy Tom Barrack to mediate what would be the first direct engagement between Syria and Israel since 2011.
The objective now, Israeli officials say, is to revive the 1974 disengagement agreement that has largely collapsed following years of Israeli military incursions into Syrian territory.
According to Dr Michael Wahid Hanna, US Program Director at the International Crisis Group, Syria’s outreach is motivated more by necessity than by vision. “Damascus appears more open to discussions, particularly as a way to address ongoing Israeli military activity on Syrian territory,” he told The New Arab.
The United States has quickly moved to back these efforts. On 30 June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order lifting most US sanctions on Syria - a gesture interpreted by many as a move to grease the wheels of negotiations.
That same day, Israel’s foreign minister publicly declared openness to diplomatic ties with both Syria and Lebanon, though he firmly ruled out any discussion of the Golan Heights, which Israel has been occupying since 1967, and where it has deepened its incursions further north since the Assad regime’s collapse in December.
US envoy Barrack confirmed on 4 July that “meaningful” talks were underway, noting the engagement had moved beyond preliminary backchannel efforts.
A fragile history of talks
The Syrian-Israeli track has long been characterised by intermittent but ultimately fruitless attempts at diplomacy.
Between 2000 and 2010, the two countries held at least three major negotiation rounds - mediated variously by the United States and Turkey - but none produced a final agreement.
Under Bashar Al-Assad, Syria re-entered talks in 2000, following in the footsteps of his father, Hafez Al-Assad, who famously walked away from a US-sponsored deal in 1996 over demands for a return to pre-1967 borders. A renewed push in 2008 - this time with Turkish mediation - again collapsed without producing concrete results.
At the time, Middle East experts such as Paul Salem argued that strong American leadership was essential. “The Obama administration should recognise that Syrian-Israeli peace could provide an important breakthrough in the Middle East,” Salem wrote in 2009.
Over a decade later, the announcement of talks has generated cautious optimism in some circles, but many warn that the emerging dialogue reflects a stark imbalance of power and risks formalising Israel’s dominance in the region.
Israel expands as Syria fractures
While Israel has entrenched its military presence in southern Syria and accelerated settlement construction in the Golan Heights, Syria remains politically fractured and economically devastated.
“This is not the beginning of a normalisation process,” Hanna cautioned. “It’s about managing risks, not resolving deeper political issues.”
He stressed that despite speculation about a potential “cold peace” akin to Egypt’s Camp David deal with Israel, the realities on the ground - ongoing occupation, internal instability, and the unresolved status of the Golan Heights - make such an outcome unlikely.
Hanna added that Syria’s repositioning may reflect a broader drift away from the so-called "Resistance Axis" of Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. “The current overtures suggest a pragmatic shift, possibly seeking to reduce Israeli strikes and gain international legitimacy through rapprochement with the US and Türkiye.”
Despite diplomatic movement, the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights remains the fundamental stumbling block.
A Syrian political analyst, who requested anonymity due to security concerns, told The New Arab that the 1967-seized territory is central to any viable peace.
“The core issue of the Syrian-Israeli conflict has always been the Golan Heights,” he said. “The territory not only offers strategic military advantage, but also gives Israel control over critical water resources from Lake Tiberias.”
He described the Syrian state as fragmented and severely diminished. “The de facto authority in Damascus controls barely a quarter of Syrian territory. The east is under Kurdish control, the north is run by Turkish-backed factions, and the southern border is under effective Israeli dominance.”
He warned that the current diplomatic overtures are less about peace and more about political survival. “What we’re witnessing is an attempt by the regime to legitimise itself through foreign recognition, not to reclaim national sovereignty,” he said. “Al-Sharaa’s government may secure a ‘peace,’ but it won’t be a just one.”
The Syrian analyst suggests that Syria is being quietly restructured into a geopolitical buffer zone - one designed to isolate Iran and Hezbollah from the Israeli border.
“The fragmentation serves Israel’s long-term interest of neutralising pro-Palestinian armed actors in the region,” he explained. “Damascus is being nudged into a corner, compelled to accept a cold peace that does little to restore its territorial integrity.”
The view from Damascus
Syria’s economic crisis continues to deepen. Years of war, sanctions, and internal displacement have produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes. Food insecurity is rising, and infrastructure is collapsing.
Dr May Darwich, Associate Professor of International Relations at the University of Birmingham, emphasised that Syria is in no position to negotiate on equal terms. “The regime finds itself militarily weak, economically desperate, and diplomatically isolated,” she said.
While President Ahmed Al-Sharaa has benefited from Trump’s sanctions relief - an unexpected political windfall - Darwich noted that Damascus lacks the leverage to extract meaningful Israeli concessions.
“The Golan Heights remain a red line for the Israeli establishment. Meanwhile, public opinion in Syria remains strongly opposed to normalisation with Israel,” she said. “This severely limits what the regime can offer or sell to its own people.”
If anything emerges from the current talks, Darwich believes it will likely resemble a cold, tactical arrangement rather than a transformational accord.
“The most realistic scenario is a low-profile, risk-management agreement that allows each side to pursue its broader strategic goals,” Darwich said. “Israel gets a quieter border; Syria gets international breathing room.”
This story was published in collaboration with @Egab