After expelling Iran and its proxy Hezbollah from Syria, the new leadership in Damascus is ushering in a qualitatively different phase in relations with its neighbours – particularly Israel – as the Levantine country seeks to reposition itself both regionally and internationally.
While Syria’s internal political dynamics are far from settled, the developments along its borders are striking in their implications for Turkey and the Arab world, and the wider regional and international reverberations they could cause.
Syria, under former president Bashar Al Assad, was previously the cornerstone of Tehran’s hegemonic and ideological ambitions. Today, led by a new establishment in Damacus and under American auspices and with Arab Gulf backing, it is charting a new trajectory with its neighbours.
Recent reports suggest Syria and Israel could sign a security agreement under US sponsorship on September 25, following a speech by interim Syrian President Ahmad Al Shara at the UN in New York next month. The agreement is said to aim not at comprehensive peace, but rather at reducing tensions between the two countries.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry has since denied that Damascus will sign a security deal with Israel. But according to the official Syrian Arab News Agency, Foreign Minister Asaad Al Shibani met an Israeli delegation last Tuesday to discuss “de-escalation, non-interference in Syria’s internal affairs, reaching understandings to support regional stability, and monitoring the ceasefire in Sweida province”.
These talks, part of a series held recently in Baku and Paris, reportedly led to an agreement on about 80 per cent of the points discussed, with both sides agreeing to continue negotiations. While described as security talks, they are in fact unprecedentedly political in nature.
While previous talks between former foreign minister Walid Muallem and Israeli counterparts made considerable progress towards resolving their conflict, they were ultimately derailed by the issue of control over Lake Tiberias, also known as the Sea of Galilee, a strategically significant body of water that currently faces a drought.
That Damascus now feels confident enough to engage with Israel, despite the latter’s military rampage in Gaza, suggests that the new leadership is guided by a pragmatic focus on Syria’s own priorities, rather than a desire for regional leadership, as was previously the case. Indeed, Mr Al Shara’s government has yet to assert full control internally, and fears persist that extremist groups could still overrun the country and shatter its vital but fragile social fabric.
The Syrian President’s emphasis on rejecting partition, as well as his statement that his country’s reunification after years of war “should not come through bloodshed and military force”, are commendable. But these assertions should be followed up with reassurance, too, especially in light of his accusations against some Syrian groups of “seeking strength through regional powers, Israel or otherwise”, as he has put it. The mechanism of understanding that Mr Al Shara speaks of must be genuine, and firm against those who claim to follow him while trying to sabotage it.
Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Syria, has played a direct role in pushing Damascus and Israel towards addressing sectarian tensions in Sweida and promoting regional stability. Mr Barrack requested clarifications from Mr Al Shibani over documented violations against the Druze community in the southern Syrian province, and the Paris meetings helped push towards understandings that could help stabilise the situation and monitor the ceasefire in the region.
US mediation is thus clearly aimed at ushering in a new chapter between Syria and Israel, one that paves the way towards a peace agreement, although without rushing there.
Mr Barrack appears committed to shepherding Syria’s peace process in co-ordination not just with Turkey but also with Gulf countries, which would be vital to keep Syria within the Arab fold and attract continued investment to the country. He is keen on helping Syria settle its border disputes with Israel but also with Lebanon through demarcation and a new, qualitative relationship far removed from the days when Damascus dominated Beirut politically and militarily under the Assad government.
The administration of US President Donald Trump as well as key Arab powers welcome the decline of Iranian influence in the Levant. Syria, in particular, is now the lynchpin in their shared strategy to contain Iran. Securing Syria’s borders with its neighbours will also help to curb drug smuggling and the spread of terrorism across the region.
Lebanon, for its part, is taking steps towards normalising relations with Syria, and potentially with Israel, if US efforts succeed in persuading Israel to reciprocate Beirut’s recent decision to disarm Hezbollah.
But while Israel should undoubtedly do its part by withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, the Iranian proxy also needs to understand that its continued insistence on retaining arms risks scuttling any chance of ending Israeli occupation of the five hills in Lebanon and inviting renewed military operations against the group. Moreover, if Hezbollah assumes it can sabotage deals being pursued by Damascus and Beirut, it is mistaken; it is no longer the force it was in either country.
Despite the previous regime's talks with Israel, accusations of treason will inevitably be hurled at Mr Al Shara’s government for engaging with Israel while the latter carries out war crimes against Palestinians and attempts to reoccupy Gaza and annex the West Bank. Yet this doesn’t justify accusing Damascus of treason as it simply seeks to reclaim its land from Israeli control. There is an important distinction between normalising borders between states, as Syria is doing with Israel, and normalising relations with a government beholden to the idea of a “Greater Israel”.
The new Syrian government isn’t pretending to be the leader of the Palestinian cause, unlike the old one, which may have backed rival armed Palestinian factions but in reality traded on their suffering for its own gain.
