For decades, the prospect of peace between Israel and Syria seemed little more than a distant dream, a shimmering mirage on the horizon of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Yet, in a series of dramatic developments over the past weeks, that illusion has edged closer to reality—though not without significant setbacks and skepticism on all sides.
On November 19, 2025, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House marked a historic moment for both nations and, indeed, the wider region. As reported by the Jewish Exponent, this unprecedented meeting signaled the potential for a major diplomatic breakthrough: a prospective Israel-Syria security treaty, brokered by the Trump administration, that could reshape the regional order after half a century of conflict and suspicion.
This new initiative, as outlined by U.S. officials, would not only cement Syria’s break from the Iran-Hezbollah axis but also secure Israel’s volatile northern border and offer a vision of stability beyond the sectarian divides that have long plagued the region. The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s Iranian-backed regime and Israel’s relentless campaign against Hezbollah have, according to analysts cited by the Jewish Exponent, redrawn the political map, creating both peril and opportunity.
For Syria’s emergent government, survival now hinges on legitimacy at home and acceptance abroad. The new leadership, led by al-Sharaa, is acutely aware that aligning with the United States—and, by extension, Israel—may be the key to escaping international isolation and the shadow of Iranian influence. For Israel, the shifting landscape presents a rare chance to protect vulnerable minorities like the Druze in southern Syria and to prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing its rocket corridors along the Golan Heights.
President Donald Trump, eager to seize what he sees as a fleeting diplomatic opportunity, has already suspended key restrictions under the Caesar Act, easing sanctions on Syria in a gesture of goodwill. Bipartisan voices in Congress have signaled support for further steps to end Syria’s isolation, should progress toward peace continue. Even cautious Democrats, such as Rep. Elissa Slotkin, have expressed cautious optimism. Slotkin, a former counterterrorism official, described her dinner with al-Sharaa as “quite moving,” noting his apparent commitment to normalization.
But as quickly as hopes have risen, so too have doubts. On November 17, 2025, the Israeli Broadcasting Authority announced that negotiations with Syria had reached an impasse. According to the Authority, the talks—mediated by international actors and based on the foundational disengagement accord of 1974—stalled over sharp disagreements regarding Israel’s withdrawal from southern Syrian territories. These territories had been occupied by Israeli forces on December 8, 2024, in the chaotic aftermath of the Assad regime’s collapse.
Israel has made its position clear: it will not settle for a mere “security agreement.” Instead, it seeks a comprehensive peace treaty, and will only consider withdrawal from the occupied territories as part of such a broader accord. President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s call for unconditional withdrawal from the areas seized after Assad’s fall was categorically rejected by Israeli officials, deepening the divide.
The dispute has been further complicated by developments on the ground. The Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth detailed Israeli bulldozers advancing towards the 2,800-metre summit of Mount Hermon—located within Syrian territory—where fortification and maintenance work is underway in preparation for the approaching winter. While Israeli military officials insist that these actions are standard winter deployments and do not signal any forthcoming withdrawal, the optics have unnerved both Washington and Damascus. Some in Israel fear that U.S. President Trump might pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to relinquish control of Mount Hermon, especially in light of al-Sharaa’s high-profile White House visit.
For his part, President al-Sharaa has sought to manage expectations and clarify Syria’s stance. In an interview with Fox News, he ruled out the prospect of direct negotiations with Israel in the near term, stressing that Syria’s situation is fundamentally different from those of the states that signed the Abraham Accords. The ongoing Israeli occupation of Syrian land since 1967, he argued, makes normalization impossible under current conditions. Al-Sharaa did, however, suggest that the United States could eventually serve as a mediator within the Abraham Accords framework, though he acknowledged that such a prospect remains distant and speculative.
The U.S. envoy to Syria, Thomas Barrack, has sought to dispel rumors of a total breakdown in talks. “It is untrue that the security accord faltered in its eleventh hour,” Barrack stated, according to The Syrian Observer. Despite the public setbacks, American officials remain hopeful that the momentum generated by al-Sharaa’s visit and the suspension of sanctions can be harnessed to keep the process alive.
Meanwhile, the situation along the border remains tense and volatile. Since the Assad regime’s collapse, Israeli forces have deepened their incursions into Syrian territory, engaging in near-daily operations that have included arrests and, at times, the killing of Syrian civilians. These actions have fueled resentment and cast a shadow over any budding diplomatic overture, serving as a stark reminder of the complex and often brutal realities on the ground.
Yet, amid the setbacks, there are signs of a deeper transformation underway. Syria’s imminent entry into the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS, alongside 87 other nations, marks a dramatic ideological reversal. From a onetime ally of jihadists to a partner of the United States and Israel in the fight against extremism, Damascus is seeking to redefine its place in the region. Al-Sharaa has repeatedly emphasized his goal of reclaiming Syrian sovereignty free from Iranian militias—a vision that Israel, weary of Iran’s regional ambitions, can certainly appreciate.
The emerging treaty, as envisioned by negotiators, would establish a demilitarized zone in southwest Syria, monitored by the United Nations and guaranteed by the United States. If finalized by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President al-Sharaa, the agreement could rival the historic 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt—an achievement that fundamentally altered the trajectory of Middle Eastern politics.
Still, skepticism abounds. Critics warn that Damascus’ sincerity remains untested and that the fragile alignment of interests could unravel at any moment. The alternative, however—a renewed front dominated by Iran and ISIS—offers little comfort to either side.
As the world watches, the fate of the Israel-Syria peace process hangs in the balance. After half a century of false starts, the tantalizing prospect of peace remains a treaty worth the wait—if, and only if, the parties can overcome the formidable obstacles that still stand in their way.
