In a week marked by high-stakes diplomacy and pointed warnings, the fragile landscape of the Middle East has once again taken center stage. On November 10, 2025, the White House played host to a historic event: U.S. President Donald Trump welcomed Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, marking the first time a Syrian leader had set foot at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The visit, coming nearly a year after the fall of the Assad regime, signaled a potential turning point for Syria’s regional role and its relationship with both Israel and the United States.
During his time in Washington, al-Sharaa made headlines with a clear message: for Syria and Israel to reach a lasting security agreement, Jerusalem must withdraw its forces in Syria to the positions they held before December 8, 2024, the date the Assad regime fell. As reported by The Washington Post, al-Sharaa stated, “We are engaged in direct negotiations with Israel, and we have gone a good distance on the way to reach an agreement. But to reach a final agreement, Israel should withdraw to their pre-Dec. 8 borders.” The insistence on a return to previous lines underscores the lingering tensions and the complexity of any future peace deal.
The backdrop to these negotiations is anything but calm. Following the collapse of Assad’s rule, Jerusalem moved swiftly to seize control of parts of southern Syria, expanding its security zone and maintaining a military presence amid ongoing clashes and airstrikes. This new reality has left the region in a state of simmering unease, punctuated by violence. Less than a week before December 2, 2025, six Israeli soldiers were wounded in clashes in the village of Beit Jinn, a stark reminder that the conflict remains far from resolved.
Amid these developments, U.S. officials have tried to strike a balance between supporting their regional partners and encouraging stability. On December 6, 2025, Admiral Brad Cooper, chief of U.S. Central Command, praised Syria’s security forces for recently interdicting multiple weapons shipments intended for Lebanese Hezbollah. “Congratulations to Syria’s security forces for recently interdicting multiple weapons shipments. These shipments were intended for Lebanese Hezbollah,” Cooper stated. He emphasized the shared interest between the United States and its regional allies in “ensuring the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah and in preserving peace and stability across the Middle East.”
This rare public commendation from a top American military official highlights the shifting alliances and the pragmatic, if uneasy, cooperation emerging in the post-Assad era. For years, Syria’s relationship with Hezbollah was a source of regional tension and concern for both Israel and the West. Now, with new leadership in Damascus, there are signs of a recalibration—though not without controversy or skepticism from neighboring states.
President Trump, for his part, has sought to position the United States as a facilitator of dialogue and peace. On December 2, 2025, just days after the Beit Jinn clashes, Trump took to Truth Social to underscore the importance of not interfering with Syria’s evolution into a prosperous state. He wrote that the new president of Syria is “working diligently to make sure good things happen, and that both Syria and Israel will have a long and prosperous relationship together.” Trump added, “It is very important that Israel maintain a strong and true dialogue with Syria.”
The optimism from Washington, however, has been met with caution—and even outright warning—from Damascus. Speaking at the Doha Forum 2025 on December 6, President Ahmad al-Sharaa issued a stark admonition against any attempt by Israel to alter the 1974 Disengagement Agreement or to pursue alternative security arrangements, such as a proposed buffer zone. According to Anadolu, al-Sharaa warned that such moves would turn the region into “a dangerous place with unknown consequences.”
Al-Sharaa’s remarks were pointed and unapologetic. He accused Israel of trying to “export its crises to other countries” and of avoiding responsibility for the ongoing massacres in Gaza. He further charged that Israel justifies all its actions under the pretext of security concerns, while Syria, since its liberation, has “sent positive messages aimed at strengthening regional stability.” The Syrian president insisted that Israel must adhere strictly to the 1974 ceasefire agreement governing the Golan Heights, a stance that resonates deeply with Syrian national sentiment and regional legal norms.
One of the most contentious issues in the current talks is the idea of a demilitarized buffer zone. Al-Sharaa openly questioned the logic behind such proposals, asking, “There are many questions surrounding the demand for a demilitarized zone. Who will protect this area if the Syrian army is not present?” His skepticism reflects a broader concern in Damascus that any arrangement excluding Syrian forces would leave the country vulnerable to further Israeli incursions or, worse, create a power vacuum that could be exploited by non-state actors or rival states.
“Any agreement must guarantee Syria’s interests,” al-Sharaa declared. “Syria is the party exposed to Israeli attacks, so who is more entitled to demand withdrawal and security arrangements?” This sentiment, echoing through the halls of the Doha Forum and across Syrian state media, highlights the deep-seated mistrust that still pervades the relationship between the two countries—even as they edge closer to direct negotiations.
For Israel, the presence of its forces in southern Syria is framed as a necessary measure to secure its borders and to prevent the resurgence of hostile groups, particularly in the wake of the Assad regime’s collapse. Israeli leaders have long argued that security zones and buffer areas are essential to protect their citizens from cross-border attacks and to limit the influence of Iran and its proxies. Yet, for Syria, these same measures are seen as infringements on sovereignty and obstacles to genuine peace.
The international community, for its part, is watching closely. The United States, while supportive of Syria’s recent actions against Hezbollah, remains committed to Israel’s security and to the broader goal of regional stability. European nations and the United Nations have also called for restraint, urging all parties to adhere to established agreements and to prioritize dialogue over confrontation.
As the situation continues to evolve, the stakes could hardly be higher. The interplay between historical grievances, shifting alliances, and the ever-present threat of violence means that even small missteps could have outsized consequences. The coming weeks will test the resolve of all involved—Syria, Israel, and their international partners—to find a path forward that balances security, sovereignty, and the hope for a more peaceful future.
With new leadership in Damascus, a wary but watchful eye from Jerusalem, and the world’s attention focused on every move, the next chapter in the Syrian-Israeli saga is being written in real time. Whether it ends in renewed conflict or a breakthrough for peace remains to be seen, but for now, the region stands at a crossroads, its fate hanging in the balance.