In a flurry of high-level diplomatic activity that has captured the attention of the region and beyond, Israel and Syria are deep into negotiations over a new security agreement, with the United States playing a central mediating role. This comes as both countries grapple with the aftermath of recent military clashes, shifting alliances, and the ever-present shadow of Hezbollah’s influence in neighboring Lebanon.
On Sunday, August 25, 2025, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa signaled that talks with Israel had reached what he described as an “advanced stage.” Speaking to an Arab media delegation, al-Sharaa was forthright: “There are advanced discussions on a possible security agreement between Damascus and Tel Aviv,” he said, emphasizing that any understanding would be rooted in the 1974 truce line established after the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. According to Sky News Arabia, he added, “I will not hesitate to take any agreement or decision that serves Syria’s and the region’s interests.”
But al-Sharaa was also cautious. He made clear that while progress was being made, the time was not yet ripe for a comprehensive peace accord. “The necessary conditions, such as mutual trust, do not yet exist,” he told journalists, as reported by Israel Hayom. Yet he left the door open, stating that if he believed a peace deal would benefit Syria and the region, he would accept it “without hesitation” and personally explain to the public why it was essential. “There will be no secrets and no agreements under the table,” he stressed, underscoring his commitment to transparency.
These statements came on the heels of several key meetings. On August 19, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani met with an Israeli delegation in Paris. According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, the agenda included de-escalation, noninterference in Syrian affairs, and efforts to support regional stability. The talks also focused on monitoring the ceasefire in Suwayda province in southern Syria and reactivating the 1974 Syria-Israel Disengagement Agreement—a pact that created a UN-supervised buffer zone between the two countries’ forces.
The United States has taken a visible role in these efforts. US Special Envoy for Syria and Lebanon Thomas Barrack has been shuttling between capitals, urging all sides to seek a lasting security framework. On Sunday, August 24, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted Barrack in Jerusalem, joined by National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, and former envoy Morgan Ortagus. According to The Media Line, Barrack pressed Israel to scale back strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and to consider withdrawing from contested positions along the border. He also advocated for centralized governance in Syria to better protect minority communities, a position reflecting Washington’s concern for stability and human rights.
Barrack’s mediation has not been limited to Israel. He is expected to continue discussions in Beirut, accompanied by Senator Lindsey Graham and other US officials, in an attempt to persuade Lebanese leaders to move toward the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups. US sources have warned that failure to address Hezbollah’s arsenal could trigger renewed conflict with Israel—a stark reminder of the region’s volatility.
The Israeli response to these overtures has been measured. Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer met with Barrack in Paris earlier this month to review a US-drafted plan designed to resolve Lebanon’s internal disputes and establish the groundwork for broader understandings with Israel. Arab outlets reported that Israel rejected most provisions of the plan but showed willingness to gradually ease targeted operations, withdraw from certain areas, and discuss prisoner issues. However, Israel insisted that destroyed border villages remain uninhabited and be converted into buffer zones—a nonstarter for Hezbollah, which has flatly rejected the proposals and demanded a full Israeli withdrawal and the release of prisoners.
On the Syrian front, the sticking points are equally thorny. President al-Sharaa has made it clear that Syria’s unity is non-negotiable. “The issue of independent entities is a red line,” he declared in his briefing to Arab journalists, as reported by Israel Hayom. He also rejected the idea of any armed forces operating outside state control. These positions reflect deep-seated fears in Damascus of further fragmentation and foreign intervention after years of civil war and external meddling.
One of the most contentious issues is the renewal of the 1974 disengagement agreement. Damascus is demanding a full Israeli withdrawal to positions held before the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, while Israel is reportedly insisting on maintaining certain control points in the Mount Hermon area. There are also disagreements over the Druze province of Sweida: Israel wants a humanitarian corridor between the Golan Heights and Sweida, but Syria opposes it, citing concerns about sovereignty and outside influence. Within Sweida itself, Druze leaders have called for greater autonomy—another red line for al-Sharaa.
Military realities on the ground further complicate the diplomatic chessboard. Israeli forces occupied the buffer zone adjacent to the Golan Heights on December 8, 2024, extending their presence to within 20 kilometers of Damascus. Netanyahu has signaled that this occupation could be permanent and has demanded the disarmament of the southern region, a move that runs counter to Syrian sovereignty. Israel also intervened in clashes in Sweida on July 13, 2025, launching attacks on Syrian army positions, areas near the presidential compound in Damascus, and the General Staff building, according to local media reports.
Despite these obstacles, there are signs that both sides are willing to keep talking. Syrian Foreign Minister al-Shaibani’s meeting with Israeli officials in Paris, which included discussions on security issues along the Israel-Syria border and the need for a precise mechanism to reactivate the 1974 ceasefire agreement, indicates a recognition that dialogue is the only viable path forward. A Syrian government source told Alikhbaria that the goal is to stop Israeli violations of Syrian territory and create a more stable environment in the region.
Lebanon, meanwhile, faces its own set of dilemmas. The government must decide whether to extend the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and whether to endorse the US plan. Hezbollah’s rejection of the proposals means that the risk of escalation remains ever-present.
As the talks continue, the stakes could hardly be higher. The region stands at a crossroads, with the possibility of a new security architecture that could, at least in theory, reduce the risk of war and open the door—however narrowly—to future peace negotiations. But with so many unresolved issues and entrenched positions, the road ahead is likely to be long and fraught with peril. For now, all eyes remain on Jerusalem, Damascus, and Washington, as diplomats and leaders test whether old adversaries can find common ground in a landscape shaped by decades of conflict and mistrust.
In the end, whether these negotiations will yield a breakthrough or simply mark another chapter in the region’s long history of missed opportunities remains to be seen.
