One of the key talking points about Syria’s future is the relationship between post-Assad Syria and Israel. The new Syrian leadership’s head, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, seems thoroughly prepared for this discussion. He told the BBC that the country is worn out from wars and needs growth, and poses no threat to any nation in the world.
Through this straightforward statement, he wholly removes Syria from the fight with Israel. Furthermore, he closes the book on its standing in what Iran calls the “resistance axis.” There is neither an axis nor resistance from the new Syrian leadership’s viewpoint.
However, for Israel and the West, this talk is merely a show of intent that cannot be fully trusted. This distrust stems from two factors. First, affairs have not settled for the new Syrian leadership yet.
Second, the hardline background of Syria’s new leaders calls for waiting and testing these aims until they are put into action within trusted state bodies. They also need to make sure that the regional player who held sway over Syrian decision-making for so long has given in to the new geopolitical truth. Moreover, this player must believe that change is now real and must be dealt with.
Julani’s words show his understanding of what is causing the current strain between Syria and Israel. He stated that Israel had reasons for their involvement in Syria regarding Iranian militias and Hezbollah, and now there is no ground for Israeli forces to push forward in Syria.
He pointed to diplomatic ways of dealing with Israel on this matter, including international pressure and the UN. He noted that Syria “must” be a bridge rather than a player in the clash between Russia, the United States, Turkey, and Israel.
Good diplomacy
This is good diplomatic speech. Yet making it happen seems very hard, given how Iraqi diplomacy, for instance, could not break free from the US-Iranian clash on its soil. This is true despite Iraq showing drive and effectiveness in handling matters tied to its national safety.
Notably, Julani wholly left out any mention of Iran despite its strong presence and growing sway in Syrian matters in recent years.
He seemed sure about wiping out all Iranian legacy with one stroke or merely by Bashar al-Assad’s fall. This thinking might not seem realistic given Syria’s shaky security setup. Additionally, it is hard to be sure about its details and the regional and demographic tangles that have grown deeper over recent years.
Among the reassuring messages Julani sent to Israel was the final split from Iran. This is not about reassuring Israel directly. Rather, it is about the ideological and interest-based hatred between Iran, which fought against the armed groups to back Assad, and these groups with their anti-Iran ideological and sectarian background. Yet, in the end, this works in Israel’s favor.
We note here that Julani welcomed Russia staying on Syrian soil. He believes Syria cannot quickly split from Russia. Moreover, he thinks building strategic ties on new grounds ensuring Syria’s sovereignty and free choice is possible. He pointed to “unfair agreements” between Assad and Russia.
This basic acceptance of Russian presence is not just about Russia’s reach inside Syria. It shows that Julani and his fellows know that one of the main props for their being and getting regional and international backing is fully splitting from Iran. Indeed, this split happened from the first moments of Assad’s fall.
ISRAEL, FOR its part, did not wait to test the new Syrian rule’s pulse. Instead, it rushed to step up its strikes on Syrian key facilities, weapons stores, and vital military sites. These actions aimed to wholly end any chance of threats from the new system. Israel justified its attacks as aiming to boost its security and stop advanced weapons, like chemical weapons, from falling into the hands of what it called “terrorist groups.”
Israeli media reported destroying about 80% of standing Syrian military might. They saw their moves as defensive and protective. Israel also spread its forces in the buffer zone on the Syrian border, which splits the Golan Heights from Syrian land.
This was the first entry to the area since signing the agreement, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu officially canceled. He called it a “temporary step” until security matters are settled with the new Syrian government.
I believe Israel does not fear the new Syria as much as it fears Turkey’s old and renewed aims and its ties to the new Syrian system. Yet Israel has managed – through careful forward moves using the situation – to force a new reality. It has done so by widening buffer zones along Syria’s border to strengthen its later bargaining stance regarding the Golan Heights.
Israel also readied itself for a new military clash breaking out inside Syria between armed groups as such fighting threatens Israel’s safety. This readiness shows the hardest lesson Israel learned after Hamas’s October 7 attack on its land: Leave nothing to chance. Moreover, act first to shield itself and its people from any possible threats, however small.
This approach is especially important since regional experience shows Syrian weapon stores could move to different hardline Syrian groups. Such a movement would boost their power to launch attacks or even just threaten to do so. Israel no longer holds back from wiping out likely threat sources. Indeed, downplaying threats for peace’s sake is now in the past.
The official stance states that Israel will not mind setting up normal ties with the new Syrian system under two conditions. First, Syria must end its link to Iran. Second, it must not allow terrorist groups inside Syria.
Yet it might be too soon to build a realistic view about whether Israel would accept a Syrian ruling system led by former jihadists. This uncertainty grows if they have strong strategic ties with Turkey, as Israel now fears what some watchers call the “Ottoman dream.”
This concern is particularly serious since having a Syrian ruling system with an Islamic background and extreme history might spark strategic shifts in other regional countries. Such a system, no matter how moderate it claims to be, could give Turkey’s Islamists new chances to keep ruling after Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s time ends. This possibility remains true even if the current system declares moderation.
The writer is a UAE political analyst and former Federal National Council candidate.