The Dialogue on Syria Should Be About Capabilities, not Intentions

Recent reports indicate talks are moving towards a potential partial agreement between Syria and Israel. Prominent Arab affairs analyst Ehud Yaari detailed on Monday aspects of this non-aggression agreement, suggesting that it could call for a ‘system update’ of the 1974 disengagement agreement between the two countries. 

Syria has been seeking an Israeli withdrawal from Syrian-controlled areas of the Golan Heights that the IDF entered in December 2024, and a cessation of Israeli strikes within Syria. 

In return, the proposed outline includes a security understanding for Israel, alongside various components of normalization with the new Syrian Al-Sharaa regime, but it stops short of a full peace agreement. 

Aspects of this emerging deal raise considerable concern. The demand for Israel to halt its military operations in Syria is particularly troubling. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, the rebel umbrella group that took over the country, and its leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, are the de facto rulers of significant parts of Syria, and they genuinely aim to counter the influence of their Shi’ite nemesis, Iran. 

 However, al-Sharaa’s full capability to suppress Iran’s presence across Syria is unproven and will take time to demonstrate. Positive indicators, such as at least three interdictions of Iranian axis weapons smuggling attempts on the Syrian-Lebanese border by al-Sharaa’s forces in recent weeks, offer a glimmer of hope. In fact, al-Sharaa’s forces have released more public documentation of seized weapons than the Lebanese Army’s own documentation of its activities against Hezbollah.

Nevertheless, the primary concern remains the potential for a jihadist entity forming along Israel’s border,  equipped with Western weaponry. This is a significant risk. While al-Sharaa’s immediate intentions appear geared towards rebuilding Syria, a task for which he will take any assistance available, the long-term adherence of his Islamist regime to any agreement is uncertain. 

We must not forget that al-Sharaa’s recruits are not proponents of democracy. Intelligence oversight is therefore absolutely critical, providing constant insight into internal Syrian dynamics, as well as into Al-Sharaa’s control over his militias, and the overall stability of his rule. The prospect of advanced Western armaments falling into the hands of jihadist factions is a nightmare scenario.

For Israel to genuinely feel secure, any agreement must focus on capabilities, not merely stated intentions. We need concrete assurances and limitations on the Syrian military. This means no significant Syrian military forces near the Israeli borders, no militia presence, and no Turkish military involvement near well-defined Israeli defensive zones.  

If Israel withdraws from certain areas, there must be guarantees against the re-establishment of Syrian military presence or militias in those areas, as was the case before the Syrian Civil War.

Furthermore, any oversight mechanisms must be robust. American oversight would be far preferable to that of the United Nations, whose limited effectiveness is starkly illustrated by the situation with UNIFIL in Lebanon.

It is true that if the West doesn’t assist in Syria’s reconstruction, other powers like Turkey, Russia, or China will step in, filling any vacuum. It is noteworthy that al-Sharaa has sought engagement with the United States.

Nevertheless, for the safety of our citizens, we need guarantees that Syria will not pose a strategic risk to the Golan Heights or to the State of Israel as a whole. Recent legislative changes in Syria, such as the new regime’s law requiring a license to sell alcohol and other Islamist regulations on how women dress, underscore the nature of the current Syrian regime. 

This Islamist leaning, combined with the presence of Islamist non-Syrian militia members who fought in the civil war into the Syrian army, highlights that our neighbors are not aligned with democratic values, and that any agreement must be entered into with sober assessments, caution and vigilance.