Security Without Peace: The Paradox of a Potential Israel-Syria Agreement

In a region where formal peace remains elusive, Syria’s willingness to pursue security arrangements with Israel signals a pragmatic shift that could reshape Middle Eastern geopolitics without addressing underlying conflicts.

A Remarkable Diplomatic Opening

The announcement from Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa represents a significant departure from decades of frozen hostility between Damascus and Jerusalem. Syria and Israel have technically remained in a state of war since 1948, with the Golan Heights serving as a persistent flashpoint since Israel captured and later annexed the territory in 1967. That these two nations are now discussing security arrangements—even without formal peace talks—marks a potentially transformative moment for regional stability.

The timing of this development is particularly noteworthy. Syria emerges from over a decade of devastating civil war with its economy in ruins, its infrastructure shattered, and its political future uncertain. For al-Sharaa’s government, a security agreement with Israel could offer desperately needed stability along its southwestern border, potentially freeing resources for domestic reconstruction while reducing the risk of military escalation.

The Architecture of Limited Engagement

What makes this potential agreement fascinating is its deliberately limited scope. By explicitly stating that “full peace or normalization with Israel is not yet on the agenda,” al-Sharaa appears to be threading a delicate needle—pursuing practical security benefits while avoiding the political radioactivity of formal recognition. This approach mirrors similar arrangements Israel has maintained with other regional actors, where operational coordination exists alongside official enmity.

The involvement of senior U.S. officials in these discussions underscores Washington’s continued role as an indispensable mediator in Middle Eastern affairs. American diplomatic engagement likely provides both sides with the political cover necessary to explore arrangements that would be domestically controversial if pursued through direct bilateral channels. The UN General Assembly setting also offers a neutral venue for such sensitive preliminary discussions.

Implications for Regional Realignment

This potential agreement must be understood within the broader context of shifting Middle Eastern alliances. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that Arab states could normalize relations with Israel without resolving the Palestinian issue—a precedent that fundamentally altered regional diplomatic calculations. Syria’s exploration of security arrangements, while stopping short of normalization, suggests that even states traditionally aligned with the “resistance axis” are reconsidering their strategic options.

For Israel, a security agreement with Syria would represent a major strategic victory, potentially neutralizing threats along its northeastern border and further isolating Iranian influence in the Levant. It could also provide Israel with greater operational freedom in confronting Iranian assets in Syria, a concern that has driven hundreds of Israeli airstrikes in recent years.

Yet this development also raises profound questions about the future of Arab solidarity and the Palestinian cause. If Syria—long considered a stalwart of Arab resistance to Israel—can pursue security arrangements with Jerusalem, it further fragments the already-weakened unified Arab position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Limits of Security Without Peace

However promising, security agreements without comprehensive peace settlements carry inherent limitations. They may reduce immediate tensions but leave fundamental grievances unaddressed. The Golan Heights remains occupied territory under international law, and millions of Palestinian refugees in Syria continue to embody unresolved historical injustices. A security agreement might manage these tensions but cannot eliminate them.

As the Middle East continues its dramatic realignment, we must ask: Can a region built on security arrangements without genuine peace achieve lasting stability, or are we merely witnessing a more sophisticated form of conflict management that postpones rather than resolves fundamental disputes?