The Israeli website “Ynet” considered that Syria, under the era of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, has turned into a “real strategic dilemma” for decision-makers in Israel, in light of increasing indications that the new Syrian leadership has adopted a pragmatic approach and political openness that puts Tel Aviv before calculations different from those that governed its dealings with Damascus over the past years.
In an article entitled “This is how Syria became a strategic dilemma for Israel,” the Israeli expert on Arab affairs, Michael Milstein, asked about the reasons for the Israeli establishment’s insistence on dealing with Sharaa as a “regional villain” or a “time bomb,” despite the series of positions and steps that Damascus has recently taken.
According to Milstein, the negative Israeli view of the new Syrian leadership is not only related to security caution, but rather, in his estimation, it is intertwined with internal political considerations and interests in Israel that prevent it from quickly adapting to the transformations taking place in Syria.
He pointed to a set of steps that he considered evidence of Shara’s pragmatism, including his flexible dealing with reducing the Russian military presence in Syria, and his agreement to hand over the remains of the Syrian nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as his repeated declaration of readiness to enter into understandings that could pave the way for an agreement with Israel.
This reading intersects with statements made by Al-Sharaa recently, in which he affirmed that Syria does not seek a military confrontation with Israel, and that Damascus is working to reach a “security agreement” that could later open the door to a broader path toward peace.
On the other hand, Al-Sharaa stressed that any possible understanding would not be at the expense of the Syrian position on the Golan, stressing Damascus’s adherence to its right to the Syrian lands occupied by Israel.
The Syrian President was also keen to send messages to regional and international powers regarding Lebanon, ruling out any Syrian military intervention in it, as part of Damascus’s effort to present itself as a country seeking to stabilize stability and rearrange its foreign relations after the transformations that Syria witnessed.
This scene, according to the Israeli analysis, raises a more complex question for Tel Aviv: Will it continue to deal with Sharaa based on its past and the security concerns associated with it, or will it test the transformation that it shows in its discourse and political practice?
Milstein went on to say that Al-Sharaa may not turn into a “new Anwar Sadat,” referring to the Egyptian president who led the peace process with Israel, but continuing to classify him in advance as the “next enemy” may obscure Israel from reading the geopolitical transformations taking place in the region, and, in his opinion, miss an opportunity for it to rearrange its calculations on the northern front.
The Israeli discussion about the future of the relationship with Damascus comes at a stage in which Syria is witnessing a broad reformulation of its regional and international relations, while the Golan file and the security arrangements on the border remain one of the most prominent obstacles to any transition from limited contacts and understandings to a more advanced political path.
