Recent weeks have witnessed a significant escalation on both military and political fronts in Syria, following an assault on the Beit Jin area in the western countryside of Damascus. The incident has had wide-ranging repercussions at both local and regional levels.
This escalation arrives at a delicate moment in the unofficial relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv. According to diplomatic sources, the two parties are engaged in indirect communications aimed at reaching security understandings to end the long-standing impasse. Within this complex framework, the latest Israeli incursion appears to be more than an isolated act of aggression. It represents a serious test of the fragile negotiation process and of the growing American ambition to push both sides towards a security agreement that might stabilise Syria’s southern borders.
Early indications suggest that Washington is stepping up its diplomatic efforts in this regard. Political sources have pointed to direct contacts made by the American envoy Thomas Barrack in Damascus, including meetings with Syrian officials such as Transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani. These efforts aim to recalibrate political dynamics between Damascus and Tel Aviv, averting any descent into open conflict that could derail US plans for a new regional security structure.
The American initiative is part of a broader vision by the current administration to reshape the balance of power in the Levant, urging parties mired in longstanding conflicts to pursue de-escalation and normalisation, following in the footsteps of the Abraham Accords under previous US leadership.
The Syria–Israel border issue remains one of the final unresolved elements of this wider plan. Consequently, any military friction—such as the Beit Jin operation—is of deep concern to Washington. It is especially troubling in light of American aspirations to establish a lasting security consensus between Damascus and Tel Aviv.
Meanwhile, Israel continues its policy of regular airstrikes and ground incursions into Syrian territory, ostensibly targeting Iranian-linked forces and other groups it deems hostile. In reality, this approach contributes to the ongoing erosion of Syria’s defensive capabilities. In recent years, Israeli operations have exceeded one thousand strikes, severely depleting Syrian military infrastructure.
While military pressure from Israel remains constant, the Beit Jin attack carried more of a strategic message than a direct combat objective. Tel Aviv appears intent on asserting its presence and controlling the tempo of operations, particularly amid increasing leaks about possible direct negotiations in 2026. Damascus, for its part, has approached the escalation with caution, avoiding actions that could trigger a full-scale confrontation and prematurely close the door on negotiations.
The incident has also reignited regional concerns over the fate of southern Syria. Some Arab commentators accuse Israel of exploiting Syria’s weakened state and regional fragmentation to achieve long-term demographic and territorial gains, particularly at a time when Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank are also under severe strain.
Caught between American pressure, Israeli manoeuvring and the complex calculations of Syrian policymakers, the region finds itself at another crossroads. The Beit Jin incident could prove to be the spark that determines whether the current tensions evolve into renewed conflict or accelerate the move towards long-anticipated negotiations. This is particularly true given President Donald Trump’s clear enthusiasm for improved Damascus–Tel Aviv relations and his public call for “genuine and robust dialogue” between the two.
A Shift in Aggression: Catalyst for Negotiation
Hussam Taleb, a political analyst based in Damascus, told 963+ that the Beit Jin assault, and the Israeli aggression that followed—met with local resistance—marks a turning point in the nature of Israel’s military operations. He explained that the Israeli army has shifted its strategy towards relying on aerial bombardment over ground manoeuvres, a change he believes will significantly alter the character of its year-long offensive against Syria.
Taleb does not expect an expansion of aerial operations. He noted that Israel has already carried out more than a thousand air raids, targeting Syria’s strategic weapons, air defences and military infrastructure. Therefore, he sees no reason for the tempo of strikes to increase. Instead, he believes Israel will continue using these attacks as a means to pressure the Syrian government for concessions.
However, Taleb asserts that the Syrian leadership remains firm in its refusal to enter into any security agreement outside the framework of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1974, which outlines the terms of a potential armistice.
He added that the US currently adopts a “tolerantly favourable” stance, applying no real pressure on Israel. Washington views the continued violations as obstacles to securing a Syria–Israel agreement, a source of frustration given Trump’s determination to include such a deal in his strategic record.
Following the Beit Jin incident, Taleb observed increased American activity aimed at bridging gaps between Damascus and Tel Aviv. He highlighted notable diplomatic movement, particularly the visit by envoy Thomas Barrack and meetings with al-Sharaa and al-Shaibani.
Taleb believes the Beit Jin operation will accelerate the negotiation process. “We are seeing underground American, Arab and regional efforts,” he said, “and this will stir stagnant waters towards a security agreement between Syria and Israel, also providing protection against further Israeli assaults.”
He emphasised that public resistance to the Israeli incursion serves as a message to Tel Aviv. While not entirely deterrent, it is significant, reflecting the Syrian population’s determination to oppose the occupation. This could help reduce the frequency of ground-based Israeli operations in Syria.
A Regional Menace Invoking Confrontation
Dr Ahmad Fouad Anwar, an Israeli affairs expert and member of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Affairs, told 963+ from Cairo that Israel’s drive to annex further territory in southern Syria stems from a desire to expand its sphere of control and alter the demographic landscape. He believes this is enabled by ongoing violations and exploitation of Syria’s current state of weakness.
According to Anwar, Israel’s actions threaten the rights of Iran and other parties, as ground incursions continue with little restraint. He argues that Israel often hides behind flimsy justifications—whether directed at Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt or Jordan—to seize opportunities and pressure regional actors.
He lamented what he described as international hypocrisy, noting that Syria’s territory and resources are being plundered while global powers remain indifferent. In his view, the international community respects only power and dismisses the weak.
Anwar sees Syria’s predicament as akin to Lebanon’s, with the West Bank also facing constant encroachments. Ceasefires are violated daily in both Gaza and Lebanon, he added, pointing to a wider pattern of disregard for agreements.
He called for urgent and unified action to curb what he termed Israel’s recklessness, warning that the consequences affect the entire region. He appealed to Syrians to overcome internal divisions and unite in confronting Israeli expansion, through cultural, economic, legal and, if necessary, more forceful means.
Horizons of Negotiation and Prospects for De-escalation
Dr Ahmad al-Zein, a Lebanese writer and political analyst, told 963+ that while the Beit Jin assault marked a significant development in the evolving Syria–Israel relationship, he does not believe it will derail the broader trajectory of rapprochement. Both sides, he noted, appear to be seeking calm along their shared border and have offered signs of goodwill.
Any agreement, he added, will require the elevation of certain demands, with Israel likely to insist on specific conditions. He interpreted the attack as a declaration from Tel Aviv that it retains operational dominance in the region.
Al-Zein noted the importance of observing Syria’s and al-Sharaa’s response to this incursion, and whether it produces negative consequences. However, he believes the American role will be key in advancing negotiations to a more serious stage, potentially limiting further Israeli escalation.
Based on current information, he suggested that formal negotiations could begin as early as March 2026, though he cautioned that the details remain uncertain. Still, rumours suggest initial talks are underway, possibly heralding improved relations.
He clarified that while a full peace agreement or formal normalisation may not emerge, direct negotiations could lead to Syria joining the Abraham Accords. This outlook, he added, is supported by Foreign Minister al-Shaibani’s recent statements, which convey optimism and reflect Syria’s broader foreign policy. He concluded that the latest Israeli strikes were aimed at raising the stakes or setting conditions but did not breach any red lines.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
