In a rare and wide-ranging interview with the leading Arabic magazine Al-Majalla, former U.S. Ambassador and peace negotiator Frederic C. Hof reflected on the dramatic political transformation in Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad, assessing the prospects for peace, regional diplomacy, and the challenges confronting Syria’s new leadership.
Hof, now a Senior Fellow at Bard College’s Centre for Civic Engagement, spoke candidly about his role in past peace efforts between Syria and Israel, the complex legacy of Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanese-Syrian affairs, and the implications of U.S. and Israeli policy under the Trump administration.
A Pivotal Moment—But Caution Abounds
Asked whether the Trump–Sharaa meeting in Riyadh, which led to the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria, marked a definitive turning point, Hof was cautiously optimistic. “The end of the Assad regime is a good development in and of itself,” he said. Yet he warned that for President Ahmad al-Sharaa and his administration, the obstacles to stabilization and reconstruction remain “extraordinarily difficult.”
While recognizing Trump’s move as a step in the right direction, Hof emphasized the enormity of the task ahead: rebuilding a country devastated by over a decade of war, and reconstituting its political and economic institutions under international scrutiny.
Hof confirmed that Washington’s expectations of Syria’s transitional government include the dismantling of all terrorist networks—explicitly referencing factions with lingering ties to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—as well as establishing an inclusive political order. “The United States is hoping for a system based on Syrian citizenship,” he said, stressing that inclusivity remains a core American demand.
On the Golan Heights, Shebaa Farms, and Hezbollah’s Narrative
Reflecting on the long-standing dispute over the Shebaa Farms, Hof recounted a private 2011 meeting with Bashar al-Assad in which the former Syrian president firmly stated that the disputed territory was Syrian, not Lebanese. “There is no role for Lebanon here,” Hof quoted Assad as saying.
He suggested that a future Syrian administration might reiterate that stance, effectively undercutting Hezbollah’s long-asserted justification for armed resistance. “Doing so,” Hof noted, “could help the Lebanese government end this false pretense of resistance.”
Turning to Lebanon, Hof said that Syria’s transformation might offer Beirut greater diplomatic flexibility than ever before. With reports of indirect Syrian-Israeli talks underway, he noted the potential for Lebanon to pursue a formal armistice with Israel—possibly a revival of the 1949 ceasefire affirmed in the Taif Agreement. “The opportunity is there,” he said, “but both sides must rigorously uphold the ceasefire terms.”
Responding to recent comments by U.S. envoy Morgan Ortagus, Hof supported a gradual approach to Hezbollah’s disarmament, beginning with stabilizing southern Lebanon. “Tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the Blue Line have been displaced. Stabilizing Lebanon south of the Litani is extraordinarily important,” he said.
The Hoff Line and Missed Peace Opportunities
Hof revisited his 2011 maritime border proposal—later dubbed the “Hoff Line”—which failed to gain Lebanese cabinet approval amid internal instability. While he welcomed the eventual 2022 maritime agreement, he lamented the lost decade, calling it “a missed opportunity Lebanon could ill afford.”
On the broader Arab-Israeli peace process, Hof recalled his mediation between Syria and Israel under the Obama administration. He revealed that Assad had shown readiness to cut military ties with Iran and Hezbollah in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Yet the 2011 uprising—and Assad’s brutal response—derailed the process entirely.
Assad’s Fall: Surprising Yet Telling
Hof admitted that Assad’s sudden downfall in December 2024 caught him off guard. “What I didn’t grasp,” he said, “was how deeply the regime’s kleptocracy had infected the Syrian army.” The military collapse, he added, was swift and comprehensive. “Officers were absent, units disintegrated. I had no idea things had decayed that far.”
On Russia, Hof noted that Putin’s defense of Assad was less about Syria and more about asserting Russia’s status as a global power. “Assad was useful,” he said, particularly after 2015. Still, he speculated that calls to extradite Assad to face justice in Syria would be unacceptable to Moscow, as it would undermine Putin’s domestic narrative of geopolitical strength.
Regarding Turkey, Hof acknowledged President Erdoğan’s critical role in encouraging Trump to lift sanctions. He also suggested that Syria’s new leadership might eventually mediate between Ankara and Tel Aviv—a prospect complicated by Israeli criticisms of Turkey’s role in northern Syria.
Asked about the prospects of Syrian–Israeli peace today, Hof emphasized that Israel will be primarily concerned with the identity and alliances of the “new Syria.” While peace in exchange for territory may no longer be viable in its old form, Hof believes peace remains achievable—if the Syrian government demonstrates stability, independence from Iran, and a commitment to regional integration.
“It all starts,” he said, “with restoring the 1974 disengagement agreement and building from there.”
