Why Does Israel Reject Rapprochement with Damascus Despite the Shifting Equation?

More than a year has passed since the fall of the previous Syrian regime in December 2024, yet Syrian-Israeli relations remain unsettled. Several rounds of negotiations have taken place, and Washington has attempted to nudge both sides back to the table, but these efforts have faltered amid Israeli doubts about the credibility and stability of the new authorities in Damascus.

Israeli Concerns About the New Leadership in Damascus

The Jerusalem Post recently noted that Syria has been signaling a desire for peace since the fall of Assad. Syrians, the paper observed, have shown a clear interest in rebuilding their country and restoring stability. Even so, this aspiration has not translated into a smooth diplomatic process.

In an analytical piece, Middle East correspondent Seth J. Frantzman argued that Israel has failed to seize what he described as a rare opportunity to establish constructive ties with Damascus. Instead, Israeli officials have viewed the new Syrian leadership as unreliable. Some labeled President Ahmad al-Sharaa a “jihadist,” and others issued explicit threats against him over the past year.

The analysis suggested that Israel’s systematic targeting of airports and military sites across Syria was intended to ensure that no emerging authority—regardless of its orientation—could acquire or deploy advanced weaponry that might threaten Israel.

Placing Syria Within the “Iranian Axis”

A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a map of the Middle East that highlighted several states in red. The list included Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Iran, countries he described as direct threats to Israel.

In a recorded address, Netanyahu said Israel faces what he called an “Iranian-led axis” spanning multiple arenas: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and armed groups in Iraq and Yemen. He argued that recent developments in Iran and Lebanon prompted Israel to shift from containment to offensive action. According to his remarks, Tehran sought to encircle Israel through its regional proxies, prompting Israel to launch preemptive strikes on infrastructure, missile programs and nuclear-related sites inside Iran. He claimed these operations were based on intelligence indicating that Iran was approaching military nuclear capability.

Netanyahu maintained that these actions had weakened Israel’s adversaries and would continue in coordination with the United States. He reiterated that Israel would not allow a nuclear or missile threat to endanger its existence.

The Jerusalem Post noted that coloring Syria red on the map was not an oversight but a deliberate political signal. The designation placed Damascus within the Iranian axis even though it is no longer formally aligned with it. The paper observed that countries such as Afghanistan or Pakistan were not marked in red, suggesting that the classification is reserved for states Israel views as directly tied to Iranian influence.

The article concluded that revising the symbolic map used by the Prime Minister’s Office would be the first meaningful indication of a genuine shift in Israeli policy toward Damascus.

 

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.

The post Why Does Israel Reject Rapprochement with Damascus Despite the Shifting Equation? first appeared on The Syrian Observer.