US Diplomatic Pressure on Israel Seen as Crucial for Achieving Peace and Stability in Post-Assad Syria

A man rides a motorbike in the town of Abu al-Duhur, Syria, August 18, 2026. Following a suspected Israeli airstrike on the Abu al-Duhur airbase near Idlib in northwest Syria, US Ambassador to Turkiye Tom Barrack has proposed the establishment of a new “deconfliction mechanism” involving Turkiye, Syria, and Israel.

Ambassador Barrack characterized the recent strike—which both Washington and the Syrian government attribute to Israel—as an “unnecessary escalation.” However, regional analysts remain skeptical that the proposal can deter Israel, which has maintained a pattern of regular attacks on Syria and continues to occupy Syrian territory.

“It is difficult to have a deconfliction mechanism [when] only one party [is] causing conflict in the first place,” Samy Akil, a senior adviser with The Syria Report, stated to Al Jazeera. According to diplomatic sources and experts, Israel is the primary obstacle to easing tensions with Syria, a nation currently navigating governance under a new administration following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. As the decade-long war concludes, Damascus is actively pursuing stronger diplomatic ties with the West.

“Israeli-Syrian talks are stagnating because the ball is in Israel’s court and they don’t see a need to prioritise talks with Damascus currently,” Akil noted.

Under the previous al-Assad regime, Israeli military operations typically focused on Iranian-aligned targets or assets within Syria—such as the April 2024 strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus—while generally avoiding direct targeting of Syrian state infrastructure. That dynamic shifted immediately after al-Assad fled on December 8, 2024, when Israel launched a broad campaign against Syrian military installations to weaken the new government's defense capabilities, alongside threats to deploy forces south of Damascus.

In the wake of al-Assad's fall, Israeli strategic concerns have increasingly pivoted from countering Iranian influence in Syria to containing Turkish influence. Ankara historically supported various anti-Assad rebel factions, hosted numerous Syrian exiles, and has actively sought to forge robust bilateral ties with Damascus and Syria’s new President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Analysts indicated that Tuesday’s military strike served as a direct message from Tel Aviv to Ankara. Later that evening, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office released a statement that appeared to validate those assessments, though it stopped short of formally claiming responsibility for the attack itself.

“Israel and Syria agreed to a status quo in security matters, which Syria was on the verge of breaching by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo,” the statement declared. “Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel’s security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings.”

The Republic of Turkiye’s Directorate of Communications strongly condemned the Israeli narrative. “The untenable allegations put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office are intended to legitimise Israel’s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the agency stated, further accusing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of pursuing “expansionist and destabilising policies in the region ahead of the elections in Israel.”

Amid these rising tensions, US Ambassador Barrack’s proposed deconfliction mechanism is intended to serve as a direct communication channel between Syria, Turkiye, and Israel, facilitated by the United States to prevent further military escalation. The framework bears similarities to US-led diplomatic efforts in Lebanon between Beirut and Tel Aviv, which seek to halt Israeli strikes, disarm Hezbollah, and prompt an Israeli troop withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Nevertheless, experts point out that these initiatives have yielded limited results due to Israeli military dominance and the Netanyahu administration's preference for unilateral military action over negotiations. Despite facing ongoing territorial disputes—including the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and Jabal al-Sheikh initiated in December 2024, as well as the operation of checkpoints that harass and occasionally detain Syrian citizens—the Syrian government has maintained a willingness to pursue a diplomatic solution with Israel, short of full normalization.

Tensions were further underscored early Wednesday morning when Israeli forces reportedly carried out a raid in Quneitra, southwestern Syria, resulting in the abduction of two individuals. Analysts emphasize that the success of any deconfliction mechanism depends entirely on the genuine commitment of all participating actors.

“In other words, at what point does a deconfliction mechanism provide added value when any sort of Syrian military buildup 300 kilometres [186 miles] away from Israeli borders is perceived as a threat?” Akil asked, noting that Syria's modest Soviet-era air force poses no credible threat to Israel.

Galip Dalay, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera that a functioning framework requires direct US pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu's government. Dalay suggested that Netanyahu, facing re-election in October, may seek further military escalations in Lebanon, Syria, or Palestine following US President Donald Trump’s intervention to de-escalate the conflict with Iran.

Although Netanyahu previously rejected a US-backed Gaza disarmament plan in August—forcing a revision of the proposal—he faced no public reprimand from Washington. “If the US puts proper pressure on Israel, they would listen,” Dalay remarked. “We saw this with Iran. It was the US who made the decision, and even though Netanyahu didn’t like it, they had to go along with the decision.”

Dalay concluded: “The question is not only about if there is a need for a deconfliction mechanism in Syria; it is to what extent the US is willing to make it credible and functional, and if the US is willing to put pressure on Israel.”