Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa announced on July 26, 2026, that Damascus is actively working to reach a security agreement with Israel. The initiative, involving several other countries, aims to prevent military clashes and potentially serve as a gateway to a comprehensive peace.
The announcement was made during an exclusive interview on Al Jazeera’s Al Muqabala programme, with the full interview scheduled to be broadcast at 19:00GMT. This comes during a period of significant volatility for the region. Since al-Sharaa took power in December 2024 following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government, southern Syria has been the site of repeated Israeli incursions and strikes. By seeking a formal security arrangement, the current administration is attempting to stabilize its borders and avoid further direct conflict.
The Golan Heights and Terms of Peace
A central tension in these negotiations is the status of the Golan Heights. While pursuing a security deal, al-Sharaa emphasized that such an agreement would not compromise Syria’s right to the territory, which he stated Israel has illegally occupied since 1973.
The strategy appears to be a phased approach: first establishing a security framework to stop immediate clashes, then using that stability to move toward a comprehensive peace
, according to the Daily Sun. Al-Sharaa stated that a security arrangement could pave the way for a broader and more comprehensive resolution to the crisis. This suggests a pragmatic pivot by the post-Assad government, prioritizing the cessation of hostilities over immediate territorial recovery.
Syrian Non-Intervention in Lebanon
Despite external pressures and calls from various parties to intervene militarily in neighboring Lebanon, President al-Sharaa has ruled out military intervention. He confirmed that Syria has no intention of launching any military intervention into the neighboring country. Instead, the Syrian government is currently discussing ways for Lebanese authorities to help the country overcome its current crisis and steer it towards safety.
This stance is particularly notable given the current state of southern Lebanon, which is occupied by Israel following months of combat between Israeli forces and Hezbollah. Damascus is now supporting the Lebanese state’s effort to reclaim those occupied territories and establish a monopoly on all weapons within the country.
State Sovereignty and Weapon Restrictions
Al-Sharaa has taken a firm position on the governance of war and peace in Lebanon, declaring that these decisions must remain exclusively with the Lebanese state. This includes a commitment to restricting weapons and ensuring that no non-state actors dictate the country’s security posture.
He stressed that addressing the Lebanese crisis requires more than just a security approach but a comprehensive solution
tackling a range of issues, rather than relying solely on military or security measures.
Regional Risks and the Iran Factor
The drive for stability is fueled by the fear of a total regional collapse. Al-Sharaa warned that any descent into chaos in Lebanon would have direct and immediate repercussions for Syria.
Beyond the immediate border, there is the looming threat of a wider conflict. The Syrian leadership expressed concern that an expansion of the US-Israel war on Iran in the region would lead to severe regional fallout. By distancing itself from military adventures in Lebanon and seeking a deal with Israel, Syria is attempting to insulate itself from this larger geopolitical confrontation.
Strategic Shifts Under the Al-Sharaa Administration
The transition from the Assad era to the al-Sharaa administration marks a clear shift in foreign policy. Where the previous government often operated through proxies and ideological conflict, the current approach is characterized by a desire for lasting peace and the recognition of state sovereignty.
By aligning with the Lebanese state’s goal of weapon monopoly and pursuing a security pact with Israel, Syria is moving toward a model of state-to-state diplomacy. The success of this strategy depends on whether Israel is willing to enter a security arrangement that does not immediately resolve the status of the Golan Heights.
