Amid a regional scene where lines of fire and interests intertwine, particularly following the bloody events recently witnessed in As-Suwayda in southern Syria, an unprecedented trilateral meeting emerged in Paris between a US delegation led by Tom Brake, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shabani, and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer. This is a US attempt to de-escalate military tensions and redraw the rules of engagement in southern Syria.

The meeting, arranged behind closed doors, reveals growing concern in Washington and Tel Aviv about the possibility of the situation in southern Syria sliding into an open confrontation, especially after Israel entered the conflict line in As-Suwayda as a direct party – as hinted by Damascus – in a political stance with new strategic dimensions.

The American Axios newspaper quoted informed sources saying the meeting focuses on “new security arrangements” in southern Syria and enhancing field coordination mechanisms between the Syrian and Israeli armies, mediated by the US.

This comes amid rising field tensions after the Israeli army reactivated a field medical facility in the Hadar area to treat Druze injured, a move interpreted in Damascus as an attempt to establish a direct Israeli foothold inside Syrian territory.

Key Point of Dispute: Southern Syria

Damascus considers southern Syria a matter of sovereignty that is non-negotiable and views repeated Israeli violations through airstrikes and logistical support to local groups as a blatant breach of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

Conversely, Israel insists on not allowing any “hostile armed groups” on its borders, specifically those it sees as extensions of Iranian influence.

However, the striking paradox in this complex scene, according to writer and political researcher Abdul Karim Al-Omr, lies in “Washington’s attempt to reset the rules of conflict in Syria without infringing on Syrian state sovereignty,” affirming in an interview with Sky News Arabia’s program ‘Al-Tasi’a’ that “the United States understands that Syria’s stability will only be achieved through the Syrian state’s control over its entire territory, and that President Ahmad Al-Shar’a is the most qualified to lead this phase.”

As-Suwayda and Mutual Accusations

The recent events in As-Suwayda, which witnessed clashes between government forces and local groups, were described by Damascus as the result of “external attempts to ignite chaos” in an area considered one of the most sensitive, not only due to sectarian dimensions but also because of its proximity to the occupied Golan and the lines of contact with Israel.

Al-Omr emphasized that “most religious and civil elites in As-Suwayda support the Syrian state,” confirming that what is happening there “does not represent the positions of the Druze community members but separatist groups, some remnants of the former regime and others receiving indirect support from Tel Aviv.”

He added: “The Druze are patriots. What we are witnessing is an attempt by militia groups – some of whom sought protection from Israel when establishing the military council – to hijack local decision-making in As-Suwayda and push towards separation, which Damascus completely rejects.”

New Syrian Stance on Tehran and Hezbollah?

The most prominent – and perhaps most dangerous – shift at this stage is reflected in the rare statements made by Abdul Karim Al-Omr regarding Damascus’s position on Iran and Hezbollah. He clearly said: “This is impossible… Syria cannot deal with Hezbollah or Iran against Israel. For Damascus, Iran and Hezbollah are no different from Israel; they are occupiers who killed the Syrian people.”

This harsh tone represents a qualitative departure from the political discourse that has characterized the relationship between Damascus and Tehran since 2011. It indicates an advanced Syrian attempt to chart a new foreign policy intersecting with American and Gulf interests, especially amid what Al-Omr described as “massive support” from Washington and “unprecedented openness” from Saudi Arabia, which he described as “the effective geopolitical state in the region and the world.”

Israel’s Dilemma of Choices

On the other hand, Israel faces a dilemma of choices in southern Syria. It cannot accept the expansion of the Syrian central authority over the entire southern geography without security guarantees, nor can it allow undisciplined local militias to create a security vacuum that hostile forces might exploit. This makes the Paris meeting a “pivotal moment,” according to analysts.

Abdul Karim Al-Omr confirmed in this context that “the new Syria is capable of managing its border security with Israel without the need for a buffer zone,” reminding that President Al-Shar’a and his foreign minister expressed since taking office that “Syria poses no threat to anyone and desires relations based on mutual interests – even with Israel if it withdraws from occupied territories and commits to stopping interventions.”

He continued: “What Syria demands is clear and explicit: Israel’s withdrawal from occupied lands, adherence to the disengagement agreement, and cessation of military interventions. Only then can mutual security guarantees be discussed.”

The White House and the New Approach

US envoy Tom Brake was clear in his message to Damascus, according to media leaks: Washington will not support the division of Syria and sees the country’s stability as a regional and international interest. However, he urged the Syrian president to “review his internal policies” to avoid losing international support.

In this context, sources close to the US administration say the second Trump administration – unlike the previous approach – sees Damascus as a potential partner to achieve regional stability, provided it proves its seriousness in rebuilding the state, opening up to the Arab neighborhood, and dismantling Iranian influence centers, especially in the south.

Dialogue of Adventure and Opportunity

The Syrian-Israeli meeting in Paris seems not only politically significant but also an indicator of the depth of ongoing transformations in the Syrian stance and an attempt to capitalize on a rare regional and international “flirtation” to break out of its international isolation.

While Washington seeks to control the pace of escalation southward and achieve a cold settlement, Damascus bets on regaining full sovereignty, driven by unprecedented Saudi support and American openness that may be a gateway to a post-war phase.

But the fixed truth remains that peace is not built on intentions alone but on actions translated on the ground. Until the Paris meeting becomes a real turning point, southern Syria remains a precise mirror of the struggle of wills and interests between a state trying to rise from the ashes and a neighbor still betting on fragmenting its surroundings.