The Syria-Israel talks are stuck in damage control

The Syria-Israel talks in Amman, held under US mediation, were primarily focused on damage control after Israel's attack on Abu al-Duhur airbase. The meeting aimed to halt further Israeli military operations, prevent tensions between Israel and Turkey from escalating onto Syrian territory, and revive negotiations for a security agreement.

However, the strike highlighted the limitations of the existing diplomatic channels. Despite intensive contacts between Damascus, Israel, and the US to resolve the dispute, Israel proceeded with the attack. This suggests that the issue lies not in a lack of communication, but in a lack of effective restraints on Israel's operations within Syria.

Currently, US-sponsored diplomacy is more focused on mitigating the consequences of Israeli strikes rather than achieving lasting security. A breakthrough may rely more on the outcome of Israel's upcoming election, which could bring in a government more inclined to sign and adhere to a binding security agreement. The 18 August strike exposed the limits of US influence, as Israel claimed the attack was intended to prevent Turkey from deploying troops and advanced military systems at the base, despite Syria and Turkey denying such plans.

US intelligence did not corroborate Israel's assessment. Nonetheless, the strike created the very danger that deconfliction channels were meant to prevent, as Türkiye did not receive advance warning of the attack. The imbalance in negotiating power and the differing positions of the parties reflect a deeper disagreement over the purpose of the negotiations.

Syria seeks an end to Israeli strikes, arrests, incursions, and a withdrawal to pre-Assad positions, while Israel seeks security arrangements that allow it to operate freely in Syrian airspace and maintain its existing territorial gains. A security agreement would offer Syria a path to restore its sovereignty, while for Israel, it seems to formalize restrictions on Syria while preserving its freedom of action.

Diplomatic talks alone cannot bridge this divide, and lasting security will require reciprocal commitments, enforceable consequences for violations, and a guarantor willing and able to hold both sides accountable. The US has been unwilling to impose meaningful constraints on Israel, having mediated talks but not translating them into binding agreements.

The US limits were evident when Damascus saw little evidence that Israel was willing to implement previously agreed understandings. With Israel's 27 October election approaching, Netanyahu faces strong incentives to project military resolve towards Syria, with little motivation to accept limits on Israel's freedom of action. However, a change of government might still provide an opening, as a new Israeli leadership might be more inclined to address security concerns through negotiation rather than repeated military actions, paving the way for more effective US-mediated talks towards a durable security agreement.