Sharaa Claims “Peace Talks” with “Israel” as Syria Bends to US Pressure

By Staff, Agencies

Interim Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa, known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani, has admitted that Damascus is holding direct talks with “Israel” under US sponsorship—a move critics say signals Syria’s alarming shift toward appeasement and compromise.

In an interview with the Washington Post on Tuesday, Sharaa confirmed the ongoing negotiations and said any final agreement hinges on “Israel’s” withdrawal to pre–December 8 borders. “We are engaged in direct negotiations with ‘Israel,’ and we have gone a good distance toward reaching an agreement. But to reach a final agreement, ‘Israel’ should withdraw to their pre–December 8 borders,” he said.

The date refers to the collapse of the Assad regime and the start of sweeping “Israeli” airstrikes on Syrian territory—attacks that devastated Syria’s military infrastructure and left the country’s sovereignty in question. The “Israeli” entity continues to maintain a physical presence in southern Syria, reinforcing what many view as a new phase of occupation facilitated by Sharaa’s conciliatory approach.

Sharaa’s remarks come as the United States intensifies efforts to broker a “security arrangement” between Damascus and “Tel Aviv.” According to Agence France-Presse, a senior Syrian official claimed the two sides could sign a series of security and military agreements by year’s end—agreements that would function outside the Abraham Accords framework. Despite public denials, the initiative reflects Washington’s growing influence over Syrian policy and Sharaa’s dependence on US mediation.

“The United States is with us in these negotiations, and many international parties support our perspective. Today, we found that President Donald Trump supports our position and will push as quickly as possible to reach a solution,” Sharaa told the paper—remarks that observers read as evidence of US leverage over the interim leadership.

Attempting to justify Syria’s silence in the face of continued “Israeli” strikes, Sharaa claimed his government’s restraint reflects a focus on “rebuilding,” not confrontation. Yet his comments betray a willingness to tolerate “Israeli” aggression in exchange for political recognition and survival. He accused “Israel” of “expansionist ambitions,” but failed to acknowledge the broader consequences of negotiating from a position of weakness.

When questioned about proposals to demilitarize southern Syria, Sharaa rejected the idea—though his justification revealed Syria’s fragile sovereignty. “Who would stop rebel groups from attacking ‘Israel’ if there are no Syrian forces?” he asked, effectively adopting “Israel’s” own security narrative.

He added, “They occupied the Golan Heights to protect ‘Israel,’ and now they impose conditions in the south to protect the Golan Heights. So after a few years, maybe they will occupy central Syria to protect the south—and on that path, they will reach Munich.” Critics viewed the remark as both alarmist and ironic, given his willingness to negotiate amid ongoing “Israeli” military presence.

Deflecting allegations of sectarian persecution, Sharaa dismissed the grievances of Syria’s minorities as “individual interests” and insisted that coexistence endures under his rule—statements seen by many as hollow amid reports of repression and displacement.

Drawing a strained comparison to the post–Civil War United States, Sharaa said, “After the Civil War, were things stable after one year? It took many years. We are rebuilding the state and the law.” His comments, emphasizing “reconstruction” under foreign pressure, underscored a broader reality: Syria’s interim leadership appears more invested in appeasing Washington and “Israel” than in restoring genuine sovereignty or accountability.