Ahmad al-Shara, the former jihadist, is attempting to solidify his position as president of Syria - a title he claimed after seizing power. The Arab world supports him, hoping he will sever Syria's ties with Iran and return the country to the Arab fold.
Israel, however, is convinced that al-Shara is a jihadist in sheep's clothing. As a result, it has intensified its military activity in Syria, issuing more bellicose statements, seizing territory, and conducting aerial strikes. But it seems the question of who will rule Syria has already been decided elsewhere: in the White House, by the world's leader, Donald Trump.
This was made clear during a meeting between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had come to complain about Turkey's growing involvement in Syria. Trump's response was striking: "I have excellent relations with Erdogan. I like him very much, and he likes me. So I told Bibi: if you have problems with Turkey, I can help you solve them, but only if you're reasonable." That was merely the prelude to Trump's more significant declaration: "Syria belongs to Erdogan." The Turkish president had succeeded in taking over Syria in a way no leader had in 2,000 years.
Syria, in truth, holds little interest for Trump. He views it as "a place of death, sand, and tribal conflicts that the US has no stake in." That is why he appointed Erdogan as the executor of US interests in Syria. Erdogan's task is to ensure that Syria remains free of terrorism, chiefly that the Islamic State does not reemerge and that Iran does not return. Everything else is secondary - the Kurdish minority issue, and Israel's concerns about Turkish involvement in Syria - concerns that do not trouble Trump.
Trump's "appointment" of Erdogan as Syria's overseer presents Israel with an opportunity to reassess and recalibrate its policy following the collapse of Bashar Assad's regime. The current approach has not enhanced Israel's security but instead entangled it in a host of new problems, many of which are self-inflicted.
Since October 7, Israel has shifted from a state of trauma to a sense of power, feeling that it can act freely following its military successes. This confidence has led to a more aggressive and even belligerent stance in Syria: seizing territory that offers no added security but instead provokes friction with the local population; making hollow declarations about turning southern Syria into a demilitarized zone where armed forces would not be allowed; and voicing willingness to assist the Druze population, assistance they have not asked for. In recent weeks, Israel has also launched airstrikes on any base or site the Syrians intend to hand over to Turkey for the deployment of Turkish forces.
Israel is thus becoming increasingly mired in a military entanglement in Syria, one that could lead to friction and even confrontation with the local population, the regime in Damascus, and potentially the Turks. Meanwhile, Israel has become a central issue on the Syrian agenda and has entrenched its image as a hostile aggressor bent on destabilizing Syria and pushing it toward collapse and partition. This, despite the fact that many in Syria initially viewed Israel as a positive force, thanks to the blows it delivered to Iran and Hezbollah, their sworn enemies.
Israel's concerns about what may unfold in Syria are justified, and we must remain vigilant. But at the same time, it is important to acknowledge that any Israeli attempt to prevent Turkey - backed by the US - from gaining a foothold in Syria is doomed to fail. Israel should seek to open communication channels with Damascus and, especially, with Turkey, mediated by the US, and even by Azerbaijan, a friendly country that has stepped in to help us. The goal should be to reach understandings that may not meet all of Israel's demands, but would avert friction and a slide into a conflict that neither Israel nor Turkey desires.
