What Syria-Israel talks mean for Turkiye

Turkish-Israeli-Syrian relations have long had an important and complex dimension that helps explain the region’s dynamics. In the mid-1990s, Turkiye was concerned that a possible Syria-Israel peace agreement might come at its expense. Although the Syrian-Israeli negotiations focused on issues such as border demarcation, security arrangements, water resources and normalization of relations, they often generated serious anxiety in Turkiye.

However, by the end of that decade, Ankara’s perspective had changed significantly due to improvements in its relations with both Israel and Syria. By 2008, Turkiye had even assumed the role of mediator between them. At the core of Ankara’s approach was its desire to maintain stability along its southern border.

Over time, Turkiye’s fundamental motivation to see Syria stable has remained the same. What has changed, however, is the regional context, which has seen Israel emerge as an expansionist regional actor. Today, Turkiye perceives Israel as a threat and views Syria as a country Tel Aviv seeks to turn into a battleground against Turkish interests.

The Kurdish dimension has been a central factor in shaping Turkiye’s concerns regarding Syria and Israel, both historically and in the present day. During the Syrian war, the Assad regime supported the likes of the PKK against Turkiye, while in post-Assad Syria, Israel has replaced the regime in this role. Israel’s strikes on Syria are providing fertile ground for the Kurds to delay the integration process with the Syrian army that was agreed last March. From Ankara’s perspective, any form of understanding between Israel and Syria that could halt Israeli attacks on Syrian territory would be seen as a positive development.

What has changed is the regional context, which has seen Israel emerge as an expansionist regional actor

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

Israel and Syria last week returned to the negotiating table in Paris. The Syrian delegation was led by Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani and intelligence chief Hussein Salameh, with the talks conducted under US coordination and mediation. According to reports, the two sides agreed to establish a joint mechanism — described as a “dedicated communication cell” — designed to facilitate intelligence-sharing and coordinate military de-escalation.

The two countries have had a US-backed security arrangement in place since 1974. After the fall of the Assad regime, however, Israel moved its troops into the demilitarized zone inside Syrian territory. According to reports, Syria’s main goal is to revive the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, pushing for Israel to pull back to the lines that existed before Assad’s fall.

The latest round of talks in Paris marked a shift from complete deadlock to cautious, procedural engagement. Rather than a comprehensive peace agreement, the negotiations have focused on managing immediate security concerns. This process is driven less by political reconciliation than by pragmatic de-escalation.

This renewed dialogue came after direct pressure from US President Donald Trump on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, its success will depend on several variables. The main question now is practical. Can the mechanism function under pressure? Will the new mechanism collapse at the first crisis? Will Turkiye accept if Israel fails to comply with the provisions of the mechanism?

Any escalation of tensions between Israel and Syria would certainly impact Turkiye’s policy. Therefore, Trump is likely to exert more pressure on Netanyahu to keep this mechanism working. It was Trump’s support — coupled with strong assurances from Ankara — that boosted the Syrian delegation’s confidence in the negotiations. In fact, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was also in Paris while senior Israeli and Syrian negotiators were meeting. He met his Syrian counterpart, likely advising the Syrians not to rush into any compromises.

Ankara aims to show Israel that it is unlikely to leave the new government in Damascus, which is a close ally of Turkiye, at the risk of Israeli policies. Syria, which sits between Turkiye and Israel, also does not want to become a new battleground between these powers.

The latest round of talks in Paris marked a shift from complete deadlock to cautious, procedural engagement

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

For Ankara, Israeli support to PKK affiliates the YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria is a red line. Them coordinating with Israel along the Turkish border would be a grave national security threat for Ankara and it would never tolerate such a scenario. Israel’s relations with the Kurds should be read within the context of America’s role as a backer of the SDF.

So, the critical variable is how the Trump administration will handle tensions between Turkiye and Israel in Syria and shape its policy toward the SDF. On Thursday, US Ambassador to Turkiye and Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, who was with the American delegation attending the Syria-Israel talks in Paris, said that Washington wants Turkiye and Israel to begin rebuilding their relationship. His remarks came the day after Fidan visited Abu Dhabi while Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar was in town the same day.

In light of the developments in Aleppo, Turkiye’s vision of a unified Syria seems to have achieved tactical success. At the same time, they underscored that Turkish-Israeli competition over Syria, driven by fundamentally divergent perspectives, remains unresolved. The Trump administration emphasizes that it understands Turkiye’s role and position in Syria, but at the same time it does not want the Turkish position to threaten vital Israeli interests.

However, Israel’s policy of using groups that threaten Turkish and Syrian stability is unlikely to maintain Turkish patience. Ankara already has options on the table, which the US is well aware of, and Damascus gets along with it. So, the Trump administration needs to understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Washington needs to keep consistent pressure on the Israeli-Syrian track while ensuring that it responds to Turkiye’s concerns as well. Nevertheless, a mechanism that dials back tensions benefits all parties, as well as the broader region.

• Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz