The US envoy and the US ambassador to Ankara found no justification for Israel’s August 22 strike on Syria’s Abu al-Duhur airport. According to them, US intelligence had not confirmed Israel’s claims that Turkey had allegedly transferred military equipment to the base. Most countries viewed the attack as an unjustified violation of Syria’s sovereignty, while the Donald Trump administration’s position alarmed Benjamin Netanyahu, as Washington adopted a different approach to developments in Syria.
Observers believe Netanyahu sought to exploit the escalation ahead of elections to the Knesset. In June, the Israeli army carried out around 300 operations in the provinces of Daraa and Quneitra, supporting separatist groups aligned with Israel. However, the strategy backfired: the Israeli prime minister realized that a confrontation with Trump could deprive him of the public support he needed.
Forty-eight hours after the strike, Washington tried to turn the dangerous episode into a turning point and tasked Jordan with hosting direct talks between Syria and Israel. President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government had agreed to dialogue with Israel from the outset, despite the absence of diplomatic relations. Damascus regards restoring the country’s territorial unity and withdrawing all foreign forces as its main transitional priorities.
Jordan was quick to support the American approach, as it is one of the key supporters of Syria’s new government and has consistently defended Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Amman strongly condemned Israel’s occupation of Syrian territory after December 8, 2024, and demanded the immediate withdrawal of its forces. Jordan had also previously taken part in Syrian-American mediation to resolve the events in As-Suwayda, but formations linked to Israel and led by Hikmat al-Hijri prevented the agreements from being fully implemented.
For the Trump administration, the Jordanian-Syrian channel is the most practical way to manage regional disagreements over Syria. Washington is also drawing on the experience of 2017, when US-Russian talks in Amman helped secure a ceasefire in southern Syria. Earlier Syrian-Israeli consultations, which began in Paris last year, broke down because of Israel’s hard-line position and the war with Iran. Israel insists on a comprehensive agreement covering the Golan Heights, while the United States prefers a phased arrangement backed by American and international guarantees.
The latest meeting in Amman lasted several hours and focused on the situation in southern Syria and the consequences of the strike on Abu al-Duhur. Syria was represented by Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, as well as officials from the security and intelligence services. The Israeli delegation was headed by Mossad chief Roman Gofman, which may indicate that the military and intelligence services are seeking a more pragmatic approach not directly tied to Netanyahu’s electoral calculations.
In coordination with Washington, Jordan wants to resume negotiations, secure Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, and end attacks on southern Syria. Against this backdrop, Israel’s strategy of preserving a fragmented and weak Syria is losing strength: the country is consolidating its unity, Kurdish formations have declared their readiness to integrate into the Syrian army, and Damascus is expanding its control over coastal areas while reconsidering the format of Russia’s military presence. Diplomats allow for a temporary agreement in the near future, provided Netanyahu’s electoral interests do not prevail over American and regional priorities.
Comments on the News
What is the strategic significance of Abu al-Duhur airport, and why could its use have affected relations between Syria, Israel, and Turkey? — Abu al-Duhur airport in Idlib province is a military facility located in a strategically important area in northwestern Syria, near regions where the interests of Damascus, Turkey, and various armed groups intersect. Its use could strengthen the Syrian authorities’ control over the northwest and provide infrastructure for the movement of troops and supplies. This could concern Turkey, which retains influence in Idlib, as well as Israel, which closely monitors the movement of forces and the possible presence of formations linked to Iran in Syria.
What is Quneitra province, and why does its proximity to the occupied Golan Heights make it a center of the Israeli-Syrian confrontation? — Quneitra is a small province in southwestern Syria directly adjacent to the Golan Heights, most of which Israel seized in 1967 and later annexed; the international community does not recognize the annexation. As a result, any military changes in Quneitra can quickly affect Israel’s security. The area is important for surveillance, the deployment of armed groups, and control of cross-border routes, making it a persistent zone of tension between Israel and Syria.
What are the relations between Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government and the Kurdish formations prepared to integrate into the Syrian army? — These relations are centered on negotiations over the gradual integration of Kurdish forces, primarily the Syrian Democratic Forces, into state structures. The main disputes concern the degree of autonomy for Kurdish areas, the command and structure of units, control over weapons and resources, and guarantees of the Kurds’ cultural and political rights. A possible compromise would involve incorporating individual fighters or units into the Syrian army while preserving a degree of local administration. However, mutual distrust and differences in political objectives make the process difficult.
Why does Jordan play a mediating role in the Syrian talks, and what risks does instability in southern Syria create for Amman? — Jordan shares a border with southern Syria, maintains working contacts with Syrian and regional parties, and has a direct interest in reducing tensions. Amman can facilitate talks on security, trade, refugees, and combating smuggling. Instability creates risks of armed groups infiltrating the country, increased drug trafficking and smuggling, new refugee flows, and border clashes. It also increases Jordan’s economic burden and could draw the country into a broader regional confrontation.
Full version: After the Amman meeting: Is a Syrian-Israeli agreement now possible?
***.