Washington presses Tel Aviv to engage with Al-Shar’a

A Jerusalem Post analysis suggests that US President Donald Trump is pushing Israel to accept Syria’s transitional president, Ahmed Al-Shar’a, as the central political actor in the next phase — a shift that may require Tel Aviv to reconsider its long-held strategic doctrine toward its northern neighbour.

According to the paper, Trump’s repositioning forces Israel to confront a fundamental dilemma: Are its airstrikes genuinely neutralising threats in Syria, or are they fuelling new ones?

Trump publicly praised what he described as Syria’s “hard work and determination,” as well as President Al-Shar’a personally, in a social-media post on Sunday — his first major comment on Syria in weeks. The praise came shortly after his meeting with the Syrian leader and only days after a deadly Israeli strike in southern Syria.

Washington’s message: dial down the confrontation

The White House message, analysts say, is unmistakable: Israel should heed US advice and lower the temperature with Damascus. Trump’s remarks were issued around the same time as his phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during which the two men discussed a possible meeting later this month.

The timing underscored Washington’s view that Syria is now a pivotal file in the broader regional equation. Yet within Israel’s current leadership, mistrust of Damascus remains high — and in some quarters, hostility is openly expressed. The Foreign Ministry and several senior officials continue to cast doubt on the Syrian government’s stability, with some characterising the country as vulnerable to collapse or dominated by hard-line factions.

Israel’s confidence shaped by its campaigns

Israel’s posture toward Syria is also shaped by what it sees as its own operational successes against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. That sense of momentum has emboldened Israeli decision-makers, leading to intensified airstrikes across multiple fronts.

In the past year alone, hundreds of strikes have been conducted in Lebanon; daily incidents continue in Gaza; and operations inside Syria have expanded. The underlying doctrine is that sustained low-intensity conflict across all borders will keep adversaries off balance and prevent them from amassing strength — a departure from the pre–7 October approach that relied on lengthy periods of quiet.

But this raises the key question: Does Israel actually face active enemies inside Syria, or is its policy producing new ones?

Trump: Syria needs stability and relief from sanctions

Trump’s recent comments were strikingly clear. He said Syria “needs peace and stability to build a real, prosperous state,” stressing the importance of lifting sanctions that have crippled the Syrian economy. He added that this message was “deeply appreciated by Syria, its leadership and its people.”

The US president also underscored that it is “extremely important” for Israel to maintain a “strong and sincere dialogue” with Damascus — and to avoid any action that might undermine Syria’s recovery.

For Trump, who has repeatedly praised Al-Shar’a’s stated commitment to “doing what is right,” this is essential to any pathway toward broader Middle East peace. It also aligns with his efforts to secure a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.

A strategic trade-off on the table

The Jerusalem Post suggests that Washington may be envisioning a form of strategic trade-off: tougher, US-backed Israeli measures in Lebanon in exchange for de-escalation with Syria.

The American Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, visited Iraq and Syria recently. During his stop in Baghdad, he reportedly carried a stark message: Iraqi-based militias must stop supplying Hezbollah with weapons — otherwise, Israel may respond with direct strikes. Iran-backed militias in Iraq have previously supported Hezbollah and launched drone attacks against Israel.

One year after Assad’s fall: a crossroads for Israel

A year after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Israel now stands at a strategic crossroads. Its long-running strike-based approach in Syria is under renewed scrutiny. If the Trump administration no longer endorses this model, Israeli leaders may be compelled to reassess their options:

Is there a path that reduces tensions with Damascus while still safeguarding Israel’s security interests?

These are the questions occupying Israel’s security establishment as preparations begin for high-level consultations with Trump’s team.