اخبار سوريا اليوم – وطن نيوز
سوريا اليوم – اخبار سوريا عاجل
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-06-22 17:28:00
Syria has returned to the forefront of Israeli political and security discourse in recent days, with an unprecedented escalation in the tone of threats and warnings issued by prominent Israeli officials. At a time when reports and leaks are circulating about the possibility of resuming security talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv, sharp statements were issued by the Israeli Minister of Diaspora, Amichai Shekli, in which he spoke of a war “sooner or later” with Syria. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz escalated his attack on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, again describing him as a “terrorist in a suit.” These positions come at a very sensitive regional stage that is witnessing a reshaping of the balance of power in the Levant, amid the decline of Iranian influence in some arenas, the escalation of the Turkish presence in Syria, and the continuation of tensions linked to Lebanon and Hezbollah, in addition to the continued Israeli presence in areas within Syrian territory. Among those who see these statements as messages of deterrence and political pressure rather than indications of an imminent war, and those who consider them an expression of increasing Israeli concern about the transformations taking place in Syria, there are multiple readings regarding the goals of the Israeli escalation and the prospects for the relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv during the next stage. A sign of Israeli concern about the Syrian transformations. The statements of the Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs, and a member of the ruling Likud Party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Amichai Shekli, in which he said that Israel will be at war with Syria “sooner or later,” sparked widespread controversy over its political and military connotations. While observers see it as representing a dangerous shift in Israeli discourse, others consider it to come within the framework of political pressures and deterrence messages associated with the accelerating transformations within Syria and the region. The first researcher believes in The Arab Center for Contemporary Syria Studies, Dr. Samir Al-Abdullah, said that the Israeli minister’s statement must be understood in the context of the escalating Israeli discourse towards the new Syrian scene following the fall of the Assad regime, noting that these statements do not necessarily reflect an imminent decision to launch a large-scale war, but they reveal the level of Israeli concern about the ongoing transformations in Syria, and the attempt to send messages of deterrence and anticipate any future security or military arrangements. Al-Abdullah confirms, in an interview with Enab Baladi, that Israel is concerned about three main factors, which are rebuilding. The institutions of the Syrian state and the restoration of its military capabilities, and the growing and perhaps long-term Turkish influence inside Syria, in addition to the possibility of the formation of new regional alliances that may limit the freedom of Israeli movement within Syrian territory. According to Al-Abdullah, Israel seeks to maintain continuous monitoring and pressure on the Syrian security environment and prevent the emergence of any new strategic equation on its northern borders, considering that the most likely scenario in the foreseeable future is the continuation of the policy of pressure, deterrence, and limited strikes, while the possibility of a comprehensive war remains low unless fundamental regional transformations occur Syria is concerned about three main factors: the rebuilding of Syrian state institutions and the restoration of its growing and perhaps long-term military influence within Syria. The possibility of the formation of new regional alliances that may limit the freedom of Israeli movement within Syrian territory. Dr. Samir Al-Abdullah, a senior researcher at the Arab Center for Contemporary Syria Studies, said to Enab Baladi that Shikli’s statement should be read with great caution, despite the seriousness of his language. It is not enough alone to say that Israel is inevitably going to a wide-scale war with Syria. He pointed out that sharp statements are often used within Israeli politics, especially among the right, to establish red lines, influence negotiations, or address the Israeli interior. Fakhouri believes that Israeli motives are not only related to Syria as a state, but rather to what it could become during the next stage, pointing out that Israel is monitoring the form of the new authority in Damascus, the extent of Turkish influence inside Syria, and the extent of Syria’s ability to influence the Lebanon equation. Hezbollah believes that the most likely possibility is the continuation of the policy of military and security pressure through limited strikes, messages of deterrence, adherence to security zones, and the prevention of any military concentration that Israel considers close to its borders or the Golan, while the political writer, Darwish Khalifa, links the Israeli escalation to the recent American positions, noting that as soon as US President Donald Trump called on the Syrian authorities to move towards Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, the Israeli government took a negative position on the repeated statements of Trump and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. He believes that this Israeli position stems from the rejection of any Syrian intervention or military positioning near the northern borders of Israel, for fear that this would provide Turkey with an opportunity to expand towards Lebanon and surround the northern Israeli borders from the Syrian and Lebanese sides. Khalifa believes that the next stage may witness more similar statements from other Israeli officials. Shikli’s talk that Syria and Turkey represent a greater challenge to Israel than Iran has raised many questions about the nature of the shifts in the Israeli security vision, especially. Iran has always occupied the position of the first strategic opponent in the Israeli security doctrine over the past decades. Researcher Al-Abdullah believes that Shikli’s speech reflects a shift in threat priorities from the Israeli point of view. Although Iran is still considered a strategic opponent, the military and political pressures it has been exposed to in recent years have weakened its ability to exercise direct influence inside Syria. In contrast, Israel views Turkey as a rising regional power with a growing military presence and increasing political and economic influence inside Syria, which makes it a more influential player in Syria. Drawing the country’s future, according to him. Researcher Samir Al-Abdullah believes that Syria has become a major arena for the intersection of Israeli and Turkish interests rather than being an independent party in the conflict. As for the Syrian silence based on Israeli statements, he attributes it to the current Syrian leadership’s focus on rebuilding the state, improving the economic situation, and gaining international recognition and support, as well as its awareness of the military imbalance of power with Israel, which prompts it to avoid direct media and military confrontations. However, Dr. Amer Fakhoury indicates that the statement does not This means that Iran no longer poses a threat to Israel, but rather reflects a growing vision within some Israeli circles that considers the expansion of Turkish influence inside Syria to be the creation of a new reality on Israel’s northern borders. It confirms that Syria is not the stronger party in this equation, but it may turn into an arena of friction between a Turkish project that seeks to establish political and security influence within it, and an Israeli project that wants to ensure that the Syrian front remains weak or security-controlled. As for the Syrian silence, it sees it as an attempt to avoid being drawn into a verbal or military confrontation that might endanger Israel As a justification for escalation or obstruction of any negotiating path, considering that this silence may appear to be weakness on the surface, but it may reflect thoughtful political calculations. Syria is not the stronger party in the equation, but it may turn into an arena of friction between a Turkish project that seeks to establish political and security influence within it, and an Israeli project that wants to ensure that the Syrian front remains weak or security-controlled. Dr. Amer Fakhouri, professor of public international law and an expert in international relations. In parallel, writer Darwish Khalifa believes that the Israeli cabinet has begun to view the threats with increasing caution. Associated with the growth of Turkish influence, especially as it approaches the decision-making centers in Damascus. It is considered that the official Syrian silence can be interpreted as an attempt to absorb the crisis and contain its repercussions over time, and it can also be understood in light of the imbalance of military and security power between the two parties in favor of Israel. Undermining the legitimacy of the Syrian leadership. On the other hand, the statements of the Israeli Defense Minister, Yisrael Katz, described the Syrian President, Ahmed Al-Shara, and said that Israel does not need him to come “To help it,” he added, “We did not see Shara’s methods against Hezbollah, we only saw them against the Druze, and we stopped those attacks.” The Israeli minister confirmed the continued Israeli presence in Syria. Katz’s statements constituted a new episode of political escalation between the two sides, and brought back to the forefront questions about the real goals behind targeting the new Syrian leadership with this level of intensity. Researcher Samir Al-Abdullah explains that Katz’s statements are part of an Israeli strategy aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the new Syrian leadership and influencing the image of the Syrian government among some Western parties Israel still views the political and military background of the new leadership as a justification for continued caution and Israeli intervention inside Syria. He also believes that Katz’s assertion that Israel does not need Damascus’ help in confronting Hezbollah, and his call on Al-Sharaa not to interfere in Lebanon, reflect Israel’s desire to separate the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and prevent Damascus from playing any future political or security role in the Lebanese arena. Expert Amer Fakhouri agrees that Katz’s statements reveal that Israel does not want President Ahmed Al-Sharaa to appear as a party capable of playing the role. A regional role in Lebanon or in the “Hezbollah” file. He points out that Katz’s speech carries two messages: the first is directed to Damascus, stating that it should not interfere in Lebanon or try to enter the “Hezbollah” equation, and the second is directed at Washington, and confirms Israel’s refusal to grant the new Syrian role political or security legitimacy at the expense of Israeli freedom of movement. He believes that describing Al-Sharaa as a “terrorist in a suit” does not merely represent a political attack, but rather an attempt to weaken his image internationally and prevent him from being presented as an acceptable security partner The statements of the Israeli Defense Minister were mainly directed at the American administration, which called on Damascus to enter the southern suburbs of Beirut to disarm Hezbollah. He believes that Tel Aviv may have understood this proposal as a disparagement of Israel’s ability to address this issue on its own. It is also expected that the Israeli escalation will develop into a political and media campaign against the Syrian authorities by accusing them of terrorism, providing justification for the continued Israeli military presence in the areas it controlled after the fall of the former Syrian regime. Trump was “unhappy” in press statements on the sidelines of the G7 summit In France, on June 16, Trump said, “I am not happy with the way Israel dealt with Lebanon and with Hezbollah. They should have been able to accomplish the mission faster.” He explained that he suggested to Israel that it leave to Syria the task of dealing with the Lebanese Hezbollah, saying, “The person who runs Syria (President Shara) is a person whom I, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and other figures supported, and we contributed to his coming to power. He did an exceptional job in rearranging the situation in the country.” Trump continued, “I suggested to Israel that Syria take over Hezbollah, because frankly I think they would do a better job,” adding, “If Israel cannot accomplish the mission against Hezbollah without killing everyone, then he (Al-Shara) will take care of it.” Syria will do the job.” In turn, the media advisor to the Syrian presidency, Ahmed Muwafaq Zaidan, revealed that the United States had proposed to Damascus to intervene in Lebanon in light of the rapid security developments, but Syria rejected this proposal and confirmed that it was not interested in any military or security intervention in Lebanese affairs. Israeli statements amid the intention to resume security talks The latest Israeli escalation came at a time when reports and leaks speak of the possibility of resuming talks or security arrangements between Syria and Israel. The Israeli Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) quoted sources as saying On June 18, it did not mention that the Syrian-Israeli negotiations are likely to resume soon, and that Washington is pressuring the two sides to relaunch them, without publishing additional details about the date or location of the expected round, which raises questions about whether these statements hinder the chances of understanding or whether they constitute part of the negotiation process itself. Researcher Samir Al-Abdullah believes that the Israeli statements reflect a state of anxiety and uncertainty about the future of Syria more than they reflect preparation for an imminent comprehensive war, and he confirms that Israel is aware Any large-scale confrontation may open multiple fronts and incur great losses, but at the same time it seeks to prevent the formation of a stable and strong Syrian environment that may limit its military superiority or freedom of movement in the region. As for Dr. Amer Fakhouri, he believes that these statements weaken the atmosphere of negotiation, but do not close the door to it, explaining that security relations often witness tough rhetoric in public in parallel with the continuation of indirect communications in the background, and he believes that Israel is raising the ceiling of its media discourse to obtain greater security guarantees, especially in southern Syria and the Golan And the movement of Syrian forces near the border. He adds that any potential agreement will not be a comprehensive peace in the near term, but may take the form of limited security arrangements related to preventing friction, controlling the borders, and indirect understandings with American guarantees. As for the future of the relationship between the two parties, it is expected that it will remain within a “gray zone” that does not lead to comprehensive war or real peace, with the continued pressures and mutual security bargains, while political writer Darwish Khalifa believes that the Israeli escalation may hinder any efforts to reach a security settlement that guarantees it Border security between the two countries. It is believed that the opportunities for building a close relationship between Damascus and Tel Aviv appear limited under the current government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the absence of a political environment that allows common interests to prevail over the logic of escalation and Israeli military options may hinder any efforts to reach a security settlement that guarantees the security of the borders between Syria and Israel. Darwish Khalifa, Political Writer The recent Israeli statements towards Syria reveal a new phase of political and security tension, in which calculations related to Turkish influence and the future of the Syrian role in Lebanon are intertwined. And Israeli security considerations on the northern border. While the three experts agree that verbal escalation does not necessarily mean the approach of a comprehensive war, they believe that it reflects increasing Israeli concern about the transformations taking place in Syria, and a desire to keep Damascus under pressure and prevent it from becoming a more independent and influential regional player.
