Why lessons learned on October 7 prevent Israeli withdrawal from Syria - analysis

Following Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa's rise to power in December 2024, Israel swiftly implemented policies informed by the October 7 attacks. These included preemptive actions against emerging threats and establishing a buffer zone in southern Syria to keep hostile forces away from the Golan Heights. This buffer zone, along with similar zones in Gaza and southern Lebanon, is now a point of contention with Washington.

US President Donald Trump recently urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to withdraw from southern Syria, reportedly stating that Israel's presence is a problem and that it should redeploy. Trump, impressed by al-Sharaa after their meeting at the NATO summit, believes Israel's continued control weakens the Syrian leader's ability to stabilize his country. He sees Israel's presence as an obstacle to Syria's consolidation of rule.

Israel, conversely, views its presence as a solution. With no territorial ambitions in southern Syria, except for the strategically vital Mount Hermon, the primary concern is the conditions for eventual withdrawal. Jerusalem insists on evaluating Syria's new leadership based on sustained actions rather than initial words. This divergence highlights fundamentally different interpretations of the post-October 7 Middle East security landscape, where Israel's previous reliance on deterrence has been profoundly shaken.

“

They don’t want you there. You should redeploy.