Donald Trump’s statements calling for the Zionist entity to reach an understanding with Syria’s new leadership, represented by President Ahmad Al-Sharaa, were not merely a passing remark in a heated political debate. Rather, they reflected a deep awareness of a structural shift affecting the balance of power in the Middle East. Trump—known for his transactional reading of international relations—fully understands that continuing to treat Syria as an open arena is no longer a safe option, neither for the Zionist entity nor for its allies, amid intertwined regional interests and the rise of Turkey as a central actor that cannot be ignored.
اضافة اعلان
Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies, based on expanding arenas of confrontation and exporting the battle outward under the pretext of “preemptive strikes,” have eroded traditional deterrence rules and pushed the region to the brink of a gradual explosion. Repeated aggression against Syrian territory no longer occurs in a political vacuum, but within a new reality in which Damascus is moving toward rebuilding its central authority with clear Turkish support and growing regional acceptance. With every strike, the risk of indirect friction with Ankara increases, even as both sides have so far sought to avoid a direct confrontation.
From this perspective, Trump’s call for an understanding with President Ahmad Al-Sharaa can be seen as an attempt to impose a logic of containment rather than chaos. It is a realistic acknowledgment that the new authority in Damascus has become an unavoidable political reality, and that ignoring it will only complicate the scene and raise the costs of escalation. It also aims to strip away the security pretexts used by the Zionist entity to justify its attacks, by shifting the relationship from a logic of bombardment to one of understandings—even if they are forced.
Most importantly, Trump’s proposal touches on the core of American concern over the possibility of the region sliding into an indirect—and perhaps later direct—confrontation between Turkey and the Zionist entity. Washington realizes that such a clash would be extremely costly, difficult to contain, and capable of destabilizing the network of alliances it has built over decades. In this sense, Trump’s remarks appear as an early warning that persisting with policies that shatter regional balances will lead to consequences beyond control.
Conversely, the Zionist entity views Turkey as the most dangerous regional challenge—not merely because of its political discourse, but due to its comprehensive power assets: an influential on-the-ground presence in Syria, the ability to affect Eastern Mediterranean energy files, and a military that constitutes a genuine deterrent force. Any Syrian–Israeli understanding, under American sponsorship and with implicit Turkish acceptance, would practically narrow the Zionist entity’s military maneuvering space in Syria—explaining the implicit rejection of this path.
Although a direct military confrontation does not appear imminent, the contours of indirect conflict are clearly intensifying through multiple files, most notably the “SDF,” repeated air attacks, and the race of regional alliances. In this context, Trump’s call seems an attempt to restrain Netanyahu’s impulses, as he bets on escalation to achieve domestic political gains—even at the expense of the region’s overall stability.
In sum, reaching an understanding with Damascus is no longer a comfortable option for the Zionist entity, but it has become the least costly choice within a highly complex regional equation. Persisting in ignoring the new transformations would risk shifting the conflict from peripheral wars to a broader confrontation with major regional powers—foremost among them Turkey. Between these paths, Syria once again stands at the heart of the equation, not merely as an arena of conflict, but as a key to redrawing the boundaries of influence and stability in the Middle East.
