Mossad Chief and Syrian Foreign Minister Hold De-escalation Talks Following Israeli Airbase Strike

Mossad Director Roman Gofman and Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani sat across from each other in Jordan on Sunday, marking the highest-level direct contact between the two nations in months. The emergency summit, brokered by the United States, was convened to de-escalate a rapidly deteriorating border crisis that threatens to ignite a broader regional conflict.[1][3]

The meeting follows the collapse of US-mediated security talks earlier this year, which had briefly promised a new framework for relations following the December 2024 overthrow of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Since those talks stalled, the security vacuum along the border has steadily filled with preemptive military actions.[3][6]

The immediate catalyst for the Jordan summit was a severe military escalation in northwestern Syria. Earlier in the week, Israeli warplanes launched a preemptive strike on the disused Abu al-Duhur airbase in the Idlib Governorate.[1][5]

During the operation, Israeli jets dropped at least eight bombs on the facility's runways and hangars. The airbase, located approximately 72 kilometers from the Turkish border, was heavily damaged, effectively neutralizing its immediate operational capacity.[1]

Israel justified the aggressive action by citing urgent intelligence. Officials in Jerusalem claimed that Turkey was on the verge of deploying advanced military hardware to the base, including attack drones and a sophisticated radar system, which Israel viewed as an unacceptable threat to its northern security.[1][6]

The Israeli government maintained that it had issued repeated warnings to both Damascus and Ankara regarding the impending deployment. When those warnings were allegedly ignored, Israel opted for the military track, executing what it described as a necessary preemptive measure.[1][6]

Turkey vehemently denied the Israeli allegations. The Turkish presidency rejected the claims of a planned military buildup as untenable, accusing Israel of fabricating the intelligence to legitimize unlawful airstrikes that violate Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity.[6]

The strike triggered an immediate diplomatic backlash, notably from Israel's closest ally. Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Iraq, publicly condemned the bombing. He labeled the operation an unnecessary escalation that does not advance regional stability, signaling Washington's deep frustration with the preemptive military doctrine.[1][6]

Driven by the US pressure, the Syrian and Israeli delegations arrived in Jordan with starkly different agendas. The Syrian delegation, which included the heads of the country's general and military intelligence services, demanded an immediate cessation of all Israeli incursions.[2]

Foreign Minister al-Shaibani emphasized that any future security agreement must respect Syrian sovereignty. Damascus is insisting on an Israeli withdrawal to pre-2024 territorial lines, specifically demanding that Israel vacate the UN-supervised buffer zone in the Golan Heights where it recently expanded its troop presence.[1][5]

Furthermore, the Syrian delegation stressed its firm opposition to any agreement that would prohibit Damascus from rebuilding its military capabilities or forging regional alliances. They argued that Israel cannot hold veto power over Syria's foreign policy or its relationship with Ankara.[5]

Israel's counter-proposal focused on pragmatic, tactical de-confliction rather than sweeping territorial concessions. The Israeli delegation pushed for the establishment of a special operations room in Jordan, operating under strict US supervision.[2][3]

This proposed operations room would serve as a real-time clearinghouse for intelligence and military movements. Its primary objective would be to ensure that escalating tensions between Israel and Turkey do not inadvertently spill over into Syrian territory, sparking a multi-front war.[3][5]

The negotiations highlight a fundamental strategic divergence that defines the current Middle Eastern security architecture. Syria views a comprehensive, formalized security agreement as the only viable path to long-term stability and domestic reconstruction.[1][2]

Conversely, Israel maintains that active deterrence—including preemptive strikes and physical buffer zones—remains an absolute necessity as long as foreign powers attempt to establish forward operating bases in the Levant. The outcome of the Jordan talks will ultimately determine whether these two competing doctrines can be reconciled into a functional, if fragile, coexistence.[2][3]