Jason’s view
Something unexpected is stirring in the Levant. After decades of entrenched hostility, there are early, though admittedly fragile, signals that both Lebanon and Syria may be reconsidering their approach to Israel.
In Lebanon, new political players are becoming more confident in discussing economic cooperation and cross-border stability, while Syria’s new leadership has refrained from anti-Israel rhetoric and focused instead on reconstruction and international reintegration. No peace treaties or major diplomatic breakthroughs appear imminent. But a subtle shift in approach to the Jewish state could signal a sea change in the Middle East.
The backdrop is that the region has changed dramatically in the last few years. Iran’s proxy networks have been severely weakened: Hezbollah’s capacity has been reduced, while Bashar al-Assad’s removal takes Syria out of that axis. The international community is watching closely to see how reliable the two countries’ new leaders can be, but many seem optimistic that there is a positive breeze blowing that can transcend both nations’ grim recent past.
This potential shift isn’t happening in isolation. Gulf countries are facilitating conversations and providing economic incentives for regional stability. Their involvement is not cynical maneuvering: They have a strategic vision of Middle Eastern prosperity, which they have pursued despite considerable risk.
Of course, this isn’t an Abraham Accords moment — at least not yet. Both Lebanon and Syria are emerging from devastating sectarian conflicts, foreign interference, and destruction at the hands of the Iranian regime and non-state actors who prioritized extremist ideology above all. The institutional foundations for meaningful diplomacy need nurturing. But every transformative process begins somewhere, often in ways that seem impossible, until they suddenly aren’t.
Israel’s track record offers some basis for constructive engagement. During Syria’s civil war, Israeli hospitals treated thousands of wounded Syrians, and Israeli intelligence provided support to organizations like the White Helmets.
Other seeds have been sown by the return to the White House of the Middle East’s greatest historical peacemaker. President Donald Trump’s distinctive approach to regional diplomacy showcases his willingness to challenge conventional wisdom, elevate pragmatic advisers like Tom Barrack, and explore unconventional solutions. His style has been a natural fit with the diplomatic entrepreneurs in the Gulf and could be once again with emerging leadership in Lebanon and Syria.
Needless to say, that leadership presents a question mark. Syria’s new government must quash the sectarian violence that threatens to derail the nation’s post-Assad progress. Lebanon’s military has the difficult task of disarming Hezbollah while preserving peace among the country’s factions.
Still, the Trump administration understands that it has an imperative to explore every avenue toward stability and development. In diplomacy, as Trump demonstrated with the Abraham Accords, nothing should be considered impossible simply because it sounds improbable. Revolutionary agreements often begin with conversations that conventional thinkers consider unrealistic.
It is worth contrasting this to the many negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, which have failed, miserably and repeatedly, and often backfired. Palestinian leaders have spent decades rejecting opportunities for meaningful progress. At several points they could have made a deal of their own, ushering in a broad era of peace, featuring practical, incremental steps toward coexistence. Instead, they have maintained a maximalist anti-Israel position, with the Palestinian Authority leadership failing to take good deals when offered, while extremists like Hamas vow to undermine all diplomacy with death and destruction.
Indeed, that “all-or-nothing” used to be the presumptive model for all Middle East negotiations. And they were presumptively doomed. When I was at the White House, the idea of Lebanese or Syrian engagement with Israel seemed fantastical. Before the Abraham Accords, Middle East diplomats and journalists would joke with me that Lebanon and Syria would ultimately fight each other — over which would be last to establish relations with Israel.
But much has changed. My Lebanese friends and business associates increasingly speak of exhaustion with conflict, hunger for economic progress, and today’s unprecedented opportunities. They see what smart, forward-thinking leadership has brought to the Gulf: booming economies, happy people, and an influx of professionals and millionaires who want to be there. Many ask themselves why Lebanon and Syria should remain trapped in the habits of the last few decades. The tone has shifted. The attitude has shifted. The goals have shifted.
When ground-level sentiment begins moving in new directions, policymakers should look to prove their worth. The Middle East has witnessed enough surprises in recent years to suggest that the seemingly impossible can become inevitable faster than anyone expects.
The opportunity may be fleeting, and the obstacles remain formidable. But if there’s even a chance that Lebanon and Syria are ready to chart a different course, it’s worth exploring with the seriousness such possibilities deserve.
Jason D. Greenblatt was President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy between 2017 and 2019. He is the author of In the Path of Abraham and the founder of Abraham Venture LLC. Follow him on X: @GreenblattJD
Notable
- While Saudi Arabian and Israeli interests have converged on neutralizing non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, they don’t have a common vision for Gaza or Syria’s territorial integrity, according to analysis by the Qatar-backed think tank Arab Center Washington DC.
- Beirut has a rare chance to assert full sovereignty by moving to disarm Hezbollah, but success hinges on continued US pressure on both Lebanon and Israel to meet their obligations, David Schenker writes in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.