Press "Enter" to skip to content
Syria

The Concert for Syria

By Alan Nasif on January 22, 2026

Unlike the Concert of Europe (1815), orchestrated by Prince Metternich, Austria’s diplomatic genius and one of the most formidable minds in Europe at the time, the Concert for Syria does not seek to restore the Ancien Régime, but shall likewise labor to foster peace and maintain stability in the region. It shall include: The United States of America, Russia, Israel, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. The pan-Arabism Socialist order has miserably failed, in whichever form it has been contrived; and has only left ethnically and religiously fractured societies, which in turn constituted favorable conditions for Jihadi-Islamic factions to dominate the political landscape by means of terror and brute force. Present day Iraq and Syria are perfect examples of such failures.

 

For a country comprised of multi-confessional and diverse ethnicities like Syria, as it currently lies on the map [emphasis added], to sustain social cohesion; preserve its territorial unity, and prosper as a ‘nation’; without the coercive oppression of a totalitarian regime, such as Baathism; its form of governance must perforce rest upon the consensual integration and compounding of all communities whilst accounting for the intrinsic peculiarities of each and single one of them. [emphasis added]

 

That is, it should aspire to achieve genuine social homogeneity and interconnectedness. And in order to do so, Syrians must entertain a unity of mind. But what is this unity of mind?

 

According to Münsterberg, “The harmony and soundness of society depend upon its inner unity of mind. Social organization does not mean only an external fitting together, but an internal equality of mind. Men must understand one another in order to form a social unit, and such understanding certainly means more than using the same words and the same grammar. They must be able to grasp other men’s point of view, they must have a common world in which to work, and this demands that they mould the world in the same forms of thought.” (Münsterberg 195)

 

Now, “moulding the world in the same forms of thought” is not the same as single-mindedness. The latter is the great vehiculum and instrument of absolutism and tyranny. It confers the quality of unerring omniscience on the ruler, or ruling party, and raises him/it on the pedestal of infallibility; eo ipso making him/it the uncontested fountainhead of virtue, science, and power; and thereby proscribing individuality and all peculiarities pertaining to communal units. 

 

What are the social characteristics/conditions that obfuscate unity of mind, such that it becomes understood as single-mindedness?

 

I have identified these characteristics/conditions in an earlier article some four years ago:

“In any [country or society], wherein the abnegation of sound reason is prevailing; and intellectual engagement is loathed at best, altogether discarded at worst; social homogeneity and interconnectedness are left to the power of their internal momentum and aleatory thrust; with no external directional force applied on them; they distort and corrupt ‘the unity of mind’ to be understood and carried on as single-mindedness: so much so that a horde of cognitively-crippled, absent-minded, and most troubling yet, undistinguishable members is formed.

Each member, having relinquished his independent cognitive faculties, departs from their state of being as res cogitan (thinking thing), and emerges wholly as an animalis socialis (social animal). They renounce the powers of reason and worship those of suggestibility. Such are the guiding forces of hordes. They propound absent-mindedness masqueraded under the guise of single-mindedness and conformity.”

 

On December 8, Syrians celebrated the first anniversary of Assad’s ousting. But what has the interim-government accomplished over the course of these twelve months? Have Syrians shook off the yoke of the six-decades old single-mindedness of Baathism? Alas, they have not.

 

Al-Sharaa’s government has been diligently working to have Islamic single-mindedness supplant that of Baathism. It has amplified the well-founded and long-endured grievances of the have-nots of the Sunni population, and directed their raging fire of anguish against their fellow compatriots. It has sown seeds of contempt, and instilled in them a spirit of vengeance; which has consumed their hearts and minds, leaving no room for mercy. Indeed, vengeance for Syrian-Sunnis has become a moral obligation, a religious rite, and “patriotic” duty. [emphasis added]

 

And so, for the vast majority of the Arab-Sunni community, everyone has become a potential enemy and poses a “credible threat”. Every non-Sunni dissident voice is either a remnant of the Assad regime, a conspiring traitor working for foreign powers (which is rather ironic, that the Sunnis are the ones accusing others of this charge: “And why beholds thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considers not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matthew 7:3)), or an infidel pig. They don’t seem to be able to make up their mind about yours truly, however; to them, I oscillate between the second and the third classifications; holding pro-Western and pro-Israel views and convictions, whilst myself being a Christian. 

 

The massacres that transpired earlier during the past year throughout Coastal cities and villages, and in As-Suwayda province, were clear manifestation of a vengeful spirit, free of any moral constraints or ethical code of conduct, and driven by sheer lust for blood.

 

What might have seemed uninhibited burst of chaotic retributions, was actually the execution of a diabolically genius ploy to prevent any possible moral awakening or change of heart. While the Coastal massacres against the Alawites were carried out by factions of foreign fighters (i.e. Uyghurs), the SNA, in collaboration with MoI and MoD forces, the As-Suwayda massacres against the Druze were perpetrated mainly by a congregation of Bedouin clans from across the country, also in collaboration with MoI and MoD forces. Perspicuously, the purpose of this meticulous orchestration of ethno-religious persecutions was the universalization of culpability among the Sunni community. [emphasis added]

 

But to what end?

 

To escape judgment, no doubt. 

 

How so?

 

Judgment is a concept complicated with myriad intricacies — especially when a mischief or crime is, to a certain extent, committed universally. 

 

To put it in perspective, 

 

“A judgment! Of course, we men have learned, and experience teaches us, that when there is a mutiny on a ship or in an army there are so many who are guilty that punishment has to be abandoned, and when it is the public, the esteemed, cultured public, or a people, then there is not only no crime, then, according to the newspapers (upon which we can depend as upon the gospel and revelation), then it is God’s will. How can this be? It follows from the fact that the concept “judgment” corresponds to the single individual; judgment is not made en masse. People can be put to death en masse, can be sprayed en masse, can be flattered en masse—in short, in many ways they can be treated as cattle, but they cannot be judged as cattle, for cattle cannot come under judgment. No matter how many are judged, if the judging is to have any earnestness and truth, then each individual is judged. Now when so many are guilty, it is humanly impossible to do it—that is why the whole thing is abandoned. It is obvious that there can be no judgment: there are too many to be judged; it is impossible to get hold of them or manage to get hold of them as single individuals, and therefore judging has to be abandoned.” (Kierkegaard 122, 123)

 

 This notion of punishment en masse is commonly referred to nowadays as collective punishment; which is frowned upon, utterly rejected, and according to the laws of the community of nations, it is proscribed. [See Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 – Article 33 – Individual responsibility, collective penalties, pillage, reprisals]

 

As such, al-Sharaa’s government has created a Syrian dilemma on the societal level so acute that it renders accountability and justice intractable. It has separated the Sunni community, which makes an overwhelming majority of the populace, from all “others” by the most chasmic ethical abyss. This dilemma has, in a way, knitted a safety net for the government itself. Now, its destiny is intertwined with that of the Sunni population as a collective. [emphasis added]

 

In the spirit of fairness, a considerable percentage of Sunnis are either neutral or disinterested in public affairs, and conduct themselves as numbers of the silent majority — “Rules and Conditions Apply” (if you know what I mean).  

 

Notwithstanding, the damage is done. Much worse! As a matter of fact, it is continually recurrent. 

 

The de-facto government has adopted Assad’s tactic of employing civilian-thugs to crush and suppress protests, which we have seen take place during the protests of Alawites on Sunday, December 28, 2025. 

 

 

And that brings us to the question: Is al-Sharaa genuine about his intent to make political reforms? 

 

But what do we actually mean with a “reform”?

 

A 19th century British statesman, one Robert Bulwer-Lytton (1st Earl of Lytton), provided the perfect definition for the term, whilst drawing a line of distinction between it and a revolution. He observed: “A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” (Fitzgerald &. Packwood 68) But for abuses to be corrected, they must perforce come to an end. 

 

In an X tweet last April, I went on further and explained vis-à-vis the Syrian situation that “the recognition of abuses doesn’t eo ipso correct them;” which at the time, had been the only thing the interim-government had done with respect to abuses and violations perpetrated by its General Security Forces, military, and affiliate-factions. 

 

 

 

Furthermore, in reference to the transition of power, I have mentioned as early as February that the demilitarization of Damascus is one of the contingencies the United States has for Syria.

 

 

This demilitarization contingency might manifest in many forms and in response to several triggers. It could take the conventional route, following UNSC procedures to enforce UNSC Resolution 2254, in case upheavals in the coast and south persist and the de-facto government in Damascus does not alter its methods in handling prevalent public frustration among minority communities. Alternatively, it could transpire as part of Israel’s strategic security policy. [emphasis added]

 

The second scenario is intricately multifaceted and could be coeval with outsourcing Syria’s strategic security to the United States of America; which would involve establishing U.S. military bases (possibly three of them) inside of and on the outskirts of Damascus. This stands independent of Syria’s unity, federalization, or partitioning into cantons [emphasis added]. Furthermore, it would also factor-in the possibility of Syria taking in an influx of Palestinians as per the erstwhile predictions of February last year [See “The New Middle-East: Syria, Gaza, and New Maps [Part I]”]. 

 

Insofar the United States is concerned, setting up new military bases—in addition to the Tanf base—would seal the deal and secure Syria’s commitment to the orbit of American global influence; that is, dissuading any Syrian leadership from re-aligning with any anti-America camp, regardless of the country’s form of governance and whether al-Sharaa remains in power. It would also safeguard potential American FDI flowing into the country. Furthermore, American military presence in Damascus would preserve the balance-of-power between Türkiye and Israel, eo ipso averting direct clash between the two regional powers. 

 

The matter varies considerably vis-à-vis Israel’s strategic security, however, in terms of implementation and implications. 

 

On June 21, 2025, within the context of Operation Rising Lion against the Ayatollah’s regime of Iran (aka 12 Days War), I underscored that, “The very POTENTIALITY—not PROBABILITY—of another Oct 7 needs to be utterly destroyed! More work should follow.”

 

 

Simply put, I meant that contemplating—not just the ability to carry on—such an attack should be rendered unthinkable, i.e. its total eradication from the hearts and minds of men. 

 

This is worth in-depth scrutiny and analysis.

 

A quick summary of recent developments in Israeli-Syrian relations: 

 

“For Israel, as it is for the civilized world entire, it is a wholly different world post October 7. The demonic blitz offensive that Hamas terrorists have mounted on that day and the resultant heinous massacres constituted a paradigm shift in the realm of counterterrorism. It has settled the matter conclusively: Political Islam (Islamism) is incapable of any form of modus vivendi. 

With respect to Syria, there’s scantly any reason for Israel to believe that the outcome could be any different under the incumbent president. Mixed signals have emanated from Damascus since day one. The rhetoric of self-appointed interim-President Ahmad al-Sharaa has been built on the premise that Syria would not turn into a “launching pad” for attacks against its neighbors, referring to Israel. 

Meanwhile, sporadic anti-Israel marches and rallies have broke out across different Syrian cities within the span of the past twelve months. Some in solidarity with Gaza. Others, unabashedly calling for Jihad on Israel. All under the aegis of the interim-government. 

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed deep concerns that al-Sharaa has returned with an inflated ego from his trip to the White House — misconstruing American engagement and support for guarantees in the event of conflict with Israel; especially stoked by the United States professed mesmerization with his “stellar” performance and accomplishments, which remain a complete mystery to all spectators! 

Puffed-up and inebriated on Uncle Sam’s endorsement, the Syrian de-facto leader went to the Doha Forum girded with vanity. He sat there confidently extolling his own virtues and commending his selfless sacrifices over his Jihad-years to CNN icon Christiane Amanpour; who was in turn swept off her feet by his communication skills. He went on further to redefine terrorism for the world, exonerating himself, Hamas, and all Islamic-Jihad movements, simultaneously applying the description to the United States and Israel, whilst lamenting Hamas fallen terrorists in Gaza [emphasis added]. Irony abounds!

 

And so Türkiye’s golden son took his leave to Damascus to make it just in time to celebrate the first anniversary of “liberation” — feeling invincible, fully intoxicated, with a pinch of ill-founded megalomania.

He puts on his khaki uniform for optics and heads to the Grand Umayyad Mosque. It is the same uniform he had on when he first came to Damascus a year ago; which no longer fits, due to his ego-inflation as PM Netanyahu has observed earlier, and possible overindulgence in classic New York hotdogs; that has materialized in the form of a protrusion — which constituted quite a struggle for his shirt’s buttons to remain in place and not snap, taking someone’s eye out. 

Ascending to the podium at the Umayyad Mosque, he addressed Syrians recollecting al-Baghdadi’s words: “Syrians, obey me as I obey God in you! For by God, no one will stand in our face no matter how big or great!”

And the overjoyed crowd hailed his self-proclaimed “Divine Right” to rule, as that of kings of old!

The confrontational tone echoed loud through the land’s length and breadth. 

Meanwhile, the new “Syrian Arab Army” was getting into formation on the Mazzeh highway for the military parade that would soon follow. 

A poorly-coordinated (from a military viewpoint) march proceeded with al-Sharaa, his defense minister, and other generals present. No cries for Syria were heard, only shoutouts to Gaza filled the void [emphasis added]. 

The troops chanted:

“Gaza, Gaza, our rallying cry,

Victory and steadfastness, night and day.

We rise against you, enemy, we rise,

From mountains of fire we make our way.

From blood I forge my ammunition,

From your blood, rivers will flow.”

 

Al-Sharaa seemed satisfied with these words falling on his ears.

Later that day, mixed civilian-military rallies swarmed across different parts of Damascus and other cities, featuring “al-Tawhid” banner (a white version of ISIS flag), and in spite of the distance, the mantra was sung as a monophony: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews! Mohammad’s army is coming back!” Alluding to the fall of the Jewish stronghold in Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century. 

 

[NOTE: Similar rallies chanting the aforementioned mantra took place in the old city of Damascus, the yard of the Grand Umayyad Mosque, and in main squares in Homs, Hama, and Aleppo, during the first months of the HTS-led interim-government’s assumption of power.] 

It should be readily apparent to the meanest intelligence that this has crossed the threshold of political enmity for the State of Israel on the state-level, and has emerged as an ominous anti-semitic Jew-hatred on the grassroots-level of the populace. 

Israel observed with high-watch alarm. In the meantime, Bibi’s government is holding cross-departmental consultations to formulate a commensurate response — as the Syrian authorities continue to refrain from condemning these hostile slogans. Simultaneously, Türkiye has seized the opportunity to press for the deployment of 2,000 Turkish troops as part of international corps into the Gaza Strip [emphasis added].

 

Erdogan the Senile, whether directly or via his proxies, is attempting to encircle Israel. 

Last night, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora, Amichai Chikli, quote-tweeted a Visegrád post featuring the Syrian military parade on X, saying: “War is inevitable.”

 

Minister Chikli’s vexation is not only legitimate, but has been avowed by the actions of al-Sharaa’s government and loyalists.

Myself, I have cautioned two days prior to al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House last month: “Soon the Trump admin will come to realize that the Syrian practice of statecraft (irrespective of the individuality of “statesmen”) is drawn to disorder and tension as instinctively as lemmings run to the sea.

It is a Syrian peculiarity!”” [See “If and When Engagement Fails: A Prelude to the “Concert for Syria””]

 

 

To be blunt, my wager is that the only reason that Israel had cautiously condoned al-Sharaa’s ascension to power was him being presented as the “would-be Gorbachev” for political-Islam; in addition, of course, to his ability to rein in Jihadists, until that objective is achieved. 

 

Over years, however, al-Sharaa has got himself neck-deep in debt to the international Islamic order, spearheaded by Türkiye, Qatar, and even Iran. We ought also to bear in mind that power all too often changes the hearts and minds of men. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is a question of practicability or mere unwillingness that has caused him to hold back on pursuing that end. 

 

However, al-Sharaa’s very ascension to power has set Israel and Türkiye on the path of preordained confrontation.

 

The underlying cause matters little here. Again, it is a matter of strategic security for Israel. [emphasis added]

 

In that regard, however, a monumental progress was made on Tuesday, January 6, 2026. After two months of stalemate, representatives of Israel and Syria met in Paris for a fifth round of talks, thanks to the mediation of the United States; wherein the U.S. presented the two parties with a viable proposal for a new security pact, which entailed economic cooperation (Ravid). Both the Israelis and Syrians have welcomed the proposal in a spirit of openness. The participants were: 

 

  • For Israel: Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to Washington; Roman Gofman, PM’s military secretary; and, Acting National Security Adviser Gil Reich.
  • For Syria: Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani and Intelligence Chief Hussein Salameh.
  • For the United States: U.S. Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack, and President Trump’s advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. (Ravid)

 

 

What does this U.S. proposal entail?

 

“It appears to be a sprawling joint economic zone along the current demilitarized strip—complete with energy projects, pharmaceutical plants, and, most Trumpian of all [bolds and italics are mine], a ski resort.

Let’s just say this comes as a surprise. One would think that after Israel conducted thousands of strikes, and currently sitting on Syrian territory, security would remain the only topic worth negotiating. But it seems the Trump administration and the Syrian government are after something more intimate. 

According to the American-Syrian proposal, the zone would host a wind power plant, a crude oil pipeline, data centers, and pharmaceutical facilities—and best of all, the area would remain demilitarized. 

The plan offers quite a bit for Syria: roughly $4 billion in GDP growth—a 20 percent increase on its current output—along with an 800-megawatt boost in power capacity, 15,000 new jobs, and a 40 percent reduction in pharmaceutical dependency. Israel, for its part, gains the chance to transform an arid buffer zone into a “dynamic economic corridor,” while enjoying “reduced military spending” to protect its northern border. [bolds and italics are mine]

Let’s just say the imbalance isn’t unusual for Israel’s peace arrangements. Back in 1979, Egypt regained the entire Sinai Peninsula, billions in U.S. aid, and a guarantee that Israel would stop embarrassing it militarily—in exchange for tolerance for its existence.

But what would this new zone actually look like?

Apparently, something akin to the ski region of Zermatt, Switzerland on the Italian border. Not a one-to-one comparison—Israel and Syria are hardly European in structure or sentiment—but the model gives an idea: independent tax rules, relaxed visa requirements, arbitration mechanisms for financial disputes, maybe even a shared currency framework. [bolds and italics are mine]

 Here a question arises: will this whole deal really go through without Syria joining a certain Abrahamic accords?

Unfortunately, yes. From what I’ve seen, none of the draft documents make peace a formal condition of the plan. It may make peace more likely, but by no means guaranteed. 

Now, peace in the Middle East aside—it’s a good deal. Economic prosperity is always welcome, and a demilitarized zone with fewer barbed wires and more ski lifts sounds, frankly, delightful. After all, when Israel first expanded its presence into the DMZ following the Assad regime’s collapse, plenty of Israelis joked—half seriously—about the new skiing opportunities. 

Still, it needs to be said: however tempting this vision is, Israel should be very careful before starts trading soldiers for skis. [bolds and italics are mine]” (Amit Segal)

 

Thereupon, the de-facto government in Damascus made its move on the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) positions in Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyeh, Aleppo. The two neighborhoods were sieged and fell in matter of days—despite SDF’s internal security forces resistance. But the offensive did not stop there; and the new Syrian Arab Army advanced into SDF-controlled areas west and east of the Euphrates, forcing the SDF to retreat to al-Hasakah governorate and Qamishlo. The United States stood on the sidelines, observing developments on the ground, and limited its involvement to diplomatic mediation to de-escalate the situation.

 

To many, this signified a clear betrayal. But to those with vibrant memory and historical knowledge, this was a foreseen outcome months ago. Upon the defeat of ISIS and the ousting of Assad, with a new ostensibly pro-American government established in Damascus, SDF has fulfilled its telos and became diplomatically and militarily expendable. 

 

Now, SDF’s military and political leadership is confounded and lost for guidance, after all promises and assurances have been broken. Again, they could have seen this coming, were it not for their myopia and hubris. They’ve grown too comfortable; inebriated on past-glory; indulged in self-flattery; and let down their guard for a whole year. Meanwhile, their rivals were working around the clock to grow their domestic, regional, and international powers and alliances; in addition to placing themselves in President Trump’s good graces. To Mazloum Abdi’s misfortune, they have succeeded in all these endeavors.  

 

This could be the end of the Syrian Democratic Forces, as we know it. 

 

Its ranks have experienced swift defections, turns of allegiances, and disintegration. It has now become a predominantly Kurdish-led military faction, with few Assyrians and Armenians among their numbers. In fine, the Arab clans have abandoned the whole project. 

 

Notwithstanding, the SDF still has some support among prominent Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill, namely from Senator Lindsay Graham—who has been vocal on the subject, and calling on the Trump administration to protect their longstanding and reliable ally in the fight against ISIS; and overtly waving the reinstatement of the Caesar Act “on steroids” in the face of Damascus’ de-facto government, should it not practice restraint. 

 

Notably, Graham’s stance was amplified during his visit to the State of Israel and meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. 

 

Logically, especially in light of most recent changes in the dynamics of international and regional alignments within the Syrian theater, Israel emerges as the only possible savior of the crumbling SDF. And so, the latter’s leadership has turned, in a rather shy manner, to Netanyahu for help. 

 

 

Counterintuitively though, its media arm, a cohort of publicists and senseless social media activists posing as “intelligentsia”, has been pushing a conspiratorial narrative suggesting that Israel has struck a diabolical deal in Paris—which entails an unholy sacrifice of the SDF at the altar of spherical partitioning of influence in Syria with Türkiye. 

 

Whether such a deal has been made or not, bears neither weight nor consequence on the fact that SDF has lost its utility for the U.S.-led international coalition. [emphasis added]

 

My wager is that SDF’s leadership has become aware of that fact; hence, in retaliation, they have withdrew from Al-Hol and other ISIS-detention camps, allowing the release of prisoners, and leaving it to CENTCOM and the Syrian de-facto government to contain and manage the resulting mess.

 

That’s a desperate move at best. But CENTCOM has formulated a rapid response to that issue.

 

 

Let’s go back to Israel…

Insofar Israel is concerned, chaos, sheer chaos, is the primary concern and the greatest possible threat that could emanate from the Syrian side, as per Dr. Meir Masri. 

 

 

 

It is a most apt assessment, which I personally concur. 

 

While Israel projects a natural solidarity and alignment with the Kurdish cause in Syria, northern Syria remains outside the scope of Israel’s strategic security; notwithstanding Israel’s intent to curb and diminish Turkish influence and presence in Syria. To put things into perspective, Israel cannot tolerate Ankara having military capabilities near Damascus; much less have Türkiye’s Fidan dictate Damascus’ foreign policy. These are non-negotiable conditions for Israel.

 

Syria
Guardians of the Mediterranean 🇮🇱 🇬🇷 🇨🇾

The time is simply NOT ripe for further military involvement on the part of Israel—given its existing commitment to the Druze community in the south; the prevalent state of imminent war with Iran; the ongoing operation to disarm and neutralize Hezbollah; and, its newly-founded triple alliance with Greece and Cyprus in the East Mediterranean (which I dubbed “Guardians of the Mediterranean”); in addition to President Trump’s extended invitation to Türkiye to participate in the Gaza “Board of Peace”. This would inevitably create an unnecessary operational over-stretch for the IDF. 

 

 

 

It goes without saying that having Turkish troops deployed to Gaza is equivalent to the deployment of Soviet Missiles in Cuba back in 1962. The Trump administration should consider the matter as such, and proceed with extreme caution. For make no mistake! It WILL produce a commensurate security crisis between Tel Aviv and Ankara, commensurate to the Cuban Missile Crisis between Washington and Moscow. 

 

 

Again, Israel’s great and chief end in Syria must be the destruction of the very potentiality of another October 7. 

 

The U.S.-proposal in Paris, which is nothing short of a genius masterwork, is a tremendous contribution towards that end—should it come to fruition. For as conventional wisdom teaches us, nothing fosters and bolsters peace and prosperity more than economic cooperation and integration. [emphasis added]

 

Damascus, for its part, has reacted rather positively to the U.S.-proposal, and signaled openness for intelligence cooperation via establishing a trilateral intelligence coordination cell (““fusion cell” in Amman, Jordan to oversee the security situation in Southern Syria and host further talks on demilitarization and the withdrawal of Israeli forces,” (Ravid)). with the purpose of keeping channels open in order to diffuse tensions in realtime. Furthermore, it has also conveyed a tacit approval for Israel to set up a liaison office in Damascus—maintaining that it should not assume an official diplomatic status. This is a huge leap forward for Damascus vis-à-vis its relations with Tel Aviv, by all measures. 

 

This may sound all very fine; nevertheless, al-Sharaa still has to take concrete measures to prove that his past is behind him. He should issue an official statement that condemns the terrorist attack and massacre on October 7, and criminalizes the glorification of Hamas. He must also abolish and ban all Islamic-Jihad movements in Syria. And, finally, he should endeavor to reintegrate the Jewish-Syrian community into the Syrian society, and return all their unjustly-confiscated assets. 

 

Now, there is scantly any evidence to support my February 2025 hypothesis, regarding Syria taking-in a significant influx of Palestinians, as part of resolving the conflict in Gaza. However, its being a possibility merits, per se, serious consideration [emphasis added]. Whether Erdogan does re-establish Hamas as a military power in northern Syria to finish off the Kurds or not [See “The New Middle-East: Syria, Gaza, and New Maps [Part II]”], Israel’s strategic security dictates perforce that Palestinians—namely Gazans—must not be relocated within a defined spatial range that jeopardizes its northern borders. 

 

How does that translate in terms of Syrian geography?

 

Damascus itself remains within the range of immediate credible threat. Therefore, it must be north of Damascus. Even preferably, south of Homs—in order to secure the end of annihilating the aforementioned potentiality.

 

But that would require mechanisms for mobility restrictions to be set in place. Needless to say, it definitely needs to be more than security checkpoints operated by the de-facto government in Damascus. And here comes the role of the American bases (ideally three: the U.S. will assume control of the Tiyas (aka T-4) Air Base (which could be a joint U.S.-Russian military mission), the Mazzeh Military Air Base, and establish a new base between As-Suwayda and Damascus).

 

The American bases would ensure that no military capability—which includes short-to-medium range missiles—manifests anywhere near Damascus, covering a northern radius from the Syrian capital, except its own and operated by U.S.-personnel only [emphasis added]. Moreover, it would keep the SAA in check, such that no brigade in the SAA (which is mainly comprised of “former” jihadists) would undertake any heedless escapade and mobilize southwards. It might also involve setting U.S.-operated checkpoints south of Homs. 

 

 

This may be the first non-hostile demilitarization of a country’s capital in history, via a state’s consensual outsourcing of its strategic security to Uncle Sam; eo ipso achieving sustainable peace. Unlike Japan post-WWII, Syria would retain its standing army with certain regional capability strictures, that are devised to bring about peace in a meaningful and lasting manner; contrary to having a toothless UN Peacekeeping mission, under the aegis of which peace is such a superficial configuration that it floats like feather on the surface. Furthermore, law enforcement would remain within the Syrian government’s purview within Damascus and northwards.

 

 It stands independent of the U.S.-proposal, but serves as an insurance contingency for it; whether Israel retreats from the territory it acquired after December 8, 2024, or doesn’t. It remains also independent of who resides in the presidential palace in Damascus. Moreover, it will unquestionably safeguard U.S. and international FDI flowing into the country. Should Syria’s absorption of Palestinian incomers become a reality, then this becomes a conditio sine qua non to prevent war between Syria and Israel. [emphasis added]

 

 And, finally, what if the new guys in Damascus are practicing an astounding Taqqiya—both, politically and in terms of religious ideology? Politically, by accepting a security configuration for the capital city itself—no less—that makes peace contingent on American presence and commitment, President al-Sharaa would in effect disperse every shadow of doubt as to whether Syria has truly shifted its pivot—irreversibly so—toward the United States of America. In similar vein, vis-à-vis religious ideology (i.e. Jihadism), a tangible presence of the U.S. military ought to dissuade Syrian authorities from condoning radical ideology among their ranks, and further encourage them to de-radicalize their rank and file so that they may remain in power. 

 

 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is in fine The Concert for Syria. Some may like it. Others may resent it. But, it is the only viable way by the means of which Syria could be part of a peaceful Middle-East.

 

 

Related publications: “The Scramble for Syria: A Scenario”; “How Could the Middle-East Be the End of NATO: A Scenario;” And, “How Could the Middle-East Be the End of NATO: A Scenario [Part II: Erdogan Pushes the Dead Man’s Button]”; “The New Middle-East: Syria, Gaza, and New Maps [Part I]”; “The New Middle-East: Syria, Gaza, and New Maps [Part II]”; And, “Foreign Fighters and the Blindspot in the Joint American-Israeli Syria Policy: A Recommendation”; And, “If and When Engagement Fails: A Prelude to the “Concert for Syria””

 

Reference

Fitzgerald, Michael R., and Allen Packwood, Out of the Cold: the Cold War and its Legacy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc., 2013.

Kierkegaard, Søren. The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening. Princeton UP, 1980.

Münsterberg, Hugo. Psychology and Social Sanity. Apple Books; New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1914.

Ravid, Barak. U.S. proposed demilitarized economic zone on Israel-Syria border. Axios, 6 Jan. 2026. www.axios.com/2026/01/06/isreal-syria-security-pact-negotiations. Accessed 6 Jan. 2026.

The Holy Bible, King James Version.

 

Published in Articles and Opinion

Alan Nasif
Alan Nasif

More from ArticlesMore posts in Articles »
More from OpinionMore posts in Opinion »

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *