One year after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, policymakers and officials in the United States and Israel remain increasingly divided over how to confront the changing landscape in Damascus.

Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, the IDF moved into a U.N. buffer zone inside southern Syria to protect Israel’s northern border as Damascus’ military and political landscape shifted. A year later, against Damascus’ wishes, Israel still controls the 155-square-mile area and has proceeded to carry out arrests of terror suspects, while also seizing weapons and conducting targeted airstrikes. 

These actions have collided with President Donald Trump’s push to broker a security agreement and end hostilities between the two countries, which the president and some experts see as a key part of stabilizing Syria — and, ultimately, the region. The Trump administration has often sided with Damascus in recent disputes, warning that Israel’s strikes are undermining efforts to reach an agreement, which the White House also views as a path to normalization. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintains that any agreement must require Syria to accept the demilitarization of territory stretching from southern Damascus to the Israeli border. However, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa has rejected this condition, arguing that it would create a dangerous security vacuum in southern Syria. 

Critics of al-Sharaa and some in the pro-Israel community have remained wary of relinquishing the area to the Syrian government given al-Sharaa’s past ties to Al-Qaida, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that he joined following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. While operating for the group as a foot soldier, al-Sharaa was captured by U.S. military forces and imprisoned, and he later founded one of the terror group’s Syrian branches. 

“In [Israel’s] perspective, the problem is mistrust as well as hard security indicators,” Ahmad Sharawi, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider. “Southern Syria is awash with weapons, weapon trafficking routes and Iran-backed networks. At the same time, Israel is being asked to make concessions to a government led by a former Al-Qaida emir whose coalition still includes figures that praised the Oct.7 attacks and openly endorse armed resistance against Israel.”  

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, explained that Israel is concerned that should a deal be made, it could allow for “potentially hostile forces to encroach anywhere near the border.” In a conversation with the Hudson Institute last month, Caroline Glick, international affairs advisor to Netanyahu, said keeping threats away from Israel’s borders has become an instrumental part of the Israeli government’s foreign policy in the aftermath of the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks. 

“Defense is simply not an option for such a small country, and thus the security of each and every border matters more for Israel than most any other country,” said Ruhe. “To be viable for Israel, a deal would have to demilitarize southwest Syria and probably include real prohibitions on Turkish military presence in Syria. It also likely would have to permit Israel to use Syria as an air corridor to Tehran, or at least not openly prohibit this.”

Reflecting the views of those urging an accommodation towards the new Syrian government, Barbara Leaf, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs under the Biden administration, maintained that Israel has nothing to worry about with a normalized al-Sharaa government.  

Participating on a panel at the Middle East Institute on Wednesday, Leaf refrained from addressing Israel’s security concerns, instead arguing that Syria holds no hostile posture towards the Jewish state and that Israel’s actions are prohibiting an agreement. She pushed for the U.S. to exert more pressure. 

“There’s no other recourse but for the White House to come down very hard and definitively on the Israeli government to stop the bombing and to start making plans to pull back from that border and get serious and finish this set of discussions,” said Leaf. 

Sharawi suggested that Israel remains hesitant and has taken a “far more pessimistic view of Syria’s short-term trajectory. 

“Even if al-Sharaa himself is signaling restraint, Israeli decision-makers are deeply skeptical that his control is durable or that he would retain power long enough to enforce any agreement,” said Sharawi. 

Last month, Trump administration officials indicated that a security deal was “99% done,” with hopes that Trump’s Oval Office meeting with al-Sharaa in November could help push the agreement over the line. But talks continue to stall. 

Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s foreign minister, said on Wednesday that the gap between the two sides has grown, as the Syrians have added new demands.

Ruhe said it may also be tricky for the White House to fast-track an agreement as Trump could have less room to exert pressure on Israel.

“Partly it’s a question of how much pressure Trump can still apply to Israel, since he already leaned hard on Netanyahu to agree to the Gaza ceasefire,” said Ruhe. “Any foreseeable deal would be a narrow nonaggression pact, not Syria joining the Abraham Accords as Trump may wish.”

Walk into any think tank in Washington and you’re likely to bump into more than a few so-called “Iran watchers”: researchers whose job is to try to interpret the actions of the often-opaque Iranian regime and help policymakers figure out how to approach the Islamic Republic. 

Given the adversarial relationship between Washington and Tehran, making sense of the two nations’ policy choices toward each other is big business. But according to some Iranians, something is missing. 

“Most of the people who are working on Iran, they have never been to Iran. Americans, I mean. That brings with itself certain limitations,” said Mehdi Parpanchi, who was born in Iran but now lives in Washington. The U.S. does not have a diplomatic presence in Iran, and vice versa. “In my opinion, the image of Iran is not being seen properly from outside the country.” 

Parpanchi is the director of U.S. news at Iran International, one of the biggest independent Persian-language news outlets in the world. Based in London, Iran International broadcasts inside of Iran via satellite — much to the chagrin of Iranian officials, who have called the network a terrorist organization. It also reaches Iranians expats and dissidents around the world. While the network mainly operates with the goal of offering independent news from an anti-regime perspective to the global Iranian diaspora, Iran International also serves as a crucial source to Iran watchers of all stripes, including those who have never set foot in the country. 

“There is always a decade of delay between the reality inside Iran and how it is being seen from the West, especially from the U.S.,” Parpanchi, who moved to Washington in 2020 to launch a U.S. headquarters for Iran International, told Jewish Insider last month. 

A new show from Iran International, filmed in Washington and broadcast around the world, aims to at least partly remedy that problem. “Iran International Insight,” which launched in June, pledges to put Iran International viewers who live in Iran in conversation with the political figures and diplomats across the world whose policy choices will affect their lives. 

“The concept was that there’s a tremendous opportunity for policymakers and experts in D.C., but especially policymakers, to be engaging with and taking questions from the Iranian people directly,” said Aaron Lobel, a co-producer of the new show and the founder and president of America Abroad Media, an international media organization.

The growth of Iran International’s programming in Washington comes after the Trump administration slashed funding for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supports independent outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks that air pro-democracy content around the world. Parpanchi previously spent two years at RFERL, which has a Persian-language branch. 

Iran International is not expressly trying to fill that niche, and the new program was in the works starting in 2024, before Trump even came to office. Regardless, the new program arrives at a time that America has pulled back from cultural diplomacy. 

“This is in the best traditions of the United States. It advances American values and it advances American interests,” said Lobel. “The more credible media organizations outside Iran that are trying to reach the Iranian people with information and to give them some sense of hope as well — the more the better.” 

So far, three interviews — hourlong conversations between one or two guests and an Iran International anchor — have been filmed, all in front of a live audience, including many Iranians who live and work in Washington. Iran International’s producers and journalists solicit questions from the network’s viewers in Iran. The interviews take place in English, but they are dubbed in Persian before being aired.

“I’ve met with groups of Iranian diaspora, who have family in Iran and who are activists with them. But I don’t think I received online questions like that,” Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter, who was the first guest, told JI. “That was the primary agenda, to speak to the people.” 

Leiter’s interview with Iran International was a journalistic gold mine for the network: scheduled in advance, it happened to come at a particularly timely moment, hours after President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran at the end of the countries’ 12-day war in June. Leiter touted Israel’s military victories in its campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Yet many Iranians wondered why Israel would attack Iran, but ultimately not seek to remove the ayatollah from power. (Hundreds of questions were submitted.)

“One of the themes that came out that was so striking was, of course, many Iranians wanted Israel to continue the campaign, and they were, I think it’s fair to say, you could hear in that show, disappointed that Israel stopped the war. Or to put it differently, they were upset that the Israeli government had, in their view, raised their expectations of ‘regime change’ and then failed to deliver,” said Lobel. 

Leiter offered unusually candid responses to those questions, going beyond the diplomatic language that would’ve gotten the job done even if leaving viewers unsatisfied. 

“I appreciated the opportunity to explain why we weren’t going to go further and actually topple the regime by force,” Leiter explained. “I understand them. Remember when the chancellor of Germany said that Israel is doing the ‘dirty work’ for the world? I guess that the people wanted us to do the work completely for the world. But we can’t do that. And it was important for me to be able to explain that.”

Two other programs were recorded this fall. One featured Elliott Abrams, who served as Iran envoy in Trump’s first term, and Dennis Ross, a fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy who previously held several high-level jobs at the State Department in Democratic and Republican administrations. Another featured former CIA official Norman Roule and Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Iran International’s main Instagram account has 16 million followers, and video clips from the Roule-Dubowitz event got about 1 million views each.

Those four experts have different ideological backgrounds, but each falls closer to the hawkish end of the spectrum on Iran. So does Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who was scheduled to appear in an interview in September before the congressional schedule led Cotton to cancel. (Parpanchi said they hope to reschedule.) 

Parpanchi said Iran International aims to include a broad range of perspectives from Washington, noting that the program is only just beginning. 

“It’s not only hawkish. There are other people who have different views about Iran, and we will reflect them all,” Parpanchi said. Iran International plans to ramp up to a more regular filming schedule in 2026.  

When 200 top policymakers, analysts and government officials from the U.S. and the Middle East gathered on Wednesday for the second day of the high-profile MEAD conference, one topic was top of mind for everyone at the ritzy Washington confab: Israel’s strike on Doha a day earlier that targeted senior Hamas officials who were gathered in the Qatari capital. 

Although many at the conference were decidedly pro-Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s risky mission — Israel’s first-ever airstrikes on Qatar, a major non-NATO ally of the United States — faced significant skepticism, particularly as reports emerged that the attack may not have killed the high-level Hamas leaders that Israel hoped to target. 

In a rare on-the-record session, former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, Israel’s opposition leader, questioned whether the strike fit within Israel’s broader war aims.

“If you take the operation itself, per se, and you single it out from anything else, of course these are a bunch of bad people that we should have killed a long time ago, and whenever you have a chance to kill them, you should kill them,” Lapid said. “Having said that, as the hours go by, we understand two things. A is that it might not be as successful as we thought in the beginning, and B [is] that this has nothing to do with strategy. It’s just an operation.” 

That language marked a shift from Lapid’s initial reaction to the Qatar strike, which he described on Tuesday afternoon in a Hebrew-language tweet as “an exceptional operation to thwart our enemies.” 

A lot changed in the interim: President Donald Trump said he was “very unhappy” with the attack, and that it “does not advance Israel or America’s goals.” Arab nations rallied around Qatar, with the leaders of the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia all visiting Doha this week. That led some MEAD attendees to argue that Israel’s strike could jeopardize regional integration efforts led by Washington. 

There was little sympathy among MEAD attendees for the Hamas leaders who live in Qatar, which has faced criticism for providing them a safe harbor. But Israel’s apparent failure to reach its targets prompted frustration even from many who were sympathetic to the operation, because it’s unlikely the U.S. will permit Israel to try again. 

The biggest problem, according to Lapid, was this divergence with the U.S., which Trump administration officials stood by on Wednesday. 

“Part of Israel’s strength in the region and elsewhere is the fact that everybody seemed to think that we are stepping in lockstep with the administration,” said Lapid. “When the region sees us as somebody who is not that coordinated with the administration, with the United States, it has a bad effect on our ability to influence the region.”