A flurry of Middle East diplomatic activity is producing new conversations between Israel and Arab governments, but the talks are unfolding against a backdrop of unresolved questions about Palestinian statehood, Hezbollah's weapons, and the human cost of Israel's military presence in southern Lebanon and occupied Syrian territory. The negotiations risk becoming what one former diplomat called "short-lived diplomatic bubbles" if they don't address the underlying issues that have kept the region locked in cycles of violence.
US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington 5 days ago for their first face-to-face talks since the United States and Israel began their current war with Iran. Details weren't released. The meeting came days before Israeli and Lebanese representatives were scheduled to return to Rome, with the next round set to begin in 2 days. An Israeli official confirmed the talks would follow previous US-mediated discussions over border arrangements, Israeli withdrawals and proposed "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon.
Syria Seeks Security Deal as Israel Holds Occupied Land
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa said 7 days ago that Damascus was working with several countries to reach a security agreement with Israel. According to al-Sharaa, a successful arrangement could create a path toward comprehensive peace without requiring Syria to relinquish its claim to the Golan Heights. But the proposal comes as Israel occupies additional Syrian territory beyond the Golan, seized following the collapse of Bashar Assad's government.
Joshua Landis, professor in Middle East Studies and co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Syria's weakness leaves it with few options. "Sharaa has got a big problem on his hands because Israel has occupied this additional land beyond the Golan Heights. And he needs to get Israel out of that land if he is going to have a peace agreement," he said. Landis said al-Sharaa could conceivably accept continued Israeli control over the Golan Heights as part of an agreement, but not the loss of additional territory occupied following Assad's fall. "Syria is too weak. Israel is too strong, and Israel's made its position very clear, which is 'we're staying in this situation,' and I can't see Israel backing off of that."
A former Bahraini diplomat, who requested anonymity, said the Syrian overture reflects military weakness, the search for sanctions relief and the need to restore international legitimacy. "Faced with incomplete territorial control near the Golan, an urgent need for international reintegration, and sanctions relief from Washington, I believe Damascus is pragmatically forced to treat Israel as an unavoidable reality," the former diplomat said. He said Syria's approach aims for "a functional security arrangement — ideally restoring the pre-1974 disengagement lines and pushing back Israeli incursions from Al-Sheikh Mount [widely known as Mount Hermon] — while explicitly reaffirming sovereignty over the Golan Heights to preserve domestic and Arab legitimacy."
Lebanon Talks Face Hezbollah Reality
The Lebanon negotiations are continuing despite disputes over Hezbollah's weapons, the Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon and the sequencing of any withdrawal. Dr. Nir Boms, a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said Lebanon faces a choice between restoring its authority and continuing to accommodate Hezbollah as a separate military structure. "I think Lebanon understands that there is a choice that needs to be made and that it's either Lebanon, or Hezbollah. And in some ways, you can't have them both," he said.
Landis rejected the likelihood that the Lebanese state could carry out such a process under current conditions. "Hezbollah is not going to be defeated. The Lebanese army is in no position to take them on," he said. "The politicians in Lebanon are not interested in pushing a military confrontation internally." He said the talks are mainly a way to deescalate tensions. "So, I think this is a lot of talk in order to try to deescalate things, but that's it." He was also doubtful that the existing roadmap would produce a complete Israeli withdrawal. "There is a roadmap for Israeli withdrawal, but the chances of that roadmap ever being carried out seem very slim because it requires defeating Hezbollah," he said. "And who's going to do that? It seems like an impossibility."
The former Bahraini diplomat said the negotiations risk becoming "short-lived diplomatic bubbles" without a broader regional understanding. He said Hezbollah, which he said retains significant popular support and military infrastructure, remains prepared for a prolonged war of attrition in coordination with Tehran. "The Lebanese government currently lacks both consensus in the south and the military capacity to enforce disarmament, rendering any diplomatic agreement fragile without a broader regional settlement," he said. He said it's only a matter of time before the next escalation.
Bahrain Call Signals Continued Commitment Despite Pressure
Israeli President Isaac Herzog spoke by telephone 7 days ago with Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. The two discussed bilateral relations, the Abraham Accords and recent regional developments. The call, initiated and publicized by Bahrain according to an Israeli report, was characterized by experts as apparently the leaders' first publicly disclosed call since the October 7 attacks. Bahrain joined the Abraham Accords in 2020 and has maintained formal relations with Israel despite the regional fallout from October 7 and the subsequent wars.
The former Bahraini diplomat said the call showed that Manama continues to view its relationship with Washington and Israel as central to its security. "Despite enduring sustained missile and drone pressure from Iran and its regional allies, Bahrain appears to remain firmly anchored within the US-Israel defense umbrella," he said. "Implicitly, this signal reflects Manama's firm belief that the US-Israel coalition maintains the capacity — but lacks the strategic appetite — to fully deter Iran," he added. He warned that continued reliance on external deterrence could become politically and strategically unsustainable if the campaign against Iran failed to produce a clear result.
Saudi Arabia Remains the Central Test
Washington and Riyadh signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement 11 days ago, but Trump subsequently said he wouldn't allow it to proceed unless Saudi Arabia normalized relations with Israel and joined the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia has maintained that formal normalization requires a credible path toward Palestinian statehood.
Boms said, "Saudi Arabia is not going to join the Abraham Accords." He said the Saudis would like to show they can move forward and create a breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that would be their path to rapprochement. Landis said, "Saudi Arabia has made it very clear that they're not going to move ahead on Abraham Accords unless there's a pathway for Palestinian statehood," and added, "And I don't see that happening."
The former Bahraini diplomat said Saudi Arabia's status as custodian of Islam's two holiest sites gives it a different set of calculations. "Saudi Arabia's stature as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Islam represents its ultimate soft power and geopolitical weight across the Islamic world," he said. "I believe that surrendering this leverage easily through formal normalization without an explicit, irreversible path to Palestinian statehood carries a reputational cost that far outweighs the incremental security benefits of the Accords," he said. He said Riyadh can deepen intelligence, economic and technological cooperation with Israel behind the scenes without formal embassies.
Chama Mechtaly, a policy adviser pioneering the bottom-up movement of the Abraham Accords and founder and executive director of the Emma Lazarus Institute for Liberty and Tolerance, distinguished between governments that treat normalization as a long-term strategic commitment and those that use its symbols for tactical advantage. "For some states, normalization is the product of a genuine strategic investment in regional security, economic integration, and the recovery of state sovereignty from militias and transnational ideological movements," she said. "For others, the language and imagery of normalization are being used tactically, as public relations, as narrative warfare, and as insulation from scrutiny in Washington."
Landis said, "I see it as a forever war that's going to stumble forward," and added, "And the Lebanon situation is a forever war which is going to stumble forward, and it's going to suck Israel in. Israel will stay there, and it'll sort of be a low simmer." Boms said, "America is not going to be able to, does not have the will to … lead the policing or the solutions for the region overall, and the region needs to do this itself," adding that this could create "real opportunities."
Why This Matters:
The diplomatic activity reflects real movement, but it's unfolding without addressing the core issues that have sustained conflict for decades. Syria can't regain territory Israel has occupied. Lebanon can't enforce agreements without confronting Hezbollah, which it lacks the capacity to do. Saudi Arabia won't normalize without Palestinian statehood, which Israel's current government shows no sign of pursuing. The talks may reduce immediate tensions, but without a credible path toward Palestinian self-determination — the issue that remains the region's central legitimacy test — these arrangements risk becoming what one diplomat called "short-lived diplomatic bubbles." The outcome will depend on whether governments are willing to absorb the domestic costs of normalization, whether armed groups can obstruct implementation, and whether the United States can sustain a coherent regional strategy. For now, the gap between diplomatic conversation and the unresolved human rights and statehood questions remains wide.