A Preliminary Reading of the Security Management Framework and the National Horizon
Khaled Othman, Progress Center for Policies – Damascus
⸻
Introduction
The joint statement issued in Paris by the United States, Israel, and Syria on 6 January 2026 represents a qualitative shift in the international handling of the Syrian file. After years of focus on political transition under UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and stalled negotiating tracks, the statement introduces a new practical framework centered on managing security and economic risks rather than pursuing a comprehensive political settlement.
A close reading of the text shows that the statement does not include an explicit clause that reinstates or automatically reaffirms the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, nor does it require the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to the lines stipulated in that agreement. Instead, it focuses on establishing a joint coordination mechanism under U.S. supervision, encompassing information sharing, military de-escalation, the opening of diplomatic channels, and the inclusion of commercial opportunities—without any detailed provisions concerning the legal framework of borders or implementation mechanisms related to areas recently occupied by Israel.
This shift unfolds within a changing international and regional context marked by declining attention to the Syrian issue, rising security pressures along borders, and the emergence of new priorities that emphasize regional security and stability over comprehensive political solutions. This reality places Damascus before a multi-level track linking security, politics, and economics, with Washington retaining a central control role, while Syria relies on Russia as a strategic ally to maintain security and political balance and preserve national decision-making autonomy on core issues.
Against this backdrop, a central question arises: can this track serve as a platform for gradual stabilization that paves the way for subsequent political steps, or will it become a permanent framework for crisis management without addressing the underlying political, economic, and social roots of the conflict?
⸻
Analysis
The statement constitutes a practical framework for risk management, distinguished by flexible language that employs terms such as “understandings,” “joint mechanism,” and “de-escalation,” rather than formal terms like “agreement” or “treaty.” This wording provides the parties with room to adjust positions or withdraw if needed.
The most salient feature of the statement is the joint mechanism under U.S. supervision, which includes intelligence information sharing, military de-escalation, the opening of diplomatic channels, and the integration of commercial opportunities within the security framework. This mechanism represents a multi-functional platform for risk management, allowing the gradual integration of economic dimensions with security and politics. It effectively lays the groundwork for limited functional normalization prior to any formal political discussion, while Syrian society in its diverse political expressions remains outside the direct influence of these arrangements.
The inclusion of the economic dimension is particularly notable, as it enables the creation of a network of shared interests linking Damascus, Israel, and the United States, while preparing the ground for limited investments or joint commercial projects. This approach enhances gradual engagement without explicit political declarations. In this sense, the economy is used as a tool to entrench conditional stability and reduce risks, while core issues of national sovereignty—including the occupied Golan and internal political arrangements—remain outside the scope of direct understandings. This reflects the parties’ preference to secure their interests before engaging in comprehensive political arrangements.
⸻
The Three Axes of the New Track
The new track is built around three interrelated axes that complement the joint mechanism.
First Axis:
The emerging framework for security and political arrangements in Syria ties decisions related to security and foreign policy to regional and international considerations rather than purely national priorities. In practical terms, Syria will need to balance its choices in line with the expectations and interests of external actors such as the United States and Israel. This constrains its ability to take fully independent decisions and limits the state’s freedom to formulate national policies detached from these external calculations.
Second Axis:
This axis focuses on stabilizing the situation and reducing risks by preventing military escalation, securing borders, and managing potential points of friction—without addressing the root causes of the conflict or fundamental issues such as national sovereignty, the Golan question, governance structures, and justice. The result is a fragile stability based on crisis management rather than resolution.
Third Axis:
The third axis relies on the economy as a tool of functional normalization, using it to create a network of interests linking the Syrian regime, Israel, and the United States. This enables the imposition of a gradual reality ahead of any comprehensive political settlement, without broad societal participation or guarantees of transparency and accountability. Together, these pillars keep Syria compelled to operate within boundaries drawn by regional and international powers, while limiting Syrian society’s capacity to influence the course of these understandings.
⸻
Local, Regional, and International Implications
At the level of local actors, the track provides the Syrian government with a degree of relative stability and practical recognition of its role in managing the security and political file, albeit with limited room for independent action under U.S. supervision and with reliance on Russian support. This enables the government to reduce immediate border risks and reopen certain channels of international engagement.
At the same time, the national Syrian opposition remains outside direct decision-making in this process, which necessitates a strategic reassessment of its role to ensure representation of national issues and Resolution 2254 in any future arrangements, while preserving the continuity of existing security mechanisms and avoiding their disruption.
Syrian society—including urban and rural communities and refugees—also remains a marginal actor in these arrangements. Potential security or economic gains may not be accompanied by clear guarantees for transitional justice, political participation, or an organized and safe return of refugees, thereby limiting the population’s direct benefit from this track.
Regionally, the track reshapes the balance of influence among major powers. The United States remains the guarantor and primary controller of the process, while Russia plays a role in supporting regime stability. Iran, by contrast, is effectively excluded from any meaningful influence within Syria following the withdrawal of its proxies, leaving Damascus less exposed to multiple external pressures and granting it a limited margin to steer its policies according to national priorities.
⸻
Conclusions
• The statement establishes a U.S.-supervised framework for security management of the conflict while deferring the resolution of fundamental political and sovereignty issues, including national sovereignty and governance structures.
• The inclusion of the economic dimension within the joint mechanism enables gradual, functional normalization that precedes any political settlement or formal recognition, creating a network of interests that is difficult to reverse, with limited participation by Syrian society.
• Risks can be mitigated and opportunities leveraged if economic incentives are linked to tangible progress on political and rights-based files, the creation of conditions for refugee return, and the launch of a gradual transitional justice process.
• Syria’s central challenge lies in shifting from being a recipient of understandings to becoming an active party capable of embedding its national demands within ongoing arrangements, ensuring that these understandings do not merely serve as crisis-management tools devoid of structural solutions, while preserving relative national decision-making autonomy and relying on Russia as a key strategic stabilizing factor, with any Iranian influence on the ground excluded.
• In conclusion, strengthening Syria’s position requires accelerating the convening of the People’s Assembly to ratify laws issued during the transitional period, enact necessary constitutional amendments, complete the national reconciliation file in a manner that ensures the participation of all components, and integrate armed forces into a unified national army capable of enforcing stability and safeguarding national sovereignty.
