In a development reflecting the rapidly shifting political landscape of the Middle East, Syrian President Julani has been invited by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to visit the Persian Gulf, where he is scheduled for a landmark meeting with former U.S. President Donald Trump. This diplomatic overture comes despite Julani’s reputation as the longstanding leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, and his recent status as a fugitive with a $10 million American bounty on his head. The unprecedented event underscores dramatic changes in the strategies and alliances that define the region’s stability and security, particularly for Israel and Western interests opposed to Iranian-backed terror networks.
The scheduled meeting follows years of transformation for Julani, who rose to prominence as the head of an Al-Qaeda successor group in northwestern Syria. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) emerged from Jabhat al-Nusra and was primarily active in opposition to the Assad regime, often controlling territory through a combination of military power and Islamist governance. Despite efforts to distance itself from direct Al-Qaeda control and reposition as a dominant but less globally focused Islamist movement, HTS and its leadership have remained on international terrorist watchlists—underscoring the complexities that continue to define Syrian opposition politics.
That Julani could now travel openly to meet with key Gulf and American figures reflects the scale and speed of ongoing realignments. Diplomats and analysts suggest that Saudi Arabia, concerned about the expanding influence of Iran across Syria, Lebanon, and the wider Levant, is seeking to engage with a range of Syrian actors in order to undermine Tehran’s regional agenda. This move also speaks to the Crown Prince’s ambition to shape post-war Syria’s political outcome and his willingness to take calculated risks in pursuit of his country’s strategic interests.
From Israel’s perspective, the evolving situation carries significant implications. Since the outset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Israeli security doctrine has prioritized the prevention of hostile military build-ups along its northern front, particularly those involving Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces and Hezbollah, as well as the containment of jihadist factions such as HTS. The still-unresolved threat from the Iranian-backed ‘axis of resistance’—a network including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria—remains Israel’s paramount concern.
The memory of the Hamas-led massacre on October 7, 2023—the deadliest antisemitic atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust—continues to shape every aspect of Israeli security and foreign policy. That attack, involving mass murder, abduction, and abuse of Israeli civilians, compelled Israel into a broad defensive campaign to neutralize not only threats from Gaza but from Iranian proxies across the region. Israel’s top military and political leaders, including IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Defense Minister Israel Katz, have reiterated that red lines regarding Israel’s security are non-negotiable and that defensive actions will persist wherever necessary to protect the population.
As the United States under Donald Trump signals a willingness to explore new approaches to regional crises—including by engaging figures previously regarded as pariahs—the moral and strategic calculus grows even more complex. Some American policymakers, wary of another prolonged military entanglement and eager to counter Iranian influence, appear open to conditional engagement with actors such as Julani, provided he demonstrates a willingness to break with both Tehran and his jihadist roots.
Israel, however, approaches such diplomatic experimentation with deep caution. While weakening Iran’s hold over Syria may serve key Israeli interests, the risk of providing legitimacy or support to former terror leaders cannot be overstated. Israeli officials argue that dealing with anyone associated with international terrorism must be handled with absolute clarity, ensuring zero compromise on the core issues of security, justice, and the absolute distinction between terrorists and their victims. The ongoing plight of Israeli hostages held in Gaza, taken by force in crimes that have shocked the world, remains a stark reminder of the stakes involved. The legal and ethical divide between innocent Israeli civilians and convicted terrorists, especially in any exchange or negotiation, is a distinction Israel insists must remain inviolate in international discourse.
This diplomatic encounter comes against the backdrop of the Abraham Accords—a set of historic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These accords have redefined the strategic environment, opening doors previously thought closed. Julani’s visit to the Gulf and his meeting with Trump, however, reflect a different, more fraught calculus: engagement not with established governments but with actors who have previously represented grave threats to regional stability.
Analysts warn that the lessons of history demand vigilance. Tolerance or recognition for groups with a record of terror, even in the name of pragmatic realignment, may encourage other Iranian-backed factions across Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, or Syria to seek similar rehabilitation on the world stage. For Israel, this is a red flag that cannot be ignored, as national security hinges on a united international front against all forms of antisemitic and jihadist violence.
Going forward, the regional order remains in flux. For nations like Israel—democratic, sovereign, and resolutely defending itself against existential threats from Iran and its proxies—the imperative remains steadfast: achieve security through strength, clarity, and an unyielding commitment to the truth. As regional actors explore new alliances and test diplomatic boundaries, the profound stakes for Israel and the legitimacy of its self-defense must remain at the center of international policy and moral consideration.
