Nearly half a century after Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran reshaped the Middle East, a new wave of concern is sweeping across Israeli security circles as European governments extend engagement to international terror figures now active in war-torn Syria. The latest developments, reminiscent of past errors in normalizing hostile actors, are amplifying Israel’s vigilance as Iranian-backed forces use Syria as both a sanctuary and a possible platform for attacks against the Jewish state.
The immediate backdrop to these anxieties is the reported embrace by some European actors—including French policymakers—of Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Once a senior al-Qaeda figure, Julani now commands HTS, a United Nations-designated terror organization responsible for numerous atrocities during the Syrian civil war. Seeking to recast his image, Julani has appeared in Western media in civilian attire, presenting himself as a regional political actor instead of a fundamentalist militia leader. Nonetheless, his group’s core ideology and legacy remain rooted in extremist violence—posing a direct and ongoing threat to Israel and neighboring communities.
Israeli officials, speaking under condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of ongoing operations, express deep concern that Western efforts to engage or legitimize such leaders serve only to embolden hostile factions and weaken the barriers against terror along Israel’s volatile borders. Over the past year, Israel has intensified its strikes against weapon depots, command sites, and militias inside Syria—particularly those controlled or facilitated by HTS, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). These operations, conducted often within kilometers of the Golan frontier, are designed to prevent advanced weaponry and operatives from establishing a permanent campaign base threatening Israeli civilian populations.
The Israeli security doctrine has remained consistent: deterrence and proactive defense, underpinned by the belief that no international agreement or diplomatic gesture can substitute for direct control over the nation’s security. This approach has its roots in bitter historical experience. Khomeini’s 1979 ascent, which began in Parisian exile before culminating in a revolution, has had repercussions echoing today—giving rise to proxy networks, ideological warfare, and terrorism that reaches across the region. Similarly, the early years of the Oslo peace process, which elevated Yasser Arafat to global legitimacy notwithstanding his violent record, have left lasting debate in Israel and beyond over the wisdom and consequences of normalizing actors with histories grounded in terror.
Recent claims by Julani that indirect communications have occurred between Israel and Syrian groups regarding the situation in southern Syria have further complicated the landscape. These accounts follow Israeli military strikes targeting HTS and affiliated entities only hundreds of meters from the Israeli border—a testament to the proximity and immediacy of the threat.
Strategic analysis by Israel’s Ministry of Defense, echoed by senior figures in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), highlights the fragmentation of power in post-civil war Syria. Syrian territory is now home to dozens—if not hundreds—of armed organizations, ranging from established Iranian-sponsored militias to ad hoc groups with shifting allegiances and external sponsors. Many of these maintain the operational capacity and intent to attack Israeli targets, using the chaos and lack of central control as cover for cross-border provocations and terrorist attacks.
The situation has been further exacerbated by Iran’s expanding influence through the Axis of Resistance—a constellation of regional forces directed by the IRGC and spanning Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Houthi forces in Yemen, and Shia militias across Syria and Iraq. Intelligence estimates indicate that Iranian logistical and financial support enables these groups to operate with relative impunity, threaten U.S. and Israeli forces, and destabilize moderate regimes reliant on Western backing.
Israel’s counterterrorism measures—ranging from precision airstrikes in Syria to the deployment of advanced missile defense systems like Iron Dome—form a critical layer of protection for border communities. Yet, senior government and military sources consistently warn that international diplomatic overtures toward groups like HTS risk undermining these efforts, potentially allowing terrorist leaders to consolidate political legitimacy and operational freedom. This is echoed in the cautious response to recent European gestures, with Israeli officials noting that cosmetic changes in presentation or rhetoric by such leaders have historically masked continued extremist activity.
The fragile security dynamics are also affecting minority groups in the region. Recent incidents involving Druze communities in Syrian border areas have heightened Israeli concerns that extremist attempts to destabilize the frontier could spill over, triggering humanitarian and security crises. The possibility of these minorities being exploited or targeted by hostile actors adds another layer of complexity to Israel’s threat assessments.
Diplomatic complexities notwithstanding, many in Israel’s leadership articulate a clear doctrine: engagement with terror leaders must not be mistaken for genuine moderation, and any appearance of international acceptance risks emboldening violence. This is not merely historical reflection, but a hard-fought lesson derived from decades of confrontation with actors whose stated goals include the destruction of the Jewish state.
As the war in Syria grinds on, the proliferation of armed groups—along with the shadow of historic regional missteps—continues to inform Israeli policy. While some in Europe and beyond may seek to elevate figures like Julani as potential interlocutors, the Israeli government and defense establishment uniformly insist that stability and security can only be achieved by denying legitimacy to all terror organizations and their leaders, regardless of shifting public images or political narratives.
In the view of Israeli policymakers and security officials, the path to lasting peace runs not through normalization with those who have perpetrated violence, but through steadfast deterrence and an unwavering commitment to protect Israeli citizens. The lessons of 1979, the Oslo years, and the ongoing Syrian conflict inform a sober realism: only by maintaining moral and strategic clarity can Israel withstand the ever-repeating cycles of regional challenge and threat.
