Since the Syrian war entered its seventh year, the main talk about a solution to the Syrian crisis was the need for the superpowers, namely Russia and the United States, to reach a consensus on ways to resolve this conflict.
Both powers have had ups and downs in their relations during the Syrian war over ways to deal with the crisis, as both agreed to previous cease-fires that briefly held up and quickly collapsed due to the lack of suitable environment on the ground.
Since early this year, tension has been on the rise between both powers, particularly in April when the United States accused the Syrian government forces of using chemical weapons in an attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun in northern Idlib province.
The accusation was unfounded, as claimed by the Syrian government, and was quickly adopted as a way to justify a U.S. strike on a Syrian air base in the days that ensued.
Russia then condemned the strikes which were based on unsubstantiated allegations.
The United States accused the Syrian government forces last month of preparing to launch another chemical attack, promising tough retaliation against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
However, analysts and observers said the accusations aim to send a message to both Russia and the Syrian government that the progress being made by the Syrian army in some areas is unacceptable and that the United States could use the chemical weapons allegations as a pretext to strike the Syrian army again.
Amid all that tension, Israel entered the line of the conflict in the southern Syrian province of Qunaitera recently over claims that stray mortar shells are falling from the Syrian side of the borders on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Also, the Israeli strikes on Syrian military positions in Qunaitera were meant to send a message to the Syrian government and its allies of the Lebanese Hezbollah group that any progress by the Shiite groups in that area is unacceptable.
With this heightened tension, there were two options for the U.S. and Russia: the first is a direct confrontation between both powers on Syrian soil, or a deal to defuse the tension and avoid further escalation, Hmaidi Abdullah, a Syrian political writer, told Xinhua.
Obviously, both powers favored pacification over escalation and agreed on Friday to a cease-fire deal in southern Syrian provinces.
The cease-fire went into force on Sunday noon, with sources in all concerned provinces of Daraa, Qunaitera and Sweida, telling Xinhua that the cease-fire is so far holding up well.
"This cease-fire agreement, which seemed as surprising, wouldn't have been reached if it wasn't for two main factors: the first is the risk of a direct confrontation between the U.S. and Russia, and the second is the U.S. concerns over the safety of Israel," Abdullah said.
He noted that Israel was feeling the pinch due to the recent military campaign of the Syrian army as well as Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed fighters near its borders.
"The U.S. was facing the possibility of a war that could drag Israel and Jordan into play and that's not in their interest, or to halt the progress of the Syrian army throughout a cease-fire deal with Russia," Abdullah said.
Still, the analyst considered the deal as an important point that could lead to a political process in Syria if the agreement was developed by both powers to include more hot zones.
Abdullah's opinion was shared by Sharif Shehadeh, a former Syrian parliamentarian, who said that if the agreement was well-implemented, it will be conducive to reaching a political settlement to Syria's war.
"This deal is good in principle, but should be built on later to help in a political dialogue with the armed factions which are willing to talk, except for the Islamic State and al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front," he told Xinhua.
He also pointed out that big part of the U.S. approval of this agreement is the Israeli tension toward the progress of the Syria army in southern Syria.
The Syrian government has yet to comment on the cease-fire, with its official mouthpieces remain tight-lipped.
For its part, the UN welcomed the agreement.
A day earlier, Deputy UN Special Envoy for Syria Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy said in Damascus that the cease-fire is a "step in the right direction."
"The agreement to create de-escalation zones in southern Syria ... is an important development. The UN always aim to de-escalate tension and this is a step in the right direction," he said.
He added that other areas to be included in the de-escalation zones deal should also reach a similar agreement in support of the political process.
The de-escalation zones deal was established in Syria last May, with Russia, Iran, and Turkey signing the deal.
The U.S. had no apparent role in the initial agreement, which included four zones namely Homs, Idlib, Daraa and Eastern Ghouta countryside of Damascus.
The de-escalation zones deal held up relatively well in Idlib, but in Daraa and other southern areas, the situation got tense since May with renewed battles between the Syrian army and the rebels, before the U.S., Russian-backed cease-fire went into force Sunday.
