The security situation in Syria has grown increasingly volatile in recent months, with the latest tensions triggering armed conflict between the Druze and Bedouin communities. The clashes erupted in Sweida and escalated rapidly into deadly violence, resulting in over 300 deaths. A ceasefire agreement was reached after several days of intense violence during which Israel intervened militarily and launched airstrikes on Syria’s Ministry of Defense. Citing the protection of the Druze, Israel’s involvement is part of a broader regional strategy to exploit Syria’s internal divisions to expand its security interests in the region.
Following days of clashes between Druze and Bedouin groups in Sweida, a US-brokered ceasefire was announced, supported by Türkiye, Jordan, and neighboring countries. Later, Israeli and Syrian officials met in Paris in a US-brokered dialogue led by US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack to de-escalate tensions. Israel, represented by its Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, and Syria’s new Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani discussed ceasefire terms.
Amid the recent escalation of tensions, Druze leaders across the region have taken different positions. Israeli Druze spiritual leader Muwaffaq Tarif urged intervention, likening the crisis to the October 7 attacks. In Syria, Laith al-Balous of the Men of Dignity movement demanded an end to violence and the removal of rogue factions. One of the most influential Druze religious leaders, Hikmat al-Hijri, called for international protection of the community. In Lebanon, major Druze leaders, including Walid Jumblatt, Talal Arslan and Sheikh Sami Abi al-Muna, rejected foreign interventions like Israeli involvement in Syria. However, the leader of the Arab Unification Party, Wiam Wahhab, adopted a confrontational stance. Wahhab called for arming Druze factions and threatened President Ahmad al-Sharaa, which led to legal action against him for inciting sectarian tensions and threatening national security.
The current crisis and Israel’s intervention should be understood within the broader context of its recent actions aimed at exploiting instability to expand its military influence and advance de facto annexation. Soon after the fall of the Assad regime, Israel launched over 400 strikes in 48 hours, destroying 70% to 80% of Syria’s strategic military assets and occupying 400 square kilometers of Syrian territory. Israeli targets largely included the Syrian military’s missile stockpiles, naval vessels, anti-aircraft systems and weapons sites. Moreover, Israel also made significant advances in the Golan Heights, reflective of the encroachment under the guise of security and stability. Taking advantage of the collapse of Assad’s regime and the chaos that followed, Israel has expanded its military footprint beyond the 1974 ceasefire line in clear violation of international law. Israeli actions reflect a calculated effort to reshape the security order in its favor.
Israeli officials have justified their interventions and actions in Syria by invoking the protection of the Druze community. Public statements by Israeli leaders like Itamar Ben-Gvir, who called for the assassination of President al-Sharaa, blame the Syrian government for the atrocities against the Druze. Others, like Benny Gantz and Avigdor Liberman, emphasize the strategic and moral imperative to act against regime-aligned actors threatening Druze villages near the Israeli border.
Israel’s intervention serves multiple strategic objectives. Officially, the Netanyahu government has framed the intervention as a response to pressure from Israel’s own Druze population, emphasizing a moral obligation rooted in shared religious and historical ties. The Druze community holds a significant position within Israeli society, with a notable role in both the Israeli military and politics. Reports indicate that many Druze soldiers have taken part in recent operations in Gaza and Lebanon, further reinforcing the narrative of a “blood covenant.” However, these justifications mask deeper Israeli geopolitical ambitions. Israel’s actions align with its longstanding strategy to expand its security buffer zone in southern Syria, particularly in strategic locations like Mount Hermon. Netanyahu’s remarks about laying the groundwork for a demilitarized zone stretching from the Golan Heights to Jabal al-Druze expose this agenda. This is also reflected in the recent special session led by IDF Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir, during which it was concluded that all of Israel’s borders must now include buffer zones. Israel’s growing assertiveness indicates that the IDF has shifted to a doctrine of preemptive offense, aiming to disrupt enemy capabilities before they escalate. In Syria specifically, this involves keeping Syrian forces out of buffer areas and intervening selectively. Hence, the protection of the Druze serves as a convenient rationale and justification for broader Israeli efforts to unilaterally reshape the borders and consolidate dominance across key border regions.
Israel has long been opposed to the emergence of a strong, unified Syria on its borders, viewing it as a strategic threat. It has continued to pursue policies aimed at weakening and fragmenting the country. The current government in Syria, led by Sharaa, has gained considerable support from both Western and regional actors since coming to power, including backing from Türkiye. Israel is particularly concerned about growing Turkish influence near its borders, fearing it could challenge its security interests in the region.
Despite the show of unity between Tel Aviv and Washington, the divergence between Israel and the United States, especially on the Syrian issue, has now become evident. US officials are concerned that Israeli attacks could destabilize the newly established Syrian government. President Donald Trump has shown support for a centralized Syrian state led by Sharaa, and Trump reportedly expressed his displeasure to Netanyahu following recent Israeli attacks. Israel’s interventions are framed as responding to specific security threats, rather than pursuing an open confrontation. Israel has repeatedly violated international law without facing significant consequences and pursued its hegemonic ambitions. Also, so far, the pattern of the Netanyahu government has been to justify its disproportionate actions as necessary while engaging with the United States. Israeli withdrawals and de-escalations have typically occurred only after attempts to secure core objectives through military force, even if not all of them have been fully achieved. Moreover, Israel also realizes the bipartisan concerns in the United States regarding lifting sanctions to support Syria’s transition, which further motivates Tel Aviv to maintain diplomatic pressure through targeted interventions and lobbying efforts to delay normalization and preserve its strategic leverage.
The recent escalation reflects the volatile internal security environment in Syria and the pressure points used by Israel to intervene and exploit. In this context, stability in Syria depends on Washington and the international community’s ability to curb Israeli interference and uphold Syrian sovereignty. Any escalation could undermine and derail Syria’s path to recovery. While US and Arab engagement presents opportunities for the new Syrian government to pursue reconstruction, the country’s internal governance will remain a decisive factor on which long-term stability hinges. Sharaa understands that renewed violence poses a serious threat to both his regime and broader stability. Hence, he is likely to take steps to prevent further unrest and so far has shown intent to do so. Moreover, the new government in Syria will take time to undo the damage done by the Assad regime, marked by both implicit and explicit violence rooted in marginalization, discrimination, unaccountability and deep-seated mistrust among communities that casts a long shadow on the path toward recovery. These unresolved tensions leave Syria highly vulnerable, especially as external actors like Israel may seek to exploit divisions and provoke further chaos.
In the current circumstances, efforts to implement military reforms and unify security forces will be challenging yet inevitable for any sustainable peace. With various groups taking protection into their own hands, the lack of trust and accountability from previous years persists, creating conditions where conflict can easily reignite and escalate. The Syrian government is now banking on short-term ceasefires; however, moving forward, establishing clear deterrence and taking constructive steps toward national unity will be critical for the regime to maintain credibility.
