Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted coordinated and well-organized strikes deep inside the Syrian territory. This campaign, carried out between 15 and 18 July, strategically targeting various places such as Ministry of Defense (Damascus), the storage facilities (Aleppo and Homs), and Quneitra-Sweida corridor, resulting in the deaths of at least 17 people. However, local observatories are reporting a higher number. By now, Israel is calling this a pre-emptive strike and justifying it by referring to the movement of the Syrian army in the previously designated demilitarized zone. Particularly, the intervention by the military into Suwayda, Quneitra, and Daraa marked the start of this lethal cross border offense.
Following the collapse of the Assad’s regime, this is the second wave of air-borne attacks by Israel (previously, the strikes targeted the military infrastructure of Syria to dismantle the influence of the new interim government). This shows a significant shift in the foreign policy of Tel Aviv: from deterrence to pre-emptive attacks given the nature of government (interim) and the actors (unelected, non-state, and previously designated international terrorists).
The Druze community played a critical role in triggering this conflict. The socio-contextual analysis of the ethno-sectarian dynamics in Syria is necessary to deeply understand the present scenario. Around 7, 00,000 Druze population is present in Sweida, having informal ties with Israel as most of the Druze population in Golan Heights and Israel serve in the Israeli army while preserving the Syrian identity. Israel even offered citizenship to 20,000 people but they rejected it given their excessive focus on maintaining their strategic autonomy.
Historically, there have been clashes between the Druze population and the majority Bedouin group. But, after taking control of Syria, the HTS leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa promised the internal integration and the protection of minority groups. In a pragmatic move, he appointed the Druze governor and invited all the Druze militias to join the national forces.
On July 13, 2025, an unprecedented incident occurred that changed the trajectory of the domestic politics of Syria. A Bedouin man robbed the Druze vendor. It sparked backlash across the region and the action-reaction mechanism started that turned into a wide-scale inter-ethnic conflict. The initial clashes resulted into 30-50 deaths, and the number then surged up to 400-500 as SOHR reported. The matter become complex when the rumors of the government support to Bedouin community speculated in the region. The alleged extra-judicial killings and the mass murder of the minority community followed decrees by the local religious and political leaders. For example, a Druze leader Hikmat Al-Hijri rejected HTS ceasefire and appealed for the revival of the resistance movement. He said, “We are being subjected to a total war of extermination….resist this brutal campaign by all available means”. Following this, the administrative and security control in the region was assumed by Suwayda Military Council (SMC), a previously banned fraction of the Druze community. SMC unilaterally rejected the HTS authority and sidelined the cohesion narrative.
HTS was left with no options but to send military to control this fight which was, at first, perceived positively by Druze community. But, operational dynamics, domestic criticism, lobbing by the Druze diaspore, and other factors led Israel to intervene into the conflict. Netanyahu address the matter of deploying troops in the southern Syria as “crossing the red line” and announced military actions to coerce the interim government roll back the measures and reinforce the ceasefire. Although the offense was verbally condemned by Ahmed, he has to agree to the terms Israel offered. For instance, the forces have already vacated the area. Druze community has welcomed the decision and even some fractions were seen celebrating the event holding Israeli flags.
This event sparked mixed reaction from the regional and global power hubs. For instance, on July 16, the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio stated, “Israel has a right to defend itself against the militia threats. However, it has overstepped into destabilizing Southern Syria, which risks regional fall out we cannot afford”. It shows that Washington is adopting a balancing act for the first time since decades in addressing the conflict between Syria and Israel. It helped immediate de-escalation and ceasefire between the both parties. Otherwise, the unwavering tangible and intangible support to Israel, as was seen during Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, could have altered the regional security dynamics.
On the other hand, other regional middle powers such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran strongly condemned the attack following the humanitarian fallout in the conflict. Ankara even labelled this as “breach of the Syrian sovereignty” because it fears potential spillover effect in the region that could destabilize the entire Middle East. Russia on the other hand, strongly condemned the attacks. Iran, too, in a surprising move, partially supported Syria despite its pro-U.S. government. Overall, the narrative of strategic restrain, instead of direct support to any party, by multiple and influential actors helped both states achieve the pre-conflict position, avoiding a potential full-scale war.
However, the conflict has exposed political, military, and tribal vulnerabilities of HTS, an interim government in Syria. Despite progressive moves, five years elections plan, decentralization, prioritizing minority rights, and diplomatic outreach towards the West, not a single state stands in solidarity with Syria. Instead, the transition of HTS from an internationally designated terrorist organization to an active government body in Syria has been a topic of controversy in many countries, resulting in reservations over the de jure recognition of the Syrian government.
Militarily, it exposed the vulnerabilities in the defensive system. Israel had already destroyed the 80% of the military infrastructure of Syria in the first waves of strike few months ago. The inability to rebuild the minimum air defense system showcase the pro-U.S. and the unconcerned attitude (towards public security) of Al-Jolani. The outbreak of the conflict also exposes the vulnerabilities involving tribal harmony. Despite multiple initiatives, the root cause of the conflict has not been addressed yet.
Apart from that, there are also legal and strategic implications of the conflict as well. Dr. Richard Falk has criticized Israel of breaching the sovereignty of Syria and questioned the non-aggressive and pre-emptive nature of the strikes given the political transitionzone as the ultimate destiny. Also, the recent actions violate the sovereignty of Syria under article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Yet, it has to be seen if Syria uses its right of self-defense (article 51) or maintains strategic silence.
In conclusion, one can say that the recent strikes by Israel undermine the sovereignty of Syria one the one hand, and exposes the lobbying of the apparently vulnerable ethno-religious community (Druze) on the other hand. Also, it has political, military, and sectarian implications for the struggling regime of HTS. Regional and global powers avoided taking sides in the given case, but slightly intervened to pressurize Israel adopt pre-strike position instead of further military actions into the territory of Syria. Moreover, the warmongering attitude of the both ethnic groups also reveals the weakness in the narrative of internal cohesion and harmony. At international level, the conflict has strategic, legal, and humanitarian implications.
