Israel’s Airstrikes in Syria: A Strategy of Destabilization, Not Protection

The Middle East remains a volatile region, with Syria at the epicenter of a complex geopolitical struggle. Israel’s recent airstrikes on Syrian territory, particularly in the Suwayda region and Damascus, have been framed by Israeli officials as a defensive measure to protect the Druze minority and enforce demilitarization near its borders.

However, a closer examination reveals a more calculated agenda: to destabilize Syria’s fragile post-Assad government and potentially expand territorial control, leveraging the power vacuum left by the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.

The Context: Assad’s Fall and Syria’s Transition

On December 8, 2024, a lightning offensive led by the rebel coalition Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), supported by the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), toppled the Assad regime, ending over five decades of Ba’athist rule. Bashar al-Assad, facing imminent defeat, fled to Moscow, where he was granted asylum by Russia, a long-time ally. The collapse of Assad’s government marked a seismic shift in the Middle East, weakening the influence of Iran and Russia, who had propped up the regime, and elevating Turkey’s role as a key backer of the opposition.

The new Syrian interim government, led by HTS leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, faces immense challenges: rebuilding a war-torn nation, managing sectarian tensions, and navigating foreign interference. Syria’s diverse population—Sunnis, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and Christians—complicates the transition, with fears of revenge attacks and factionalism.

Into this fragile landscape, Israel has inserted itself aggressively, conducting over 780 airstrikes since Assad’s fall, targeting Syrian military infrastructure, including airfields, naval vessels, and government buildings in Damascus.

The Pretext: Protecting the Druze Minority

Israel has justified its airstrikes, particularly in Suwayda, as a response to sectarian clashes between Druze militias and Bedouin groups, which prompted Syrian military intervention. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, claim these actions protect the Druze, a minority group with historical ties to Israel’s Druze community in the occupied Golan Heights. Israel has also reached out to Syrian Druze, offering protection and inviting them to work in the Golan, framing itself as a guardian against an “extremist Islamist terror regime” led by HTS.

However, this narrative is met with skepticism. Many Syrian Druze leaders have publicly rejected Israel’s intervention, arguing it misrepresents their interests and risks portraying them as collaborators, thus fueling sectarian tensions. Posts on X reflect sentiments that Israel’s actions are less about protection and more about exploiting the Druze situation to justify military escalation.

For instance, clashes in Jaramana, a Druze-majority suburb of Damascus, escalated after Israeli strikes, suggesting that Israel’s involvement may be exacerbating rather than resolving tensions. Critics argue that Israel’s selective focus on the Druze is a pretext to mask broader strategic goals, particularly given the lack of direct Druze requests for Israeli intervention.

The Real Agenda: Destabilization and Territorial Ambition

Israel’s actions suggest a strategy aimed at destabilizing Syria’s new government and securing long-term influence. Following Assad’s fall, Israel declared the 1974 Agreement on Disengagement with Syria void and invaded the demilitarized buffer zone adjacent to the Golan Heights, which it has occupied since 1967.

Israeli forces have advanced into Syrian territory, seizing Mount Hermon and establishing a “zone of control” extending 15 kilometers into Syria, with a “sphere of influence” reaching 60 kilometers. These moves, coupled with extensive airstrikes that destroyed 70-80% of Syria’s strategic weapons, indicate a deliberate effort to cripple the Syrian military’s capacity to resist foreign intervention.

The timing of Israel’s actions is telling. The fall of Assad, a key Iranian ally, disrupted the “Shia Crescent” that facilitated arms transfers to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel’s airstrikes, which began almost immediately after Assad’s ouster, targeted weapons stockpiles to prevent them from falling into rebel hands, but they also weakened the new government’s ability to consolidate power.

Some analysts argue that Israel prefers a weak, fragmented Syria, as it reduces the threat of a unified state aligned with its adversaries. Posts on X have even suggested that Israel’s strikes aim to support remnants of the Assad regime, such as captagon drug lords, to sow chaos and prevent HTS from stabilizing the country.

Territorial expansion is another likely motive. Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, annexed in 1981, remains a point of contention, with most of the international community viewing it as Syrian territory. By occupying additional Syrian land and fortifying positions, Israel may be creating “new facts on the ground” to expand its control, particularly in resource-rich areas near the Golan. Syrian residents in villages like Koayiah have reported Israeli troops intimidating farmers and building fortifications, raising fears of a permanent land grab.

Regional and International Reactions

The international community has responded with concern. The U.S., a close Israeli ally, has urged de-escalation, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Tom Barrack warning that Israel’s actions risk destabilizing Syria’s transition. Syria’s foreign ministry has condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty, citing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.

The United Nations and human rights groups have echoed these concerns, noting that Israel’s 780 airstrikes since December 2024 have hindered Syria’s efforts to rebuild after 14 years of civil war.

Turkey, a major backer of HTS, has expressed unease over Israel’s actions, as they undermine its influence in Syria. Russia, weakened by its focus on Ukraine, has been unable to counter Israel’s moves effectively, though it retains military bases in Tartus and Latakia.

Iran, having lost a key ally in Assad, faces a diminished regional presence, further emboldening Israel. Meanwhile, Arab states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which supported different rebel factions, are wary of Israel’s intentions but have not yet formulated a unified response.

The Risk of Backfire

Israel’s aggressive approach carries significant risks. By undermining the new Syrian government, Israel may inadvertently strengthen extremist groups like the Islamic State, which has claimed attacks in Suwayda as recently as May 2025. The destruction of Syrian military capabilities could also create a power vacuum, allowing militias to proliferate. Moreover, alienating the Druze and other minorities risks fueling anti-Israel sentiment, potentially uniting disparate Syrian factions against a common external threat.

The human cost is already evident. Airstrikes have killed civilians, destroyed homes, and displaced thousands, adding to Syria’s humanitarian crisis, with 16.5 million people in need of aid in 2025. Incidents like the detention of Syrian farmers in Koayiah highlight the human rights concerns surrounding Israel’s operations. If Israel’s actions are perceived as an attempt to conquer Syrian territory, it could galvanize opposition, both domestically and regionally, undermining any goodwill from its stated goal of protecting minorities.