Recently, the Middle East has witnessed a dangerous escalation in Israeli military actions, most notably in Syria’s Suwayda province and the Gaza Strip. These seemingly distinct flashpoints are deeply interconnected, reflecting a broader Israeli strategy aimed at reshaping the regional order along sectarian and ethnic lines to solidify long-term strategic dominance.
Post-Assad developments reveal a sensitive phase in which Israeli security calculations overlap with Syrian political transformations. Despite the pretext of security concerns, Israeli military intervention threatens to ignite a wider conflict and complicate the chances for stability, especially with the entry of Turkey and perhaps other countries on the front line.
Suwayda, a predominantly Druze province in southern Syria, has become the epicenter of a new internal conflict between local Druze militias and Sunni Bedouin tribes. Following clashes sparked by a personal incident, the Syrian government deployed forces to stabilize the area. This move, however, was swiftly met with Israeli airstrikes, with Prime Minister Netanyahu declaring that Israel would not tolerate the presence of any “Islamist-oriented” government forces in Suwayda.
the Israeli airstrikes targeting Syrian military positions near Suwayda and even in Damascus appear to be in response to immediate security concerns namely, Israel’s stated intention to “protect the Druze community” in Syria from both government forces and militias. But beneath the rhetoric lies a deeper political calculus.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the strikes as a moral necessity to protect the Druze community in Suwayda from the encroachment of a radical Syrian administration, which can be seen as a Humanitarian Cover for Strategic influence.
His language was deliberate, evoking memories of October 7th in Gaza and presenting the Druze crisis as a mirror image. But analysts and regional actors saw a different picture: one in which Israel was not merely responding to violence but actively shaping Syria’s post-war map.
Yet Netanyahu’s government appears unmoved. In fact, some Israeli commentators suggest the strikes are designed not just to “protect” the Druze but to provoke Syria into overreaction, justifying deeper Israeli entrenchment in the south. Meanwhile, the Syrian government’s partial withdrawal from Suwayda under the terms of a fragile ceasefire raises questions: was this a retreat in the face of Israeli pressure, or a tactical pause in a broader struggle for sovereignty?
This also raises a critical question: Why is Israel becoming entangled in the unrest in Suwayda, a province whose Druze population makes up just 3% of Syria’s total? The reasons behind Israel’s involvement seems to depend on three main objectives. First, to prevent Syrian government forces from reestablishing a firm presence in Suwayda and across southern Syria areas considered critical due to their proximity to the Israeli border. Second, to strengthen Syria’s Druze community as a potential ally or buffer zone against Iranian-backed militias and other hostile factions operating near Israel’s northern frontier. Third, to respond to domestic political pressure from Israel’s own Druze minority, which has called on the government to act in defense of their Syrian kin. These motivations combine strategic calculations with identity politics, illustrating how Israel’s regional interventions often serve multiple overlapping agendas.
Then, what’s happening in Suwayda cannot be seen in isolation. At the same time, Gaza remains under siege, with its infrastructure devastated, its leadership fragmented, and its people trapped in cycles of war and temporary ceasefires. The connection between these fronts lies not in shared borders but in shared Israeli strategy: weaken unified national identities, empower local actors with specific sectarian loyalties, and maintain a fractured region incapable of coordinated resistance.
Hence, political logic is simple: a fragmented enemy cannot pose an existential threat. For instance, in Syria, this strategy translates into supporting or at least tolerating Druze autonomy even as it undermines the central government. In Gaza, it involves ensuring Hamas remains isolated from the Palestinian Authority.
What Israel is executing is not merely military doctrine , it is the unfolding of a broader geopolitical project. Echoing the 1980 Bernard Lewis plan, which envisioned the fragmentation of the Middle East along sectarian and ethnic lines, this strategy seeks to redraw the region not through diplomacy, but through targeted airstrikes, calculated proxy alliances, and the deliberate weakening of central states. Its logic thrives on sustained instability creating minority enclaves, autonomous zones, and national capitals too fractured to assert real sovereignty or regional influence.
Yet such fragmentation rarely ends in peace. It creates vacuums, invites radicalization, and punishes civilian populations trapped between competing agendas. As in Iraq and Libya, internal conflict brings not stability but collapse. Already, signs of this are visible: tensions between Druze leaders, Sunni backlash in nearby provinces, and international scrutiny of Israeli motives.
Briefly , From Suwayda’s embattled hills to Gaza’s shattered neighborhoods, Israel’s expanding influence is reshaping the regional chessboard. But it is a dangerous game. In seeking to divide and dominate, Israel may indeed secure tactical victories. Yet the long-term consequences which include regional chaos, diplomatic isolation, and moral erosion could outweigh the gains.
What the region needs is not another airstrike, but a coherent vision one grounded in respect for sovereignty, inclusive dialogue, and a shared framework for collective security. Without this, the cycle of violence will persist, and the map of the Middle East will continue to be not merely redrawn, but burned into fragments by the division and fear.
Follow the latest news on Google News
