Hossein Ajorlou – West Asia Security Affairs Expert
Regarding the recent developments in As-Suwayda and the Israeli regime’s airstrikes on Syria, which were carried out in support of the Druze, three narratives exist:

The first narrative suggests that these events were a prearranged agreement between al-Julani and the Zionist regime, following meetings in Abu Dhabi and Baku. Reports indicate that it was agreed that the Golan region and some surrounding areas would be demilitarized to some extent—an Israeli plan and a step toward normalizing relations between Syria and the Israeli regime. Since al-Julani was concerned about domestic reactions in Syria regarding normalization, the parties engaged in this process to orchestrate such clashes. As a result of these clashes and the ensuing ceasefire, the region is effectively being demilitarized.

The second narrative posits that since the normalization of relations between Syria and the Israeli regime was underway, the West had supported al-Julani in this process. At the same time, steps were being taken to consolidate his rule, the Zionists concluded that now was the best time to take specific measures to prevent the current situation from stabilizing. From their perspective, since al-Julani is negotiating with the West, he would not respond harshly to the Israeli regime’s attacks. In this scenario, the Israeli regime achieves its objectives: consolidating its control over the occupied Golan and demilitarizing the surrounding areas.

The third narrative argues that the recent events stem from the fact that some Druze tribes in As-Suwayda, feeling that the new government was consolidating power and that they would no longer influence Syria’s future developments, sought to assert their role and redefine their position in Syria’s future equations.

Of course, none of these narratives is precise or well-framed, but given the course of events, they can be considered.

Overall, the Israeli regime is, under any circumstances, seeking to establish a new security order in its surrounding region, including Syria. This order is based on several key pillars:

First, in the political sphere, it wants regional countries to have governments that, even if they do not wish to normalize relations with the Israeli regime, do not act in opposition to it. As in Lebanon, it seems such a scenario is foreseeable.

Second, the Israeli regime seeks the demilitarization of these surrounding areas. This issue occurred in southern Lebanon and, to some extent, in the Gaza Strip with the disarmament of resistance forces. In Syria, the Israeli regime’s actions aim to prevent the strengthening of resistance forces in the future.

Finally, the Israeli regime wants to establish a new regional order that would transform Occupied Palestine into the economic hub of the region by becoming the destination of multidimensional corridors, where West Asia’s economic and technological equations are shaped.

In this context, since the foundations of al-Julani’s power are not yet solidified—and considering his approach to developments—it appears that he is more focused on securing international recognition and legitimacy for his position rather than consolidating domestic power. In other words, he seeks to maintain a balance of power within Syria, ensuring he does not fall victim to regional rivalries between Turkey, the Israeli regime, and Arab actors.

Thus, it can be said that al-Julani is prioritizing international recognition before consolidating his domestic authority. This approach by Syria’s interim president indicates that he will not engage in serious confrontation with the Zionists—a trend that is already evident.

However, the reactions of the tribes and people of Syria differ from al-Julani’s approach, which could increase the likelihood of instability in Syria and expose the country to new dynamics. So far, two ceasefires have been declared, both of which were violated. It seems the developments in southern Syria will not be short-lived. While the flames may subside temporarily, the region remains ripe for further upheavals.

On one hand, the involvement of an external actor like the Zionist regime will lead to new divisions and conflicts. On the other hand, since these clashes have resulted in nearly 1,200 deaths, they will serve as a precursor to future developments in the lexicon of Syria’s tribes and the Arab cultural context.

What is certain is that the Zionist regime, by militarily intervening in Syria, has placed itself in a precarious position. If developments do not progress in line with its objectives, its security challenges could intensify.