By Mohamad Hammoud
Lebanon – Following the December collapse of the Assad government and the full withdrawal of resistance forces from Syria, Damascus entered a fragile political transition. Syria’s interim president, Ahmed Al-Sharaa – known as Abu Mohammad Al-Julani, moved quickly to signal moderation, publicly taking steps toward peaceful relations with “Israel” as part of a broader effort to stabilize the country and lower regional tensions.
Those overtures, however, have failed to ease concerns in “Israel.” According to The Washington Post, “Israeli” officials view the new administration as unstable and potentially threatening—not because of its declared policies, but because of what they describe as lingering structural risks. Foremost among those is the fear that elements within the emerging political order could maintain ties to Iran or its regional networks, even after the resistance’s complete withdrawal.
That assessment has guided policy from the start. Instead of approaching Syria’s transition as a moment for cautious disengagement, “Israel” has opted for active involvement, pursuing what officials describe as a “layered” strategy designed to constrain the new government’s ability to consolidate authority and shape the post-war balance of power.
Covert Leverage in Southern Syria
According to The Washington Post, that involvement moved quickly from assessment to action. Within days of Assad’s removal, “Israeli” helicopters crossed into southern Syria carrying what was presented as humanitarian assistance. Alongside food and medical supplies, however, were rifles, ammunition and body armor discreetly delivered to armed groups operating beyond Damascus’s control.
The purpose of those shipments soon became clearer. Two former “Israeli” officials told the newspaper the aid was intended to bolster Druze militias as a counterweight to the emerging central government. The primary recipients were linked to the Military Council in Sweida province, with funding routed indirectly through intermediaries connected to the Syrian Democratic Forces.
As the effort expanded, its political impact became harder to ignore. By early 2025, stipends were supporting thousands of fighters each month, reinforcing parallel power structures at a time when the new government was struggling to assert nationwide authority. While “Israeli” officials described the program as precautionary, critics argued it entrenched fragmentation during a critical phase of Syria’s attempted recovery.
Military Pressure and the Creation of Space
Covert aid was reinforced by overt military force. The Washington Post reported that “Israel” carried out hundreds of airstrikes against Syrian military infrastructure, including the Defense Ministry in Damascus. “Israeli” ground forces also seized territory near Jabal Al-Sheikh ["Mount Hermon"], expanding their footprint inside Syria.
An “Israeli” official said the actions were meant to protect border communities. On the ground, they also created corridors of influence. Food, fuel, and medical assistance were distributed in areas beyond Damascus’s reach, tying local populations to a sustained “Israeli” presence and blurring the line between humanitarian support and security policy.
Diplomacy and Constraint
By mid-2025, Washington pressure reshaped the regional landscape. The Trump administration made engagement with Damascus a central pillar, betting the new leadership could restore order and curb Iranian influence.
This shift prompted adjustments in “Israel’s” approach. It scaled back lethal arms transfers to Druze forces while continuing financial and logistical support. At the same time, it pressed for a demilitarized southern Syria and formal guarantees of Druze autonomy—demands Syrian officials rejected. Proposed arrangements stalled, highlighting the gap between American optimism and “Israeli” security skepticism.
Competing Visions of Stability
For “Israel’s” security establishment, intervention is rooted in risk calculation. Analysts cited by The Washington Post argued that uncertainty next door is preferable to a unified Syrian state of unclear alignment. Syrian officials countered that “Israel” deliberately encouraged fragmentation to prevent recovery.
Western officials voiced a different concern. Dana Stroul, a former senior Pentagon official, warned that “Israeli” actions risk undermining rare stabilization opportunities. Sustained airstrikes and proxy-building weaken the credibility of diplomacy the United States seeks to advance.
Shaping the Post-War Landscape
The Washington Post reporting shows a strategy of preemptive influence rather than ideology. “Israel’s” actions aim to shape outcomes before they harden, even at the cost of prolonged instability. While Damascus’s reach is constrained, divisions are reinforced in a society exhausted by war.
As Syria struggles to move beyond conflict, its future is shaped by forces beyond its borders. The quiet contest between “Israeli” security priorities and Western diplomatic ambitions has turned post-Assad Syria into a battleground where shadow decisions may be as consequential as public ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment