Ahmed Al-Jaber – Damascus
Syrians remain deeply polarized over international intervention in their country. While some condemn foreign intervention as a breach of sovereignty, others insist it is necessary to prevent a single faction from dominating the post-Assad political landscape.
Despite assurances from Syria’s new government, Druze leader Hakam Al-Hajari recently called for international oversight to support the political transition. His appeal highlights the complexities of a nation still grappling with competing regional and global influences, complicating the new leadership’s efforts to secure international legitimacy.
Read also: Israel Pressures Washington to “Keep Syria Weak”
Minorities: Between Political Guarantees and Internal Tensions
Since the fall of the former regime in December last year, domestic and international demands for legal safeguards for Syria’s ethnic and sectarian minorities have intensified, reigniting debates over sectarian rights and national unity.
The minority issue has become one of the most sensitive challenges facing Syria’s transitional administration, particularly amid growing fears of repeating past mistakes. These concerns are rooted in the history of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which was accused of abuses against minorities before announcing a shift in its approach in recent years. Meanwhile, Syria’s current government, led by the Sunni majority, marks a historic shift after decades of Alawite minority rule under the rule of Hafez al-Assad, who seized power in 1970 and later transferred it to his son Bashar.
Israeli Intervention
Amid recent calls for international involvement, Israeli statements advocating support for Druze in the south and Kurds in the northeast to establish autonomous administrations have sparked outrage and drawn widespread rejection from Syrians, who have protested against such interference.
Analysts agree that multiple foreign powers are intervening in Syria in various ways. Gulf states are playing a positive role by advocating for sanctions relief and economic support, while Israeli intervention is widely seen as an attempt to weaken Syria and fragment it into rival entities.
In an interview with +963, Firas Faham, an international relations researcher, outlined two types of foreign intervention in Syria: “Israeli intervention, which manifests as backing certain Syrian factions over others, bombing Syrian territory, and encroaching into southern Syria, all unequivocally rejected by Syrians.”
The second type, according to Faham, is “acceptable regional intervention, such as the Gulf states’ role in pushing for sanctions relief and supporting the political transition.” He further emphasized that any intervention imposing political choices on Syria would lack popular support, adding that most regional actors prioritize their own interests, except Gulf states, whose intervention aims to reassure the international community about Syria’s new administration.
Read also: Israeli Warnings and Local Unrest: Could Jaramana Ignite a Regional Conflict?
Fears for the Future
The future of Syria’s new state remains a source of anxiety for many, particularly as retaliatory acts continue against individuals accused of war crimes under the former regime. Despite assurances from the current administration that no group is being targeted based on ethnicity or religion, these incidents have heightened fears among minorities, especially Alawites, the sect to which the former ruling family belonged.
After the regime’s collapse, voices demanding ethnic and sectarian rights, such as autonomy or local governance, have grown louder, while others stress the need to preserve Syria’s unifying national identity.
Syrian writer Hassan Al-Neifi, based in France, told +963 that calls for international intervention to oversee the political transition do not represent all Syrians. He dismissed such voices as “discordant,” arguing they either serve remnants of the former regime or lack popular backing.
Al-Neifi noted that all nations except Israel view Syria as a unified state essential to regional stability. He added that the transitional administration, led by Ahmed Al-Shar, has not denied minority rights and has pledged to form a national government representing all Syrians.
Al-Neifi warned that demands for international intervention before establishing a transitional government could cast suspicion on their proponents. He stressed that any foreign interference favouring specific sects or ethnicities would deepen Syria’s crisis, risking a repeat of Lebanon’s prolonged civil war scenario.
Amid these challenges, a critical question lingers: Will Syria’s new leadership achieve stability and unity, or will foreign interventions impose a new reality on the country’s future?
