After days of deadly clashes between government forces and Druze groups in Syria’s southern province of Suwayda, the situation has entered a fragile calm. However,fears of renewed violence persist amid external interventions that threaten the region’s stability. Israel has played a central role in the escalation, beginning with airstrikes on Damascus and Suwayda under the pretext of “protecting the Druze,” and extending to political pressures that reportedly imposed conditions on the deployment of Syrian government forces in the area.
Israel, however, is not the only external actor involved. The United States has led mediation efforts through its special envoy, helping broker a ceasefire agreement that includes the delivery of humanitarian aid and the release of detainees. Meanwhile, Turkey, despite its adversarial stance toward Damascus, is attempting to play a calming role by influencing affiliated armed factions in northern Syria, in a bid to prevent Suwayda from becoming a hotspot of regional conflict.
Amid the security crisis that has engulfed Suwayda, various regional and international powers have stepped in to contain the escalation among local factions, while other interventions have raised concerns about further complicating the situation. Jordan has spearheaded intensive diplomatic efforts, culminating in a trilateral meeting in Amman between the Jordanian and Syrian foreign ministers and the U.S. envoy. The talks led to a roadmap involving the deployment of Syrian security forces, release of detainees, and entry of humanitarian aid.
Push and Pull
The Suwayda crisis is marked by layers of complexity. Israel’s direct intervention, including airstrikes on sites in Damascus and Suwayda under the justification of “protecting the Druze,” has drawn scrutiny over its true intentions. Analysts suggest that Israel, given its longstanding relationship with segments of the Druze community, may be seeking to turn Suwayda into a zone of influence, exploiting local unrest to reshape facts on the ground and challenge Syrian state sovereignty.
In contrast, Turkey has attempted to de-escalate the situation by restraining its affiliated armed groups in northern Syria, signaling Ankara’s awareness of the risks that southern Syrian instability could pose to broader regional security.
Read Also:From Sykes–Picot to the ‘New Middle East’: Will Regional Borders Hold?
On the international level, the United States has emerged as a key player in de-escalation efforts. Its envoy has voiced support for the joint Jordanian-Syrian initiatives, suggesting that Washington may be open to integrating Syria into emerging regional arrangements, despite Israeli reservations regarding certain aspects of this approach.
Domestically, the Suwayda crisis has highlighted the Syrian government’s challenges in restoring stability. President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s administration has struggled to rebuild trust with parts of the local population, leading to calls for external protection frameworks. Discussions on federalism and localized self-rule have resurfaced, even as the United States officially rejects any effort to partition the country.
The Syrian government faces a delicate balancing act in navigating overlapping international and regional agendas. It aims to benefit from humanitarian aid without compromising national sovereignty. Yet the situation in Suwayda remains fragile, plagued by social tensions among local groups and signs of external actors attempting to exploit the unrest for strategic gains.
Observers suggest that the situation in Suwayda is part of a wider regional contest involving powers such as Israel and Turkey, where Israel aims to expand its influence in southern Syria, while Turkey remains focused on preserving Syrian territorial unity in line with its broader regional outlook.
Regional Stakeholders
Professor Hassan Abdullah Al-Da’ja, a strategic studies expert at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, told +963 that “Suwayda, with its Druze-majority population, has in recent years witnessed mounting tensions driven by the intersection of local, regional, and international factors.”
He added, “It’s become increasingly evident that foreign actors, particularly Israel, are seeking to shape events by supporting local groups that adopt anti-government narratives. Some of these factions appear to have external backing from Tel Aviv, raising serious concerns about the ability of Suwayda’s local community to maintain autonomous decision-making amid growing political exploitation of their economic and livelihood grievances.”
As for Jordan, Al-Da’ja noted that while the kingdom shares geographic proximity and vital security interests tied to southern Syria’s stability, it maintains a clear policy of non-interference in Syria’s internal affairs. Jordan’s main priority, he said, is protecting its national security from cross-border threats such as drug and arms trafficking, problems exacerbated by the diminished authority of the Syrian state in certain frontier regions. Hence, Amman continues to engage in security coordination with relevant international and regional parties, while steering clear of any political or military involvement within Syria.
According to Al-Da’ja, Suwayda’s future will largely depend on a delicate balance: between the Syrian state’s capacity to reassert its role in the south and the growing external influence that seeks to exploit the current power vacuum. If international actors, in particular Israel, continue to back local groups operating outside the framework of Syrian national unity, southern Syria could become a persistent flashpoint threatening broader regional stability.
Read Also: Imagined Middle East: Are We Returning to Kissinger’s 1974 Vision?
He emphasized the need to “shield Syria’s internal dynamics from foreign manipulation and empower Suwayda’s residents to voice their demands within a national framework; free from agendas that may deepen fragmentation.”
Al-Da’ja also suggested that Jordan could play a constructive role in southern Syria by enhancing security cooperation to safeguard its borders and combat drug trafficking, without intervening in Syrian domestic politics. Additionally, Amman could support stabilization efforts through humanitarian engagement and diplomatic de-escalation, helping to preserve Syria’s unity and regional peace.
Political analyst Hossam Taleb, based in Damascus, told +963 that in the early stages of the Suwayda crisis, all parties had initially agreed to allow the entry of government forces into the province. However, one faction later reneged on the agreement and called for armed resistance, allegedly influenced by an external actor encouraging it to take part in a broader confrontation with the Syrian state.
Read Also: Syria Evacuates Dozens of Bedouin Families from Suwayda to Rural Daraa
Taleb added that “Israel played a major role in fuelling discord among Syrians. It bombed military and security forces, the General Staff headquarters, and even the Presidential Palace, prompting the government to withdraw from Suwayda and accept a ceasefire agreement mediated by the U.S., Turkey, and Jordan.”
He noted that Jordan led de-escalation efforts resulting in the ceasefire agreement that remains in effect between the state and Suwayda-based factions. Saudi Arabia also contributed significantly to securing the agreement. In contrast, Israel’s role was disruptive, sparking confrontations and enabling armed groups to commit violations on the ground.
