After
fourteen years of civil war, Syria is engaged in its toughest battle
yet, namely reshaping the state during a complex transitional phase in
which local and regional dynamics have become intertwined. The recent events in Suwayda,
which quickly descended into sectarian violence, exposed the limits of
centralized control and attempts to impose sovereignty within fragile
local contexts. Southern Syria, long a contested zone of influence, has
resurfaced as a place of conflict, where localism has merged with
sectarianism, and where national politics have clashed with regional
ambitions.
The Suwayda fighting followed the kidnapping of a Druze vegetable seller by a Bedouin group,
in a region where the Druze-Bedouin rivalry has long simmered. This
soon escalated into widespread sectarian violence, marked by retaliatory
attacks and summary executions. The transitional government, led by
Ahmad al-Sharaa, sent government forces to Suwayda to restore order.
However, the military operation failed both tactically and politically,
as these forces were accused of perpetrating human rights violations against Druze civilians. Meanwhile, Israel seized the moment to implement a decision taken last February that southern Syria remain demilitarized,
and it carried through on its pledge to protect the Druze in Suwayda by
bombing the Syrian Defense Ministry in Damascus and an area near the
presidential palace. This led to outside intervention to prevent an
escalation, leading to an agreement involving
the United States and the Syrian authorities. Syrian government forces
were compelled to withdraw from Suwayda, and since then a shaky
ceasefire has been in place.
At the height of the fighting, Bedouin tribes mobilized
on the outskirts of Suwayda Governorate in solidarity with their
Bedouin kin, but they lacked a unified leadership. The Bedouin-Druze
fighting, with government forces deployed in the background, transformed
the conflict from a relatively limited local dispute into a complex
multiparty struggle with regional repercussions.
The
danger today lies in the convergence of three trajectories: a Druze
desire to seek protection; the Syrian leadership’s willingness to assert
its authority and sovereignty through the use of force; and Israel’s
intention to expand its sphere of influence in southern Syria. What
Damascus perceived
as a green light from the Israelis to expand its authority to Suwayda
Governorate, which was allegedly secured during talks in Baku,
Azerbaijan, was viewed by Israel as a blatant violation of
understandings reached between the two sides. The result was
catastrophic—bloodshed, a crisis of trust for the Syrian leadership, and
new power relations in southern Syria.
What
unfolded in Suwayda was far more than a transient security incident; it
was a profound setback for Syrian society. Violence became a catalyst
for sectarian polarization, threatening to derail the country’s
political transition and undermine coexistence among the country’s
different communities and between citizens and the nascent state.
Furthermore, the authorities framed the violence in binary terms—good
versus evil, patriot versus traitor, and for the state or for chaos. The
leading Druze spiritual leader, Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, was portrayed
as a symbol of rebellion and treachery, even as the broader context was
overlooked: Israel’s influence in southern Syria did not emerge
overnight but solidified over the years when the central authorities
withdrew from the region, which was characterized by a complete absence
of security.
Southern
Syria has never been a quiet periphery. After 2013, it became a testing
ground for various models of regional influence—from Iran’s extensive
involvement in trying to build up allied forces in the area, to the
experiment of the Southern Front, a coalition of rebel factions backed
by the United States and its Arab allies. This reality completely reshaped
the south, turning it into an arena for regional competition. Today,
Israel appears to be constructing its own sphere of influence in the
south, drawing inspiration from Türkiye’s model in the north. This
involves local arrangements with informal administrations in place,
backed by outside security support, all serving Israeli interests but
without direct Israeli control. This is the logic of “flexible borders,”
where clear sovereignty is absent, replaced by floating understandings
fulfilling external objectives.
What
makes this project deeply perilous is not only its military
repercussions but the permanent social fragility it has created. Turning
Suwayda into a permanent zone of external influence only entrenches a
logic of cantonization, turning every local dispute into a potential
trigger for broader regionalization or internationalization. It also
reproduces a deadly equation, one in which there is no trust among
Syrians and no single authority to lead them. The divisive discourse
that surfaced during the Suwayda crisis only laid the foundation for a
divided Syrian consciousness incapable of moving toward stability.
Ultimately,
the events in Suwayda demonstrated that the transitional government’s
approach to rebuilding a centralized state along Baathist lines is no
longer viable, and may even be dangerous. The violence was not isolated.
It was an extension of patterns that emerged earlier along Syria’s
coast, which were characterized by an ideological-political dimension
that only reinforced political and sectarian identities, driving
communities to cling to their weapons. This is especially true in a
state such as Syria, where national institutions are weak or have
collapsed, but it can also be true in Lebanon to a lesser degree.
Nor
is this pattern of violence necessarily confined to southern or coastal
areas of Syria. It may spread to other regions, such as eastern Syria
where Kurds reside, or border areas with Lebanon, where Shiite
communities live in the Beqaa Valley. The spread of violence would
emerge from the interplay of clashing political identities,
institutional fragility, and frictions arising from overlapping zones of
regional influence. In such volatile environments, violence would
become not only a tool of coercion but a means of collective identity
formation in the absence of statehood.
Postwar
Syria is not simply a state in need of institutional reform. It is a
multidimensional entity necessitating a deep redefinition. The situation
today demands more than troop redeployments or forceful control. It
requires a new political imagination that recognizes multiple centers of
power and participatory governance, while embracing negotiated conflict
management. Such an approach would move Syria away from the illusions
of a rigid, unified state, which no longer seems possible.