Syrian analysts and researchers agree that the Syrian government’s options in responding to the latest Israeli escalation remain highly limited — especially in terms of military or deterrence capabilities — given the fragile and complex conditions following the collapse of the regime of former president Bashar al-Assad and the ongoing formation of a new government.
Experts interviewed by Al Jazeera Net outlined a range of possible approaches, including: strengthening internal cohesion, addressing societal fractures to prevent external interventions, activating diplomatic engagement on the regional and international levels, leveraging allied pressure on Israel, focusing on internal state-building, and avoiding open military confrontations until Syria is capable of facing both internal fragmentation and external threats.
In recent days, armed clashes erupted in Suwayda Governorate (southern Syria) between Druze factions and Bedouin tribes, escalating rapidly and resulting in dozens of casualties.
Following the clashes, Israel declared it would not abandon the Druze minority in Syria and launched a series of airstrikes targeting Suwayda, Daraa, and the capital Damascus. On Wednesday, the Israeli air force struck the General Staff building, the Ministry of Defence, and areas surrounding the Presidential Palace.
Despite this escalation, and shortly after a ceasefire agreement was reached in Suwayda, Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa stated in a speech at dawn on Thursday:
“Since the fall of the former regime, the Zionist entity has sought to turn our land into a battlefield and fragment our people. There is no place for foreign ambitions here — we will restore Syria’s dignity and must prioritise national interest.”
Strategic Response Scenarios: Internal and External Dimensions
In response to these developments, experts have outlined several strategic options that President Al-Sharaa may consider to confront the Israeli attacks. These include both domestic and foreign policy measures:
1. Internal Unity as the First Line of Defence
Basil Haffar, Director of the Idraak Centre for Studies and Consulting, presented a comprehensive analysis of Syria’s available options, emphasising that repairing societal fractures is essential to prevent external interference.
Key points from his interview with Al Jazeera Net include:
- Syria’s leadership is not bound by any fixed doctrine in how it responds to Israeli escalation.
- The government is likely to favour lower-cost, lower-risk options that avoid harming the Syrian people.
- Israel’s interventions exploit existing internal divisions — remnants of the former regime.
- These internal rifts offer fertile ground for hostile actors to meddle in Syria’s affairs.
- The best response is to close these societal gaps and prevent civil unrest, thereby reinforcing Syria’s territorial and national unity.
- State control must extend beyond security — it must include governance, public trust, and national inclusion.
- As internal unity grows, external interference becomes less feasible.
- In his latest speech, President Al-Sharaa acknowledged that open confrontation with Israel was on the table but ultimately opted for a de-escalation deal in Suwayda to avoid further internal military entanglement.
2. Diplomacy Over Confrontation
Wael Alwan, a researcher at the Jusoor Centre for Studies, highlighted the need to prioritise diplomatic channels as Syria’s main response strategy, especially given the sensitive regional environment.
In his remarks to Al Jazeera Net, Alwan stated:
- Syria’s options for direct military confrontation with Israel are extremely limited; diplomacy remains the most viable path.
- Syria must reactivate regional and international mediation, especially through influential states such as Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan.
- The government must study the regional and global balance of power deeply and avoid provoking external parties.
- While military response may seem necessary, Syria lacks the readiness; negotiations offer a more rational alternative to avoid escalation.
- U.S. involvement in any settlement is essential, but relying on it exclusively is risky. A wider diplomatic strategy involving Gulf and regional capitals is necessary.
- Syria must reassess its diplomatic tools and regional influence to stabilise the country and counter ongoing Israeli aggression.
3. Military Limitations and Internal Stability
Ammar Farhoud, a researcher in military affairs, emphasised the restricted military capacity of Syria in the face of Israeli strikes. He stressed that the real strategic advantage lies in reinforcing internal cohesion.
In his assessment to Al Jazeera Net, he noted:
- Syria’s military options are constrained under current conditions. Strategic alliances must be used to pressure Israel diplomatically.
- Mobilising public opinion is crucial to highlight the risks of ongoing Israeli intervention and to warn of chaos that extremist groups could exploit.
- The government could re-launch the National Dialogue Conference, introducing new mechanisms to include opposing factions in governance — thereby weakening Israel’s justification for intervention.
- National identity must supersede narrow group affiliations to prevent internal fragmentation.
- Strengthening internal cohesion expands Syria’s room to manoeuvre regionally and internationally and lays the groundwork for a more inclusive national military.
- Inclusive governance allows Syria to benefit from the global diplomatic leverage of its diverse social and political communities.
4. Exhaustion of Military Capacity and the Path Forward
Military expert Fayez Al-Asmar offered a candid analysis of Syria’s military position, acknowledging the severe deterioration in its deterrence capabilities and Israel’s overwhelming superiority. He described the leadership’s decision to avoid direct confrontation and focus on internal reforms as the right course for now.
Key points from his statement to Al Jazeera Net:
- Syria’s military and deterrence options are extremely limited due to severe depletion of resources and Israel’s qualitative and quantitative superiority.
- Over 85% of Syria’s strategic military capacity — inherited from the former regime — has been destroyed by Israeli strikes, leaving Syria vulnerable.
- Any military attempt to confront Israel would result in further destruction and suffering for the Syrian people.
- President Al-Sharaa made his strategic assessment accordingly and presented two options: engage in confrontation or prioritise internal stability and state-building.
- The leadership chose national interest, opting for de-escalation and domestic reform over chaos and destruction.
De-escalation in Suwayda: A Political Signal
Late last night, Syrian armed forces and internal security units withdrew from the areas they had entered in Suwayda over the previous days. This followed an agreement between the government and Druze religious leaders. At dawn on Thursday, President Al-Sharaa announced that local factions and Druze religious figures will assume responsibility for maintaining security in Suwayda following the ceasefire.
This shift marks a calculated step by the Syrian leadership — one that avoids internal confrontation, delegitimises Israeli pretexts for aggression, and opens the door for a broader national reconciliation process.
