As the war on Gaza draws to an end, the world looks toward a new dawn of peace and stability in the region. This hope was echoed by the American president in his speech at Sharm al-Sheikh, and symbolised by the presence of regional and world leaders at the signing of the agreement ending the war.
Yet, such optimism may be premature. Under a far-right extremist government, “Israel” continues its pattern of running forward from internal crises, seeking distraction and dominance. Its leadership believes it has a rare chance to reshape the region’s strategic environment after its devastating failure in Gaza—a war that lasted two years and ended in political, economic, and geopolitical losses too vast to be covered by Gaza’s destruction or the massacre of tens of thousands of Palestinians. Contrary to its aims, the war added no real strategic value; it instead eroded “Israel’s” regional standing and global credibility.
This collapse of prestige has only fueled the recklessness of the extremist elite in Tel Aviv, driving them to look for new fronts of violence to release their excess aggression or achieve a tangible strategic result. Among their options, Syria stands out—a tempting arena to project Zionist extremism under the guise of “security.”
Why Syria?
The past years have proven that Syria holds a central place in Israel’s strategic calculus for several reasons:
1. The Heart of Israel’s Geopolitical Project
Syria lies at the core of “Israel’s” vision for a “New Middle East” built on fragmenting states and creating sectarian micro-entities.
In the Israeli imagination, reshaping the region requires dismantling strong Arab states. Syria, with its social and geographic links to Iraq and Turkey—and its ethnic and sectarian mosaic resembling Iran—offers the perfect laboratory for that vision. Any change in Syria would ripple across neighbouring pillars of the Middle East.
2. Active Israeli Projects in Syria
Multiple Israeli operational projects converge uniquely in Syria, such as the David Corridor, the so-called humanitarian corridor in Suwayda, and a southern buffer zone.
Some are already in implementation—like the buffer zone in southern Syria—while others, like the “David Corridor” or “Greater Israel” scheme, await the right moment. Each project reflects Israel’s broader ambition: territorial control disguised as humanitarian or security arrangements.
3. A Fragile Arena Inviting Intervention
Syria’s instability and fragmentation invite foreign manipulation.
The country remains divided among four competing military powers, each seeking a role in the next regional order. For Israeli strategists, Syria is still a testing ground for regional power equations, fertile soil for shaping new balances.
Internal fractures and political paralysis only increase its vulnerability to renewed explosions of conflict.
4. The Pretext of “Security Vacuum”
Tel Aviv deliberately created a vacuum in southern Syria by preventing Damascus from re-establishing authority there. Now it invokes that same “vacuum” to justify its continued presence and expanded operations—a manufactured excuse for occupation and intervention.
The Road to War
“Israel” has engineered an exceptional situation in Syria, narrowing options to two: humiliating surrender or open war. The scenario rests on two assumptions: Israel’s strength and Syria’s weakness.
Tel Aviv claims it shaped the current environment by:
- bringing down the Assad regime,
- dismantling Iran’s influence networks, and
- asserting that Syrian control over security is fragile and reversible.
Using this narrative, “Israel” argues it cannot wait for new Iranian influence to re-emerge in southern Syria.
These pretexts have shackled Israel’s negotiating flexibility and made it reluctant to sign any security agreement with Damascus.
Even the idea of opening a crossing into Suwayda was merely a diplomatic escape route to avoid such an agreement.
Former Mossad officers and retired generals—freer to speak than those still in uniform—have made it clear:
“Israel has no interest in a security deal with Syria right now.”
Their logic is simple: an agreement would restrict Israel’s freedom of action and force withdrawals from key border strips without equivalent gain. They prefer the status quo, which gives Israel control over vast southern territories, keeps Damascus under Israeli fire, and secures major water resources in Quneitra and Daraa, all while facing minimal direct threats due to Syria’s disarmament and factional dissolution.
Yet this Israeli calculus, while grounded in some realities, is short-sighted.
Maintaining the current occupation will eventually generate resistance dynamics against the imposed order.
Any government in Damascus—regardless of ideology—will be forced into harsh choices if diplomacy fails, especially as “Israel” tightens its grip around the capital by gradually annexing its countryside.
At that point, war may become Syria’s only compulsory option.
Can Trump’s Plans Be Trusted?
The Trump administration seeks to shape a new security system for the Middle East, driven by geopolitical motives to preserve global dominance. This new order is intended to replace the post-Cold-War framework that emerged after the Soviet Union’s collapse—an order now exhausted and discredited by the region’s successive wars.
The signals from Washington suggest that Syria is included in this redesign—whether due to the wishes of U.S. allies or to American ambitions to neutralise Iranian and Russian influence in the country.
However, Washington’s friendliness cannot be mistaken for a deterrent against Israeli aggression. All of America’s allies in the region maintain deep security coordination with it, and the U.S. has shown no will to restrain Israeli escalation.
Trump’s enthusiasm for “peace” does not mean he will prevent Tel Aviv from exporting its war logic from Gaza to Syria. In Washington’s view, the Gaza war has lost value; its costs now outweigh its utility to both Americans and Israelis.
Moreover, the U.S. fully backs the structure and content of the Israeli-Syrian “security agreement” on Israel’s terms—not according to international law or regional balance.
Washington has not objected—even verbally—to Israeli violations of Syrian sovereignty. This silence reveals that the U.S. distinguishes between its new Middle Eastern security vision and Israel’s own “security interests” in Syria.
In short, the U.S. will not stop Israel from acting militarily against Syria if Tel Aviv deems it necessary.
A Dangerous Theological Mindset
The real danger for Syria lies in the continuation of Israel’s extremist right-wing rule. Since assuming power, this government has openly pursued a biblical-Zionist approach to politics.
Amid the dominance of Evangelical ideology over U.S. decision-making circles, it is unrealistic to expect Trump’s rosy promises to translate into restraint.
Israel’s far-right projects in Syria are steeped in religious mythology—concepts like the David Corridor, Mount Bashan, and Greater Israel—all viewing the control of Damascus as a divinely mandated mission.
Such dogmatic extremism, fused with geopolitical ambition, means the danger of a new war in Syria is not theoretical. It is a looming reality—one fuelled by ideology, expansionism, and the same arrogance that drove the destruction of Gaza.
