An analysis of the Israeli attack on Syria

By Mehdi Honardideh, Expert of the Center for Geostrategy Studio from Iran

Blatant Betrayal of Illusory Allies

Over the past year, the most frequently repeated phrase in Netanyahu’s rhetoric has been the „New Middle East.“ The new order envisioned by Netanyahu is a strategic project aimed at transforming the West Asian region into a controllable, subordinate, and adaptable environment aligned with the interests of Zionism and its main supporter, the United States.

However, the ultimate goal of this order is to eliminate or weaken independent and resistant actors and to establish a regional structure composed of fragmented, unstable, or compliant states that directly or indirectly engage with the Zionist regime. Some believe that the current turmoil resembles Ralph Peters’ „Blood Borders“ plan, which proposes the partitioning of all regional countries and the formation of a new map for West Asia.

🔹 The Zionist regime’s attack on Syria—despite the collaboration of Mohammad al-Jolani, the leader of Syrian armed groups, with Israel and his meetings with American officials such as Donald Trump—once again proves that the promises of the U.S. and the Zionist regime are not to be trusted. This attack, which occurred following the claim of sanctions being lifted on Syria, reveals that Western and Zionist policies are designed not for peace, but for the weakening and fragmentation of West Asian states.

🔹 Al-Jolani, who was once introduced as a moderate figure by the West and even met with Trump, now witnesses Israel attacking areas under his control without regard for these past connections. This behavior follows a consistent pattern in American and Israeli policy: exploiting individuals and groups for their interests, then discarding or ignoring them at the first opportunity. This betrayal is not limited to Jolani—it serves as a serious warning to all who believe they can engage with the U.S. and Israel.

🔹 The U.S. and the Zionist regime have no commitment to peace or stability in the region. Their strategy is to create prolonged crises that undermine national sovereignty. Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon are clear examples of this approach. Even promises like the lifting of sanctions are merely tools to pressure governments and groups. Israel’s recent attack on Syria, immediately following negotiations intended to reduce tensions, is clear evidence of this reality.

🔹 This event should serve as a wake-up call for all governments and Islamic movements considering engagement with the U.S. and Israel. History has shown that these regimes not only sacrifice their allies but also never honor their commitments. The only way to confront such threats is through unity among Islamic countries, strengthening the resistance, and refusing to trust the enemies. The Islamic world must abandon the illusion of cooperation with the West and Zionism and adhere firmly to a strategy of resistance—because experience has proven that only power and unity can prevent the realization of their sinister goals.

🔹 Israel’s attack on Syria once again confirmed that the U.S. and the Zionist regime have neither allies nor commitments. They are solely after their own interests and will not hesitate to commit any crime to achieve them. This event must serve as a profound lesson for Islamic governments: Trusting the enemy is a betrayal of the people and the ideals of the Islamic Ummah.

The current clashes in Syria have several important factors and reasons, which can be analyzed as follows:

1️⃣ Israel undoubtedly supports the minimal goal of dividing Syria into several regions. One of these could be the establishment of a Druze buffer zone in Sweida.
2️⃣ Tel Aviv has built a favorable relationship with the Druze in the Golan region, symbolized by the recent travel of several Druze buses between Syria and Israel, indicating Israel’s desire to gain security control over this area.

3️⃣ The Syrian government, for yet another time since Assad’s fall, has clashed with non-Arab or non-sectarian groups outside the majority ruling sect. Once, they heavily attacked the Alawite coastal provinces and committed numerous atrocities; another time, they clashed with the Kurds. Their current problem lies with the Druze, with whom they are once again in conflict.
4️⃣ Turkey, as a strategic partner of the ruling regime, is trying to strengthen its foothold in Syria. At one point, it attempted to establish a presence at the T-4 airport, which was immediately bombed by Israel. Thus, despite its relations with Erdoğan, Tel Aviv strongly opposes any Turkish entrenchment in Syria and believes that the Syrian military and security arena should remain free of other regional countries.

5️⃣ On the other hand, the initial approval and subsequent rejection of the statement by Hikmat al-Hijri also indicates that he is under significant pressure from Israel and certain armed groups affiliated with Tel Aviv. This is because he has consistently supported the technocratic model of governance during the Syrian uprisings.

6️⃣ This war can be seen as an indirect confrontation between Turkey and Israel. Tel Aviv destroyed tanks belonging to Jolani’s forces and declared that they had crossed Israel’s red security lines in southern Syria. Meanwhile, Turkey has asked Damascus to resolve the issue of Sweida, which clearly shows that Israel, following Iran’s withdrawal, does not want Turkey to establish a foothold in southern Syria.

Scenarios Facing the Jolani Government:

Jolani’s government, composed of transnational terrorist elements, assumed that with Arab-Turkish support, American promises, and strategic concessions to the Zionist regime, it could secure and stabilize its position. However, the Zionist attacks on strategic centers in Damascus, and the loss of control over both southern and northern Syria, have placed them in a strategic impasse, casting doubt on their future. The following scenarios are possible:

Assassination of Jolani and Collapse of His Government:
Jolani rose to power in Damascus with Arab-Turkish support, welcomed by the West. Despite widespread attacks by the regime and destruction of strategic sites, he continued to seek preservation by signaling appeasement to Tel Aviv. Thus, this government poses no threat to the U.S. or Israel, and in fact acts in ways intended to secure their favor. Naturally, the existence of the Jolani government is in the U.S. interest; hence, his assassination or the uncertainty of post-Jolani Syria does not serve their strategic objectives. Preserving his government is more beneficial.

Declaration of War and Jihad by Jolani Against the Regime:
Given Jolani’s deep dependency on Turkey and Arab states and his lack of capacity to confront Israel, this scenario is highly unlikely. Damascus perceives that there is no real chance of success in a war against Israel.

Israeli Domination of Syria and Jolani’s Government Acting as a Proxy for the Broader Hebrew-Western Regional Plan:
This appears to be the most plausible scenario, considering Jolani’s anti-resistance stance and existing evidence. Foreign terrorists within his administration could be used as mercenary jihadists to establish a defensive barrier between Iraq and Syria, support Turkey’s ambitions in the Zangezur corridor and the occupation of Syunik, and escalate tensions with Lebanese resistance in the Beqaa Valley. Jolani would nominally govern Damascus as a weak and powerless ruler, without real authority in the south. In the north, Turkey and Israel would determine the situation, and in the coastal regions, an Alawite uprising remains a possibility. Therefore, the outlook for Syria’s stability and independence remains uncertain.

Israel’s Minimal Objective: Partitioning Syria into Multiple Regions:
One such region could be a Druze buffer zone in Sweida. Syria, as the main corridor of the David Project, plays a vital role in Israeli strategic planning. The fundamental question is whether the Syrian people will accept this humiliation and dependency—or will they once again return to the path of resistance? The prevailing assessment is that the people of Syria view resistance as preferable to occupation and capitulation.

Conclusion:

Resistance comes at a cost—but it is the key to survival. Capitulation devours identity. The experiences of Syria and Libya have proven that compromise with the West is not a path to salvation, but the beginning of gradual demise. Iran, by bearing the short-term costs of resistance (sanctions, inflation), has today become a geopolitical nucleus of Eastern power, while those who chose compromise have failed even to preserve their territorial integrity.

This reality echoes once more the words of Iran’s Supreme Leader:Resistance has a cost—but the cost of surrender is far greater. One must not let the collar of the criminal go.

The future of the Middle East will not be determined at Western negotiating tables, but on the battlefields of resistance.

July 20, 2025.