Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyaha’s claims that Israel’s escalating military operations in Syria since late February are intended to protect the Druze and other minorities have sparked angry demonstrations by residents of Druze-majority province Suwayda, who reject his claims.

Prior to the fall of the Assad regime in December, Israel carried out regular strikes in Syria, aimed at weakening Iran-backed militias and preventing them from gaining a military foothold in the country. These strikes were carried out in coordination with Russian commanders in Syria, who guaranteed Israel’s security and allowed it to respond to any threat emanating from Syria.

However, Israel’s strikes have continued despite the fall of the Assad regime and the withdrawal of the Iranian militias.

From the moment it took power, Syria’s new government made pains to emphasize its commitment to regional security and stability, seeking to reassure Syria’s neighbors by affirming that it was unable and unwilling to pose a threat to any country, including Israel—although it stopped short of talking of a peace treaty or normalization with it. The new authorities in Damascus have been clear about their most urgent priority: rebuilding the country’s devastated economy and infrastructure.

That said, Syria made its position clear at the Arab League summit on Gaza in early March 2025, where President Ahmad al-Sharaa accused Israel of exploiting the collapse of the regime to carry attack Syrian territory. He added that the Palestinian cause was that of every Arab, and rejecting Israel’s long-rumored plans to displace the population of Gaza.

Israel, for its part, has flatly refused to deal with the new government in Damascus. This situation places Al-Sharaa’s administration in a tricky situation—yet a number of strategies are available to it, at the domestic and international levels, to put an end to the Israeli military strikes:

• Working to weaken the opposition in Suwayda and Druze-majority areas of Damascus, to prevent Israel from exploiting it via Israeli Druze religious authorities, who have some sway over their co-religionists in Syria. Damascus has concluded agreements with dignitaries and officials in Suwayda and Jaramana, within a national framework and using balanced rhetoric, to ensure broad participation by Druze personnel in military and security institutions who would be deployed within their home regions.

• The Syrian administration is working to bolster the role of countries in the region that have the clout to influence Israeli policy and are seeking to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of Iranian influence. Most notably among them are Türkiye and Saudi Arabia, which wish to bring about stability by backing the new government, while insisting that Syria retains its territorial integrity.

• Strengthening the role of the Syrian-American lobby, which is working to persuade officials in the Trump administration that it is in the interests of the United States to follow Europe’s footsteps in building relations with the new Syrian administration. It is notable in this regard that following Israel’s strikes, which coincided with violent clashes in Druze-majority areas, Washington called on the Israeli government to refrain from any actions that would further destabilize Syria. It also emphasized that respecting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was of paramount importance.

• Building bridges with Syrian Jews in Israel and the U.S. The latter has started lobbying the Trump administration to engage with Al-Sharaa’s administration and to ease sanctions, emphasizing that Syria represents “a pivotal arena for minority rights in the Middle East.”

•  Granting Russia certain concessions in Syria, such as allowing it to establish observation posts in the country’s south, similar to those it set up to monitor the activity of Iranian militias before the fall of the Assad regime. An alternative would be an agreement with Israel that guarantees that that latter’s security will not be threatened from Syria.

•  Working with international bodies to compel Israel to abide by the 1974 armistice agreement between Israel and Syria—or to develop it in response with recent developments.

Ultimately, the Syrian government believes that Israel’s military escalation, coupled with a degree of domestic chaos, is an unacceptable affront to Syria’s sovereignty. Furthermore, it represents a mistaken move by the Netanyahu government that poses an obstacle to achieving stability and peace at the national level. Nevertheless, Damascus seeks to revive the 1974 armistice deal, by appealing to regional and international allies and the UN to put an end to Israeli’s pernicious interference in Syria.