Israel’s military actions in Syria this week, undertaken in response to atrocities against the Druze minority, signify a pivotal shift in a deeper geopolitical struggle that now involves Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., according to regional analysts.
Just days prior, speculation circulated about a potential normalization agreement between Israel and Syria—a breakthrough discreetly facilitated by U.S. officials—but this tenuous prospect was swiftly overshadowed by violence, as strikes were carried out near Damascus this week.
A ceasefire agreement, announced July 16, between Druze factions and another party, was intended to calm days of deadly clashes. However, it remains fragile and largely unenforced, with sporadic fighting continuing and tensions running high.
“For the Druze in Israel, what’s occurring in southern Syria feels like October 7 all over again,” stated Avner Golov, vice president of the Israeli think tank Mind Israel. “Israel can no longer view Syria merely as a neighboring crisis. It has now become a domestic one.”
In an uncommon event, Israeli Druze citizens crossed the border into Syria to support their imperiled relatives, drawing a stern warning from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“My Druze brothers, citizens of Israel… Do not cross the border,” Netanyahu cautioned. “You are jeopardizing your lives — you could be killed, you could be kidnapped — and you are hindering the IDF’s efforts. Allow the IDF to perform its duty.”
In his first televised address since the Israeli strikes, Syrian transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa depicted the Israeli intervention as a destabilizing action.
He asserted that “Government forces deployed to Suweida succeeded in restoring stability and expelling outlawed factions despite the Israeli interventions,” warning that the strikes led to “a significant complication of the situation” and “a large-scale escalation.” He insisted that protecting the country’s Druze minority was a primary objective and declared that Syrians “are not afraid of war.”
Within Israel, the breakdown of order in Syria has provoked intense debate. Some policymakers advocate supporting Sharaa as an anti-Iranian strongman, while others propose establishing a buffer zone in southern Syria. Golov backs a moderate approach: conditional strikes combined with demands for Druze autonomy and accountability for war crimes.
“If Sharaa demonstrates a willingness to punish those responsible for the massacre and agrees to Druze autonomy, then Israel can progressively collaborate with him,” Golov told Digital.
He also called for a regional diplomatic initiative to stabilize Syria. “We need a regional summit — including the U.S., Saudi Arabia, even Turkey, and Israel,” he stated. “Bring positive forces into Syria and utilize Israeli military power not just tactically, but to gain diplomatic leverage.”
“There’s an inclination to overlook the triumph,” said Behnam Taleblu, senior director of the Iran Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). “Rather than view Syria through the lens of competition with Turkey, Israel should first consider it through the lens of diminished competition with Iran. That in itself is a significant accomplishment.”
While Iran’s standing has weakened, Turkey has subtly expanded its presence in Syria by endorsing the al-Sharaa government.
Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at FDD and director of the Turkey program, explained that in Syria, the objective is to fill the vacuum left by Iran with its own political and economic influence — using the al-Sharaa regime as a conduit. “Turkey has a lot riding on al-Sharaa’s success,” he said. “They’d like to see increased trade, the reconstruction of Syria through al-Sharaa. They want to use him as a means to influence the region politically.”
However, Israel’s military response has generated concern in Ankara.
“Turkey is not in a position to militarily challenge Israel — it would be a disaster,” said Ciddi. “They’re speaking with bravado, but they’re deeply concerned.”
Ciddi emphasized that Turkey’s aging military equipment and lack of air defense leave it highly exposed. Nevertheless, Turkey is heavily invested in al-Sharaa’s political survival, hoping to leverage him for influence and economic ties in post-war Syria.
A direct clash between Turkey and Israel, Ciddi warned, would “result in a diplomatic fiasco… and necessitate other and European countries to step in as mediators.”
Even as Israel dismantled key components of Iran’s military infrastructure in Syria, Tehran persists as a long-term threat. Taleblu stated that Iran is now poised — ready to exploit missteps by others.
“This is a regime that capitalizes on the mistakes of others,” he said. “They don’t need to win outright — they just need everyone else to lose.”
Tehran is wagering that the region’s rival powers — Turkey, Israel, the U.S., and the Gulf — will overplay their hands, allowing Iran to reenter through proxies, sectarian militias, or diplomatic manipulation.
Though President Trump recently remarked that Syria’s internal affairs are “not our war,” his administration’s tone has shifted. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with regional partners, are urging a clearer U.S. role.
“Real success will come from creating contingencies,” Taleblu said. “What are the costs if Syria collapses? What if Turkey overreaches, or Israel overextends? What if Iran comes back? These are the questions that prepared states address.”