Here’s Why Israel Entered the Fray in Syria
This week, Israel used military force in southern Syria, while also striking the palace and government complex of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the Syria’s new self-proclaimed leader.
To many, the attack raised a fundamental question: Why?
Why get involved in Syria at all? What’s the strategy? What is the cost, and is it worth it?
The answers lies in a mix of domestic loyalty, strategic necessity, and a shift in military doctrine after October 7.
A Commitment to Israel’s Druze
Israel is home to over 150,000 Druze citizens – many of whom serve in the IDF and are known as fierce, loyal fighters. They are part of Israel’s founding story, are full citizens in every respect and participate in all aspects of Israeli life.
Just across the border, more than 700,000 of their brethren live in southern Syria. Their fate is not abstract – these are cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents. Families in every sense of the word, and although national borders separate them, they are living just miles apart.
A few days ago bands of roving jihadists – though with clear intent – started attacking these Syrian Druze. The videos coming out (filmed by the attackers themselves) are gruesome – especially to citizens of Israel who experienced the same on October 7th at the hands of the jihadists’ compatriots to the south – Hamas.
When taken together – the steadfast commitment to Israel’s Druze minority on the one side, and Israel’s recent harrowing experience with jihadist violence on the other – the idea that Israel would abandon its Druze citizens’ brethren to is a non-starter. It would be a moral betrayal that Israel’s Druze community would never forgive.
Strategic Reality on the Ground
For over four decades, the Israeli-Syrian border was relatively quiet. The Assad regime was astounding in its cruelty to its own people and posed strategic threats to Israel – mainly as a conduit for Iranian weapons to Hezbollah – but it avoided provoking direct conflict. That stability is now gone (and to be clear, good riddance – the Assad regime deserves its ignominious fall, and much more).
But with Syria now further fractured and Jolani’s jihadist factions on the rise, southern Syria risks becoming another ISIS-style wasteland – one where atrocities, mass displacement, and extremist rule are the norm. If Israel allows that to unfold, it will face a hostile, unstable border where a tense but quiet one once existed. The consequences: troop deployments, increased risk to civilians, and constant security threats.
The Druze as a Strategic Buffer
So one strategic reason for Israel to intervene on behalf of the Syrian Druze is because empowering them creates a buffer between Israel and the jihadist regime currently running the country from Damascus. The arrangement is pragmatic: Israel provides air support and weapons; the Druze, who have every reason to fight for their survival, defend the land. In return, Israel avoids sending ground troops into Syria.
On top of that transactional exchange, there’s an added bonus for the Druze: autonomy. For them, autonomy is a matter of life or death. Under jihadist rule, they risk the same fate as the Yazidis in Iraq: mass murder and cultural erasure. With Israel’s security guarantee and military backstop, they can maintain a self-governed zone – and in return Israel gets a highly motivated population protecting its own frontier as function of protecting themselves.
Why Strike the Palace in Damascus?
Some have suggested that Jolani’s overtures toward joining the Abraham Accords should have earned him diplomatic consideration. Clearly Israel appears unconvinced of his seriousness. Either it believes his peace talk was performative, aimed at winning Western legitimacy – or it sees the cost of jihadist rule in Syria as far outweighing any hypothetical future alliance.
In that light, the strike on Jolani’s palace likely serves multiple purposes. First, if the massacres of Druze civilians are being directed by his regime, it’s a warning: Israel knows, and will respond. Second, even if rogue elements are responsible, Israel is making it clear it holds Jolani accountable for failing to stop them – his country now, therefore his responsibility.
More broadly, the strike reflects Israel’s post-10/7 doctrine.
A New Military Doctrine
For decades, Israel followed a strategy known as “mowing the lawn”: tolerating threats until they became urgent, then hitting back hard. This reactive approach governed conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon (and directly contributed to the calamity of Hamas’ October 7th attack).
But since October 7, that’s changed. Israel new policy is to strike early – when threats are present but in their infancy, not yet fully mature. That’s why we see Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon even after the November 2024 ceasefire, and why Jolani’s regime was targeted despite its lack of direct attacks on Israel.
Israel’s is broadcasting its message loud and clear – not just to Jolani, but to the entire region: “We see your threat and we won’t accept it. We don’t care if you ordered the massacres or simply tolerated them – the buck stops with you. And we will act accordingly.”
The Bottom Line
Israel’s involvement in Syria isn’t about conquest or regime change. It’s about protecting its Druze citizens’ kin, preventing jihadist chaos from reaching its borders, and ensuring that failed states don’t become launching pads for future attacks.
By striking now, Israel isn’t just defending lives. It’s defending its new doctrine that letting threats fester is no longer an option.
