SAEDNEWS: Since taking power in Syria, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has not only failed to solve the country’s problems but has also doubled them by remaining silent and passive in the face of Israeli aggression.
The continuation of Israeli attacks on Syria has faced the country with major challenges and problems. As a result, security and stability in Syria remain fragile and unstable, and Jolani has not only failed to ease the political atmosphere and internal tensions of Syria but is also powerless in the face of external threats. When it comes to Israel, Jolani and other officials of the Damascus interim government practically have nothing to say. This is while since July and August 2025, Israel has carried out at least six major military operations in Syria, including airstrikes, drone strikes, and ground assaults.
The Wall Street Journal reported that since December 2024, Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes across Syria, averaging one strike every three to four days. Al Jazeera also noted in a detailed report that since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, Israel has carried out at least 400 ground assaults in Syria. In the latest case, on August 27—just four days ago—the former air defense base near al-Kiswah in southern Damascus came under heavy Israeli military attack. But the Israelis have not limited themselves to air and drone strikes. According to The Guardian, in addition to 47 airstrikes and nine ground operations, Syrian weapon depots, command centers, and military equipment at bases have also been targeted with artillery fire.
It is now clear that Netanyahu’s army, observing Jolani’s inaction, has significantly intensified its operations in Syria, carrying out a combination of air, ground, and artillery strikes. Meanwhile, just across Syria’s northern borders, Turkey has engaged in diplomatic gestures against Israel. Turkey, considered the main supporter of the structures emerging from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, issued a statement in the Ankara parliament describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
However, regarding Israel’s continued aggressive attacks on Syrian soil, Turkey also maintains a soft stance. The furthest the Erdogan government has gone in response to Israel’s air and ground strikes on Syria has been statements from the Foreign Ministry. The key question now is: why is there such alignment and similarity between Ankara and Damascus in reaction to Israel’s attacks on Syria? Does this suggest some form of political coordination between Turkey and Syria’s new regime, taking into account certain short-term interests, or not?
To find an answer, one must recall the events of recent months, especially the diplomatic meetings between Jolani’s team and Israeli officials. It should be remembered that with US and Turkish mediation, at least two high-level meetings have been held between Jolani’s interim regime and the regime of Israel. However, evidence shows that none of these meetings served as a platform to voice Syria’s protest against Israel’s repeated attacks, and Jolani’s officials have refused to take firm positions against Netanyahu’s army.
Who Is the Main Player?
Israeli officials, in justifying their aggression on Syrian soil and airspace, have consistently raised baseless pretexts such as countering Iranian influence, preventing the transfer of weapons and ammunition, and defensive measures. For example, The Times of Israel reported that these attacks were linked to claims of targeting strategic weapons depots, military airports, and naval facilities to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to proxy forces.
However, long before such claims, Reuters and The Guardian, quoting Israel Katz, wrote that Israel’s main objective was “to establish a defensive zone in southern Syria to prevent hostile forces and weapons from threatening northern Israel.” In reality, none of these arguments holds true. Israel’s two major actions in Syria are: occupying a significant portion of Syrian territory under the pretext of border security, and provoking the Druze in Suwayda, along with the Kurdish militias known as the SDF in northern and eastern Syria.
Meanwhile, the United States, as Israel’s main supporter, has staged a political show to overshadow Netanyahu’s interventions, pretending that the issue lies in border disputes and that resolving these disputes requires the constant presence and mediation of diplomat Tom Barrack.
Tom Barrack serves simultaneously as the US ambassador to Ankara and the special envoy of the US president on the Syria file. But Barrack has not confined himself to this responsibility alone; he has also played a meddling role in Lebanon, particularly regarding US demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
At the same time, Israel, under the pretext of creating a buffer zone, has expanded its control in the Golan Heights buffer zone and violated the 1974 disengagement agreement. Undoubtedly, these actions reveal a strategy to create a deeper security environment inside Syrian territory. In clearer terms, while Tom Barrack pretends to be working to resolve border and political disputes between Syria and Israel, Israel’s occupation of the Golan, continuous strikes on Damascus and its outskirts, interference in Suwayda, helicopter-borne troop deployments, threats, and shows of force have gradually become normalized—and Jolani’s team does nothing significant in response to these bullying measures. Barrack has repeatedly claimed that his main goal in the ongoing negotiations between Syria and Israel is to reduce tensions and establish a new security framework. Nevertheless, there is no sign of any positive change, and the situation for Syria remains unstable and fragile.
Fear, Restraint, or Tacit Agreement?
Many analysts believe that Syria’s army and its security and defense structures have not yet fully reconstituted themselves after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government, leaving them with limited military capacity and a fragile security environment. Moreover, in the current situation, efforts at reconstruction take precedence over everything else. Israel, aware of Damascus’s weaknesses, continues its bullying behavior.
In recent months, several defense and security cooperation documents have been signed between Syrian and Turkish officials in Ankara and Damascus. It is said that the main architecture of Syria’s new army and intelligence services is being overseen by Turkish advisors. Thus, it is clear that the main reason for Jolani’s passivity toward Israel’s attacks lies not so much in military capability but rather in political will.
As for Turkey’s stance, Erdogan and Turkish parliamentarians often resort to tools such as parliamentary resolutions, speeches, and symbolic diplomatic condemnations. Ankara seeks to present itself as a defender of Palestinians, but in practice, Turkey prefers to avoid taking firm positions against Israel, hoping instead that behind the scenes and with US help, it can manage part of the Israeli threat.
