In southern Syria, since the summer, the Druze province of Sweida has become the scene of bloody clashes and geopolitical rivalries.
The violence that took place in July, which pitted Druze militias against Bedouin clans and government forces, deeply shook the region, leaving behind thousands of dead and accusations of massacres.
As autumn approached, the Syrian government, under President Ahmad al-Sharaa, sought to regain control in an area where its authority is contested and where Israel has established itself as an indispensable player.
In September, several initiatives marked a turning point. Damascus announced the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the south and the implementation of political measures intended to ease tensions, while Israel consolidated its ties with local Druze militias.
These developments unfolded in the context of accelerated negotiations between Syria and Israel, conducted under US auspices, with Washington hoping to showcase a diplomatic success at the United Nations General Assembly. Yet, behind the announcements, the province remains fractured, and mistrust endures.
Withdrawal of Heavy Weapons and a US-Jordanian plan
In September, Damascus sought to calm the situation by announcing the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the south of the country. According to a military official cited by AFP, this withdrawal extended up to about ten kilometers south of the capital.
The decision was part of a roadmap backed by the United States and Jordan, aimed at establishing a demilitarized zone and reducing the risk of escalation. Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani presented these measures as a step toward “security understandings” with Israel.
The plan was not limited to the military sphere. It also called for the appointment of a Druze internal security chief in Sweida, the creation of a mechanism for internal reconciliation and compensation for victims of the crisis. Washington and Amman hailed these steps as “historic” advances and pledged to monitor their implementation closely.
Israel Strengthens Its role with the Druze
At the same time, Israel increased its involvement in the province. According to Reuters and the Times of Israel, Tel Aviv has actively supported Druze militias weakened by internal divisions.
Reuters reported that two prominent Druze figures, along with a Western source, claimed that Israel had delivered weapons and ammunition and paid the salaries of around 3,000 local fighters.
These reports have not been officially confirmed by Israeli authorities, but the army acknowledged its September strikes on Syrian positions, justifying them as necessary to protect the Druze and enforce the security zone imposed in the south.
This approach has resonated in American diplomatic circles. Tom Barrack, the US special envoy for Syria, praised on X the role of Lebanese Druze leader Walid Joumblatt, thanking him for “his wisdom and unparalleled stature in harnessing the collective views of Druze leaders.”
Barrack emphasized the vision of a Druze community able to thrive within a unified Syria while cooperating with their “cousins” across the region despite political borders.
Accelerated Negotiations Under US Pressure
The developments in Sweida directly impacted Israeli-Syrian negotiations. Under Washington’s pressure, Damascus agreed to accelerate talks that had begun in the spring, hoping to secure a limited security agreement ahead of the UN General Assembly.
The Trump administration, eager to present a diplomatic achievement, made these talks a priority. The discussions have focused on a partial Israeli withdrawal from territories seized since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, the restoration of the buffer zone established in 1974 and the cessation of Israeli incursions.
However, the Golan Heights remain excluded from the negotiations. For Damascus, conceding this issue would amount to political suicide for President Ahmad al-Sharaa.
Meanwhile, the US outlet Axios reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hopes to arrange a direct meeting with Sharaa on the sidelines of the General Assembly in New York. If it were to happen, it would be a historic first encounter between the two leaders. But according to the same sources, the likelihood of such a meeting remains very slim, given the depth of mutual mistrust and disagreement.
Despite international mediation, the atmosphere remains poisoned by deep suspicion. Israel suspects the new Syrian leadership of continuing to maintain questionable ties with Islamist movements, while Damascus accuses Tel Aviv of exploiting the Druze crisis to weaken its authority and encourage separatist tendencies.
Thus, in September, Sweida epitomizes the paradoxes of post-Assad Syria: a government forced to negotiate with its sworn enemy under American supervision, a province torn between national loyalty and identity-based demands, and Israeli diplomacy pushing its agenda under cover of chaos. In this unstable South, each concession may postpone an immediate flare-up, but no agreement yet guarantees peace.
Comments