Syria’s new dawn is already a nightmare

Fighting has engulfed the Druze-majority city of Sweida in southern Syria, leaving over 200 people dead. This week, Druze villages have been overrun by Syrian regime forces and allied Islamist militias under the guise of ‘restoring order’, only for those forces to unleash executions, looting and arson upon Druze neighbourhoods. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 92 Druze were killed (including 21 civilians executed by government troops) in the space of a few days. In one incident, an 80-year-old Druze sheikh had his moustache, a symbol of honour, forcibly shaved by invading fighters. He was reportedly killed shortly afterwards. This is, it appears, the dark reality of ‘national unity’ under Syria’s new rulers.

The Druze of Sweida are not the only minorities being targeted. In March, on Syria’s Mediterranean coast, over a thousand Alawite civilians were slaughtered in sectarian pogroms. Jihadist militants of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army rampaged through Alawite villages, committing mass murder and revenge killings. A Reuters investigation found that nearly 1,500 Alawite men, women and children were killed between 7 and 9 March by Sunni fighters in Alawite areas.

The violence was ostensibly triggered by a short-lived rebellion of loyalists to former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but the response descended into outright collective punishment. There have been killings, looting and arson targeting Alawites at 40 separate sites at least. Nor were the perpetrators rogue outlaws – they included at least a dozen factions now under the command of Syria’s new government. Many of these are notorious Islamist militias, who have long been under international sanctions for prior atrocities. Graffiti scrawled on a ransacked Alawite home declared: ‘You were a minority and now you are a rarity.’ The intent was nothing less than ethnic cleansing.

The Syrian regime in Damascus, led by interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa (better known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani), a former ISIS and al-Qaeda member, denies any policy of targeting Alawites. But it is impossible to ignore the regime’s fingerprints on these crimes. Reuters has traced a chain of command from the Alawite massacres in March straight to men serving alongside Sharaa. Orders from Damascus to crush the ‘remnants’ of Assad’s old regime were interpreted on the ground as a licence to exterminate Alawites. Sharaa’s government claims to be investigating these crimes, vowing punishment ‘even among those closest to us’, but impunity reigns. No one has been held to account for March’s bloodbath, and now a similar atrocity is unfolding against the Druze.

The optimism that met Syria’s new Islamist-led regime last year now appears deeply misguided. When HTS and other insurgents ousted Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, Sharaa’s ascent to power in December was greeted by many Western leaders and media figures as a fresh start. The jihadist warlord was feted by the commentariat, even cosied up to by the likes of Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart on their The Rest Is Politics podcast. But for Syria’s minorities, the regime change has meant a change in the costumes of the rulers rather than a change in their character. Sharaa insists he seeks to ‘unite’ Syria. In practice, his rule has been marked by sectarian score-settling and broken promises.

The most recent bloodshed followed a familiar pattern. In Sweida, militias struck a deal with Sharaa’s forces to enter the city peacefully. As soon as troops moved in, they indulged in savage practices: summarily executing civilians, looting homes and humiliating elders. Sharaa’s office issued a statement decrying unspecified ‘unfortunate violations’ in Sweida and promising to hold those responsible to account. This is almost a replay of the regime’s response after the Alawite massacres in March, when Sharaa similarly condemned ‘shameful acts’ and vowed justice. Back then, as now, officials claimed the bloodletting was carried out by unruly militias beyond the government’s direct command.

This excuse is wearing thin. If these Islamist militias are truly outside Sharaa’s control, then he is either unable or unwilling to rein in his own allies. Both possible scenarios bode ill for Syria. If the president is too weak to stop genocidal violence by forces fighting under his banner, then Syria remains a patchwork of warlords with no real peace. If instead he quietly endorses or tolerates these pogroms, then his government is complicit in crimes against humanity, merely continuing Assad’s legacy of brutality under a different flag. Sharaa’s ‘inclusive’ government has proven to be cold comfort for those not aligned with his jihadist base.

Amid this bloodshed, Israel has initiated a military intervention to defend Syria’s Druze community. Beginning on Wednesday, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) targeted Syrian troops in Sweida, and struck the Syrian military headquarters in the centre of Damascus. Jerusalem took a firm stance: leave the Druze alone, or face the consequences. Unlike the hollow threats we hear so often from Western countries, Israel’s warning was supported by force. Israeli strikes destroyed Syrian tanks and vehicles near Sweida and targeted over 160 sites in Syria this week. The IDF has also moved two divisions to the Israel-Syria border in case a broader confrontation ensues.

Israel’s intervention is not purely altruistic. From Israel’s perspective, the Syrian regime’s deployment of armed forces into southern Syria posed a direct threat to its border. Furthermore, the Druze community within Israel, an Arabic-speaking minority that serves conspicuously in the IDF, has close kinship ties to the Syrian Druze. The outrage within Israel over the Sweida massacres quickly turned into protests blocking highways. Hundreds of Israeli Druze even crossed into Syria to defend their brethren. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing internal controversies, seized an opportunity to appear tough and decisive. Launching airstrikes in support of the Sweida Druze has proven popular domestically, earning him political points while signalling strength.

Israel’s actions also reflect a broader strategic purpose. Its strikes near Damascus were initially seen as a ‘performative escalation’ – warning shots rather than conclusive strikes. The aim is deterrence: to signal to President Sharaa that any attempt to unify Syria by force, especially by moving armed units into the south, will be met with Israeli firepower.

Some observers argue that Israel simply prefers a weak and divided Syria. By attacking Sharaa’s forces, Israel limits the new regime’s ability to establish control. However, regardless of Israel’s motivation – a mix of realpolitik and solidarity with the Druze – the fact remains that Israeli airstrikes probably saved many Druze lives this week by stopping the advance of sectarian killers.

Israel at least seems to understand what kind of regime it is dealing with in Syria. The contrast with the UK here could hardly be more stark. Barely two weeks before the Sweida massacre, UK foreign secretary David Lammy was in Damascus, shaking hands with President Sharaa and pledging £94.5million in aid to support Syria’s ‘long-term recovery’. With great fanfare, the UK re-established diplomatic ties with Syria after 14 years. Lammy spoke of ‘renewed hope’ and an ‘inclusive and representative’ transition.

Washington has been equally eager to embrace Syria’s post-Assad regime. US president Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Syria in June, and even praised Sharaa as an ‘attractive, tough guy’. He also floated the idea of Syria joining an expanded Abraham Accords peace framework, therefore recognising Israel. The logic was simple: bring Syria in from the cold, peel it away from Iran’s orbit, and declare the 14-year civil war resolved.

That aspiration is now in tatters. The massacres of Druze and Alawites cast grave doubt on the new Syrian government’s credibility and intentions. For all the talk of a fresh start, Syria’s interim rulers have shown a grim continuity with the past: intolerance of dissent, reliance on sectarian militias and a propensity for violence. The West’s willingness to overlook HTS’s jihadist pedigree in exchange for a quick diplomatic win now looks not just cynical, but also dangerously naïve.

Sharaa’s cabinet is literally teeming with individuals and factions under terrorism and human-rights sanctions. Did London and Washington really believe such actors would morph overnight into guarantors of pluralism and human rights? With scattered revenge killings of regime loyalists, crackdowns on minority communities, early signs of trouble were already there, but many Western policymakers and media outlets downplayed them. The result is that Western nations are now awkwardly complicit. British aid and American rapprochement have effectively helped legitimise a government whose associates have now butchered over a thousand men, women and children based on their sect. How will these same leaders credibly condemn atrocities elsewhere when they stayed mum on Syria’s? It is a staggering moral failure.

These events have sobering implications. Regionally, Syria’s ‘new dawn’ is revealing itself as just another nightmare. And far from unifying the country, Sharaa’s reliance on hard-line Islamist forces is deepening its fractures. The Druze, long wary of both Assad and Sunni extremism, may now conclude that they have no place in the new Syria, potentially sparking an exodus or armed self-defence. The Alawites, who already feel betrayed and endangered, could turn to desperate measures, perhaps even inviting foreign protection or forming insurgencies. Sectarian bloodshed on this scale risks reigniting a cycle of vengeance that could unravel the fragile peace achieved. In Lebanon next door, where Druze and Alawite communities also exist, the spillover of sectarian tensions is an ominous possibility. Israel’s direct strikes on Damascus also mark a dangerous escalation, and serve as a reminder that Syria’s war can at any moment ignite regional conflagration.

As the Druze and Alawite tragedies have shown, there is nothing ‘inclusive’ or ‘reformed’ about Sharaa’s new regime.

Andrew Fox is a former British Army officer and an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specialising in defence and the Middle East.