Syria, the Druze, and the Greater Israel project
By Gavin O’Reilly | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 25, 2025
On the 12th of August, media outlet Axios revealed that the United States and Israel were in discussions to establish a land corridor between the occupied Golan Heights and the southern Syrian city of Suwayda, ostensibly to protect the country’s Druze minority. The following Saturday, protests broke out in Suwayda calling for Druze self-determination, with many in attendance waving Israeli flags.
Last December, following a lightning offensive by insurgents based in the northwestern city of Idlib, the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad collapsed in dramatic fashion. This marked the culmination of a thirteen-year effort by various powers to impose regime-change on the Arab Republic. One such power was Israel, who had provided arms to Salafist militants opposed to Assad’s secular rule. Syria, having acted as a conduit between Iran and Hezbollah, had long been in Tel Aviv’s crosshairs.
Within hours of Assad’s fall, Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Syria. Tel Aviv declared that this was in order to establish a buffer zone between Israel and Syria’s new Islamist government, in spite of the fact Damascus’ new rulers had effectively acted in Israel’s interests over the past decade. Israel also later stated that it intended to defend Syria’s Druze minority.
Syria, like Iraq and Libya before it, had subsequently fallen into bloody sectarian strife following Assad’s removal from power. In early March, government pogroms along Syria’s coast resulted in the deaths of more than 1,400 members of the Shi’a Alawite minority. Rather than any concern over sectarian bloodshed however, Israel’s interest in the Druze instead lies primarily in achieving a geostrategic goal that has been planned for decades.
In 1982, Oded Yinon, a senior official at the Israeli foreign ministry, penned a paper entitled A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. More commonly known as the Yinon Plan, the document was published by the World Zionist Organisation in the Hebrew journal KIVUNIM. In it, Yinon prioritised the dissolution of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines as a key long-term strategic goal for Israel.
Iraq, which subscribed to the pan-Arab Ba’athist ideology, had begun to emerge as Israel’s main regional rival following the Camp David Accords and the normalisation of ties between Egypt and Israel. In 1981, the Israeli Air Force had bombed the under-construction Osirak in eastern Iraq, after suspecting it would be used to develop nuclear weapons.
In early 1991, amidst the breakout of the Gulf War, Iraq launched dozens of scud missiles towards Israel. This was done in the hope that an Israeli response would galvanise Arabs across the region and undermine Gulf support for the U.S.-led coalition. Following pressure from the United States however, Israel would ultimately not respond to these strikes. By the end of February 1991, Iraqi forces had been defeated in Kuwait.
Though it subsequently emerged that the U.S. had gone to war on a fabricated account of Iraqi troops removing premature infants from incubators and leaving them to die on a hospital floor, Washington still maintained a belligerent stance towards Iraq. In April 1991, the U.S., Britain and France imposed a no-fly zone over northern Iraq, ostensibly to protect the Kurdish minority. The following year, a similar no-fly zone was put in place over the south of the country, this time under the pretext of protecting Shi’ite Muslims. Like Israel’s current interest in the Druze, this too had a strategic purpose.
The Yinon Plan outlined how in order to Balkanise Iraq, the country would have to be divided into three distinct sections. In the north of the country, a Kurdish separatist state based around the city of Mosul, in central Iraq, a Sunni region tied to the capital Baghdad, and in the south, a Shi’ite region centred around Basra. The United States’ no-fly zones effectively polarised Iraq along these lines.
Following the 9/11 attacks, a radical new U.S. foreign policy was put into place, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Eighteen months after September 11th, a U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, in spite of the fact no tangible evidence was ever produced to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Coalition forces quickly toppled the Iraqi government, and replaced it with a provisional authority. Its first executive order was to permanently ban all members of the Ba’ath Party from working in the public sector. Iraq subsequently plunged into sectarian bloodshed in the wake of the invasion.
Like Iraq, Ba’athist Syria was also identified by the Yinon Plan as a target for Balkanisation. The 1982 document envisaged a Sunni state in northern Syria centred on the city of Aleppo, an Alawite state along Syria’s Mediterranean coast, and another Sunni state, based around the southern capital of Damascus and hostile to its northern counterpart. Amidst this division, Yinon predicted the establishment of a separatist Druze state in the occupied Golan Heights and the Hauran region of southern Syria and northern Jordan.
Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government, such an arrangement has now effectively been put in place. Northwest Syria, where Aleppo is located, has become a stronghold of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which led the offensive that ended Assad’s rule, is based in the capital Damascus. Its recent pogroms against the coastal Alawites polarising Syria along the same sectarian divisions outlined in the Yinon Plan. The recent Israeli-backed calls for Druze self-determination serve to even further fragment the former Arab Republic in line with the 1982 paper.
On the same day that Axios outlined U.S.-Israeli negotiations to establish a land corridor to Suwayda, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interviewed by journalist and former Knesset member Sharon Gal for the Israeli outlet i24. When presented by Gal with an amulet containing ‘a map of the Promised Land’, Netanyahu stated that he felt a connection to a vision of ‘Greater Israel’. This is a historical Zionist term referring to an expansionist Israeli state that would incorporate the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights at a minimum.
On Wednesday, Israel announced plans to construct 3,400 housing units in the West Bank between Jerusalem and the eastern settlement of Ma’ale Adumin. Such a move would effectively partition the territory between north and south. Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli minister who announced the plan, declared that it would ‘bury the idea of a Palestinian state’.
Last year, Miriam Adelson, wife of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, donated $100mn to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. This was done on condition that the Republican candidate would endorse the formal Israeli annexation of the West Bank if elected. Sheldon Adelson, who died in 2021, had previously donated $20mn to Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016. This too had a stipulation attached. That the U.S. Embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that Trump subsequently followed through with in December 2017.
24 hours after Trump’s inauguration in January of this year, Israel launched Operation Iron Wall. Intended to destroy the Jenin refugee camp, Iron Wall has resulted in the largest mass-expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank since 1967.
Since October 7th 2023, Israel has subjected the beleaguered Gaza Strip to a military onslaught in response to Hamas’ Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This was the largest military incursion into Israel since the 1973 October War. Global media attention was drawn to the fact that the Supernova music festival was taking place on the Gaza border at the same time. However, less attention was paid to the revelation that the event had only been moved to that location two days beforehand. That there were no security or insurance concerns over holding a music festival in direct proximity to a location where clashes had taken place between Islamic Jihad and Israeli forces the previous summer, simply beggars belief.
Further questions arose when it emerged that Egypt, which acts as mediator between Hamas and Israel, had repeatedly warned Tel Aviv that ‘something big’ was coming in the run up to October 7th. This was corroborated by two media reports from The New York Times and CNN, which revealed that U.S. intelligence had also passed on similar warnings to Israel prior to Al-Aqsa Flood. By December 2023, it was revealed that Israel had known of Hamas’ attack plan over a year in advance.
Seven months prior to October 7th, Orit Strock, the Israeli minister responsible for the development of settlements in the West Bank, called Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza a ‘sin’. Strock was speaking upon the repeal of legislation that had ordered the dismantlement of four West Bank settlements. This was declared by Strock as a precursor to the eventual re-occupation of Gaza, a move that would ‘involve many casualties’.
Indeed, this sentiment was later echoed by Israeli security minister Yoav Gallant, who in the days following October 7th announced a blockade on Gaza, cutting off electricity and preventing food and fuel from entering the besieged strip. Gallant described Palestinians as ‘human animals’, language that couldn’t be described as anything less than genocidal.
In April 2024, a report by The Times of Israel revealed that an offer by Hamas to release all civilian captives in exchange for Israeli forces not entering the strip had been rejected by Tel Aviv. Three months later, a Haaretz report revealed that the Hannibal Directive had been applied on October 7th. This is an Israeli military directive in which a command is given to fire upon their own troops in order to prevent them being taken captive. Its use on October 7th was a significant contributory factor to the death toll on the day. Despite these damning revelations, the Israeli slaughter in Gaza has continued unabated for almost two years.
On Friday, the United Nations released a report officially acknowledging the presence of a man-made famine in Gaza. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk did not shy away from placing blame for the situation, and held Israel responsible for what is in reality, a genocide. Starvation is being used to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip in line with the Greater Israel project. A project that now also has designs on the Druze and southwestern Syria.
Israel dangles aid for South Sudan amid reports of Gaza expulsion talks
The Cradle | August 18, 2025
Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced on 18 August that it plans to provide “urgent” humanitarian assistance to South Sudan, following recent reports that Tel Aviv was engaged in efforts to expel Palestinians from Gaza to the east African nation.
Israel’s Agency for International Development Coordination “will provide urgent humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations in the country” due to “the severe humanitarian crisis in South Sudan,” the Foreign Ministry said.
The aid will include medical supplies, water purification supplies, gloves and face masks, special hygiene kits, and food packages.
This comes as a cholera outbreak is plaguing the country, which “suffers from a severe shortage of resources,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry added.
IsraAID, an Israeli NGO operating in South Sudan, will also assist in the aid plan, the Foreign Ministry went on to say.
The visit comes as Israel is preparing to occupy Gaza City and forcibly displace hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he is committed to implementing an expulsion plan announced by US President Donald Trump at the start of the year, framed as a humanitarian initiative to “relocate” Palestinians to a safer place.
Trump said he would make Gaza the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Israel and the US have reportedly been in contact with several countries as part of the effort to expel Gaza’s population.
Last week, several sources cited by AP said Israel is in talks with South Sudan about the potential relocation of Palestinians from Gaza to the East African country.
The sources said it is unclear how far the negotiations have advanced.
Following the report, South Sudan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement on 13 August denying that it is engaged in negotiations with Israel to take Palestinians from Gaza, rejecting such claims as unfounded and not representative of the government’s position.
In February, Hebrew news outlet Channel 12 reported that Morocco, the Puntland State of Somalia, and the Republic of Somaliland are being considered as places to relocate Palestinians as part of Trump’s controversial plan.
Somalia and Somaliland denied these reports earlier this year – saying they received no such proposals.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Israel has identified six countries to negotiate with regarding relocating Gaza residents, including Syria, Libya, Somaliland, and South Sudan. The report says the efforts are not going well, and that previous talks on the matter “didn’t make much progress.”
Syria and Libya have not responded to requests for comment.
Sources who spoke with NBC News earlier this year had said Trump is working on a plan to “permanently relocate” as many as one million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Libya.
Normalisation is death of Arab sovereignty, Syria is the best example
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | August 14, 2025
We have reached the stage where it can no longer be denied that the Syrian leadership is at the complete mercy of the US and its allies. Its normalisation drive, whereby its officials meet with their Israeli counterparts, are not negotiations but discussions aimed at achieving the best implementation of Tel Aviv’s orders.
When Arab states make the decision to capitulate to the Israeli-US normalisation and neo-liberal economic model, they set themselves up for a loss of sovereignty and to become at best a tool for policy makers in Washington.
If we look at the Jordanian and Egyptian models, we see that their agreements have not saved them from growing instability and economic decline, particularly in Egypt’s case. Once, it had become a big deal when President Hosni Mubarak began selling gas to the Israelis, now, Cairo purchases gas through its own pipelines that have reversed the flow.
Turning our focus to the current predicament of Syria, it is not even correct to assess it is based upon the Egypt model. In fact, despite some similarities, it is in even worse a predicament than Sudan.
The Sudanese state, following the fall of its former leader Omar Bashir, went into a transitional phase whereby the Army and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia agreed upon a power-sharing phase. During this time, the Zionist Entity swept in to take advantage of the situation, fostering relations with both sides, but particularly with notorious goldmine owning war-lord Hemedti’s RSF.
Sudan, working closely with US President Donald Trump’s administration at the time, managed to get sanctions lifted, remove itself from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, receive sanctions relief and aid, while almost paving the way to adopt a neo-liberal economic model; seeking IMF and World Bank loans.
Khartoum had pledged that in exchange for these “gifts” from the US, they would join the so-called “Abraham Accords” and began negotiations behind closed doors with the Israelis.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
Then, in April of 2023, the Civil War erupted, and the Israelis swept in to back both sides, after having covertly provided the RSF with military capabilities that enabled it to balance the power on the battlefield in the first place. While the Mossad supported the RSF, the Israeli Foreign Ministry leaned towards the Sudanese Army.
In Syria, almost the exact same process has occurred. Yet most pretend as if we haven’t seen this same story before.
The key difference, however, is that the new Syrian government of Ahmad al-Sharaa has less control than when the RSF and Sudanese Army ran an interim unity government. The recent sectarian bloodshed in Sweida proved this without a shadow of a doubt.
There are now separatist militias in Sweida who actually coordinated with Israeli-Druze army forces who had set up a joint communications room to help locate targets during the latest round of bloodshed. Meanwhile, the Syrian security forces had coordinated the entry of tanks into Sweida with the Israelis, yet were bombed anyway, leading to as many as 700 dead amongst their ranks.
While the majority of the Syrian Druze and wider Syrian public oppose ties with the Israelis, the Zionist Entity finds inroads with both sides and watches on as they slaughter each other, all in the interest of further weakening the country.
Ahmad al-Sharaa was basically non-existent, as it appeared for over a week that Syria was heading towards another civil war, only offering brief statements before the US envoy announced a bizarre arrangement, claiming that Damascus and Tel Aviv had agreed to a truce.
It was especially strange because the announcement didn’t initially come from the Syrians themselves, but also due to the fact that there was no Syrian-Israeli war. What was happening was that Syrian forces were getting blown to pieces and ordered to stand down. The only relevance the Syrian government forces had was in their failed role inside Sweida, where they went out of control and participated in civilian massacres, alongside Bedouin tribal forces.
Never in the known history of war has a nation been invaded, occupied, its capital repeatedly bombed and hundreds of its soldiers blown to pieces, and the country being attacked did not respond in any way. Not only have Ahmad al-Sharaa’s forces failed to fire a single bullet towards their occupiers, they have not even threatened the use of force.
Even worse, rather than respond, they give the Israelis gifts like infamous spy Eli Cohen’s belongings, cracking down on the Palestinian Resistance forces, and declaring fellow Muslims and Arabs their enemies, despite them being the only ones willing to stand up for Syria.
Meanwhile, every minority group in the country is isolated, and every community feels the need to bear arms and protect themselves, as nobody trusts the ill-trained, unprofessional security forces.
This is what capitulation looks like, a leadership which exists more so on Facebook, X, and Instagram than it does in real life. A sectarian bloodbath, with no stability, no national unity, no sovereignty, and whose leaders are collaborating with the genocidal entity, in violation of all the regional, national, cultural, and religious moral obligations.
This is normalisation. This is capitulation. This is what happens when you worship at the feet of your occupiers. Syria is the worst case of all, because there is no longer even a united nation or cause that it embodies, which has, for the current moment, died.
Only through a unified resistance front will Syria liberate itself. It may take time, but this is the only path, and historically, the Syrian people had resisted the Ottomans, the French, and even got themselves back on their feet after the CIA overthrew their government in 1949. It can happen, but it will take the Syrian people coming together in order to overcome their predicament.
There is no example of where normalisation with the Zionist regime, or total capitulation to the US, saves a nation in turmoil. Even in the cases where the US poured trillions into attempts to set up new regimes, like what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan. The only examples of where a regime has not yet declined or sacrificed its security predicament due to normalisation, are in the cases of the UAE and Bahrain, but both were already immensely rich, and nothing much changed upon normalisation.
However, even in the cases of the UAE and Bahrain, their positioning themselves as part of the Israeli-US regional anti-Iran alliance puts them in the firing line and could risk national stability in the event of a broader war.
The positions of the current regime in Syria are indefensible. Not even from a selfish materialist perspective could you argue their case without engaging in mental gymnastics. There is no strategic depth, nor a demonstration of competent governance in the direction we see the nation going, and at a time when unity is needed the most.
The US-Israeli plot to partition Syria’s West
By Abdullah Suleiman Ali | The Cradle | August 13, 2025
“When you look at the map of Syria, I mean, it looks like a flat Rubik’s cube because of the way that the country is divided up, and what we are talking about is mainly the governance of the western part of the country.”– Senator James Risch during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 13 February
It began with a seemingly offhand statement by US Senator James Risch, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just weeks ahead of the March coastal massacres in Syria against the Alawite minority.
“My idea,” he expounded, “is we need to focus on this western part and continue to look at the others. But the first objective is if you do not get a handle on this you are not going to get a handle on the rest of the country.”
Testifying before the Committee on US policy post-former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Michael Singh, responded:
“I think that we can focus on what is happening in western Syria, deal with the government there, while also trying to encourage and maybe facilitate this process of coming together among these groups.”
But these remarks have since crystallized into a structured, multi-front operation now moving steadily toward execution. The “Western Syria” project has now shed any ambiguity, emerging as a concrete blueprint that fuses sectarian engineering with foreign military coordination, aimed at carving out new realities on both sides of the Syrian–Lebanese border – under Tel Aviv’s supervision.
A plan spanning Syria and Lebanon
The scheme extends deep into Lebanon, where an orchestrated campaign against Hezbollah is intended to disarm the resistance movement while redeploying armed Syrian factions from Lebanon to the coastal strip. The right-wing Israeli government, acting as both sponsor and chief architect, directs the plan through two named coordinators –General “Yael” and Captain “Robert.”
Marketed publicly as a mission to safeguard minorities, especially Christians, the plan’s hidden mechanism is to stage attacks on churches, monasteries, and heritage landmarks across the coast. These provocations are designed to inflame sectarian tensions, creating the pretext for an Israeli-led intervention.
One of the earliest signs emerged in Tartous, where internal security announced the arrest of a cell accused of plotting to attack the Mar Elias Maronite Church in Safita, not to be confused with the suicide bombing of the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus in June. The revelation – delayed by three weeks – sparked suspicions of Israeli infiltration of Syrian security structures.
Internal Security Forces Chief in Tartous, Abdelal Mohammad Abdelal, said the plot was foiled in a “high-level security operation” after extensive surveillance and was based on “precise intelligence indicating that an outlaw group affiliated with remnants of the deposed regime was surveilling Mar Elias Maronite Church in the village of Khreibet, in the Safita countryside.”
However, many saw it as a calculated move to unsettle Christian communities and justify external involvement.
Two days before that announcement, partisan media channels circulated an unverified statement claiming the formation of a so-called “Christian Military Council” under the name Elias Saab – a figure absent from any credible public record.
The declaration spoke of organizing Christian fighters who had defended their communities against extremist factions like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), who are now integrated into the state’s security forces.
It called for uniting fighters from Mhardeh, Al-Suqaylabiyah, Sadad, Maaloula, and Tartous under one legal and military umbrella, documenting crimes against Christians for presentation to international bodies, ensuring their representation in any political settlement, and opposing partition while defending a unified, secular Syria.
While this narrative has circulated in partisan outlets, there is no independent verification of its authenticity or the council’s existence. Its sudden appearance, timed just before heightened tensions in the coastal region, has fueled speculation about its role as a manufactured proxy front to justify foreign involvement under the guise of ‘minority protection.’
The US-Israeli scheme takes shape
On 5 August, in the US capital, the government relations and strategic advisory firm Tiger Hill Partners announced it would serve as the official representative of the “Foundation for the Development of Western Syria.”
Specializing in government relations and strategic lobbying, Tiger Hill pledged to advocate for Christians, Druze, Alawites, Kurds, and “moderate Sunnis” while working with US policymakers to shape Syria’s political transition. The one-year contract, valued at roughly $1 million, was filed publicly and framed as a mission to ensure minority rights remain central to Washington’s Syria policy.
In late July, a coastal faction calling itself “Men of Light – Saraya al-Jawad” made its debut. The group’s statement attacked Abu Mohammad al-Julani (Ahmad al-Sharaa), Qatar’s emir, and Turkiye’s president, while offering thanks to Egypt, Israeli journalist Eddy Cohen, and notable expatriate Alawite, Druze, and Christian figures – including Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, Mazloum Abdi, and Patriarch John al-Yaziji. Although ridiculed for its unusual tone, its appearance dovetailed with coordinated moves behind the scenes.
That coordination became more visible on the 17 July, when the Tel Aviva Hotel in Israel hosted a closed meeting between government officials, Syrian Alawites, and Syrian Druze figures. The attendees included seven long-exiled Alawites and Druze linked to Sheikh Muwafaq Tarif’s circle – the Druze leader in Israel – both Syrian and Israeli nationals. A second meeting followed on the 21st–22nd, just before Saraya al-Jawad’s unveiling and the release of its operational footage.
An Alawite–Druze alliance
On 6 August, Eddy Cohen, an Israeli journalist and commentator on Arab affairs, announced on his Arabic-language Facebook page the preparation of an Alawite–Druze alliance in the US. Observers have paired this with an alleged leaked audio recording of a Syrian woman – said to be related to a former senior officer with Israeli ties – speaking to another participant in the Tel Aviv meetings.
In the recording, she reportedly described coordination between a secular Syrian expatriate network and Israeli intermediaries, noting specifically that one of the councils involved held shares in Tiger Hill. The recording also alleged plans to covertly deploy some 2,500 foreign fighters into Syria, dispersing them across Homs and the coastal region.
Despite the project’s determined momentum, domestic and external actors are moving to block it, even offering intelligence support to the Sharaa administration despite disputing its legitimacy. This counter-effort has already thwarted the Safita church attack and prevented a major bombing in Damascus.
A partition map in the making
As one credible regional security source informs The Cradle:
“Israel seeks to exploit Syria’s sectarian and ethnic divisions to use minorities as political and military tools, serving its plan to partition the country and open two strategic corridors: an eastern one linking Suwayda to Hasakah, and a western one running from Syria’s coast to Afrin, securing multi-front influence and encircling the Turkish axis from within.”
“Western Syria” may remain in the shadows or step fully into the open, but its trajectory is unmistakable: a deliberate dismantling of Syria’s territorial cohesion, draped in the language of minority protection and enforced through foreign-backed militias and political fronts.
For Damascus, Beirut, and the wider region, this is no distant or hypothetical threat, but an active campaign already reshaping the map to the advantage of outside powers.
Damascus requests Russian patrols in south Syria to ‘limit’ Israeli incursions: Report
The Cradle | August 12, 2025
The Syrian government has requested that the Russian military resume patrols in Syria’s southern governorates, according to a source cited by Kommersant.
The Russian outlet said Damascus believes these patrols could help reduce Israeli incursions.
According to the source, who attended a meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani and members of the Syrian diaspora in Moscow, during the minister’s official visit to Russia, told the Russian newspaper that Damascus has asked Moscow to resume military police patrols in the border areas with Israel, as it did before the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government.
“Russia’s return to its previous positions could prevent Israel’s interference in Syrian affairs,” the source said.
Since the fall of Assad’s government last year, Israeli forces have established a widespread occupation across southern Syria.
Occupation forces continue to expand their presence in the country’s south, launching regular raids and incursions. Israel says it wishes to demilitarize the entire south and protect the Druze minority from persecution.
Last month, Israel bombed Syria’s Defense Ministry and Presidential Palace in Damascus amid clashes between government forces and Druze militants. According to reports, Syrian-Israeli negotiations, which had been ongoing since the start of the year, resumed quickly after the attacks following a brief pause.
Damascus has repeatedly signaled that it does not intend to pose a threat to Israel.
The Syrian government has also held talks with Russia over several issues, including its continued military presence in Syria. Earlier this year, it was reported that Syria was receiving currency shipments from Moscow.
Russia was a major backer of the former Syrian government, and carried out strikes targeting many of the groups which are now a part of the new Syrian army and security apparatus, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former Al-Qaeda affiliate which toppled Assad’s government in December last year.
Despite past enmity, ties between Moscow and the new Syrian state have been cordial, and the Russian military has kept bases in the country.
How real is the U.S. rhetoric of a ‘Unified Syria’?
By Erkin Oncan | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 7, 2025
The recent statements by the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, Thomas Barrack, may at first glance appear to reflect diplomatic commitment, but developments on the ground and the U.S.’s covert alliances reveal that this rhetoric is largely a propaganda maneuver.
Speaking to the Associated Press, Barrack emphasized that the “deaths and massacres” on both sides of the conflict in southern Syria are unacceptable, stating: “I believe the current Syrian government, which is a new government with very few resources to address the emerging issues, is doing the best it can.”
However, if we are to speak of “territorial integrity” in the context of a new Syria, it is clear that the U.S.’s de facto policy in Syria actually serves to strengthen structures that weaken the country’s territorial unity. On the ground, the U.S. has established a fragile balance between Syria’s new government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). While this balance may give the appearance of localized stability in the short term, it carries the potential to pave the way for Syria’s long-term fragmentation. These entities are ideologically, ethnically, and politically at odds, with starkly conflicting expectations for a new Syria.
Red Lines in the Damascus—SDF Talks
The Damascus administration’s plans to integrate the SDF into the New Syrian Army, dismantle its autonomous structure, and transfer control of northeastern resources (oil, borders, educational institutions) to the Syrian state are clear.
The SDF, meanwhile, although it continues its contacts with the new Syrian administration, maintains a series of “red lines”: preserving autonomous administration, integrating its forces into the army independently of the central command, receiving a share of resources, and maintaining control over the borders.
In this scenario, the U.S. — a power that has provided extensive military and political support to both sides over time — appears to be attempting to “gloss over” this deeply uncertain process with diplomatic statements and messages of goodwill.
Israel’s Proxy Strategy
Israel, which has effectively “entered” the Syrian arena through the Suwayda clashes, likely sees the criticisms voiced by its greatest ally’s special envoy as a mere formality. Israel’s main strategy here is to sever southern Syria from Damascus and create new zones of control via proxy forces under the pretext of border security.
In other words, while there is rhetorical emphasis on a “Unified Syria,” what is being built on the ground is an increasingly entrenched multi-structure reality. A possible agreement between the SDF and HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham), for example, is not just about two armed groups sitting at the negotiating table; it encapsulates the conflicting interests of regional and global actors.
The negotiations between the SDF and HTS do not only involve these two actors; the balance includes the intervention of the U.S., Israel, and Turkey. Turkey, operating on the assumption that these negotiations will proceed parallel to the PKK’s disarmament process, seeks to secure its “share” in the governance of the new Syria.
The SDF, which received the most comprehensive support from the U.S. during the Trump era, is aware that such direct military and political backing may not continue under the Democrats. Furthermore, Washington’s regional priorities have shifted. Therefore, the SDF is striving to secure a balanced but strong position against HTS, with the primary goal of ensuring its continued existence. It is among the claims reported in Israeli and regional media that the group has engaged in a series of meetings not only with the U.S. but also with Israel.
Israel, for its part, is determined to exploit the “power vacuum” emerging in the new Syria to the fullest extent. What began under the guise of border security has now merged with Israel’s structural expansionist policy. Should Israel decide to “accelerate” its operations in Syria, it is well aware that Damascus may not be able to mount a serious resistance.
Is the Damascus Government Falling Short?
The new government led by Shara has so far failed to demonstrate the capacity to bear the role of “new leadership.” It faces a governance crisis, ethnic massacres that have sparked international condemnation, ongoing clashes with Israel, and severe economic issues.
Thus, the Damascus government finds itself compelled to “find middle ground” with the SDF, the U.S., and even Israel in order to secure its hold on power.
Within this equation, the perception of Iran as the “primary threat” on a regional level offers significant clues about the future of current power struggles.
The “Iran Threat” Will Determine the Balance
Despite suffering a severe blow with the fall of the Assad regime, Iran remains one of the strongest actors in the region. The SDF’s potential to serve as an “independent balancing force” against Iran perfectly aligns with the interests of the Tel Aviv—Washington axis. Therefore, in negotiations between the SDF and Damascus, the scenario in which the SDF’s demands gain weight and the central government’s power is curtailed is highly probable.
Despite the U.S.’s diplomatic calls for “unity,” the SDF’s de facto autonomy, its capacity to continue negotiations with Damascus thanks to current power balances, and the U.S.—Israel strategy of positioning against Iran all stand in the way of any real unification of Syria. Under current circumstances, it is nearly impossible for the new Syrian government under Shara to evolve into a stable and functioning structure. Ongoing military, political, and economic crises, coupled with the overarching “main threat is Iran” strategy, necessitate the continuation of the existing fragmented structure.
In conclusion, Washington’s rhetoric of a “Unified Syria” is largely propagandistic when viewed in light of the multilayered web of interests and covert alliances on the ground. With the U.S. and Israel seeking to expand the anti-Iran front, the scenario in which the SDF continues to play a strong role outside the framework of the central government remains the most likely outcome.
Zionism without borders: Annexation and normalization as tools of Arab subjugation
By Mohamad Hasan Sweidan | The Cradle | August 1, 2025
Four weeks after Israel signed the US-brokered Abraham Accords with the UAE and Bahrain on 15 September 2020, Tel Aviv’s Higher Planning Council approved 4,948 new settler units in the occupied West Bank. No public fanfare.
No tanks rolled in – just signatures authorizing another layer of occupation. The first wave of expansion advanced quietly, legitimized by the language of “peace.”
This sequencing deliberately reflects the core logic of Zionist expansion: Normalize when the region submits, colonize when the world blinks.
Where possible, the occupation state’s army conquers land directly. Where resistance or scrutiny makes that unfeasible, the occupation government builds a web of security pacts, trade routes, and intelligence partnerships that extend its reach without a single uniformed soldier. This dual formula, territorial conquest and hegemonic integration, has underpinned Israeli strategy since 1967, and today stretches unimpeded from the Jordan Valley to the Atlantic coast.
Two paths, one destination
“Greater Israel” represents the settler-colonial ambition to annex, settle, and absorb land across historic Palestine and beyond. It is rooted in the Zionist vision of Jewish dominion over the so-called “biblical Land of Israel.” In contrast, “Great Israel” describes the imperial design to dominate the surrounding region through proxies, economic leverage, and security alignments.
Where occupation is costly, Tel Aviv turns to influence. Through deals, destabilization, or coercion, it reshapes the sovereignty of its neighbors. Greater Israel devours land. Great Israel neutralizes independence. Together, they are one project.
Zionist literature makes this plain. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, demanded sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine and Transjordan – “Greater Israel on both sides of the Jordan River” – and rejected compromise with Arabs. In The Iron Wall (1923), he declared that only an unyielding Jewish force could compel Arab acquiescence:
“Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.”
The occupation state’s first prime minister and Labor Zionist leader, David Ben-Gurion, publicly accepted a partition plan in 1937, but privately described it as “not the end but the beginning.” In a letter to his son, he wrote that a Jewish state on part of the land would strengthen the Zionist project and serve as a platform to “redeem the entire country.” In a June 1938 meeting of the Jewish Agency executive, he said:
“After the formation of a large army … we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
Early Zionist leaders did not view borders as final, but as phases. During its first two decades, Israel lacked the military strength or western backing to expand beyond its 1949 borders. Direct confrontation with Arab states risked catastrophe. Instead, Tel Aviv pioneered a subtler doctrine of peripheral infiltration.
Through the “periphery doctrine,” it cultivated covert ties with non-Arab states and oppressed minorities – Shah-era Iran, Turkiye, Kurdish groups in Iraq, and Christian separatists in Sudan. This strategy sowed chaos among Israel’s Arab rivals while embedding Israeli influence in strategic corners of West Asia and Africa. Most recently, the occupation state has made overtures to Druze communities in southern Syria, seeking to replicate this strategy amid renewed instability.
The corridor to colonization
Israel’s integration into the Arab world is now deeper than ever before. Through normalization, Tel Aviv has converted former enemies into partners economically, diplomatically, and militarily. While Egypt and Jordan first formalized ties through Camp David and Wadi Araba, it was the Abraham Accords that opened the floodgates. What followed was a deluge of tech deals, weapons transfers, and commercial partnerships linking the occupation state to the Persian Gulf.
By 2023, Israel’s trade with the UAE had reached $3 billion annually. That figure rose by 11 percent the following year, even as Israel waged genocide in Gaza. Israeli Consul General Liron Zaslansky described trade relations between Abu Dhabi and Israel as “growing, so that we ended 2024 at $3.24 billion, excluding software and services.”
In 2022, Morocco purchased $500 million worth of Israeli Barak MX air defense systems. Rabat also partnered with BlueBird, an Israeli drone firm, to become the first UAV manufacturer in West Asia and North Africa.
This has created a “corridor of influence” that grants Tel Aviv access to new markets, air and sea routes, and intelligence spaces stretching from Casablanca to Khor Fakkan.
On the ground, the war continues
While trade flourishes, colonization accelerates. In 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ultranationalist government approved 12,855 settler homes – a record for any six-month period. More than 700,000 settlers now occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That figure has grown sevenfold since the early 1990s.
In May 2025, Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed cabinet approval for the construction of 22 new West Bank settlements, including multiple previously unauthorized outposts. Katz framed the move as necessary to “strengthen our hold on Judea and Samaria” and to “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”
These settlements are not arbitrary. They are connected by Jewish-only bypass roads, fortified by the occupation army, and strategically designed to fragment the occupied West Bank into isolated Palestinian enclaves. This is de facto annexation, defined by a matrix of irreversible facts that eliminates the territorial basis for any future Palestinian state, while avoiding the international fallout of formal annexation.
The “logic” of expansion has also spilled beyond Palestine. In Syria, Tel Aviv now occupies 250 square kilometers across Quneitra, Rural Damascus, and Deraa – territory seized during the collapse of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government by Al-Qaeda rooted terrorists – Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – who now occupy the seat of power in Damascus. HTS was under the leadership of former ISIS chief Abu Mohammad al-Julani. Upon ousting Assad, Julani began using his government name, Ahmad al-Sharaa, and became the de facto president of Syria.
In Lebanon, Israeli forces maintain a presence over 30–40 square kilometers, including Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shuba Hills, and the northern half of Ghajar. Additional outposts and buffer zones stretch along the so-called Blue Line.
Occupation rebranded
Israel’s expansion today is no longer confined to bulldozers and soldiers; it is mediated through trade, tech, and treaties. But make no mistake: normalization has not replaced occupation. It has enabled and accelerated it.
Every Emirati deal, every Moroccan drone line, every Bahraini handshake fuels Tel Aviv’s capacity to deepen its military presence and Judaize more land. Plans are underway to double the number of settlers in the Golan Heights and to deploy armored units along the demilitarized zone.
The ripple effects are already destabilizing the region. Egypt has begun constructing a concrete wall on its border with Gaza to prepare for mass displacement or military spillover. Jordan faces existential peril in the Jordan Valley, where settler expansion is displacing Bedouin communities and draining natural aquifers. Syria and Lebanon remain hemmed in by fortified Israeli positions, with both countries facing increasing pressure from Washington to normalize relations.
Greater Israel devours Arab land. Great Israel colonizes Arab decision-making. One swallows borders. The other swallows sovereignty.
Syrian prisoners: A ticking bomb between Beirut and Damascus?
By Mohamad Shamse Eddine | The Cradle | July 23, 2025
A political storm is gathering over a long-festering crisis in Lebanon’s prisons: more than 2,000 Syrians, many detained without charge or trial, remain locked away in overcrowded and crumbling facilities.
The worsening humanitarian conditions are no longer just a domestic issue. It has morphed into a potent diplomatic flashpoint between Beirut and the new interim government in Damascus, with the latter signaling it will not tolerate further delay in resolving the status of its citizens.
The spark came from a Syria TV report quoting an official from the administration of interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad al-Julani), who stated that Damascus is “mulling gradual escalation choices against Lebanon,” starting with the freezing of some security and economic channels if the detainee issue remains unresolved.
Official denials followed, but the message had already landed in Beirut. The prisoner file, dormant for years, is now wide open—and loaded with political implications that stretch far beyond the bars of Lebanon’s Roumieh Prison.
This comes as the Lebanese judiciary teeters on the verge of collapse and its prisons edge into crisis. At the same time, a transformed Syrian state under Sharaa’s Al-Qaeda-rooted administration is recalibrating its regional footing following years of civil war, western isolation, and struggles to assert sovereignty.
Damascus frames the detainee issue as a humanitarian one. However, political observers in Beirut view it as a strategic lever, part of a broader power play unfolding at a time when Lebanon faces internal divisions and competition between Turkiye and Saudi Arabia over influence within its Sunni community.
The detainees also represent more than individual cases—they are a legacy of the previous Syrian order, and a test for Lebanon’s ability to deal with the political costs of its judicial dysfunction.
Who are the detainees?
The Syrian prisoners in Lebanon fall into three categories. First, the political detainees: Syrians imprisoned over the past decade for joining militant factions like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) or the UN-designated terrorist Nusra Front – or for speaking out against the former Syrian government.
Most were never formally charged. Now, with former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gone and a new government in Damascus, these individuals are being recast not as enemies but as participants in a national cause. Their return is being framed by Damascus as part of Syria’s internal reconciliation process.
Second are the jihadist-linked detainees. These prisoners are accused of ties to terror groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Some have faced trial, but many continue to be held without verdicts. Legal definitions of terrorism vary significantly between Beirut and Damascus, complicating any coordinated legal handling.
The lack of evidence in many cases has raised questions about the fairness of prolonged detentions, especially in the absence of transparent legal standards or international oversight.
Third are the criminal offenders: Syrians charged with routine crimes like theft or smuggling. In theory, they fall under Lebanon’s legal system like any foreign national. In practice, a broken judiciary and Kafkaesque bureaucracy have left many in legal limbo, detained for years without resolution.
What unites all three groups is Lebanon’s failure to classify or process their cases adequately. Without access to lawyers, interpreters, or diplomatic support, most Syrian detainees are effectively voiceless and invisible. According to legal advocates, some have waited up to seven years for a single court appearance.
Damascus’ extrajudicial demands
The names requested by Damascus include figures deeply linked to past violence on Lebanese soil. Salafi preacher Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir, sentenced in connection with the 2013 Abra clashes that left several Lebanese army soldiers dead, is among them. His case is closed under Lebanese law, so his inclusion signals political calculation, not legal necessity.
Also on the list are Sheikh Omar al-Atrash and Naeem Abbas, both tied to Al-Qaeda’s operations in Lebanon and implicated in the 2013 bombings in Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahieh. Their convictions are firm. Their extradition, if attempted, would ignite a political firestorm.
Damascus is not seeking the return of petty criminals. It aims to influence what it considers political actors tied to the Syrian conflict—individuals it now views as part of its national narrative. Beirut, however, sees potential manipulation.
Syrian sources inform The Cradle that any returnees would undergo formal security and judicial oversight. But victims’ families fear the deals may serve regional interests, not justice. The Lebanese judiciary, lacking independence and burdened by years of foreign and sectarian interference, offers little public confidence.
Roumieh: A prison on the brink
Roumieh Prison was built to house 1,500 inmates. It currently holds over 4,000, including hundreds of Syrians. Many have been held without charges. Conditions in the Islamist wing, “Block B,” are dire—overcrowded, unsanitary, and deprived of basic medical and psychological care.
In February, more than 100 Syrian detainees began a two-week hunger strike. The protest followed months of inaction on promised reforms, including improved legal access and prison conditions. Security officials acknowledge the risk that unrest could escalate into a full-blown revolt, especially as external actors view the prison crisis as an opportunity to stir instability. Lebanese security sources warn that militant groups could exploit grievances inside Roumieh, turning a detention center into a flashpoint for wider conflict.
No legal architecture
Despite the gravity of the issue, there is no formal prisoner exchange treaty between Lebanon and Syria. An older extradition agreement remains on paper, but it does not cover sentenced prisoners. Lebanese law bars deportation unless a detainee has received a final verdict—and even then, not for crimes committed on Lebanese soil with Lebanese victims.
This legal grey zone explains why detainees like Abbas and Atrash remain in Lebanon, at least for now. However, a new judicial agreement is reportedly being negotiated between the justice ministries in Beirut and Damascus that may allow the repatriation of 370 convicted Syrians.
Lebanese judicial sources tell The Cradle that the draft agreement includes provisions for sentence continuation and post-transfer monitoring, but faces political opposition from factions aligned with western interests.
While Damascus demands its citizens back, Lebanon is silent on its nationals imprisoned in the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)-run detention camps in northeast Syria. Hundreds of Lebanese citizens—many detained alongside their families—languish there without trial, without consular access, and without official advocacy. Some have been held since 2019, captured during the final battles against ISIS.
This silence exposes Lebanon’s deeper dysfunction. Its institutions are too eroded to defend their own citizens, let alone negotiate a reciprocal deal with a fragile state like Syria, which now speaks from a position of renewed regional assertiveness. The contradiction is glaring: Beirut is expected to process Syrian cases with care, while ignoring its nationals trapped in US-backed detention zones under the SDF.
Is a deal possible?
Senior political sources tell The Cradle that Beirut may begin by releasing detainees with no political baggage, setting the stage for a broader settlement. This would allow both states to test the waters while avoiding immediate controversy. Some Lebanese officials argue this phased approach could also reduce overcrowding in prisons like Roumieh, while fulfilling Syria’s minimal expectations.
But any lasting resolution requires more than tactical moves. It demands a sweeping overhaul of Lebanon’s judicial architecture, the depoliticization of its detention policies, and a binding bilateral framework. Damascus, for its part, will have to offer clear guarantees that repatriated detainees are not used to settle old scores but reintegrated into a legal system that reflects its new political reality.
Until then, Lebanon’s prisons will remain overstuffed, its judiciary paralyzed, and the Syrian detainee file unresolved—exposing the unfinished reckoning between two states still mired in the legacies of occupation, war, and political dependency.
‘Peacemaker’ Trump beats Biden’s bombing record since return to office: Report
The Cradle | July 23, 2025
US President Donald Trump has ordered hundreds of airstrikes across West Asia and Africa since his return to office, carrying out more attacks in the first five months of his second term than former president Joe Biden did during his entire presidency, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED).
“In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US airstrikes (529) as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration (555),” said ACLED President Clionadh Raleigh.
Among the countries bombed by Trump are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The majority of strikes were carried out against Yemen.
“The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn’t about geography – it’s about frequency,” Raleigh added.
The surge in attacks contradicts Trump’s campaign promises, which framed him as “anti-war.”
In March this year, Trump renewed the Biden government’s campaign against Yemen with much greater intensity.
Months of brutal and deadly attacks struck the country in response to the Yemeni Armed Forces’ (YAF) naval operations against Israeli interests and its missile and drone strikes in support of Palestine.
Yemeni forces consistently responded to US attacks by targeting US warships in the Red Sea, during both Biden and Trump’s terms.
A ceasefire between Sanaa and Washington was reached in May, after the US campaign burned through munitions and failed to impact Yemeni military capabilities significantly.
However, the campaign took a heavy toll on civilians and compounded the humanitarian crisis the country has faced due to over a decade of war.
An investigation released by Airwars last month revealed that Trump’s war on Yemen killed almost as many civilians in less than two months as in the last 23 years of Washington’s military action in the country combined.
“In the period between the first recorded US strike in Yemen to the beginning of Trump’s campaign in March, at least 258 civilians were allegedly killed by US actions. In less than two months of Operation Rough Rider … at least 224 civilians in Yemen [were] killed by US airstrikes – nearly doubling the civilian casualty toll in Yemen by US actions since 2002,” it said.
In Iraq, Syria, and Somalia, Trump has also continued to strike what Washington says are ISIS and Al-Shabab targets.
Despite vowing to end “forever wars,” Trump has recently threatened to expand them.
On 22 July, the US president threatened to launch new attacks on Iran, after late June bunker-buster strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities which were carried out on behalf of Israel.
Al-Tanf and the Yinon Plan for Syria: Israel’s Fortress of Fragmentation
21st Century Wire | July 21, 2025
Oded Yinon, author of the 1982 paper “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” is often cited regarding Israel’s aim to divide neighboring Arab and Muslim areas into ethnic mini-states. Yinon was a former advisor to Ariel Sharon, a former senior official with the Israeli Foreign Ministry, and a journalist for The Jerusalem Post. Although Yinon downplays the paper’s direct relevance to current geopolitics, its ideas have arguably become foundational to Zionist policy; balkanization was crucial for Israel’s establishment and continues to be a strategy for its military dominance in the Middle East, especially in Syria. His paper is commonly known as the “Yinon Plan.” Within it, you can read:
“The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.”
The fragmentation of Syria was always an integral part of the Yinon plan, with its operational headquarters not in Tel Aviv but at the US Al-Tanf base, located at the tri-border area between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, and along one of the main highways between Baghdad and Damascus.
Syrian journalist and TV presenter, Haidar Mustafa, wrote for The Cradle on December 2, 2024, about the importance of the Al-Tanf base, one of the most strategic military garrisons for the US occupation in Syria, which acted as a launching platform for countless Israeli overt and covert operations:
“The US coalition’s mission against the Islamic State quickly evolved into a broader strategy of occupying parts of Syria, with the Al-Tanf base crucial to securing its influence and supporting Israeli interests amid growing local resistance.”
In a recent post on X, Lebanese analyst Ibrahim Majed articulated several points about the Al-Tanf base and the immense role the American base has played in advancing Israel’s Yinon Plan, describing it as a “Strategic Outpost for Greater Israel and Israel’s Fortress of Fragmentation.” His post inspired the title of our post today.
Recently, we covered the “David’s Corridor”, a land route in Israel that extends from the occupied Golan Heights through southern Syria to the Euphrates. This route represents Israel’s most crucial foothold in the centre of West Asia, which ultimately benefits from the protection provided by the Al-Tanf base. Should Israel manage to gain control over the southern provinces of Syria, it will be considerably closer to connecting with the territories held by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the east, through the American Al-Tanf base located near the Iraqi border, achieving several goals including the non-negligible control of the corridor, the fragementation of Syria and in time the replacement of the “Shiite Crescent” by an “Israeli Crescent”. Israel aims to establish a secure route that begins in the Golan Heights, traverses through the Suwayda province, continues across the eastern Syrian desert where the US base at Al-Tanf is situated, and extends to the Kurdish-controlled area of Hasakah, ultimately reaching Iraqi Kurdistan along the Iranian border. This explains the continued US military presence in north-east Syria and why last week, on two occasions, a large CIA delegation found itself at the Qasrak base in Al-Hasakah. This is how Israel intends to permanently cut off the Tehran-Beirut road.
Regarding the Druze community in Syria, Israel uses them primarily as a geographic instrument, a human “Maginot Line” of some sort, where the demographic acts as a human shield that, on one hand, hinders Sunnis’ expansion, while simultaneously stopping the Shiites from consolidating on the other. Local groups like Druze, Kurds and Bedouin tribes are all supported directly or indirectly with Western and Israeli logistics and intelligence, and it will remain so, as long as their presence helps Israel fill the vacuum.
The situation in Syria is no longer up for debate—it is laid bare, with each chapter shedding light on the Greater Israel Plan, or the so-called Yinon Plan. This plan provides neither peace nor solutions, nor does it reflect any sense of humanity; instead, it ensures chaos for geopolitical and financial profit, leading to the downfall of a nation we once recognised as Syria. Lebanon is undoubtedly next on Israel’s fragmentation map, and it is with great concern that one must anticipate Israel’s next move…
Darrin Waller writes Fountainbridge Substack…
Understanding the Yinon Plan: Syria is Gone — Is Lebanon Next?
The fall of Syria marks the beginning of a new era of Levantine chaos.
As I wrote when Assad fell, Syria ceased to exist. Fourteen years of sectarian carnage — unleashed by a Salafist proxy terrorist militia, trained by the US, UK, Israel, and Turkey in camps across Jordan and Turkey, and funded by Persian Gulf petrodollar monarchies to the tune of three trillion dollars — extinguished the last secular Levantine nation in December 2024.
As Hassan Nasrallah warned:
“If Syria were to fall into the hands of these groups, its present and future would spiral into chaos… a scene of endless infighting among factions devoid of reason or culture, drowning in extremism, bloodshed, sectarian rivalries…”
It is done. Sold to us as a revolution. A popular uprising.
Another regime change operation — brutally executed over 14 years — culminated in the installation of a mercenary leader: the Saudi-born takfiri Jolani, now styling himself as President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
What we are seeing is the prosecution of the Yinon Plan — a 1982 geopolitical blueprint calling for Israeli regional dominance through the fragmentation of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt along ethnic, sectarian, and tribal lines.
IMAGE: Project Balkanisation: Oded Yinon and an Enduring Plank of Israeli Foreign Policy (Source: Katehon)
It argues that Israel’s long-term survival hinges on one core premise: “The dissolution of all existing Arab states into small units.”
On the surface, the geopolitical win by the US-UK-Israel military-intelligence trifecta — backed by Turkey and the Persian Gulf monarchies — appears seismic. A Shīʿī-led country now falls under Sunni Salafism, severing the contiguous Shīʿī-controlled corridor linking Tehran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Another barrier to China’s Silk Road ambitions into the Mediterranean has been firmly set in place. Any revival of the ancient Via Maris — a trade corridor that once ran the Levantine coast, linking Asia to Europe and North Africa — remains a pipe dream.
Severed by the establishment of Israel and now buried beneath the rubble of Syria’s destruction, it ensures that any vision of unity from the Maghreb to the Arabian Peninsula remains just that — a vision.
But perhaps of greater immediate import — Israel’s ethno-supremacists and their vision of a ‘Greater Israel’ have just taken a giant leap forward. Southern Syria — and crucially, Mount Hermon, which overlooks Damascus and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, granting strategic military dominance over both — is now firmly under Israeli control. As is the tri-border area between Syria, Jordan, and Iraq — Al Tanf.
Yet there’s more. Israel now moves to establish its self-styled ‘David’s Corridor’ — a contiguous land route stretching from the occupied Golan Heights through southern Syria to the Euphrates. It cuts through the governorates of Deraa, Suwayda, Al-Tanf, and Deir Ezzor, reaching the Iraqi-Syrian border at Albu Kamal — granting Israel a strategic foothold deep in the heart of West Asia.
The corridor was already partially activated during the 12-day war with Iran, enabling standoff air strikes deep into Iranian territory.
With a direct land route to Iraq now viable, expect covert destabilisation efforts within the Shīʿī heartlands of Karbalāʾ and Najaf, alongside renewed backing for Kurdish separatists in both Iraq and Syria. Further vicious sectarian conflict across the region is now being baked in.
Whilst Israel’s bombing of the Defence Ministry and the Presidential Palace in Damascus was supposedly to protect the Druze community from Jolani’s Salafist mercenaries, no such protection was afforded to the Alawites, Armenians, Assyrians, or any of Syria’s other religious or ethnic minorities, who were left to be slaughtered.
The strikes on the Defence Ministry and Presidential Palace were telegraphed well in advance — and were thus performative. A warning to Jolani — Southern Syria is now firmly under Israel’s purview. No Syrian military forces will be allowed.
Meaning: Jolani and his hired guns are expendable, especially now that they’ve completed their task — extinguishing Syria’s sovereignty. As Hadi Nasrallah ruefully put it:
“You mean to tell me the very ones armed by Israel, treated in Israeli hospitals, coordinating with the IOF, shaking Netanyahu’s hand and thanking him for bombing Lebanon — are now being bombed by Israel after serving their purpose? Who would’ve thought?”
And yet, it remains far from clear if Jolani has outlived his usefulness, or if he still has his uses, at least from a US perspective.
Only days ago, whilst Jolani was in Baku, Syrian and Israeli officials were reportedly in talks. Rumours even swirled of a deal wherein Syria would launch attacks against Lebanon’s Shiʿī communities — either independently or in coordination with Israel.
Little wonder, then, that US envoy Tom Barrack warned Lebanon to ‘disarm Hezbollah or risk Syrian occupation’ — signalling that Lebanon, too, is likely slated for division and balkanisation.
The port of Tripoli and the Bekaʿa Valley, Lebanon’s agricultural heartland and a Shīʿī stronghold, are now in play. The only question is whether Ankara or West Jerusalem will seize them first, come to blows over Lebanon’s spoils, or quietly divide them, with Turkey taking the port and Israel the Bekaʿa.
But full control may yet require the chaos of full-on civil war. Syria and Lebanon edge closer — division and balkanisation becoming ever easier to enforce, until little remains but manageable fragments. The Yinon Plan made manifest.
“The attack on Lebanon is going to happen without a doubt… the question is when, and the other question is how. Is Israel going to do a ground invasion at the same time or just attack from the air?” (Ibrahim Majed)
Doubtless, the architects of today’s chaos are already patting themselves on the back, expecting handsome dividends to roll in. More division. More balkanisation. A weaker, fractured Arab world — and a stronger, more dominant Israel.
This is what Netanyahu means when he talks about “redrawing the Middle East”.
Yet the US and Israel are unravelling at an accelerating pace. Their seeming victory over the Levant is no triumph of providence — it courts the abyss and beckons the judgment to come.
US envoy says Hezbollah weapons ‘an internal matter’ during Beirut visit
The Cradle | July 21, 2025
US envoy Tom Barrack said while visiting Lebanon on 21 July that the issue of disarming Hezbollah is an “internal matter,” after months of pressure by Washington on the Lebanese state to secure a surrender of the resistance’s weapons.
“Disarming Hezbollah is an internal matter,” he said, adding that “ideas and assistance” are being offered to the Lebanese state.
“We are not forcing anyone to do anything … we are trying to help,” he added.
He stressed that Hezbollah “is a terrorist organization” in the eyes of the US, and that Washington does not engage in dialogue with it. “We have no skin in the game,” Barrack said.
He claimed Lebanon faces no “consequences” or “threat” if Hezbollah does not disarm, but that it will be “disappointing.”
When asked by a reporter about guarantees that Israel will withdraw its forces from Lebanon and end its attacks on the country, Barrack said, “We cannot compel Israel to do anything, can we?”
Barrack is in Lebanon to discuss with officials Beirut’s response to a US proposal for disarming Hezbollah.
Sources cited by Reuters in early July said that Barrack warned that Hezbollah must be disarmed by November or the end of this year at the latest – in exchange for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from the five points they occupied in south Lebanon after the ceasefire, in violation of the deal. Earlier this month, the US envoy warned that Lebanon risked being occupied by Syria’s extremist-dominated military if Beirut did not move quickly to disarm Hezbollah.
Barrack said during his last trip to Lebanon that he was “satisfied” with Lebanon’s response to the US roadmap, which is expected to be finalized and handed over soon.
Beirut has reportedly demanded that no timeframe for disarmament be set until Israel withdraws and ends attacks.
The resistance group has repeatedly rejected surrendering its weapons. As the government vows to achieve a monopoly over all weapons across Lebanon, Hezbollah says it is ready for internal discussions on the formation of a Lebanese defensive strategy, through which the group’s arms would be incorporated into the state for use in deterring Israel.
The Lebanese resistance group has refused any discussion on the matter until Israeli troops withdraw from Lebanon and end their attacks.
Israeli attacks on Lebanon have continued unabated. Tel Aviv has violated the ceasefire over 3,000 times. More than 200 people have been killed since the deal was signed in November 2024.
Twelve people were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the eastern Bekaa region of Lebanon last week.
Israel has threatened to continue escalating against Lebanon if Hezbollah is not disarmed.
Hezbollah MP Hussein Jachi said on Monday that Hezbollah “will not abandon its weapons for empty US promises.”
“We will not abandon our faith or our strength. We are ready for confrontation. There will be no surrender or submission to Israel, and Israel will not receive our weapons,” Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem said on Friday.
“We know that confrontation is very costly, but surrender leaves us with nothing,” he added, noting that if the “threat is removed, we are ready to discuss the defense strategy and the national security strategy.”
Featured Video
7/7: Crime and Prejudice
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How the Strategy of Fighting to the Last Ukrainian Was Sold to the Public as Morally Righteous
By Professor Glenn Diesen | November 26, 2024
For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contacts with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men have died on the battlefield. The decision by diplomats to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant as diplomacy could have reduced the excess of violence, prevented escalation, and even resulted in a path to peace. However, the political-media elites skilfully sold the rejection of diplomacy to the public as evidence of their moral righteousness.
This article will first outline how NATO planned for a long war to exhaust Russia and knock it out from the ranks of great powers. Second, this article will demonstrate how the political-media elites communicated that diplomacy is treasonous and war is virtuous. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina… Richard Ong on Europe Economic Panic Kate on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on US announces Gaza ‘Board of Pe… Richard Jones on Peaceful Finland? Think Twice:… Richard Jones on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro… loongtip on Scott Ritter says he was … loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis… loongtip on British minister dreams of kid… loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje…
Aletho News- Medicalized Motherhood (2026)
- Every House Democrat Votes Against Defunding A Cutout Of The CIA
- What a War on Iran Would Really Look Like — Beyond the Regime-Change Fantasy
- Scott Ritter Hiding the Dominant Minority Behind Geopolitics?
- Europe Economic Panic
- The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd
- Disruptive science (part two)
- Palestinian prisoners in 2025: Shocking figures and escalating violations
- US announces Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ amid ongoing Israeli ceasefire breaches
- Hamas: Israeli minister’s boasting over Gaza’s destruction an open admission of genocide
- If Americans Knew
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- Trump “Board of Peace” for Gaza is stacked with Israel supporters – Not a ceasefire Day 99
- Iran Does Not Hate Americans… But It Has Legitimate Reasons to Do So
- How an Israeli Firm Spreads Lies and Chaos Around the World
- ADL ‘Helping’ Ted Cruz and Ben Shapiro ‘Take Down’ Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, CEO Suggests
- Israel is Destroying Hope for the Future: Reproductive Violence in Gaza
- J Street is the new AIPAC in the Democratic Party
- The fate of Gaza’s disappeared remains unknown
- The U.S. has announced ‘Phase 2’ of the Gaza ceasefire. Here’s why it doesn’t matter for Palestinians.
- 30 tons of rubble for every resident of Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 98
- No Tricks Zone
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
- Expect Soon Another PIK Paper Claiming Warming Leads To Cold Snaps Over Europe
- New Study: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 1.57% Of Global Temperature Change Since 1750
Aletho News 