Defusing the Sweida Crisis: Jordanian-Turkish diplomatic synergy

Ammon

6 days ago

Jordan played a prominent diplomatic role in calming the volatile situation in the Sweida Governorate in southern Syria, which has witnessed an escalation in violence and internal fighting over the past months. This role, which was consistent with regional and international efforts aimed at preventing southern Syria from sliding into total security chaos, yielded tangible results on the ground. These included reaching understandings that led to a cessation of hostilities and a freeze in Israeli escalation at some border points near southern Syria, particularly in light of worrying indications of indirect Israeli support for some armed groups there.
The Jordanian role was characterized by wisdom and balance, reflecting the depth of vision and the shrewdness of the Hashemite leadership, which has long been known for its ability to navigate the maze of regional crises within a complex political landscape and shifting challenges. The Kingdom has been keen to deal with the crisis in Sweida with a high sense of responsibility, avoiding direct involvement in Syrian affairs, while preserving its national security, which is under increasing pressure on its northern border from drug, arms, and drone smuggling. In this complex landscape, which requires a mind capable of deciphering the changing regional landscape, the Jordanian leadership has chosen a dual approach: protecting the border as a bulwark of national security, in parallel with soft Hashemite diplomacy that reshapes the contours of stability. This approach is harmoniously intertwined with regional actors, within a tapestry of interests and concerns that can only be managed with wisdom and deliberation.
In this context, Jordanian-Turkish cooperation has emerged as one of the key factors contributing to de-escalation. Despite diverging interests between Amman and Ankara on the Syrian issue in recent years, developments on the ground have forced a local convergence between the two parties, particularly with regard to maintaining stability in southern Syria and avoiding the disintegration of the social fabric in Sweida, which has long served as a safety valve for sectarian and political balances in Syria. The two capitals exchanged messages through direct and indirect diplomatic channels, addressing ways to support local initiatives for calm and contain any Israeli interventions that could lead to an explosive situation on the ground, harming the security of neighboring countries.
Jordan, given its precise geopolitical position and experience in dealing with regional crises, realized that any security explosion in Sweida, especially if linked to external interventions, would have serious repercussions for the Kingdom's internal security and its northern borders. Accordingly, Jordanian efforts focused on supporting local efforts to calm the situation within Sweida, without siding with any party, while encouraging Druze religious and social leaders to prevail and preserve the province's unique position within the Syrian context.
In parallel, Jordan intensified its regional efforts to contain the Israeli escalation, which coincided with tensions in southern Syria. There is a growing conviction among decision-makers in Amman that some Israeli activities in the south, including indirect support for some armed groups or the tolerance of drone activity, aim to distract the Syrian state and transform the south into a gray zone of influence, serving as a soft security buffer for Israel, but at the expense of the stability of both Jordan and Syria. Therefore, Jordanian messages to the relevant capitals were clear: the continuation of these provocations will not go unanswered, even through diplomatic means, and that Jordan will not stand idly by in the face of any project that threatens its border security or reproduces outlaw groups under a new geographical umbrella.
Turkey has assisted in this regard by using its channels with affiliated armed factions in northern Syria to pressure them not to engage in the battles in the south or send reinforcements that would raise concerns in Sweida and the adjacent areas. Ankara also worked in parallel to curb the influence of some radical groups that viewed the escalation of the southern front as an opportunity to expand their influence. This converged Turkish interests with the Jordanian vision, despite their different starting points, as both parties realized that stability in the south was in the interest of regional stability. Jordan's role was not limited to political mediation. It also included providing development and service initiatives, in coordination with international organizations, to restore life to some affected areas in an attempt to prevent a recurrence of chaos. Jordan also continued to coordinate the refugee issue and limit smuggling from Syrian territory, in cooperation with moderate local forces. This was a clear message that Amman does not seek to impose influence or agendas, but rather a partnership that maintains border security and prevents the situation from escalating.
Joint Jordanian-Turkish efforts succeeded in creating a relative calm that allowed for a decline in tensions in Sweida, the repositioning of some armed groups away from the conflict zones, and the halting of Israeli attacks, which were exploiting the chaos to impose new facts on the ground that violated Syrian sovereignty and threatened regional security. This achievement was not a coincidence; rather, it was the result of calculated diplomatic action based on calm security coordination and the opening of multiple channels of communication with various parties, including local and international actors. Turkey played a complementary role by controlling some supply lines and influencing affiliated factions, while Jordan focused on preventing the spillover of events toward its borders and enhancing coordination with the Syrian side on security and humanitarian issues. This would not have materialized without Jordan's deep understanding of the nature of the crisis, its keen understanding of the balance of power, and its use of soft yet effective diplomatic tools, which strengthened its regional position as an honest and effective mediator capable of resolving the most complex issues.