Israel risks overplaying its hand in Syria amid Druze-Bedouin conflicts
These are wild times between Israel and Syria.
And in these wild times it is unclear whether Israel's attacks on Syrian regime forces on Monday and Tuesday - even if it is to protect some Syrian-Druze who the Jewish state has good relations with and even if the Syrian forces are in part of Israel's self-declared buffer zone – will stand unchallenged or lead to major strategic fallout.
Only a few months ago, every top Israeli political official in public statements and pretty much all top Israeli defense officials in private statements, including some exclusive statements to the Jerusalem Post, were warning that Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa is a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Their point was to caution that though he now wears suits and ties and speaks in measured tones about peace that the West loves to hear, that underneath it all, he remains the same dangerous al-Qaeda jihadist which he once openly was in the not-so-distant past.
But then US President Donald Trump decided that al-Sharaa was a legitimate partner, repealed all American sanctions, and told Jerusalem to get with the program and make nice with him.
Trump did this based on his own judgment of character, but also under pressure from the Saudis who want to strengthen al-Sharaa's rule so as to prevent any Alawite-Syrian or Iranian resurgence.
There are also concerns about al-Sharaa's connections with Islamist Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and concerns about the massacre of as many as 1,500 ethnic minority Alawites (some of his security forces were also killed and are part of the tally), which he allowed to occur in Syria in the Latakia area in March.
But Trump knew about these issues and gave al-Sharaa a clean slate anyway.
Israel did eventually get on board, and Mossad Director David Barnea, the IDF, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, and National Security Council Chief Tzahi Hanegbi have communicated with Syria, with both sides talking about a possible new armistice deal and maybe eventual normalization.
Several top American officials have met with al-Sharaa and declared their support for him as a reformed man who will bring about peace with Israel.
All of this could mean Israel needing to withdraw, even if it might be gradual over an extended period, from its buffer security zone it created in southern Syria in December 2024 upon the fall of the Assad regime.
One of the big questions is how long Israel can convince Trump to allow it to stay in the Syrian buffer zone.
The question is relevant both as a matter of addressing security concerns with whether al-Sharaa can restrain some of his jihadists from invading Israel as well as using the bargaining chip of withdrawing from those areas to get normalization with Syria or at least promises of a large demilitarized zone.
If in December 2024 and the early months of this year, the IDF could take almost any action it wanted to in Syria against perceived security threats because al-Sharaa was still in the sanctions dog-house, all of that has either already changed or could change soon.
Imminently or in the medium term, Trump may bar Israel from such actions, or worse, such continued actions could eventually lead Trump to demand Israel leave its Syrian buffer zone sooner, undermining its strategic leverage.
Part of how all of this will turn out depends on how one views the latest incident.
From the outside, it seems like a minor incident of some Bedouin-Syrians kidnapping one Druze-Syrian led to rival tribes falling into a much larger multi-village conflict.
However, all of this was still a local Syrian affair, which would not seem to implicate Israeli security or justify Jerusalem ordering an intervention.
Unclear if IDF supports current intervention in Syria
In fact, it is unclear whether the IDF supports the current intervention or may view it as an error strategically, but is following orders from the cabinet.
What brought Israeli interest was when the government forces announced they would intervene in order to end the tribal gang fighting which has already led to between 30-100 deaths.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said they were worried that the government forces, with more serious weaponry like tanks, would overpower and start slaughtering the Druze-Syrians.
They also said that Syrian forces could not enter the buffer zone.
But if al-Sharaa is becoming accepted, how often can Israel prevent the current Syrian regime from intervening to resolve internal chaotic conflicts between tribes?
Eighth months into his rule, there has been no hint that al-Sharaa would threaten Israel, let alone any concrete move to do so.
Of course, all of this could be just because he has been too weak to do so to date, and given a few years to build his power, he could be a true threat down the line.
But al-Sharaa and Trump may tire sooner of giving Israel a free hand in Syria on issues that really matter if it continues to intervene on so many gray issues, which could easily be reframed as an "occupying" power denying a legitimate government from restoring order in its territory.
If al-Sharaa or his government forces really do start to oppress the Druze-Syrians or try to creep closer to the border with Israel, then Jerusalem might get a more sympathetic hearing in Washington.
But the longer al-Sharaa behaves on the big issues and the more Israel intervenes on issues which could be framed as questionable and not clearly threatening Israeli interests, the quicker the Jewish state may lose the cards it holds in Syria, which really matter.
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
5 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Naturalized Citizens Are Scared
On a bookshelf near my desk, I still have the souvenir United States flag that I received during my naturalization ceremony, in 1994. I remember a tenderhearted judge got emotional as the room full of immigrants swore the Oath of Allegiance and that, afterward, my family took me to Burgerville to celebrate. The next morning, my teacher asked me to explain to my classmates—all natural-born Americans—how I felt about becoming a citizen at age 13. One girl had a question: 'So Chris can never be president?' I wasn't worried about becoming president—I just wanted to get to the computer lab, where we were free to slaughter squirrels in The Oregon Trail. But her question revealed that even kids know there are two kinds of citizens: the ones who are born here, and the ones like me. The distinction is written into the Constitution, a one-line fissure that Donald Trump used to crack open the country: 'Now we have to look at it,' Trump said, after compelling Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. 'Is it real? Is it proper?' Nearly 25 million naturalized citizens live in the U.S., and we are accustomed to extra scrutiny. I expect supplemental questions on medical forms, close inspection at border crossings, and bureaucratic requests to see my naturalization certificate. But I had never doubted that my U.S. citizenship was permanent, and that I was guaranteed the same rights of speech, assembly, and due process as natural-born Americans. Now I'm not so sure. Last month, the Department of Justice released a civil-enforcement memo listing the denaturalization of U.S. citizens as a top-five priority and pledging to 'maximally pursue' all viable cases, including people who are 'a potential danger to national security' and, more vague, anyone 'sufficiently important to pursue.' President Trump has suggested that targets could include citizens whom he views as his political enemies, such as Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral candidate who was born in Uganda and naturalized in 2018: 'A lot of people are saying he's here illegally,' Trump said. 'We're going to look at everything.' Looking at everything can be unnerving for naturalized citizens. Our document trails can span decades and continents. Thankfully, I was naturalized as a child, before I had much background to check, before the internet, before online surveillance. I was born in Brazil, in 1981, during the twilight of its military dictatorship, and transplanted to the United States as a baby through a byzantine international-adoption process. My birth mother had no way of knowing for sure what awaited me, but she understood that her child would have a better chance in the 'land of the free.' I don't consider myself 'a potential danger to national security' or 'sufficiently important to pursue,' but I also don't believe that American security is threatened by international students, campus protesters, or undocumented people selling hot dogs at Home Depot. I'm a professor who writes critically about American power, I believe in civil disobedience, and I support my students when they exercise their freedom of conscience. Because I was naturalized as a child, I didn't have to take the famous civics test—I was still learning that stuff in school. I just rolled my fingertips in wet ink and held still for a three-quarter-profile photograph that revealed my nose shape, ear placement, jawline, and forehead contour. My parents sat beside me for an interview with an immigration officer who asked me my name, where I lived, and who took care of me. But these days, I wonder a lot about that civics test. It consists of 10 questions, selected from a list of 100, on the principles of democracy, our system of government, our rights and responsibilities, and milestones in American history. The test is oral; an official asks questions in deliberately slow, even tones, checking the responses against a list of sanctioned answers. Applicants need to get only six answers correct in order to pass. Democracy is messy, but this test is supposed to be easy. However, so much has changed in the past few years that I'm not sure how a prospective citizen would answer those questions today. Are the correct answers to the test still true of the United States? What does the Constitution do? The Constitution protects the basic rights of Americans. One of the Constitution's bedrock principles can be traced back to a revision that Thomas Jefferson made to an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, replacing 'our fellow subjects' with 'our fellow citizens.' As with constitutional theories of executive power, theories of citizenship are subject to interpretation. Chief Justice Earl Warren distilled the concept as 'the right to have rights.' His Court deemed the revocation of citizenship cruel and unusual, tantamount to banishment, 'a form of punishment more primitive than torture.' By testing the constitutional rights of citizenship on two fronts—attempting to denaturalize Americans and to strip away birthright citizenship—Trump is claiming the power of a king to banish his subjects. In the United States, citizens choose the president. The president does not choose citizens What is the ' rule of law'? Nobody is above the law. Except, perhaps, the president, who is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. Trump is distorting that principle by directing the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to enforce his own vision of the law without regard for constitutional norms. Civil law is more malleable than criminal law, with fewer assurances of due process and a lower burden of proof. ICE raids rely on kinetic force to fill detention cells. Denaturalization cases can rely on stealthy legal proceedings. In 2018, the Trump administration stripped a man of his citizenship. He was married to a U.S. citizen and had been naturalized for 12 years. The administration accused him of fraudulently using an alias to apply for his papers after having been ordered to leave the country. In an article for the American Bar Association, two legal scholars argued that this was more likely the result of a bureaucratic mix-up. Whatever the truth of the matter, the summons was served to an old address, and the man lost his citizenship without ever having had the chance to defend himself in a hearing. The DOJ is signaling an aggressive pursuit of denaturalization that could lead to more cases like these. In the most extreme scenarios, Americans could be banished to a country where they have no connection or even passing familiarity with the language or culture. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? Checks and balances. Denaturalization efforts may fail in federal court, but the Trump administration has a habit of acting first and answering to judges later. When courts do intervene, a decision can take weeks or months, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that federal judges lack the authority to order nationwide injunctions while they review an individual case. FBI and ICE investigations, however, can be opened quickly and have been accelerated by new surveillance technologies. How far might a Trump administration unbound by the courts go? Few people foresaw late-night deportation flights to El Salvador, the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, a U.S. senator thrown to the ground and handcuffed by FBI agents for speaking out during a Department of Homeland Security press conference. To many Americans who have roots in countries with an authoritarian government, these events don't seem so alien. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? Speech. And all the rights that flow from it: Assembly. Religion. Press. Petitioning the government. During the McCarthy era, the Department of Justice targeted alleged anarchists and Communists for denaturalization, scrutinizing the years well before and after they had arrived in the U.S. for evidence of any lack of 'moral character,' which could include gambling, drunkenness, or affiliation with labor unions. From 1907 to 1967, more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Even if only a handful of people are stripped of their citizenship in the coming years, it would be enough to chill the speech of countless naturalized citizens, many of whom are already cautious about exercising their First Amendment rights. The mere prospect of a lengthy, costly, traumatic legal proceeding is enough to induce silence. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy? Help with a campaign. Publicly support or oppose an issue or policy. If, apparently, it's the 'proper' campaign, issue, or policy. What movement tried to end racial discrimination? The civil-rights movement. The question of who has the right to have rights is as old as our republic. Since the Constitutional Convention, white Americans have fiercely debated the citizenship rights of Indigenous Americans, Black people, and women. The Fourteenth Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, and equal protection under the law for Black Americans, was the most transformative outcome of the Civil War. Until 1940, an American woman who married a foreign-born man could be stripped of her citizenship. Only through civil unrest and civil disobedience did the long arc of the moral universe bend toward justice. The 1964 Civil Rights Act opened the door for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended the national-origin quotas that had limited immigration from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The act 'corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation,' President Lyndon B. Johnson said as he signed the immigration bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. The possibility of multiracial democracy emerged from the civil-rights movement and the laws that followed. Turning back the clock on race and citizenship, and stoking fears about the blood of America, is a return to injustice and cruelty. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen? To support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now Americans like me have to wonder if we can hold true to that promise, or whether speaking up for the Constitution could jeopardize our citizenship.
CBS News
5 minutes ago
- CBS News
CBS News poll finds support for Trump's deportation program falls; Americans call for more focus on prices
After six months that included a string of achievements on President Trump's legislative goals, views of his second term are increasingly defined by the difference between his political base, which likes what it sees, and the rest of the country, which has growing doubt. On the economic front, it comes from continued calls to focus more on prices, rather than tariffs, which most Americans oppose. And now, there's the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which at least initially, most believe will help the wealthy. On matters of deportation, differences hinge on who, and how many, Americans see as being targeted, as well as the use of detention facilities. Here again, the Republican and MAGA political base remain overwhelmingly approving of it all, but the rest of the American public has become less so. (On another matter, by comparison, most say the case of Jeffrey Epstein is not very important in their evaluations of the president, and in particular, the president's MAGA base remains overwhelmingly approving of his job performance, especially on immigration.) Most now say the administration is not prioritizing dangerous criminals for deportation and also is deporting more people than they thought it would. The program had majority support earlier in the term, but today it does not, moving along with that perception of who is being deported. Meanwhile, most disapprove of the way the administration is using detention facilities. Approval of the deportation program has slipped over these months to become slightly net-negative now, with support becoming more exclusively drawn from Republicans and MAGA identifiers. Hispanic Americans, along with Americans overall, say Hispanic people are being targeted more than others for searches, and those who think so say that's unfair. As a result, Hispanic approval of the deportation program and of Mr. Trump more generally is lower today than it was earlier in the term. (For broader context, too, during the 2024 election, Mr. Trump made gains with Hispanic voters and started his term with approval from half of Hispanics. Today he has one-third.) This, despite widespread public views that Mr. Trump's policies have reduced border crossings. That suggests that Mr. Trump's declining marks on immigration generally are more connected to his deportation program than activity at the border, these days. And on balance, it's an example of how a policy pendulum can swing in American politics: in the first year of Joe Biden's presidency, most Americans said he and Democrats were not being tough enough on immigration. Today, most Americans say Mr. Trump and the Republicans are being too tough. Half the country (again, largely outside that political base) now says the president is focusing too much on deportation. What do people want Mr. Trump to focus on? That part isn't news: it's still prices, as it's been throughout the term. Seven in 10 say the administration isn't doing enough to try to lower them. Inflation and prices are important to most in how they evaluate Mr. Trump overall. Nearly two-thirds now disapprove of how Mr. Trump is handling inflation, the highest disapproval for him on that yet. And for the first time, a plurality says the administration is focusing too much on cutting spending. More broadly, and after having campaigned heavily on immigration and inflation, most Americans still say Mr. Trump is doing what he promised in the campaign. However, fewer say that now than did near the beginning of his term, with the difference being in part, fewer independents and fewer Democrats thinking so. Republicans largely say it's consistent. On the debate, such as it is, around interest rates, Americans are split in their general desire for the economy — whether the bigger priority should be to keep interest rates where they are to control inflation, or lower them to make borrowing money easier. Amid the discussion surrounding Mr. Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, a large majority say the Fed should act independently from the president. But there's a caveat to all this, as many admit they don't know a lot about what the Fed does. Powell gets mixed confidence, with Democrats expressing more confidence in him than Republicans, perhaps another example of how partisanship may stand in for more technical economic viewpoints. Six in 10 disapprove of the One Big Beautiful Bill legislation. Views of it today are similar to what they were before the bill was passed: Most think it will hurt poor people and help the wealthy. Fewer believe it will help the middle or working class. With so many Americans saying they don't know a lot of the bill's specifics, the initial response to it appears very partisan, opening up what may be a months-long fight to define and sell it. And so Mr. Trump's overall approval also continues to slide as it has consistently, if incrementally, since the start of his term. It's now closer to where it spent a lot of time in his first term, in the low 40s, with similar structure underneath of negative sentiment beyond that strong approval from the base. For all the week's punditry, the matter over the Epstein files isn't affecting Mr. Trump's overall approval among his MAGA base. For one thing, Republicans and MAGA like his handling of immigration, especially, and say they gauge him on that more. The Epstein case doesn't compare on importance. Few Republicans, including MAGA, say issues surrounding the Epstein case matter "a lot" to how they evaluate Mr. Trump's presidency. That said, there is some relative dissatisfaction within the GOP, including in the MAGA base, with how the administration is handling it. Americans do want the files released — that includes Democrats, Republicans, MAGA in particular, across a wide range of groups. Americans overwhelmingly suspect that the files contain damaging information about powerful and wealthy people. This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,343 U.S. adults interviewed between July 16-18, 2025. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.5 points.
Forbes
5 minutes ago
- Forbes
Retailers In The Crosshairs Over Tariff-Driven Price Hikes
Close-up on a woman shopping at a convenience store and checking her receipt while exiting In survey after survey, consumers overwhelmingly expect Trump's tariffs to increase prices, a view reinforced by numerous experts, including the Federal Reserve's Jerome Powell, who said in June, 'Everyone that I know is forecasting a meaningful increase in inflation in coming months from tariffs.' Despite June reports that the consumer price index only ticked up 0.3%, which Goldman Sach's' Kay Haigh said 'remained muted,' and that the producer price index, which measures wholesale price increases, didn't move at all, consumers aren't reassured. They see prices rising before their eyes, which is backed up by findings from Harvard Business School's Pricing Lab, which tracks prices from four major U.S. retailers on a daily basis. The July 17 report found prices on both imported and domestic goods are going up. As consumers try to reconcile conflicting reports and what their 'lying eyes' are seeing, a new Harris Poll report suggests they are going to point the finger not on distant government officials in Washington, but closer to home: on retailers and brands they regularly do business with. Corporate Greed Takes Blame 'Sixty-three percent of Americans believe that companies are taking advantage of the economic climate to boost profits,' said Harris Poll CEO John Gerzema, based upon a recent survey among 2,000 adult Americans. Further, 62% believe businesses are lowering product quality while raising prices, another blow to corporate reputations and a threat to brand loyalty. Retailers must tread carefully in these rough waters. Consumers will do business with brands they trust. The widespread feeling is that corporations are putting profits ahead of the people they serve. 'Consumers must be able to trust that businesses are not taking advantage of them during this period of high economic anxiety,' Gerzema continued. 'Those who demonstrate themselves as allies right now will build future differentiation and goodwill.' An additional threat to customer loyalty was uncovered in a related Axios/Harris Poll earlier this year. More Americans – 39% – hold businesses accountable for their financial struggles compared to 30% who blame government policies. Meanwhile, another 30% cite their own financial decisions for their economic hardships. These consumers are likely to change their shopping behavior in an effort to regain control and correct course. Businesses Have A Choice Even as the Pricing Lab finds domestic retail prices going up, the increased tariff rates that are set to take effect on Aug. 1 are going to be a bigger blow and one that will put even greater stress on consumers and corporations that have to decide how to cover them. The Budget Lab at Yale just reported that consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 20.6%, the highest since 1910. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York posted a report in June that 75% of manufacturers have started to pass through tariff costs to consumers, including nearly one-third that have passed along all associated tariffs, greater than the 25% that have held prices steady. In the middle, 24% have passed on 50% or less of tariff costs and 20% are in the range between 51% and 99%. Manufacturers also indicated that the cost of their tariffs goods increased by an average of 20% over thel ast six months, a pretty sizeable markup and inline with the Budget Lab's assessment. For retailers and their product partners, Gerzema advised caution in passing along too many of the tariff costs. 'It's a question of whose side are you on? With tariffs creating greater uncertainty and price sensitivity, leaders must explain how their business is responding and the steps they are taking to protect future customer value, not just margin.' Somebody's Got To Pay Drawing on insights from the Harris Poll, Gerzema encourages companies to adopt a fair and transparent approach to pricing. When price hikes are unavoidable, he advises clear, empathetic communication to maintain trust and goodwill. In cases where tariffs drive up costs, a 'less is more' philosophy applies—businesses are better served by absorbing a portion of the impact rather than transferring the full burden to consumers. As the Fed's Powell said ,'All through that [supply] chain, people will be trying not to be the ones who can take up the cost, but ultimately, the cost of the tariff has to be paid. And some of it will fall on the end consumer.'
