Key players in Syria's latest eruption of violence, from the Druze and Bedouin to government forces
The violence underscored the difficulties facing the Syrian new government struggling to consolidate control over the country, months after Islamist-led insurgents ousted longtime autocrat Bashar Assad in a lightning offensive last December.
Some key players and alliances in Syria are different now than during the civil war, but the landscape remains complex.
Here's a look at the main parties in the four days of violence in Sweida province before a ceasefire mediated by the United States, Turkey and Arab countries took effect. The truce mostly held on Thursday, though scattered violence was reported.
The government
Interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa leads the new government and is Syria's international face. His Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, once an al-Qaida affiliate that later split from it, spearheaded the anti-Assad charge.
Since taking power, al-Sharaa has taken a more moderate tone, preached coexistence and formed diplomatic ties with Western countries, including the U.S.
His government has faced suspicion from minority communities — including Assad's Alawite sect, Christians, Syrian Kurds and the Druze — and there have been outbreaks of sectarian violence. Damascus also struggles to turn a patchwork of former rebel groups — including some extremists — into a professional army.
In Sweida, al-Sharaa's government forces intervened in clashes that started between local Bedouin tribes and Druze militias, but ended up themselves clashing with the Druze, drawing Israeli airstrikes, purportedly in defense of the Druze. Some government fighters allegedly killed Druze civilians, and looted and burned houses.
The Druze
The Druze sect began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. More than half the roughly 1 million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Others mostly live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981.
During Syria's civil war, the Druze were split between supporting Assad, who offered them a degree of autonomy and exemption from army conscription, and his opposition. They established their own militias, partly to defend against Islamic militants who consider them heretics.
Until this week's clashes, the Druze were split between those who wanted to integrate with the new government and those seeking to maintain autonomy.
The Bedouins
While predominantly Druze, Sweida is also home to Bedouin tribes who are Sunni Muslim and who have on occasion clashed with the Druze.
In 2000, unrest broke out after a Bedouin killed a Druze man in a land dispute. Assad's forces intervened, shooting Druze protesters. After a 2018 Islamic State group attack on the Druze in Sweida that killed more than 200 people, the Druze accused the Bedouins of helping the militants.
The latest escalation began with a Bedouin tribe in Sweida setting up a checkpoint and attacking and robbing a Druze man, which triggered tit-for-tat attacks and kidnappings, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based war monitor.
Al-Sharaa's forces then intervened, ostensibly to restore calm, but sided with the Bedouins. Some Druze groups allegedly carried out revenge attacks against Bedouins after a ceasefire was reached.
Israel
Israel frequently launched strikes on Iranian and Iran-backed forces who were Assad's allies during Syria's civil war. Since Assad's fall, Israel has been suspicious of the new Islamist authorities in Damascus.
Israeli forces seized have control of a U.N.-patrolled buffer zone in Syria and carried out airstrikes on military sites in what officials they was a move to create a demilitarized zone south of Damascus.
Washington has been pushing for Syria and Israel to move toward normalizing relations. Syrian officials have acknowledged holding indirect talks with Israel to defuse tensions.
Israel stepped up its intervention during the Sweida escalation this week, saying it was acting to protect the Druze, who are seen as a loyal minority in Israel and often serve in the military. Israel launched dozens of airstrikes on convoys of Syrian forces around Sweida and struck the headquarters of the Syrian Ministry of Defense in the heart of Damascus.
The U.S.
In a watershed moment, President Donald Trump met with al-Sharaa during a visit to Saudi Arabia in May, a major boost from Washington as the new Damascus authorities try to consolidate control.
Amid the Sweida violence, the U.S., which has been pushing to broker ties between Syria and Israel, launched a flurry of diplomacy to push for a ceasefire.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. was 'very worried' about the violence, describing it as a 'direct threat to efforts to help build a peaceful and stable Syria,' and added that Washington was in 'repeated and constant talks with the governments of Syria and Israel' to deescalate.
Turkey
Turkey, an ally of both the U.S. and al-Sharaa's government, was also part of the mediation efforts over Sweida.
Ankara wants a strong state in Damascus and is primarily concerned with curtailing the influence of Kurdish groups in Syria along the border with Turkey — specifically, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF.
While the Kurdish SDF fighters are allied with the U.S. and were key in defeating the Islamic State militants, Ankara considers them terrorists because of their association with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has waged a long-running insurgency in Turkey.
The Kurdish-led forces
The Kurdish-led SDF controls much of northeast Syria and was not part of the Sweida violence. But its fighters have in the past clashed with Turkish-backed groups that are now part of the new Syrian government forces.
In March, the SDF and Damascus signed a landmark deal — backed by Washington — under which the Kurdish-led forces would merge with the new Syrian national army. The deal also said Syria's border crossings with Iraq and Turkey, as well as airports and oil fields in the northeast that are now under the SDF control would be turned over to the central government.
But the details of the deal were left vague, and the two sides have been at odds over how to implement it. The Sweida escalation could further sideline those discussions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Arab nations are getting wise to Hamas — even as others foolishly squeeze Israel
Most media ignored last week's most important Middle East development: Arab nations for the first time publicly slammed Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and demanded the terrorists surrender power, disarm, and release their hostages. OK, it's a low bar. But it's progress, and a lot more meaningful than British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's threat to recognize a Palestinian state or the other maneuvering over Gaza's food crisis. The landmark demands came in a seven-page declaration Tuesday by 17 countries, plus the European Union and the entire 22-member Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar. Advertisement British Foreign Secretary David Lammy embraces Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa after Lammy spoke at a United Nations conference on July 29, 2025. AFP via Getty Images They reflect a willingness — finally! — to publicly acknowledge that Hamas' ouster is necessary to end the war in Gaza and thus ease the suffering of its civilians. Hallelujah: We've stressed since Day 1 that the conflict can't end with Hamas in power; the group, after all, openly vows to keep attacking the Jewish state until Israel is destroyed. Advertisement Perhaps the Gaza food shortages got the Arabs' attention — even if most reports misled readers by tacitly (or even openly) blaming Jerusalem for them. Bigger picture: Nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, egged on by President Donald Trump, are now eager to normalize relations with Israel, though they want the Gaza fighting to end first. Sadly, other parts of Tuesday's statement are as misguided as ever, calling for Hamas to 'hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State.' Advertisement With Gaza then seeing 'the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission upon invitation by the Palestinian Authority and under the aegis of the United Nations.' The Palestinian Authority? The United Nations? Neither is fit for real responsibilities: The PA is nothing but an autocratic kleptocracy that uses international-aid funds to enrich its leaders and to pay terrorists to kill Israelis; even clueless President Joe Biden insisted it would have to be 'revitalized' before it could play any role in Gaza. UN peacekeepers, meanwhile, have never managed to keep peace anywhere in the Middle East; instead, the world body's presence — e.g., via groups like the UN Relief and Works Agency — has only fueled violence in the region. Advertisement Even more brainless is Starmer's threat to recognize a Palestinian state, along with France and Canada's plans to do so next month, 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a cease-fire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution.' Why no threats to Hamas if it keeps preventing food from reaching ordinary Gazans? How about insisting that it hand over its remaining Israeli hostages? Look: Israel has already taken 'substantive steps' to aid Gaza's civilians, and has already agreed to numerous cease-fire plans. Hamas rejects any cease-fire unless Israel agrees to let it keep power in Gaza, even as the terrorists block the peaceful distribution of food aid. It also refuses to release the remaining hostages, knowing that if it did, it would be its last act before total annihilation. As for a 'two-state solution,' Israelis backed it (until Oct. 7, anyway); the problem is finding Palestinian leadership to agree to a deal that doesn't put Israel's future at risk. So why is Starmer threatening Israel? Advertisement Oh, and here's a reality check: The outside world can't actually summon a state into existence; citizens of a would-be nation must create it on their own. Fact is, neither Britain, France, nor any other country can truly claim to care about Gazans unless they focus solely on the heart of the problem: Hamas. That Arab nations are at last starting to admit that it is the most hopeful sign yet for peace.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks … your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands — and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run — even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House, Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded – dramatically.'' Everything goes back to what Trump calls 'Liberation Day'' – April 2 – when the president announced 'reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% 'baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs — all of which is now being challenged in court. Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States — up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year — but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under — and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath — got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 — versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax — even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits — or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike, Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. 'Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates.
