In a significant escalation of regional tensions, Israeli forces have launched a ground invasion into Syria’s southwestern province of Dara’a, a move that has raised concerns about the stability of the already volatile region. The incursion, reported by the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on Sunday, September 14, 2025, comes despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations described by Syrian authorities as aimed at securing a “security agreement” between Israel and Syria. This military operation, which included raids in the towns of Saysoun and Jamlah near the 1974 ceasefire line that serves as the de facto border between the two nations, marks a bold and provocative step by Israel, further complicating the fragile geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East.
The Incursion: Details and Context
According to SANA, Israeli troops crossed into Syrian territory in Dara’a, a province that has long been a hotspot of conflict due to its proximity to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The towns of Saysoun and Jamlah, located close to the 1974 ceasefire line, were specifically targeted in what SANA described as raids. This ceasefire line, established following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, was intended to act as a buffer to prevent direct military confrontations between Israel and Syria. However, Israel’s latest actions appear to disregard this longstanding agreement, raising questions about the viability of past diplomatic arrangements in the face of current regional realities.
The ground incursion was accompanied by continued Israeli airstrikes in various parts of Syria, including the capital, Damascus. These airstrikes have become a frequent occurrence, particularly since the collapse of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government in 2024. The power vacuum left by Assad’s ousting has created an environment of instability, which Israel has exploited to assert greater control over Syrian territory. The raids in Dara’a and the airstrikes in Damascus signal a multi-pronged approach by Israel to secure its strategic interests in the region.
Timing and Diplomatic Contradictions
The timing of the incursion is particularly notable, as it occurred just one day after Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the self-proclaimed president of Syria and leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, announced the initiation of talks with Israel to re-establish the 1974 disengagement agreement. This agreement, brokered by the United Nations following the 1973 war, was designed to maintain a delicate balance of power by creating a demilitarized buffer zone between Israeli and Syrian forces. Al-Jolani’s announcement suggested a willingness to engage in dialogue to stabilize relations and halt Israel’s aggressive actions, which have included repeated airstrikes and territorial encroachments.
However, Israel’s decision to launch a ground invasion while these talks were underway has cast doubt on the sincerity of its commitment to diplomacy. The incursion suggests that Israel is prioritizing military action over negotiation, potentially undermining the prospects for a peaceful resolution. Analysts argue that this move reflects Israel’s broader strategy of capitalizing on Syria’s weakened state to expand its influence and secure strategic locations.
A History of Aggression
Israel’s actions in Syria are not new. Since the collapse of Assad’s government, Israel has conducted numerous acts of aggression across Syrian territory, including airstrikes targeting military installations, infrastructure, and alleged Iranian-backed militias. These operations have been justified by Israel as necessary to counter security threats, particularly from groups it claims are supported by Iran. However, the scale and frequency of these attacks have intensified in recent months, raising concerns about Israel’s long-term intentions in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a vocal proponent of a more assertive policy toward Syria. In recent months, he has ordered Israeli forces to push deeper into Syrian territory, seizing strategic locations and expanding Israel’s control over the buffer zone that separates the occupied Golan Heights from the rest of Syria. This expansion violates the 1974 disengagement agreement, which explicitly prohibits military activity in the buffer zone. Israel’s occupation of the Golan Heights, which it captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, has long been a point of contention, and its recent moves to encroach further into Syrian territory have further strained relations.
The Role of HTS and Regional Dynamics
The HTS regime, led by al-Jolani, has faced criticism for its perceived inaction in response to Israel’s aggression. Experts argue that HTS’s overtures toward normalization with Israel, including its willingness to engage in talks to re-establish the 1974 agreement, have emboldened Israel to act with impunity. The lack of a strong military or political response from HTS has created a perception of weakness, allowing Israel to expand its occupation of Syrian territory and intensify its airstrikes.
HTS’s rise to power following the collapse of Assad’s government has been marked by internal challenges and external pressures. The group, which evolved from the al-Nusra Front, has sought to rebrand itself as a legitimate governing authority, distancing itself from its jihadist roots. However, its ability to govern effectively and maintain sovereignty over Syrian territory has been undermined by Israel’s repeated incursions and the broader regional power struggle involving actors such as Iran, Russia, and Turkey.
The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011 as a civil war, has evolved into a complex proxy war involving multiple foreign powers. Israel’s actions in Syria must be understood within this broader context, where competing interests and shifting alliances have created a volatile environment. Iran’s support for Assad’s regime and its backing of militias such as Hezbollah have long been a concern for Israel, prompting it to take preemptive measures to counter Iranian influence. However, with Assad’s government no longer in power, Israel appears to be seizing the opportunity to assert greater control over Syrian territory, potentially at the expense of long-term regional stability.
Netanyahu’s Vision of a “Greater Israel”
One of the most provocative aspects of Israel’s recent actions is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s public endorsement of the concept of a “Greater Israel.” Last month, Netanyahu declared what he described as a “divine connection” to this vision, which envisions the expansion of Israeli territory to include not only the occupied Palestinian territories but also parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. This ideological stance has alarmed neighboring countries and drawn condemnation from the international community, which views such ambitions as a violation of international law and a threat to regional peace.
The idea of a “Greater Israel” has historical roots in Zionist ideology but has been largely dismissed as impractical and inflammatory in modern diplomacy. Netanyahu’s invocation of this concept, however, signals a willingness to pursue an aggressive and expansionist agenda, particularly in the context of Syria’s weakened state. The seizure of the buffer zone and the incursion into Dara’a can be seen as steps toward realizing this vision, as Israel seeks to consolidate its control over strategically important areas.
International Reactions and Implications
The international community has responded with concern to Israel’s latest actions in Syria. The United Nations, which oversees the 1974 disengagement agreement, has called for restraint and urged both parties to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire. However, Israel’s repeated violations of the agreement have raised questions about the UN’s ability to enforce compliance in the face of a determined military power.
Arab states, particularly those with historical ties to Syria, have condemned Israel’s actions but have been unable to mount a unified response. The Arab League, which has been weakened by internal divisions, has issued statements criticizing Israel’s aggression but has stopped short of proposing concrete measures to address the situation. Meanwhile, regional powers such as Turkey and Iran, which have their own interests in Syria, are likely to view Israel’s actions as a direct challenge to their influence, potentially escalating tensions further.
The United States, Israel’s closest ally, has remained largely silent on the incursion, reflecting its broader policy of supporting Israel’s security concerns while avoiding direct involvement in the Syrian conflict. This stance has drawn criticism from some quarters, who argue that Washington’s tacit approval of Israel’s actions risks further destabilizing the region.
The Humanitarian and Strategic Impact
The ground invasion and airstrikes have had a devastating impact on Syrian civilians, who have already endured years of war and displacement. Dara’a, in particular, has been a focal point of violence since the early days of the Syrian uprising, and the latest incursion has reignited fears of renewed conflict. Civilians in the affected areas face the risk of displacement, injury, and death, as well as the destruction of critical infrastructure.
Strategically, Israel’s actions are likely to have far-reaching consequences. By seizing control of the buffer zone and conducting operations in Dara’a, Israel is signaling its intent to reshape the regional balance of power. However, this approach carries significant risks, including the potential for retaliation from Syrian factions or their allies, such as Iran-backed militias or Hezbollah. The escalation of hostilities could also draw in other regional actors, further complicating an already complex conflict.
The Path Forward
The situation in Syria remains fluid, with no clear resolution in sight. The ongoing talks between Israel and HTS offer a potential avenue for de-escalation, but Israel’s military actions suggest a lack of commitment to a diplomatic solution. For any agreement to succeed, both parties must demonstrate a willingness to compromise and prioritize the restoration of stability over territorial ambitions.
The international community, particularly the United Nations, has a critical role to play in mediating the conflict and ensuring compliance with existing agreements. However, the UN’s effectiveness will depend on its ability to enforce accountability and secure the cooperation of major powers.
For Syria, the path forward is fraught with challenges. The HTS regime faces the daunting task of governing a fractured country while fending off external aggression and internal dissent. Rebuilding Syria’s institutions and infrastructure will require significant international support, which is unlikely to materialize in the absence of a stable political and security environment.
Conclusion
Israel’s ground invasion into Dara’a and its continued airstrikes in Syria represent a significant escalation in a region already plagued by conflict. The incursion, carried out in defiance of ongoing diplomatic talks, underscores the challenges of achieving peace in a fractured and volatile landscape. While Israel’s actions may be driven by security concerns and strategic ambitions, they risk further destabilizing Syria and drawing in other regional actors. The international community must act swiftly to address the crisis, prioritizing diplomacy and humanitarian considerations to prevent further suffering and instability. The road to peace in Syria is long and uncertain, but it begins with a commitment to dialogue and respect for international agreements.
