Crescent International
In the fog of war and propaganda, it is essential to distinguish correlation from causation.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of Israeli aggression against Syria.
It has little to do with confronting the takfiri militia ruling Damascus and everything to do with dismantling the Syrian state itself.
A closer look at history makes the distinction clearer: the United States and Israel never intended for Wahhabi militias to govern Syria—they were merely instruments of chaos.
From Algeria to Idlib to Afghanistan, Wahhabi groups have consistently failed to build functioning state systems; their utility lies in destabilization, not governance.
Israeli strikes on Syria are not motivated by hostility towards the Wahhabis—many actively supported by the zionist regime—but by a long-term strategy to fragment and weaken yet another Muslim country.
The presence of takfiri groups and Israeli aggression may appear linked, but the true cause lies elsewhere.
This is correlation, not causation.
The ongoing clashes in Syria’s Suwayda region appear to be deliberately instigated by Israel as part of a broader strategy to keep Syrian society fragmented, exhausted, and mired in internal conflict.
By fueling such divisions, Israel aims to ensure that Syrians remain too preoccupied with domestic strife to effectively resist external pressure or reclaim national cohesion.
This tactic is not a recent phenomenon; it reflects a long-standing geopolitical strategy.
The United States employed similar methods in various conflicts, notably in Vietnam and Iraq, where internal divisions were exploited or deepened to weaken national resistance and prolong instability.
During the Cold War, the US took this strategy to new heights by promoting the most extreme and repugnant elements within leftist movements across the globe.
The goal was to delegitimize the broader left by associating it with violence, chaos, and ideological fanaticism.
A striking example of this approach was Washington’s tacit alliance with the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s—a partnership driven not by shared values, but by the desire to undermine Vietnamese influence in the region.
Seen in this historical context, the current situation in Suwayda fits into a familiar pattern: external powers sowing chaos to sap resistance, manipulate narratives, and maintain dominance.
Beyond the broader destabilization strategy, there is also a tactical Israeli dimension to the conflict in Suwayda.
By establishing a foothold in the region, Israel is positioning itself to counter any future Syrian resistance to its occupation of the Golan Heights.
The aim is to ensure that when a Syrian resistance movement becomes active, the zionist regime will have a multi-front advantage: able to strike from the occupied Golan as well as from within Syrian territory itself.
This internal front would serve to fragment and weaken any cohesive opposition, further entrenching Israel’s strategic dominance.
While Syria was already destabilized following the events of 2011, the involvement of American and Israeli proxies worsened an already bad situation.
Regardless of one’s view of the Baathist regime, it is evident that Syria today is in a far more devastated state than it was under the Asad family rule.
The country lacks a functioning central government, has surrendered even more of its territory to the zionist regime, and remains entangled in a web of internal conflicts, factionalism, and foreign interference.
This deterioration is due in part to the role played by western-backed “Islamist” proxies of Israel in Syria, as well as to the actions of many well-intentioned but naive Muslims who were misled by the myth of a popular “revolution.”
In the fervor of the moment, a crucial Islamic legal principle was forgotten: that repelling harm takes precedence over establishing good.
By neglecting this foundational maxim, efforts that may have aimed at reform ended up paving the way for deeper chaos and exploitation.
