Why waiting for an Israeli government change is a bad strategy for Syria?

The Syrian government's continued military silence in response to Israeli attacks inside the country—since Assad's fall until just days ago, on September 8—raises questions tinged with anger and astonishment.

While some understand the government's military restraint, others call for resistance. Some warn of popular uprisings, while others advocate for a peace agreement to end Israeli military threats, similar to those with Jordan and Egypt.

In his latest interview on the official Al-Ikhbariya channel on September 12, President Shar' sent multiple messages aimed at calming tensions. Among them, two stood out:

• Rejection of partition
• Refusal to give up a single grain of Syrian soil

Although these remarks were made in the context of the SDF, they can be extended to the territories occupied by Israel after Assad’s fall on December 8, 2024, amid ongoing attacks and public negotiations with Israelis over a new security agreement—possibly resembling the 1974 disengagement accord, according to the president.

A U.S.-Turkish-Jordanian mediation succeeded in brokering a ceasefire between Israel, Druze militias, and the Syrian government during the Suwayda events last July. Analysts expect increased American pressure for such agreements, especially with President Sharaa attending the UN meetings this September.

Israel’s unchecked aggression, backed by unwavering U.S. support—even extending to Qatar—leaves Syria with few options. One possibility is to wait for the 2026 Israeli parliamentary elections, hoping a less aggressive alternative replaces Netanyahu.

The most likely alternative is opposition leader Yair Lapid, who currently leads a weak coalition against Netanyahu. But what are his key positions on Syria?

1. Criticism of Military Strikes and Government Policy:
Lapid described Israeli airstrikes on Damascus as “reckless” and “a grave mistake,” arguing they don’t serve Israel’s strategic interests. He believes protecting the Druze could be achieved through other means.
He also accused Netanyahu’s government of “utter irresponsibility,” especially regarding claims of credit for Assad’s fall, calling such statements “dangerous” and harmful to Israel’s interests.

2. Call for Cautious Strategy and Diplomacy:
Lapid urged careful handling of Syria’s new leadership, avoiding provocative statements that could undermine its legitimacy. He emphasized that the Syrian opposition should not appear as having gained power through Israeli support.
He proposed a regional security summit led by Israel, with countries like Saudi Arabia, to help Syrians expel Iranian influence and stabilize the region—potentially forming a broader alliance serving Israel’s interests.

3. Firm Stance on the Golan Heights:
Lapid reaffirmed Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, stating it cannot be relinquished under any circumstances, especially amid Iran’s attempts to entrench its military presence in Syria.

Lapid’s public positions suggest a potential reduction in military aggression toward Syria if he comes to power, but they offer no promises regarding territorial restitution or ending interference in internal affairs like the Druze issue.

As the Syrian government refrains from military escalation while working to regain control and unify the country, it continues to pursue diplomatic pressure through actors with good ties to Israel—such as the U.S., UAE, and Turkey—but with little success so far.
According to U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, Israel no longer adheres to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and will strike any country it perceives as a threat, as recently happened with Qatar.

In his interview President Sharaa didn't exclude a future relation with Iran, after improvement in relation with Russia, who west demanded the Syrian government to sever ties with, many times.

Given these realities, the Syrian government’s only viable option may be to develop a limited military scenario to counter Israeli attacks. If history has taught us anything, it’s that air power alone cannot achieve decisive victory—ground engagement and human attrition often force one side to retreat or surrender. And recent experiences suggest that side is often Israel.

Syria news report