The Geopolitical Chessboard: Israel, Turkey, and the Takfiri Takeover of Syria
Israel claims it sees a growing threat in the Turkish-backed Takfiris who ousted Assad in December 2024
In the aftermath of the Turkish-backed Takfiris ousting of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Israel has raised alarms about the growing threat posed by these extremist groups. But is this concern genuine, or is it a calculated move in a broader geopolitical game? The reality is far more complex—and far more troubling.
Israel and Turkey, despite their historical tensions, appear to have found common ground in their shared interest in ousting Assad and reshaping Syria’s political landscape. For Turkey, a Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)-led government in Damascus would extend Ankara’s neo-Ottoman influence over Syria, cementing its role as a regional power. For Israel, the rise of a Takfiri government provides the perfect pretext to expand its territorial control within Syria under the guise of countering an "Islamic threat."
This alignment of interests is no coincidence. An HTS-led Syria, under the leadership of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, serves both nations’ strategic goals. For Turkey, it means a pliant government in Damascus that aligns with its ambitions. For Israel, it creates a fragmented, unstable Syria that can be exploited to further its own territorial and security objectives.
But the implications of this alliance are dire for Syria and its people. Jolani and his loyalists are Takfiris who view religious and ethnic minorities as heretics and enemies. Their rise to power has already unleashed a wave of violence against Syria’s minorities, including the Druze, Kurds, Christians and Alawites. Israel, meanwhile, has seized on this chaos to position itself as the "savior" of these minorities, sending messages of support and promises of protection. This narrative allows Israel to justify its continued expansion into Syrian territory, all while presenting itself as a benevolent force in the region.
The irony is stark. While Israel claims to defend minorities from Jolani’s gangs, it is simultaneously benefiting from the very instability that these extremist groups create. This is not about altruism—it’s about opportunism.
Meanwhile, Jolani’s recent appearance at the Arab League Summit to discuss the Arab initiative for Gaza highlights the absurdity of the situation. Here is the leader of a Takfiri group, backed by Turkey and tacitly enabled by Israel, calling on the international community to pressure Israel to withdraw from Syrian territories. But when has the international community ever been able to compel Israel to relinquish occupied land? The answer is never.
The truth is, Syria under Jolani has become a passive actor, unable to resist Israeli encroachment or defend its own sovereignty. Jolani’s rhetoric of diplomacy and peace is little more than a smokescreen designed to placate his sponsors in Ankara and Riyadh while Israel continues to dominate Syria’s territory. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to the balkanization of Syria, with Israel establishing de facto control over regions populated by minorities.
This is the tragic reality of Syria today: a nation torn apart by external powers pursuing their own agendas, with little regard for the suffering of its people. Turkey and Israel may have different endgames, but their collaboration has created a nightmare for Syria—one that shows no signs of ending.
As the world watches this unfolding tragedy, it’s worth asking: Who truly benefits from this chaos? And at what cost?
Hello Kevork, thank you for insightful and timely analysis. I refer to the latter talks not just this one.
Out of all this, one question keeps coming up and wondered if you could elaborate....
You investigate how the US, in tandem with Israel, supported the current regime change. Then you say that Jolani is their puppet. You offer the evidence that he does not confront the current illegal Israeli occupation of Syrian territory. But would it not be unwise, even suicidal, to confront the US and Israel military mammoth at a time when the fighting force of Syria is near zero? When it has not had any chance to reconsitutute? Unfortunately, the reconstitution of the Syrian fighting force may require foreign investment. So, I have two questions. One is whether Jolani can be readily blamed for not confronting Israel's occupation. Second, what do you think is the best way, the best sources, to reconsitute the Syrian defence and fighting power (be this under Jolani or otherwise).