Part Two of the Dialogue with Dr. Riad Al-Aisami
Suwayda’s Position on the Syrian Geopolitical Map Between Local Factors and International Balances
4. In light of your analysis of the political geography of southern Syria, how can Suwayda’s position within the Syrian geopolitical map be interpreted, considering the interplay of its geographic location (proximity to the Jordanian border, the Golan, and the Syrian Badia) with its social-local characteristics, and its relation to the regional and international balances affecting this space?
Suwayda’s position within the Syrian geopolitical map can be addressed through an understanding of the interplay between the geographic factor and the considerations of regional and international powers. Suwayda lies in southern Syria, within a geographic scope that acquires special importance due to its proximity to the Jordanian border and the Golan area, in addition to its connection to the Syrian Badia, making it a point of convergence for multiple geographic pathways extending toward the Syrian interior on one hand, and toward a broader regional depth on the other. This location endows it with strategic value not tied solely to its local characteristics, but also to its function within a wider network of regional interactions.
From this perspective, Suwayda can be understood not merely as a governorate with a local social character, but as part of a broader geopolitical space connected to the balances in southern Syria, where border security considerations intersect with regional influence considerations. Proximity to the Jordanian border and the Golan area, in particular, imparts additional sensitivity to this region, given its direct linkage to geopolitical friction zones between multiple regional parties—a factor rendering it susceptible to the transformations in regional power balances.
In this context as well, Suwayda cannot be viewed in isolation from its surrounding strategic environment; rather, its situation must be understood within a broader framework encompassing power balances in southern Syria, and the role of regional and international actors in managing or influencing these balances. Accordingly, discourse on its status as a buffer zone or pressure zone relates to the strategic reading adopted by various parties, where it may be interpreted, in certain approaches, as a space contributing to reducing direct friction between competing parties, or as an area amenable to utilization within wider negotiation calculations concerning Syria’s future and the arrangement of influence among active powers therein.
As for the roles of the United States and Russia, their approaches to the situation in Syria reflect differences in priorities and tools; yet both contribute, in one way or another, to shaping the overall framework of balances that reflect on the local reality, including areas like Suwayda. Nevertheless, it cannot be overlooked that this reality is also shaped by internal Syrian factors related to the local social and political structure, and their interaction with the general conditions through which Syria as a state is passing today.
Building on this, it can be said that Suwayda’s special situation is the product of interaction between two levels: an external level tied to regional and international power balances, and an internal level reflecting local social and geographic characteristics. Through this interplay, the nature of the role this region can play within the broader Syrian context takes shape—whether in terms of its internal stability as a state or its position in regional geopolitical calculations.
Understanding the current reality is linked to the major transformations the world has witnessed over the past decades, where reference can be made to the events of October 7 not being isolated from a broader historical context, but rather emerging within a cumulative trajectory of regional and international transformations that have reshaped power balances. These events have yielded multiple outcomes, including the repositioning of certain regional actors and a reevaluation of the roles of powers that were active in prior phases, whether in Lebanon, Syria, or the region more generally.
In this context, what is occurring can be viewed as an extension of prior transformations, akin to those following the events of September 11, or those accompanying the rise of the Barack Obama administration and the onset of the war against ISIS in 2014, where each phase led to a redefinition of the strategic priorities of international powers, and to adjustments in patterns of intervention and balance in the region.
Accordingly, any attempt to understand future directions cannot be severed from an analysis of the historical transformation trajectory that brought us to the current situation. Answering the question “Where are we headed?” necessarily requires returning to the question “How did we arrive here?”, considering that current developments are merely the result of historical and political accumulations extending over decades—or perhaps an entire century since the post-World War I phase.
From this perspective, what is happening in the region, including matters related to Syria, cannot be interpreted apart from international interactions and indirect understandings among active powers, as Syria constitutes a central point in the political geography of the Middle East due to its strategic position linking multiple regions, rendering it a perennial focus of attention from regional and international powers.
Moreover, discourse on current transformations requires noting that the international system itself is undergoing a transitional phase, wherein the interests of major powers intersect, and features of new balances take shape that may persist for long temporal periods. Hence, understanding these transformations demands a comprehensive reading of modern political history, beginning with post-World War I arrangements, passing through the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and extending to current interactions reflecting the ongoing reshaping of borders and influence in the region.
Building on this, this historical-analytical approach enables a deeper understanding of the current reality, insofar as what we witness today is not a discrete event, but a link in a long chain of transformations whose effects continue to extend into the present.
Suwayda’s Position on the Syrian Geopolitical Map Between Local Factors and International Balances
5. In light of your analysis of the interplay of interests among international and regional powers in southern Syria, how can the proposed conceptions regarding Suwayda’s position within these calculations be interpreted—particularly concerning the possibility of utilizing it within spheres of influence or indirect security arrangements—within broader scenarios related to reshaping balances in Syria and the region?
As mentioned previously, Suwayda’s situation cannot be addressed in isolation from the overall regional context and the plans of the major powers, particularly the United States and Israel, with regard to the region’s future. According to this framework, Israeli policies demonstrate a concern that southern Syria serve as an extension of its strategic influence—not merely Suwayda as a governorate with a Druze majority, but in consideration of its geostrategic position within a space extending from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Gulf.
From this conception, it is understood that Israel seeks, at the end of its conflict paths with Iran, to bolster and expand its regional presence within a broader project, sometimes referred to as the concept of “Greater Israel,” whether this extension takes the form of buffer zones, spheres of influence, or even local entities enjoying a margin of independence but, in all cases, remaining under direct or indirect Israeli tutelage or influence.
It is also posited in this context that decision-making within Syria is not a fully unified or centralized process, but rather the result of the interplay of multiple powers with divergent strategic objectives. According to this view, there is a clear divergence between Israel’s interests and those of other regional powers such as Turkey, whereby Israel aims to reshape the region on sectarian and confessional bases leading to the fragmentation of larger entities into smaller units—a development that would weaken traditional political structures and create a state of balance predicated on internal contention rather than general cohesion.
In contrast, other powers like Iran pursue different interests tied to expanding regional influence and bolstering ideologically and politically aligned networks, while Turkey adopts a vision inclined toward supporting Syria’s state unity within a framework of political and cultural influence aligning with its regional orientations. Likewise, states such as Saudi Arabia in particular, and Gulf states more generally, do not necessarily align with fragmentation projects, as they tend—per this framework—to prefer unified and stable states to avoid the emergence of unstable entities or zones on their borders, especially in their northern extension linked to the Levant and Iraq.
Accordingly, the area stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean constitutes a complex arena of intersecting strategic interests, where balances are measured according to the power scale among competing parties. Within this framework, Suwayda’s future is viewed as closely linked to the outcomes of these regional and international balances, rather than as an independent trajectory.
Building on this, Suwayda’s future—and that of southern Syria more generally—will be determined according to the broader scenarios to which the region may evolve. If the United States and Israel succeed in pushing toward reshaping the Middle Eastern regional order, this could lead to divisive trends based on sectarian and regional foundations, such that the region’s political geography is reengineered to align with new balances serving Israel’s interests directly. For this reason, Israel seeks by all available means to bolster its presence in southern Syria, including areas extending toward southern Lebanon, while working to create a surrounding geopolitical environment characterized by the weakness of local entities and their reliance on external protection. It is understood from this that there exists a conception of a buffer or semi-buffer zone composed primarily of diverse local components, where the Druze community in Suwayda may form a part thereof, alongside other areas extending geographically toward Lebanon.
However, this conception remains—according to this framework—tied to the possibility of constructing weak local entities dependent on external support, a notion historically proposed under various designations such as projects to create Druze-specific entities, which did not succeed in prior phases. This orientation holds that such projects face structural difficulties preventing their realization, whether in the past or future. Moreover, the current international phase witnesses shifts in power balances, where it is believed that U.S. and Israeli influence may not be in continuous ascent, but rather faces challenges linked to changes in U.S. strategic priorities, which have begun to focus increasingly on countering Chinese expansion, particularly in Central Asia and West Asia, extending to markets in Africa viewed as pivotal in the future global economy—akin to the role Europe played in the post-World War II phase.
Building on this, it can be concluded that the future of Suwayda and southern Syria more broadly will remain contingent upon the intersection of these major transformations, and the extent to which international and regional powers can impose their visions or readjust to evolving power balances in the international system. If Israel and the United States, as indicated, succeed in achieving their strategic objectives, they could drive toward a path leading to the reshaping of the region, potentially resulting in the partition of Syria along sectarian and regional lines. In this conception, the geopolitical space is redrawn such that entities or mini-states of a local or sectarian character are formed, each with its own nature—whether based on a Druze majority or other minority components—with the observation that this pattern of partition presupposes that the Sunni sect not be the dominant force in these entities.
This scenario is posited as one of the possible probabilities within a set of multiple scenarios, wherein each scenario has relative chances of success or failure, and these chances depend on a range of factors and variables that change continuously—or indeed, can be said to shift daily. Among these factors are those related to economic givens, where it is observed that the global economic situation is heading toward further deterioration, which may constitute an additional pressure element affecting event trajectories in the Middle East and increasing the complexity of regional and international interactions.
The second scenario consists in the continuation of competition and conflict among the major powers, particularly between the United States on one side and China and Russia on the other, within a framework of protracted conflict that may persist until the United States reaches a stage where it becomes economically incapable of sustaining management of this type of confrontation. In this context, U.S. political decision-making, upon arriving at this point, may veer toward terminating military operations, declaring a form of victory according to the domestic political vision, then undertaking a gradual withdrawal from certain spheres of influence, leaving its allies—including Israel—in a position requiring them to deal individually with regional challenges. This is a scenario considered probable, and indeed may be viewed by some analyses as one of the more likely scenarios.
The third scenario, by contrast, rests on the hypothesis of understanding or accord among the major powers—specifically between the United States and China, and perhaps within a broader framework including Russia as well—such that arrangements or understandings are reached redistributing influence and interests on the global level. Within this framework, strategic trade-offs may be concluded concerning various spheres of influence, such as Iran in exchange for other issues like Taiwan and Ukraine, allowing for a reorganization of international balances in a manner accommodating the interests of the three major poles, with the Middle East occupying its place within this equation as a transit region of geostrategic importance linking Asia, Europe, and North Africa.
In this context, the Middle East’s geographic position is regarded as a decisive economic and geopolitical factor, given that it forms a nexus between continents, a passage toward the Mediterranean Sea and thence to Western and Southern Europe, as well as toward North Africa and the oceans. Consequently, this position imposes itself as a fundamental factor in determining the outcomes of ongoing conflicts, rendering geopolitical and economic balances the primary driver of potential scenarios in the region.
Irrespective of the three posited scenarios, reference can be made to a general trend deducible from a reading of historical dynamics and ongoing developments, consisting in the idea that time is moving toward structural transformations in the nature of states and governance patterns. Within this framework, a conception is advanced positing that there is no long-term future for purely religious states—whether based on Sunni, Shiite, Druze, or other foundations—in light of historical experiences, particularly in Europe, where a long political evolution led to the separation of religion and state. From this standpoint, Iran’s wilayat al-faqih system is viewed as a model of a religious state that time has surpassed, potentially in its final stages within this pattern of states, with the possibility of its retreat or transformation amid changing regional and international political conditions, regardless of the scenario realized in the region.
Building on this, it is concluded that religious states, irrespective of their sectarian or confessional reference, lack a sustainable future over the long term. Likewise, states based on purely national foundations—whether Arab, Kurdish, or otherwise—may face their own challenges in persistence, although the European experience demonstrated that nation-states were able to endure for long periods, yet at the same time contributed to transformations giving rise to the concept of the nation as a broader and more inclusive framework.
Here, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the concepts of state, nation, and homeland, considering them intersecting yet non-identical notions—a distinction indicating that the evolution of political systems in the future may veer toward more complex forms transcending traditional models based on purely religious or national foundations, amid ongoing transformations in the international structure and global order.
Future Scenarios for Suwayda
6. What are the most prominent possible scenarios for the evolution of Suwayda’s situation over the next ten years, based on your historical and geopolitical reading of the region’s trajectories, taking into account the specificity of its geographic position, social composition, and regional extensions amid regional and international transformations and shifts in power balances?
It is essential here to recognize that the Druze, like any religious, sectarian, or even national minority, have historically existed in this region within contexts tied to the pursuit of protection and security—a factor that partially explains their concentration in mountainous or relatively rugged areas. In this context, a saying attributed to Mulla Mustafa Barzani is invoked, wherein he noted that the Kurds in Iraq saw that “they have no friends but the mountains,” reflecting the logic of resorting to natural terrain as a defensive means amid a sense of threat.
Returning to the Druze in Suwayda, their presence in this area cannot be understood apart from their broader history. They settled in this region centuries ago, with historical data indicating waves of settlement dating back to the early eighteenth century, particularly following events in Mount Lebanon linked to conflicts between the Qaysis and Yamnis, which led to the migration of groups to southern Syria. Nevertheless, the Suwayda area was not devoid of inhabitants prior to the Druze arrival; rather, it was part of a broader human and geographic milieu that witnessed multiple demographic interactions over time.
Accordingly, the Druze are considered part of a connected geographic milieu and not an entity isolated from its regional environment. Their presence extends, historically and socially, within a wider geographic space encompassing areas in the Syrian Badia, extensions toward the Jordanian Badia, parts of the Badia linked to the Saudi sphere, in addition to extensions toward the Golan and other geographically connected areas. This extension renders their situation closely linked to developments in their regional surroundings, such that major transformations in the region impact them directly or indirectly.
From a broader historical perspective, the concept of national belonging in this region cannot be severed from the shared experience uniting diverse social and sectarian components in confronting colonialism, as occurred during the French Mandate period in Syria, where multiple components participated in resisting colonialism within a comprehensive national framework. These movements, despite their diversity, preserved geographic boundaries formed in that phase—boundaries drawn by colonialism itself—without necessarily representing final or natural borders of homelands.
Homelands, according to this conception, are not built solely on geographic borders, but on social, political, and economic relations among citizens, and on the level of partnership and integration among them. Borders may change over history, whereas the concept of homeland relates to the degree of cohesion among its human components. Hence, economic agglomerations and shared relations among citizens constitute essential elements contributing to building national cohesion and forming what can be termed a bond of belonging or social solidarity, in the sense addressed by Ibn Khaldun in his analyses of human groupings.
Within this framework, the state’s responsibility lies in building this national bond and preparing the conditions enabling citizens to defend their homeland and belong to it—not merely legally, but emotionally and socially as well. Moreover, the concept of patriotism transcends narrow sectarian or religious affiliations, encompassing the various components of society without implying the erasure of their particularities, but rather their integration within a comprehensive framework.
Historically as well, national movements in Syria demonstrated models of cooperation among diverse components, as in the Great Syrian Revolt led by Sultan al-Atrash, where efforts converged from figures and notables of varied backgrounds—including notables from Damascus and other regions—within a shared national objective. Sultan al-Atrash expressed this meaning through the slogan “Religion belongs to God, and the homeland to all,” embodying a vision predicated on separating religious belonging from national belonging, in favor of a comprehensive national bond.
From this starting point, the events witnessed in Suwayda in July 2025 are understood—per this framework—as arising within a broader context transcending the local dimension and direct religious affiliation, interpreted as part of complex interactions potentially linked to strategic considerations or calculated regional accounts. Some of these developments are viewed as factors potentially driving toward further tension and discord, or even the reshaping of local alignments, creating a state of separation or differentiation in positions among the various components within the single homeland.
In this context, a conception is advanced positing that certain local actors do not necessarily represent the entirety of their sectarian or social components, but may be linked to specific governance models or organizations differing in orientation from the general current within those components. Accordingly, generalizing sectarian representation does not necessarily reflect the complex social reality, but may lead to a distorting simplification of the intertwined relations within society.
It is also noted that certain alliances or alignments occurring in specific contexts may result from pressing circumstances or security considerations, more than expressing permanent or fixed choices. Hence, shifts in power balances or regional conditions may lead to changes in these alignments over time.
In sum, this framework emphasizes that the issue does not pertain to a single group or specific sect, but extends to encompass the various components of society in southern Syria, including the Druze and other sects and social groups. Moreover, the position of these components within a sensitive geopolitical space renders them susceptible to the influences of regional and international interactions—a factor reflecting on the nature of roles they may play in the future, and their capacity to adapt to ongoing transformations in the surrounding environment.
7. In the event of the continued absence of a comprehensive political settlement in Syria and the region, what are the most prominent objective and necessary conditions that could ensure a minimum level of security stability and economic balance in Suwayda, in light of the role of internal factors related to state and societal structure, and surrounding regional and international interactions?
To begin, it must be stated that the role of peoples in equations of change and becoming cannot be ignored, for peoples have become today a decisive element that cannot be bypassed—a fact proven through the Arab Spring events, and confirmed day by day in current global youth movements, where students in numerous countries stage demonstrations in support of the Palestinian cause, demanding an end to the status quo and curbing Israel’s policies and aggressions. This indicates that the entire world is heading toward profound transformations and changes.
In this context, it is also essential that thinkers and intellectuals adhere to objectivity and professionalism, possess a forward-looking vision, and uphold the principle of separating religion from state—out of respect for religion and preservation of the state, as occurred previously in Europe and the United States. In the Syrian case, the state must be rebuilt through pursuing the establishment of a permanent constitution enshrining this separation, and founding a system not predicated on minority-majority logic, for no national component can accept being defined as a minority in its own homeland within a framework failing to achieve true equality among all citizens. Therefore, what is required is broad popular consensus to draft a modern, contemporary constitutional project aligned with global transformations, ensuring representation of all the homeland’s sons without discrimination.
On the other hand, reference can be made to the strategic changes the world is witnessing, necessitating a reevaluation of traditional international policies, particularly U.S. policy in the Middle East. The strategic model dominant since the end of World War II is no longer suited to current realities, amid the emergence of new international powers and the decline of unipolarity. It has become necessary for the United States to reassess its priorities, shifting from the traditional focus on Europe to viewing the Middle East as a pivotal geostrategic region, given its role as a nexus between Asia, Europe, and Africa, and a vital passage for international balances.
Within this framework, it is assumed that the United States should adopt a comprehensive approach treating the Middle East as a single strategic bloc, rather than working to fragment it into disparate entities based on sectarian and ethnic foundations. This requires integrating the region’s diverse components within a cohesive regional framework, including incorporating Israel into the regional environment in a manner contributing to stability, rather than allowing it to remain a perpetual source of tension harmful to the region and U.S. strategic interests therein. For this reason, if the United States wishes to secure an advanced position vis-à-vis its geostrategic rival, China, it must work to push Israel toward changing its reality to adapt to its surroundings, rather than the reverse. It must end the war with Iran on a strategic basis reorganizing governance therein, and deal with it as a pivotal partner state in the Middle East—for it is the gateway the United States needs to access China and Russia via Southeast Asia and Central Asia.
This strategic vision for the United States also requires rebuilding strategic partnerships with other pivotal states in the region, such as Turkey as the gateway from the Middle East to Europe, and Egypt as the entry point to Africa, where China seeks economic and commercial dominance. Likewise, the United States must accord importance to Gulf states and Yemen within this strategic partnership, as connection points to the Indian Ocean and open seas. Moreover, stability in the area stretching from Iran to the Mediterranean, including Iraq and Syria, constitutes an essential element in any future strategic balance.
However, the success of any strategic project cannot be achieved without considering the position of peoples, as experiences have proven that ignoring the role of peoples leads to the failure of policies no matter their strength. Specialized research centers’ studies have shown that any U.S. strategy in the Middle East will not succeed if it fails to account for social and popular dynamics, rendering it of limited efficacy. Therefore, any future orientation must integrate states’ strategic interests with respect for peoples’ aspirations.
Furthermore, the United States faces escalating internal challenges, manifested in rising political and social divisions and growing isolationist tendencies, which may impact its ability to maintain its traditional global role. Global economic transformations, including shifts in energy sources and the transition to alternative energy, may lead to a reshaping of international economic power balances, particularly amid declining reliance on oil as a primary energy source.
Within this framework, it is observed that economics remains the decisive factor in determining the outcomes of international conflicts, more so than military power. Historical experiences indicate that major powers may face challenges or retreat when their economic systems come under pressure. With ongoing transformations in energy and global trade systems, changes in the structure of the international order become anticipated.
Finally, the shared global challenges transcending the political and military conflicts of contending states—such as climate change and pandemics—pose a real threat to humanity as a whole. These challenges require broad and serious international cooperation among major powers, including the United States, China, and Russia, to devise joint strategies aimed at protecting planet Earth and ensuring humanity’s future.
Editorial Conclusion
This interview arises within the context of growing discussions on regional and international transformations, where the guest provided a comprehensive and multifaceted reading of issues related to the Middle East’s future, international balances, the role of peoples, and the economic and strategic shifts reshaping the contours of the global order. The presentation stood out for its attempt to link geopolitical and internal dimensions, emphasizing the centrality of economic factors, the growing role of non-traditional actors, and reference to the structural challenges confronting major powers, including the United States.
In this context, the interview reflected an analytical vision open to multiple scenarios without committing to a single direction, thereby affording the reader broader space for critical thinking and reevaluation of the posited hypotheses. It also highlighted the importance of viewing regional issues within their broader contexts, encompassing the interplay between local, regional, and international levels, and its impact on future stability, the reshaping of alliances, and political models.
Through publishing this material, the magazine affirms its commitment to editorial neutrality and its intent to provide space for diverse viewpoints and analyses, without adopting a specific stance, but rather to open the door to scientific and knowledge-based discourse among researchers and interested parties. Within this framework, this interview constitutes citable material within research contexts, provided its source is referenced, and forms a knowledge addition upon which subsequent studies and approaches can build.
Thus, the magazine seeks to serve as a dialogic and knowledge platform contributing to expanding the circle of understanding and analysis, continuing to support the production of calm and balanced scientific discourse that tracks the complexities of reality and stimulates further research and critical thinking.