As High Commissioners Clash… The Country Is Pushed to the Brink

The struggle for influence in post-2024 Syria is no longer reduced to the question of who wins, but rather measured by a far more dangerous one: who decides.In Damascus, the new “High Commissioners” are gathering—negotiating security, airspace and territory, sanctions and borders—producing top-down arrangements that dismantle Syrian national sovereignty, entirely detached from any Syrian mandate. Thus, Syria’s deep, bleeding wounds are driven ever further into the bone. The result is not a formal “mandate,” but something far worse: guardianship without rights, without reference, and without accountability.

In this context, Barak makes little effort to conceal his “modest” goal of reshaping a new Sykes–Picot, repeating—almost verbatim—what Paul Bremer once did in Iraq: managing a state of “fragile stability” that secures Western security interests in exchange for a promised economic solution that never truly materializes.

Meanwhile, Russia seeks to reclaim its role as a “power broker,” not as a patron of reconstruction, but as a necessary security guarantor separating Israel and Turkey. Moscow’s visit comes at an extremely sensitive moment, reflecting its desire to return as a military power broker on the Syrian stage and to re-anchor its political presence.

Here, a striking paradox emerges: Israel itself—according to Reuters—is pressuring Washington to allow Russian bases to remain in Syria, while Moscow and Tel Aviv converge on managing a “weak Syria” as an option to curb Turkish influence.This position places the United States in a dilemma: its Russian rival is being recycled in Syria at the request of its closest ally, after “Turkey and the new Syria” came to be viewed, in Israeli strategic thinking, as a greater threat than “Russia and its bases.”

It is within this framework that the model of the “new High Commissioner” becomes clear: an external actor negotiating Syria’s future with other external actors, while Syrians themselves remain divided and unable to impose a unified national position. In this game, Moscow does not require total victory; it suffices to re-establish itself as the unavoidable intersection point for solutions in southern Syria, presenting itself as a buffer between rival forces—operating under Turkish cover, in a game whose rules are ultimately set by Israel.

For if Washington and Moscow contest the right to “manage stability,” Israel and Turkey contest the very form of the Syrian state that is permitted to exist. Turkey declares openly that it is training and supporting Syrian forces, improving their defenses, and has no intention of withdrawing anytime soon—indicating its desire for a Syrian military partner aligned with its priorities.

Israel, by contrast, views this expansion as a dual strategic threat: first, the proximity of a major regional power to its borders and the rebuilding of a Syrian army under Turkish cover, with the potential to alter the airspace balance in Syria. “Technical talks” to avoid confrontation do little to change this reality, as friction persists. After Israel struck Syrian bases that Turkey was surveying for potential deployment, the struggle over Syria’s future military architecture moved from the ground into the sky.

Beyond that, Israel has recently sought to position itself as the primary power broker among Syrians themselves, including the Syrian government. While Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan accuses the SDF of coordinating with Israel and threatens measures against them, he does not object to peace talks with Israel.

On the other hand, Benjamin Netanyahu has not appointed a replacement for Ron Dermer following his resignation from the Damascus negotiation file—confirming that this “vacuum” is not a bureaucratic oversight, but a clear indication that Netanyahu’s closest security circle is directly managing the current “promising” negotiations.

In this environment, the threat to Syria’s unity is no longer mere commentary in newspapers; it intensifies by the moment as the functional boundaries of the High Commissioners’ conflict harden. As the experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have shown—and in light of Syria’s deeply complex game—signs of American fatigue are beginning to surface. As it has done before, the United States will hold onto its “trusted” positions, then depart, leaving behind its remnants and allowing regional High Commissioners to settle their scores within Syria’s frail body.

As for how these dangers may be averted and Syrian sovereignty over destiny and cause restored, the formula is one now known to all—except those blinded by arrogance of power or the logic of revenge:a decentralized, democratic civil state, capable of healing the Syrian homeland and returning ownership of the Syrian cause to its rightful holders—the Syrian people themselves. https://963media.com/02/01/2026/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%89-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9/?fbclid=IwVERTSAPEpPhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR7Y9LVG4iUBoG3WMFWhrWOShMVgrJ4_miP9GbTswghYznZVdjvBjT3quOaJ-A_aem_VDO4Qz8ZlopeLFViv9r18w&sfnsn=scwspwa