Syria’s sectarian unrest is reshaping Tehran’s threat calculus—multiplying risks, narrowing options, and exposing new openings for Iran.
Image Source: Freepik
Syria’s recent sectarian strife has introduced variables closely tied to Iran’s strategic-security calculus. These factors are influencing Tehran's assessment of threats and risks in the post-war context. While some of these elements may not be the primary causes of concern, they act as factors that multiply risks, while others present potential opportunities. In early March 2025, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)-linked government forces massacred civilians in Latakia and Tartus (≈1,500 reported dead), raising doubts about Damascus’s intentions, capacity, and command cohesion. Confidence eroded further in mid-July when Druze–Bedouin clashes in Suwayda prompted a troop deployment and subsequent abuse allegations. Despite declaring a ceasefire, violence persisted (≈1,000 dead; ~176,000 displaced). Together, these shocks expanded Israeli operational latitude, hardened Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)–Damascus integration disputes, and deepened governance fractures across the Syrian mosaic.
Tehran will tighten preservation-first at home. In Syria, it sticks to small, low-cost cells or feelers.
Recent developments in Iran's geopolitical landscape have intensified Tehran's threat perception and reduced its risk tolerance. Iran's allied proxy network has weakened, with Hamas significantly diminished, Hezbollah facing substantial challenges, and Assad's fall eliminating strategic depth for forward defence. The 12-day war sharpened risk sensitivity and prioritised regime preservation. The most destabilising aspect was Mossad's demonstrated inside-Iran reach: air-defence and radar nodes hit, senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) cadres and nuclear scientists eliminated. Coupled with open regime-change rhetoric by Israeli officials, this penetration heightened the fears of renewed red-line breaches. As hostilities began, Kurdish groups such as Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK) and Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) blamed Tehran. It urged unrest, while the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) called for a new phase of the Jin, Jiyan, Azadi revolution, which only served to substantiate Tehran's anxiety. This was visible in the aftermath of the war, where authorities answered with mass arrests, expedited executions, border militarisation, and Afghan expulsion, indicating reduced tolerance for risk of any kind. Recent terrorist incidents reinforced preservation-first logic, and long-standing claims of foreign support to Kurdish militancy sustain regime suspicion. Activating a high-level Defence Council, akin to the one utilised in the Iran-Iraq War, telegraphs a crisis footing and a consolidation of regime security.
Within the broader post-war risk framework, even relatively limited external developments such as those in Syria are factored in as part of a granular threat assessment that encourages vigilance and securitisation.
Tel Aviv—deeply sceptical of the HTS-backed government and Ankara’s growing sway—has reshaped the post-Assad theatre: hundreds of air-strikes, a push up to Mount Hermon, demands for a fully demilitarised belt south of Damascus, and a plan to expand Golan-Heights settlers - indicates an increase in Israeli footprint and entrenchment.
Following the clashes in Suwadiya, citing protection of Druze, Israel hit several Syrian positions, including its army headquarters (HQ). Damascus condemned violations of its sovereignty but did not retaliate. Despite talks between Israeli and Syrian officials, strikes, raids, and patrols in Syrian territory continuing, Tel-Aviv’s strategy in Syria signals a strategic trap for Iran. Any Iranian attempt to rebuild influence risks Israeli preemption, while inaction cedes the Levant permanently, forcing Iran to choose between escalation and strategic retreat.
An increase in the scope or frequency of Israeli operations will likely result in increased instability, offering more opportunities yet increasing risk and cost.
Tehran frames the expanding Israeli footprint as a bid to fracture Syria and lock control in the south. For Tehran, this is unacceptable and represents more than a setback. It constitutes strategic geography inversion. Not only has it lost its ‘linchpin’, it is almost becoming Israel’s playground, eliminating the strategic depth that previously Tehran possessed. Tehran now confronts an Israeli threat closer to its territory.
Statements from Iranian leadership regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah and the ‘resistance’ hint at the increasing possibility that Iran will seek new networks and pathways to sustain support to its proxies in the Levant, likely at a limited scale for now, given the regional and domestic constraints.
Post-violence angst has fueled minority autonomy bids, most visibly the SDF. The Suwadiya clashes complicated the integration talks with the government by substantiating SDF's arguments for decentralisation and the retention of arms in integration talks with the government. Recent SDF-Damascus clashes underscore mistrust and poor coordination, indicating a brittle political landscape.
On their own, successful SDF political concessions may not pose a direct threat to Iran, given the absence of a history of open confrontation or hostilities. However, through Tehran's heightened sensitivity lens, where even a 1 percent threat is viewed as 100 percent, modest shifts also trigger alarms. The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) model is celebrated across Kurdish movements; during mid-July, PJAK publicly marked the 13th anniversary of the Rojava Revolution. The People’s Protection Units (YPG) in SDF and PJAK share the same ideological framework, alleged occasional cadre overlap, and dense cross-border kinship networks. This lends the collective model an eager audience inside Iran’s heavily militarised Kurdish provinces. Opposition to the 2017 Iraqi Kurdistan referendum sets a precedent and underscores this sensitivity.
The net effect suggests that, considering an amalgamation of domestic frictions, regime sensitivity, and recent alleged militancy linked to the Kurds, it is plausible that Iran perceives any gains made by the SDF as potentially having a spillover effect, even if limited, on Iran’s Kurdish population. While there is no direct animosity toward the SDF, Tehran is likely to focus inward. If the SDF achieves political gains, Iran may respond by intensifying domestic crackdowns and security measures to prevent any Kurdish initiatives from emerging.
These variables also create latent opportunities that supplement the ones available by chaos and governance vacuum. The clashes between SDF - Regime forces, Druze militia - Bedouin tribes and regime forces serve to dilute governance trust and national cohesion, and coupled with increasing Israeli adventurism, exacerbate cracks in Syrian society and also create the perfect conditions for an external backer.
Syria’s sectarian strife has not redirected Tehran’s regional strategy but may have intensified its threat perception and domestic securitisation.
Groups allegedly affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), such as the Islamic Resistance Front; said that it will confront the sectarian strife with weapons and reasons, Iranian criticism of Israel’s intervention and its media deriding al-Sharaa; calling out his incompetence while reiterating their support for the minorities and people of Syria shows how Tehran is already trying to score the narrative win. Diplomatically, it has used violence as a Trojan horse to attack Israel, and position itself as the voice and protector of Syrian minorities.
Tehran likely is scanning Syria’s widening sectarian fissures for openings. Alleged micro-patronage (small, cheap and deniable, unlike Hezbollah) via covert funding of local militias and historical precedents in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, suggests a familiar playbook, leverage disorder to seed influence. Paradoxically, Israeli interventionism perhaps allowed for Iran’s re-entry. Real constraints such as financial issues, local mistrust, and logistical limitations hinder any large-scale movement. However, targeted support for specific actors could allow Tehran to regain some leverage it had before Assad's fall.
Tehran will tighten preservation-first at home. In Syria, it sticks to small, low-cost cells or feelers. The tempo pivots on these variables: Israel’s operations, institutionalisation of Iran’s clampdown and al-Sharaa’s strategy. An increase in the scope or frequency of Israeli operations will likely result in increased instability, offering more opportunities yet increasing risk and cost. A defence council’s expansion of remit or new ‘foreign-linked’ statutes would indicate an internal crackdown that shifts from spike to doctrine, lowering response and risk thresholds. If al-Sharaa manages to reach an understanding, resolving all conflict and adopting a more favourable approach to integrating the country, general chaos and doubt will decline; thus, also declining Iran’s ability to make inroads. The inverse is also true. Syria’s sectarian strife has not redirected Tehran’s regional strategy but may have intensified its threat perception and domestic securitisation. Much remains uncertain, except the fact that Syria remains part of Iran’s strategic-security equation, with every tremor watched closely in Tehran.
Kabir Taneja is a Deputy Director and Fellow with the Strategic Studies programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
Srujan Srinivasan is a Research Intern at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Srujan Srinivasan is a Research Intern at the Observer Research Foundation. ...
Read More +
PREV
