Syria seems closer to civil war now than it has at any time since March. The interim Syrian government faces a threat to its survival in Suwayda, a southern province. Violence between Druze, Bedouin, and other Sunnis who are not part of Bedouin tribes has left hundreds dead and — in the random way in which stories from Syria drip out into the world — has travelled very widely, especially online.

It is theoretically possible that a new warlordism will emerge in the south, under Israeli protection. These warlords would threaten Damascus directly, would undermine the new attempts to build a centralised Syrian state with one law applying to all, and would be a ratchet useable not only by Israel but also by other powers, like Iran, who wish to undermine the new Syrian state and to begin — at a time of their own choosing — another terrible civil war. But this theoretical likelihood is not what people see on their phones every day. What they see there are stories of violence and degradation.

Individual stories of humiliations and horrors circle the globe. Some videos — for instance, of Druze men having their moustaches, worn for religious reasons, forcibly shaved — are everywhere. Photographs and footage of bodies stacked up are very broadly circulated. Things are moving fast. It is often difficult to tell, at this early stage, precisely who the particular victims of violence depicted in particular footage and film are. This has not stopped claims flying — claims that the Druze are being massacred wholesale and that only an Israeli invasion can protect them; stories of Bedouin and Sunnis being ethnically cleansed and removed from their former homes. Outside analysts ought to be restrained in echoing these claims and they ought to take their time to verify facts — but very few supposed experts are acting responsibly. Many of the traffickers in the most audacious lies and verifiable untruths are people outside Syria, linked to it by social media accounts. Some of those who disseminate the most provocative material, material that will undoubtedly get people killed, has got people killed already, are in the worldwide Syrian diaspora, or in Israel and  — as is inevitable — the United States.

Some rumours are implausible, but that does not stop them from spreading. The Israeli air force, backstopping the Israeli occupation of much of Syria’s south and punishing the Syrian state for its presence and actions in Suwayda, theatrically struck the headquarters of the Syrian general staff in the Ministry of Defence building in Damascus last week.

It is alleged that Israeli officials have, in previous months, talked openly (although so far anonymously) of their plans to kill the interim Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and to overthrow his government if the two do not do as Tel Aviv desires. At times, this threat seems very real; Israel believes, and its advocates around the world say, that the new Syrian government is indistinguishable from the Islamic State (ISIS) and must be destroyed as Hamas is being fought in Gaza. Israeli leaders say that, because of the connections between Druze who live in Israel and Druze who live in Syria, the whole group can consider itself under Israeli protection. Hence the invasion of Syria’s south; hence the periodic attacks on forces from Damascus if they trespass into the south; hence the killing of some locals who appear to raise a fist towards the Israeli soldiers in town.

What that will ultimately mean is anyone’s guess. Israeli proxies do not remain under Israel’s protection forever. The main Druze leader receiving Israeli support, Hikmat al-Hijri, is not the separatist some Syrians recklessly claim. Nor is he a traitor; nor does he salute a foreign flag. But he is for the moment content with Israel as the major actor in his region. His relations with Damascus are frosty. They could deteriorate further at any moment.

In reaction to the collapse of order in Suwayda, Damascus ordered another general mobilisation of available men to arms. A similar call led to widespread chaos and violence in March, along the Syrian coast, where an attempted coup was swiftly routed and retaliatory — and completely lawless — sectarian massacres  targeted the Alawites of that area.

General mobilisations of this kind are becoming a threat to the Syrian state. Theoretically, the ability to summon fighters who do not wear uniform is proof against invasion — an indication that foreign powers, who circle Syria hungrily, should back off. In practice, it is really a demonstration of the weakness of the state. When tribesmen or ordinary civilians are mobilised, they do not keep to rules of engagement and do not follow orders. They settle scores with their ethnic and confessional rivals; they behave badly and lawlessly. If the state tries to stop them from doing this, it does not try very hard. Sometimes, the excesses of fighters without uniform are supported by members of the new armed forces and intelligence, the new General Security Service (GSS).

On social media, rumours travel which are not only unverified – they are dangerous. The Syrian presidency has made claims about sock-puppet accounts and posts filled with lies, reused footage and AI-generated imagery. Some of the most inflammatory claims about widespread genocide of Druze are from Israel and Israeli proxies, but the majority of them are not. Damascus has poured fuel onto the fire in its own way, but is failing to rein in fighters who either claim or appear to act in its name.

It is perhaps unreasonable to expect Syria, a country embroiled in terrible civil war for nearly 14 years before December 2024, to resemble a nation at peace for centuries. But it is the central government’s job to maintain order and to ensure the supremacy of the law. In the absence of the central government and its monopoly on the use of force, there is violence, the settling of scores, the playing out of sectional grudges. Druze leaders who wish to maintain their own fiefdoms seek to build their power as warlords, as if the civil conflict were still on.

At present, the lines of control are too lax. Some former militias and armed groups, theoretically under the control of the ministry of defence, are operating with impunity and lawlessness. But it is not only former militias within the state system that act this way. The most disturbing parts of Reuters’ reporting on the massacres of mainly Alawites on the Syrian coast in March concerned the direct involvement of the forces of the state, acting either on instructions from the centre or in defiance of them.

Bodies such as the GSS are vital in the fight against the Islamic State. For them to be instruments of sectarian violence goes beyond the horror of those outrages themselves. For organisations like this to be so compromised throws into doubt the counter-terror campaigns that the new Syrian authorities need outside help to prosecute, and could undermine the general justification for the swift removal of foreign sanctions on Syria and normalisation with its interim administration.

The same behaviour of official state organs. Footage that seems accurate and unstaged shows men from the General Security Service and other Damascus-controlled groups participating in chauvinistic practices: threatening the abduction of women or the removal of people of certain confessional stripe.

The central government and President al-Sharaa have each released statements and spoken eloquently about the multi-confessional nature of the Syrian state. The civil war happened in part because a minority made itself master of the whole and enforced its will by savage tyranny. A tyranny of the majority would be no less destructive of Syria’s peace and future.