Jordan’s Deterrence Operations: An Analysis of Syrian Digital Discourse on the Airstrikes Against the South May 2026

• The report tracked 18,000 interactions between May 2 and 10, 2026.
• 46.2% of the discourse was classified as neutral, compared to 30.9% supportive of the strikes and 22.9% opposed.
• The “neutral” segment was not fully neutral; Syrian accounts repeatedly reshared narratives linking the strikes to smuggling networks and al-Hajari’s militias without visible pushback — which the report reads as implicit acceptance of the strikes’ logic.
• Qualitative analysis reveals that Syrian support for the strikes was largely not direct support for Jordan but was significantly tied to broader positions on Hikmat al-Hajari and his role in Sweida.
• The report highlights that Jordan’s security presence in the Syrian equation still requires clearer framing.
• The words Sweida, Hikmat, and drugs dominated the digital conversation, reflecting how Syrian users linked place, person, and security file into a single narrative.
• Damascus dominated the discussion at 78.9%, compared to just 5.1% for Sweida itself — a gap the report attributes to digital infrastructure disparities and to fear and personal safety calculations.
• Opposition to the strikes was not uniform; it ranged from sovereignty-based rejection of unilateral military action to identity-driven discourse, to skepticism about the operation’s motives and its connection to Western influence networks.
• The Syrian digital space did not engage with the strikes purely as a border security event; it used them as an occasion to revisit internal questions about sovereignty, authority, identity, and who governs southern Syria.
• The report concludes that the drug trafficking and production problem remains unresolved, and that the questions surrounding the Damascus-Sweida relationship and Jordan’s security role in the Syrian equation remain open.
• A years-old tweet by Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi about Hikmat al-Hajari has effectively become a recurring historical reference point in Syrian digital discourse, resurfaced each time tensions around Sweida escalate.

The Politics and Society Institute released an analytical report titled “Jordanian Deterrence Operations: An Analysis of Syrian Digital Discourse Surrounding the Jordanian Strikes on Southern Syria in May 2026.”

The report concluded that support for the strikes was not, in its entirety, direct support for Jordan itself. Rather, a significant portion of the supportive discourse was linked to attitudes toward the Druze spiritual leader Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, his role in Suwayda, and his position within the equation of local influence in southern Syria. The analysis also identified a security-oriented discourse framing the strikes as part of efforts to combat drug and arms smuggling networks, alongside a celebratory narrative praising the Jordanian Air Force and the precision of the strikes. However, this celebratory tone declined rapidly after the peak hours of engagement.

The report monitored Syrian digital discussions surrounding the Jordanian strikes on southern Syria and examined how these discussions revealed the overlap between border security concerns and broader Syrian internal questions related to authority, sovereignty, identity, and local influence. The analysis relied on approximately 18,000 interactions generated by 429 unique users across 818 Syrian public digital discussions concerning the strikes during the period from May 2 to May 10, 2026. This timeframe included the day prior to the strikes carried out on May 3 and the week immediately following them.

The findings showed that Syrian digital engagement reached its peak on May 3, 2026, the day the strikes were conducted, before declining rapidly in the following days. This indicates that the event occupied a clear space within the Syrian digital sphere but did not evolve into a coherent or sustained digital issue.

According to the report, digital sentiment regarding the strikes was distributed as follows: 30.9% positive and supportive, 22.9% negative and opposed, and 46.2% neutral with an informational or news-sharing character. However, the Politics and Society Institute emphasized that these figures alone are insufficient to fully understand the complexities of Syrian discourse. Qualitative analysis revealed that positions were far deeper than a simple stance of support or rejection toward a military operation conducted by an external actor.

The report concluded that support for the strikes was largely tied not to direct support for Jordan, but rather to positions concerning Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, his role in Suwayda, and his place within the local power structure in southern Syria. The supportive discourse also included a security-oriented narrative connecting the strikes to efforts against drug and arms smuggling networks, as well as a celebratory narrative praising the Jordanian Air Force and the accuracy of the strikes, though this discourse faded shortly after the peak period.

The report also documented the extensive recirculation of an old tweet by Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi regarding Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, dating back to 2015. The analysis considered this tweet to have become a form of “digital document” repeatedly invoked whenever debates surrounding Suwayda and al-Hijri intensify. According to the Institute’s analysis, the resurfacing of this tweet demonstrates that a substantial portion of the discussion was not focused on the Jordanian strikes themselves, but rather on al-Hijri’s position and authority within the broader project of rebuilding Syria.

As for the opposing discourse, which represented 22.9% of the sample, it was far from unified in its motivations. It ranged from sovereignty-based objections acknowledging the existence of a smuggling problem while rejecting unilateral strikes, to narratives questioning the motives behind the operation and linking it to a broader Western influence structure. Additional identity-based discourse also emerged, using the event to settle prior political and social disputes, with some discussions connecting the strikes to attitudes toward the Druze community and alleged relations with Israel.

The report further demonstrated that the neutral segment, which represented the largest proportion at 46.2%, did not constitute complete neutrality in the strict sense. Syrian accounts widely reshared news reports and statements linking the strikes to smuggling networks and militias associated with al-Hijri without commentary or objection. The report interprets this behavior as implicit acceptance of the logic behind the strikes, or at minimum, an absence of willingness to defend an alternative narrative.

At the level of keywords, the report found that “Suwayda,” “Hikmat,” and “drugs” were among the most prominent terms dominating the digital discussion, reflecting how the event was interpreted through the intersection of geography, personality, and the security file. The report argued that the prominence of Hikmat al-Hijri’s name among the keywords indicates his transformation from a figure associated with the event into one of the central axes of Syrian digital discourse itself.

Geographically, the findings revealed that Damascus dominated 78.9% of the digital discussion, while Suwayda itself accounted for only 5.1%, despite being the governorate directly targeted by the strikes. The report attributed this disparity to factors related both to digital infrastructure and to concerns surrounding fear and personal safety. It stressed that the weak digital presence of Suwayda does not necessarily indicate the absence of opinion, but may instead reflect the sensitivity of public expression within a fragile local environment.

In its concluding assessment, the Politics and Society Institute emphasized that the Syrian digital sphere did not treat the Jordanian strikes merely as a border security event. Rather, the strikes became an opportunity to revisit a deeper question concerning who governs southern Syria and under what form of legitimacy. The report argued that the issue extends beyond drug smuggling or the strikes themselves to encompass broader questions of authority, legitimacy, and trust between Syrian society and its emerging institutions.

The report further noted that the problems of smuggling and narcotics production remain unresolved, that relations between Damascus and Suwayda are still unsettled, and that Jordan’s security role within the Syrian equation continues to require clearer coordination mechanisms. Ultimately, the report concluded that the strikes revealed that the questions surrounding southern Syria remain unresolved, and that their answers can only emerge through Syrians themselves.

This report forms part of the Politics and Society Institute’s broader approach as a “Think and Do” center dedicated to studying political, security, and social transformations in Jordan and the wider region, while transforming knowledge and analysis into practical tools that assist decision-makers and the public in understanding regional and national developments and their implications.

Within this framework, the Institute places particular importance on digital listening as an analytical tool for understanding public opinion trends and monitoring transformations in digital discourse and behavior surrounding regional and national issues related to security, stability, and public policy.

To access the full report, click here.