In the summer of 1925, the Druze of southern Syrian sparked what would soon become a countrywide rebellion against the French mandate government. The 1925 revolt was just one response to the failure of the mandates system to embody the spirit of anti-imperialism that the League of Nations ostensibly represented. Syrian activists on and off the battlefield petitioned the League of Nations, calling to end French abuses and hasten self-determination. Such petitions utilized the language of anti-imperialism and international law, endowing the League of Nations with power as an international body. Yet, the relationship of oppositional Syrians to the League of Nations was a fraught one. Both in discourse and practice, Syrian hopefuls acted in ways to also undermine the League of Nations and the mandate government it upheld. While buying into the nation-state project, Syrians were not impervious to various alternative internationalist networks that operated—to differing degrees—outside the logic of the League of Nations framework. Even as Syrians petitioned the League and negotiated with the French, they recognized the potentially strategic role that the alternative internationalist movements could play in countering a Eurocentric international order. Utilizing French intelligence reports, petitions to the League of Nations, as well as Arabic newspapers, this paper uncovers the broad reaching efforts by Syrians to gain support and resources from liberal, Leninist, and Muslim circles. A common anti-imperialist agenda brought together these diverse networks, even when their specific ideologies and goals stood at odds with one another. In their quest for independence, Syrian efforts to bridge the national and international demonstrate the porosity of ideological and strategic networks during the interwar period. By shedding light on these various actors, the Syrian Revolt of 1925 can be read as multivalent in nature, holding meaning for divergent but overlapping “internationalist” movements, not all of which considered the nation-state framework as their dominant paradigm.