Malaria control programs are increasingly tailored at subnational scales; however, neighboring areas remain connected through human mobility, allowing parasite importation that may undermine independently timed interventions. Although the spatial targeting of control has been the focus of extensive research, the epidemiological consequences of temporal misalignment in intervention deployment across interconnected regions remain to be elucidated. We investigate how asynchronous timing of malaria interventions affects transmission dynamics using a two-patch susceptible-infected-susceptible metapopulation model. We compare synchronous and asynchronous intervention schedules and quantify their impact using measures of excess cumulative incidence attributable to asynchrony. The measure that will be used for this purpose is referred to as Asynchrony Induced Growth (AIG). Across a range of 10,000 parameter combinations, asynchronous implementation has been observed to result in a heightened incidence compared to synchronized deployment, though the impact is typically negligible in most endemic settings. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the impact is most significant when interventions are highly effective, infectious duration is brief, and transmission intensity approaches the elimination threshold. In such circumstances, asynchrony has the potential to substantially inflate case numbers, delay transmission interruption, or even prevent elimination entirely. In illustrative scenarios that reflect realistic settings, synchronizing interventions has been shown to avert large numbers of infections and shorten elimination timelines by years to decades. These findings demonstrate that, beyond spatial targeting, temporal coordination of interventions across connected areas can meaningfully enhance malaria control and elimination. Coordinated timing may be particularly valuable for cross-border or near-elimination programs and should be considered in operational planning and resource allocation.