After the fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Israel has increasingly encroached on its neighbor’s territory.
Since Assad’s dramatic flight to Russia on Sunday, Israel has launched over 400 attacks on Syria and initiated a military incursion into the buffer zone separating the two countries since 1974, despite UN protests.
These aggressions come as Syria transitions from 53 years of dynastic rule.
Israel cites strategic defense objectives to justify its actions, while the international community questions the broader motives behind them.
Israel’s justifications
For years, Israel has argued that its strikes in Syria target Iranian military assets and infrastructure to prevent their use by groups deemed hostile, such as Hezbollah and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
Recently, Israel claims its focus has shifted to neutralizing Syrian military capabilities, particularly sites suspected of housing chemical weapons and long-range rockets. According to Israeli officials, such actions are “precautionary,” ensuring strategic weapons do not fall into the hands of armed opposition groups.
Benny Gantz, an Israeli leader of the National Unity party and a Netanyahu opponent, told Al Jazeera on Monday that this was “an opportunity of historic proportion” for Israel.
He called on policymakers to “develop our relations with the Druze, Kurds and other groups in Syria”, suggesting that Israel may be able to develop relations with groups who have traditionally opposed the coalition of armed opposition that deposed al-Assad.
Recent operations
Following Assad’s retreat to Russia, Israeli attacks have intensified, with more than 400 strikes reported since the crisis began. High-profile targets include:
Military infrastructure: Weapons depots, research centers, airports, and naval bases.
Buffer zone operations: Deployment of Israeli forces into the demilitarized Golan Heights buffer zone, a violation of the 1974 UN-brokered ceasefire agreement, as per Syrian claims.
Expansive strikes: Attacks on sites across Al Mayadin, Tartous, Masyaf, and other strategic locations near Lebanon and Jordan.
Strategic goals
The overarching aim of Israel’s actions remains ambiguous.
Official rhetoric emphasizes defense and preemption, but some analysts suggest Israel could be leveraging the instability to reshape Syria’s political landscape.
Proposals from Israeli figures advocate fostering ties with ethnic and religious groups in Syria, such as the Druze and Kurds, hinting at a long-term vision of fragmented governance in Syria.
Such fragmentation could potentially benefit Israel’s geopolitical standing by weakening a historically adversarial state.
The intensifying conflict underscores the complexities of the Middle Eastern power dynamics.
By targeting strategic assets and pushing into contested areas, Israel risks further destabilizing the region.
Critics argue these actions could inflame existing tensions and provoke wider conflicts, while proponents maintain that Israel is safeguarding its national security.
These developments reflect ongoing challenges in reconciling national defense with regional stability.
The Times of Israel interviewed a researcher and former member of the Israeli military, who took Gantz suggestion even further, suggesting that Syria could be broken up into a series of cantons, with each free to cooperate with external actors, including Israel.
“The modern nation-state in the Middle East has failed,” former Colonel Anan Wahabi, who identified as a member of the Druze minority, said.
