Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the fall of Bashar al-Assad this month, claiming his decision to fight to the end against Hamas and Hezbollah had helped “change the face of the Middle East.” Since then, Israel has launched its largest bombing campaign on Syrian territory since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
The Israeli army has also made an incursion to create a buffer zone between the Golan Heights and Syrian territory, capturing the highest and most strategic terrain on the Syrian border.
Israel’s statements and actions are evidence that it welcomes the fall of a key figure in the Iran-led Axis of Resistance, but also that it is wary of the rebel groups that have seized power in Damascus. In light of this, Israel is taking a “better safe than sorry” approach: while the intentions of the new Syrian government remain unclear, Israel is doing its best to make the country toothless.
According to the Israeli military, their 600 attacks have destroyed about 80% of the military capacity of Assad’s former army. Israel is also trying to ensure that it has freedom of action in Syrian airspace for years to come – the first targets destroyed were all air defense systems.
What does Israel want in Syria?
Israel’s ground incursions pursue several objectives. The first is to secure strategic areas from which attacks can be launched towards Syria or Israel. The second is to create a buffer zone between the two countries, thus preventing a surprise such as the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. The third is to obtain a negotiating chip for possible negotiations with the new Syrian regime. If Damascus wants to get these areas back, it will have to show goodwill and negotiate with Israel, another example of Israel’s well-known diplomatic “land for peace” strategy.
Israel is celebrating the fall of Assad as it breaks the noose that Iran had patiently tightened around Israel’s borders in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Tehran’s pincers are now broken and rendered useless. From the perspective of Israel’s broader conflict with the Islamic Republic, the collapse of the Assad regime is a strategic victory.
However, the groups that defeated Assad (and by extension Iran) in Syria are unlikely to show a friendly attitude towards Israel. Hence Israel’s caution: if Syria were to fall into anarchy or become a jihadist state, they want to be sure the country does not have the means to harm them.
What’s left of the Iranian Resistance Axis?
The Axis of Resistance – of which only the pro-Iranian militias grouped under the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and the Houthis in northern Yemen remain intact – was intended as a tool both to achieve Tehran’s regional hegemony and to launch a possible attack on Iran to be scared.
The idea was that if the US or Israel ever dared to bomb or invade Iran, Tehran would activate the Axis of Resistance, plunging the region into chaos. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen were dormant volcanoes ready to erupt, but with three of these volcanoes already extinguished, the Islamic Republic now needs another viable deterrent.
However, Israel’s indirect victory over Iran in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria could ultimately pose an even greater threat, because the simplest and most radical solution to Iran’s year of setbacks would be to abandon all ambiguity and develop nuclear weapons.
The precedents are clear: the only regimes and countries that will survive are those with such an arsenal. Those that have divested or failed to complete their nuclear programs – Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine – have suffered invasions or regime changes.
Tehran knows that completing its nuclear program would be a point of no return. It would provide guarantees against a foreign attack on its territory, but it would also mean international isolation.
However, Iran is not North Korea. It is not a country that can easily cut itself off from the world, as such a move could trigger economic and social unrest that could in turn lead to uprisings that would topple the regime. It could also lead to the development of military nuclear programs in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which would also not serve Iran’s interests.
The Islamic Republic is therefore faced with a difficult choice about how to proceed with restoring balance in light of the loss of Damascus. Israel, in turn, will keep a close eye on how its victory develops.
This article was originally published in The Conversation, a post dedicated to comparing ideas from academic experts.
Lee mas:
Javier Gil Guerrero has not received any salary, has not performed any consultancy work, has not done any acciones, has not received any funding from any company or organization that could benefit this article, and has declared that he has provided care to relevant relevant matters regarding the entire academic world.
