Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the fall of Bashar al-Assad this month, and claimed that his decision to fight to the end against Hamas and Hezbollah had contributed to “changing the face of the Middle East”. Since then, Israel has launched its largest bombing campaign on Syrian soil since the 1973 Yom Kippur war.
The Israeli army has also made an incursion to establish a buffer zone between the Golan Heights and Syrian territory, seizing 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 piece 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 new Syrian government’s intentions remain unclear, Israel is doing its best to render the country toothless.
According to the Israel Defense Forces, their 600 strikes have destroyed around 80% of the military capability of Assad’s former army. Israel is also seeking to ensure it has freedom of action in Syria’s skies for years to come – the first targets to be destroyed were all air defence systems.
What does Israel want in Syria?
Israel’s ground incursions are pursuing several objectives. The first is to secure strategic areas, from which attacks could be launched towards either Syria or Israel. The second is to create a buffer zone between the two countries, and thus avoid a surprise like the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. The third is to acquire a bargaining chip for possible negotiations with the new Syrian regime. If Damascus wishes to recover these territories, it will have to show goodwill and negotiate with Israel, another case of Israel’s well-known “land for peace” diplomatic strategy.
Israel is celebrating the fall of Assad because it breaks the noose that Iran had been patiently tightening around Israel’s borders in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Tehran’s pincer is now broken and rendered useless. From the point of view of Israel’s wider conflict with the Islamic Republic, the collapse of Assad’s regime is a strategic victory.
However, the groups who 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 descend into anarchy or become a jihadist state, they want to be sure it lacks the tools to harm them.
What’s left of Iran’s Axis of Resistance?
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 deter a possible attack on Iran.
The idea was that if the US or Israel ever dared to bomb or invade Iran, Tehran would activate the Axis of Resistance, thus plunging the region into chaos. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen were dormant volcanoes ready to erupt, but with three of these volcanoes already deactivated, the Islamic Republic now needs another viable deterrent.
However, Israel’s indirect victory over Iran in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria may end up generating an even greater threat, because the simplest and most radical solution to Iran’s year of setbacks would be to abandon any ambiguity and develop nuclear weapons.
The precedents are clear: the only regimes and countries that survive are those with such an arsenal. Those that divested themselves of their nuclear programmes or failed to complete them – Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine – have suffered either invasions or regime changes.
Tehran knows that completing its nuclear programme would be a point of no return. It would offer guarantees against a foreign attack on its territory, but it would also mean international isolation.
Iran, however, 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 upheaval that may, in turn, lead to revolts that would overthrow the regime. It could also lead to the development of military nuclear programmes in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which would not serve Iran’s interests either.
The Islamic Republic is therefore faced with a difficult choice of how to proceed in restoring balance in the face of the loss of Damascus. Israel, for its part, will be watching closely to see how its victory develops.
Javier Gil Guerrero no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
