DHAKA, Dec 22 — In the midst of Syria’s growing chaos, Israel’s actions in the region have raised significant concerns about its long-term strategy. Just three days ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz visited forward positions on Mount Hermon, in the contested Golan Heights, where Israeli forces have maintained a presence for decades. Their statements about the ongoing military presence in Syria indicate a continued strategic stance that could have far-reaching consequences.
Netanyahu announced that Israeli troops would remain on Mount Hermon, which overlooks southern Lebanon and Syria, “until other arrangements can be made to guarantee Israel’s security.” Katz added that Israel would “remain here as long as needed,” signalling Israel’s long-term commitment to its position in the region. Their visit follows a period of heightened Israeli military activity, with more than 70 air raids and missile strikes across Syria in the last few weeks alone.
Israel’s targets in Syria have included key military sites, including the port of Tartous, Russia’s main naval base in the Mediterranean. Israeli officials claim that their military strikes are aimed at preventing arms, including potential chemical weapons, from falling into the hands of new militant forces that have emerged following the recent collapse of the Assad regime. This latest surge of violence, including Israel’s actions beyond the established demilitarised buffer zone, has drawn attention from regional and international actors, with varying interpretations of Israel’s intentions.
Turkey, Israel, and the “Polycrisis” in the middle east
The context of these actions involves a rapidly shifting landscape in Syria, particularly following the fall of Damascus to the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) fighters in early December. As Syria’s capital fell into the hands of these rebel forces, Israel took preemptive action, continuing its policy of striking targets it believes to be aligned with Iran and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, Turkey, which has supported the HTS militia in Syria, has accused Israel of exploiting the Syrian chaos to expand its borders and assert control over more territory. The accusation aligns with growing concerns in the Middle East about the expansionist ambitions of regional powers. Turkey, in turn, has also used the instability in Syria to further its own objectives, particularly targeting Kurdish forces that have allied with the Syrian Democratic Army (SDA). In a further display of the region’s volatility, the United States has deployed reconnaissance forces to prevent Turkey from attacking its Kurdish allies.
This constellation of actions, which sees both Israel and Turkey engaging in manoeuvres to secure their interests amid the Syrian conflict, forms a key part of what political analysts are now calling the “polycrisis” of the Middle East. The situation in Syria, intertwined with the interests of both Israel and Turkey, has become a flashpoint that threatens to destabilise the region even further.
Israel’s strategy: Keeping Syria weak
Israel’s response to the shift in Syria’s political landscape is designed to keep its enemies off balance. The Israeli government has been particularly vocal in its criticism of HTS and its jihadi roots, linking the group to al-Qaeda and other extremist movements. Israel’s public statements have focused on delegitimising the new regime in Damascus, despite indications that HTS leaders, such as Ahmed al-Sharaa, are attempting to form a broad-based government that may offer more inclusivity and tolerance towards religious minorities.
Humanitarian observers, such as UN envoy Tom Fletcher, have expressed cautious optimism about the ability of the HTS-led government to establish stability. Yet, Israel’s stance seems intent on preventing any potential reconciliation, viewing the HTS as too closely tied to extremist elements. Critics, however, argue that Israel’s refusal to engage with the new Syrian administration may reflect a broader strategy to prevent any power in Syria from gaining the strength to challenge Israel’s position in the region.
The risks of overplaying his hand
Israel’s actions in Syria are also part of a broader, more aggressive regional strategy that includes ongoing military operations in Lebanon and Gaza. Netanyahu has emphasised Israel’s military might as a means of maintaining power, both domestically and in the region. However, this approach carries significant risks. Recent Israeli airstrikes, such as the 100-aircraft strike on Iran in October, have resulted in heavy losses but also brought attention to the indiscriminate nature of Israel’s operations. The civilian toll in these strikes has raised questions about Israel’s adherence to international norms of warfare, particularly the laws of armed conflict.
More Read
At home, Netanyahu’s focus on military escalation may be driven by political considerations. He and his allies, particularly hardliners in his coalition like Justice Minister Yovar Levin, have used external conflicts to solidify their hold on power. Domestically, Netanyahu faces pressure from his more extreme allies, including Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has pushed for aggressive policies toward Gaza and the broader Palestinian issue.
This strategy, however, could prove dangerous. With the incoming Trump administration likely to seek quicker resolutions rather than prolonged military engagements, Netanyahu’s approach may be at odds with US priorities. Trump’s preference for swift deals, particularly in the Middle East, contrasts sharply with Israel’s long-term military involvement in Syria and beyond.
Conclusion: The danger of overreach
As Israel continues its operations in Syria, it risks overplaying its hand, especially as the balance of power in the region becomes ever more precarious. While Netanyahu’s military stance may offer short-term political gains, it could also fuel a wider regional conflict that undermines Israel’s long-term security. With the political landscape in Syria shifting rapidly and key international actors like the United States and Turkey pursuing their own agendas, Israel must carefully navigate this turbulent environment. Otherwise, it risks exacerbating the very instability it seeks to contain.
