In the wake of the downfall of the Assad regime, reports have emerged of an Israeli military push onto the Syrian side of the Golan as well as airstrikes against military installations and positions once held by Assad’s military forces. What are the reasons for these actions?
One interpretation is that Israel is seizing on an opportunity created by the vacuum of Assad’s downfall and thus grabbing territory merely for the sake of expansionism. This view, however, misunderstands what the nature of Israeli policy has been towards Syria since the outset of the war. Israeli policy can be understood by two main principles: (i) minimise the threat posed by Iran and Hezbollah, and (ii) minimise the threat posed by anarchy.
With the collapse of the Assad regime came the swift collapse of the Iranian and Hezbollah-supported networks of Syrian personnel in the ‘Local Defence Forces.’
The former meant hundreds of airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah positions within Assad-held territory as well as any Syrian military and government assets that were used for the supply of weapons to Hezbollah. It also meant the supporting of a ‘buffer-zone’ in the sense of an area controlled by insurgents on the border with the Golan Heights to try to keep Iran and Hezbollah away. However, the Israelis were not invested enough in this ‘buffer-zone’ policy to try to maintain it and stop the regime offensive that reclaimed control of southern Syria from the insurgents in 2018.
For the time being, this objective of minimising the threat posed by Iran and Hezbollah is not of relevance following the collapse of the Assad regime and withdrawal of Iran and Hezbollah personnel from Syria. Indeed, with the collapse of the Assad regime came the swift collapse of the Iranian and Hezbollah-supported networks of Syrian personnel in the ‘Local Defence Forces.’ As I have noted, many of those I know who worked with the Iranians and Hezbollah are now on board with the trend of celebrating the fall of the Assad regime.
The latter principle of minimising anarchy meant that in general, there was a preference for there to be some central government rather than chaos. Having known the Assad dynasty for more than half a century and its track record of not pursuing military escalation on the Golan front (a policy that was apparent most recently during the Israel-Hezbollah war), Israel preferred the Assad regime to having no government. This does not mean that the two sides were in some sort of secret alliance, but rather that it was not Israel’s policy during the war to push for Assad’s overthrow, as there did not appear to be a clear alternative in waiting. In other words, the Assad regime represented a ‘devil you know’ for Israel: a problematic actor by virtue of the alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, but preferable to an alternative that might be perceived as worse.
The further push into Syrian territory should be interpreted as Israeli officials are presenting it: i.e. a temporary measure until there is stabilisation with the formation of a central government authority that can exert law and order.
Now that the Assad regime is no more and a central authority clearly asserting its control across Syrian territory has yet to be constituted, minimising anarchy is more relevant for Israel than ever. Amid the collapse of the regime, a considerable amount of military equipment has simply been abandoned, criminal looting has been proliferating, and there are valid concerns about whether military assets could fall into the hands of rogue elements who might target Israel’s border along the Golan Heights. In this regard then, the further Israeli entry into Syrian territory to establish a ‘buffer-zone’ and its strikes on Syrian military assets are very different from the ‘buffer-zone’ and strikes that were intended to minimise the Iran and Hezbollah threat. The further push into Syrian territory should in fact be interpreted as Israeli officials are presenting it: i.e. a temporary measure until there is stabilisation with the formation of a central government authority (whose exact nature is yet to be determined) that can exert law and order.
To discuss the issue of what exactly Israel has been doing in its move into al-Qunaytra province on the Syrian side of the Golan, here is an interview with a source in the al-Qunaytra town of Khan Arnabeh (which the Israelis have not entered yet).
Q: What is the situation in al-Qunaytra?
A: There is an incursion of around 1km [deep], because a group of thieves tried to steal the crossing where they launched gunfire in the direction of the occupied lands. After this, the tanks penetrated with reconnaissance aircraft, and they began bombing all the previous military positions to prevent use of them.
Q: What are the Israelis doing exactly? Are they entering and inspecting homes, or what exactly besides bombing military positions?
A: They have inspected homes in the villages of al-Hamidiya and Rasm al-Rawadi, looking for weapons. They do not want any displays of weapons within the buffer-zone that is to extend along the borders at a depth of around 3km.
Q: They haven’t attacked any inhabitants have they?
A: There is no information available.
Q: And have they not entered Khan Arnabeh?
A: They have not entered Khan Arnabeh or al-Ba‘ath City which is around 3 km west of Khan Arnabeh.
Q: In the al-Qunaytra area, what is the local force responsible for security right now amid the disappearance of the prior regime?
A: Local committees of the families’ youth. The governmental offices will continue their work starting from today with the police command. All the governmental offices have been protected and preserved.
Q: Is there any contact between the local forces and the Israeli army?
A: There is no direct contact. Contact has been made with the United Nations.
Q: Are any clashes happening?
A: There are no clashes.
Q: In summary the Israeli army is targeting criminal gangs that may threaten the Golan?
A: Not gangs. Individuals who have tried to steal from the crossing.
Q: All right. And likewise the targeting of the military positions is to prevent any individuals benefitting from them?
A: Correct.
