Since the fall of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in December, Arab and regional fears and focus have largely flitted between two issues. There are those who continue sounding the alarm over an Iranian agenda which they say won’t be curbed, nor its bitter defeat in Syria accepted. Those preoccupied with this scenario warn that Iran will keep seeking to foment internal chaos and exploit sectarian divides in the country.
The other main focus is the Turkish agenda – many Arab states still view Turkey as the main sponsor of political Islam and its movements in the region – not just in Syria. This viewpoint continues to dominate in some quarters despite significant shifts (or rather fluctuations) in Turkey’s regional policies.
However, there is no real or comparable sense of apprehension across the region regarding the agenda of Israel’s far-right rulers and their vision for the “new Syria“—or, to be more precise their vision for the major geopolitical shift they seek to impose across the whole region.
What the entire Arab world should be concerned about, and with them Iran and Turkey, is the far-right Zionist vision for Syria and the wider region. This is especially in light of Trump’s return alongside his own far-right team which will be in lockstep with this agenda.
With regards to Iran, it no longer holds any real means of leverage in Syria, and its regional influence is rapidly disintegrating. Moreover, it is preoccupied and on the defensive at the prospect of US-Israeli plans to launch an attack on Tehran.
As for Turkey, it has a strategic agenda and vested interests when it comes to the new Syria, but these interests are shared with the new administration, which it will sponsor and provide support to. Therefore, Turkey’s role is likely to be a positive one – in light of the Syria’s huge needs due to its shattered economy, devastated infrastructure, and lack of an army and security apparatus.
Why should we be concerned?
We should be concerned about Israel’s agenda because it rests on the fundamental view that its security in the long-term will be best served by the fragmentation and division of Syria. For this reason, Israel’s maximum objective will see it exploiting the issue of Syria’s minorities, and potentially spearheading the establishment of statelets to represent the Alawite, Druze and Kurdish minorities.
When it comes to Israel’s minimum objectives, its agenda has been in motion since the moment the Assad regime fell. This was evident in the rapid actions it undertook to completely destroy the military infrastructure of the former Syrian army. It demolished the country’s weapons stockpiles, expanded into southern Syria (particularly into the Syrian side of the buffer zone, but also beyond), and nullified the 1974 disengagement agreement, with Israeli forces swiftly capturing Jabal al-Sheikh (also known as Mount Hermon) – a key strategic defensive position for both Syria and Lebanon.
With Israel now in complete control over this area, southern Syria—and even Damascus itself—has been left strategically exposed. Israel didn’t wait for the world’s go-ahead or an international resolution; it acted fast in a matter of hours to seize control of the region. Netanyahu even travelled there less than two weeks after Assad fled the country to brag about the newly seized territory.
More recently, Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth reported statements by Israeli officials revealing Israel’s intention to maintain control over almost 15 km of Syrian territory, as well as ensuring a deeper “sphere of influence” which would extend 60 km (37 mi) into Syria. This land would remain under Israeli monitoring for intelligence purposes, to prevent potential threats from developing, officials have said.
This effectively means a strategic and security occupation, granting Israel near-total control over Syria’s southern region, while also laying the groundwork to expand the Israeli military’s operations in the event of chaos or instability in the south, and to expand the buffer zones.
This new reality could also potentially enable the creation of minority-based entities under the pretext of protecting them from “Islamists” and their ideological backgrounds.
Could Israel have been stopped?
Could Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) have thwarted Israel’s plans? Definitely not, especially because American interests in Syria revolve around one thing alone – Israel. Moreover, the there is no equivalence, militarily, between HTS and Israel, as well as the fact that HTS has multiple other even more pressing priorities today – such as addressing urgent and fundamental issues around unity, security, and stability.
However, what has happened highlights the huge gulf between those states and regimes with actual strategic visions, and the Arab region as a whole – which is still floundering, divided and confused over how to deal with Syria’s new reality.
It is deeply troubling that Israel has seized control of vital water sources in the Yarmouk Basin – which belongs to both Jordan and Syria – this resource could have played a role in solving a major problem for Jordan.
It is equally alarming that Israeli forces have been threatening local residents and villages in Syria, forcing them to disarm in a move of glaring opportunism. Israel has basically seized a fleeting moment to redraw the map in the interests of its own security. This is possible because [unlike the Arab region] Israel has a clear vision of its security, interests, and strategic approach—and it is working aggressively to impose this vision on the entire world.
