It appears that the escalation of the situation in Syria, following the ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, is accelerating at an alarming pace. Hardly an hour passes without news that could lead to significant changes in the regional geopolitical landscape and shifts in the international power dynamics within the Arab world.
The first country to implement measures in response is Israel, which initiated in the first days of the regime fall, the most extensive military operation in its history in Syria, named “Arrow of Bashan.” This operation involved 350 airstrikes targeting various locations across the entire country, ultimately resulting in the destruction of 80% of Syria’s strategic military infrastructure. In addition to the airstrikes, Israel conducted a ground incursion that extended beyond the disengagement zone established by the 1974 agreement, as well as neighboring areas in southern Syria. Consequently, the Israeli army seized control of all observation posts situated on Mount Hermon, including the main observation posts that were under the The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) control.
This action was facilitated by the sudden withdrawal and evacuation of Syrian forces from their administrative and operational positions in the region, following the overthrow of Bashar Al-Assad’s Regime. This signifies that Israel has attained control over the highest peak in the Hermon and Sheikh mountain ranges, which rises to an elevation of 2,814 meters. This strategic vantage point enables it to survey the entire region, encompassing Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Jordan, offering a panoramic view that extends over 70 kilometers in every direction. So basically Israel has seized 368.3 km² of Syrian territory, advancing since the fall of the Assad regime, which makes Israel now less than 20 km away from Damascus, the capital city of Syria. The Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has announced: “Due to what is happening in Syria — there is enormous security importance to our holding on to the peak of Mount Hermon,”
Netanyahu defends the recent Israeli military intervention and annexation in Syria by asserting that unrest has begun to prevail in the buffer zone on the other side, prompting him to order military action in Syrian territory. Furthermore, he declared that the agreement is no longer binding for Tel Aviv, stating that the “Golan Heights will remain part of Israel ‘for eternity.’”
Consequently, Israel has managed to achieve its objectives in maintaining its national and regional security, something that Israel has consistently articulated openly and directly on numerous occasions since the entry of Iranian militias into Syrian territories during the Syrian war. In 2017, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated: “We have made it clear many times that we will not accept nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands, nor will we allow the establishment of Iranian forces near our borders—in the Syrian region in general, or anywhere else.”
By analyzing the developments in the region, it becomes evident that Israel is making significant strides toward achieving its goals of establishing a strong influence, position, and presence as a key player in the Middle East and a greater recognition and influence in a region fraught with complexity. This marks a departure from the challenges Israel has faced since its establishment in 1948.
This ambition is longstanding, but it became particularly pronounced in the aftermath of what was expected to be its emergence as a victor following the tumultuous wave of the Arab Spring, which led to the overthrow of leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Furthermore, October 7 terrorist attacks resulted in a significant dismantling of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s power in Gaza, alongside a decline in Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon. Ultimately, these developments contribute to the end of Iranian power and its militia presence in Syria. At the very least, this is what political realism suggests to explain the current geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.
While Israeli officials are making efforts to reassure the international community and Arab countries that have criticized and condemned Israel’s recent actions in Syria, the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict suggests otherwise. Looking at the Israeli officials’ statements, former Prime Minister in 2006 Ehud Olmert asserted that “as long as he served as prime minister, he would not relinquish the Golan that had been part of Israel.”
The Golan has a place in the people’s heart more than Judea and Samaria.“ —Ariel Sharon. Likewise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced in May 2009 that Israel will:“keep the Golan forever” he said that Katzrin (the only Jewish town on the Golan established after 1967) was a “gem of the second temple [period]”, and that “giving up the Golan Heights would turn it into Iran’s front lines which would threaten the whole state of Israel.”
Israel has a longstanding pattern of not relinquishing seized territories without a significant price. Historically, Israel has only returned land after securing guarantees, agreements, or concessions. So, what forms of agreements, guarantees, or concessions might currently be expected from the nascent Syrian state grappling with the challenges of its internal dynamics, as well as regional and external pressures?
It is essential to recall that during his previous term in 2018, Donald Trump notably declared the US recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in 1967. Saying that:
“After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!” While Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, tweeted his gratitude for Trump’s gesture: “At a time when Iran seeks to use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel, President Trump boldly recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights,” the Israeli prime minister wrote. “Thank you President Trump!”.
The steps are intricately interconnected and carefully orchestrated; they are far from being mere reactions to the developments unfolding in Syria. Contrary to the narrative that the United States and Israel aim to convey to public opinion—that these actions are responses to the evolving events in Syria and the broader Middle East—the Israeli cabinet unanimously approved, on December 15, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s NIS 40 million (approximately $11 million) plan to double the population of the Golan Heights, which currently hosts around 50,000 residents, divided between Jews and Druze.
This decision was revealed after Viral videos circulating on social media depicted a gathering of dignitaries from the village of Hader, on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, speaking in favor of joining Israel. In the videos, a dignitary who spoke in front of a crowd of dozens, said: “In the name of the all the people of Hader, and if anyone objects, please say… if we have to choose, we will choose the lesser evil – to be annexed to the (Israeli) Golan!”
The speaker argued that Israel for them is ‘the lesser evil,’ warning that ‘the other evil coming our way,’ meaning the Islamist militias, would “take our wives, our daughters, our homes.”The speaker continued, arguing he speaks on behalf of several villages in the region: “We are with those who preserve our dignity… I don’t mind if anyone is taking pictures or recording – we ask to be annexed to the Golan… The fate of Hader is the fate of the surrounding villages, we want to ask to join our kin in the Golan, to be free from injustice and oppression,” to which those present at the convention replied shouting: “We agree, we agree!”
Therefore, such statements and the prevailing fears among certain sects in Syria—specifically, the Druze community in southern Syria—along with their expressed desire for Israeli protection, raise significant and serious questions regarding the future of Syria’s territorial unity.
In conjunction with these moves, Israel continues to target sites of the Syrian army, throughout the country. where Israel launched extensive airstrikes targeting military locations in the Tartus region along the Syrian coast. Israeli warplanes conducted strikes on multiple sites, including air defense units and surface-to-surface missile depots. These assaults were characterized as “the most intense in the Syrian coastal area”. Israel executed a minimum of 10 attacks in the Tartus vicinity, and seismic stations in Syria recorded a magnitude 3 earthquake at the time of the assaults.
Israel attributed its destruction of strategic weapons and military infrastructure to the need to prevent their potential use by armed opposition groups that ousted Assad from power, some of which are believed to have emerged from extremist factions.
Israel’s actions in Syria —including annexing territories, conducting airstrikes on military sites, and severely degrading the capabilities of the Syrian army—serve as a clear message to the new government in Damascus that no weapons will be tolerated that could be used against Israel. The new neighbor must grasp that any opposition to Israel will be met with overwhelming force. These sentiments were conveyed to the de-facto leader of HTS -organisations classified as a terrorist- Ahmed al-Sharaa,who commented by saying: “Syria is not planning to get into any conflict with Israel anytime soon” .
However, as Israel positions itself as a key player in the vacuum left by the fall of Assad’s regime, the potential for future conflicts remains heightened, and the implications for Syria and the wider region are profound. The military operations and territorial advancements signify not only an immediate strategic goal but also a broader ambition for Israel to redefine its borders and its role on both the regional and international stages—unless a well-considered proposal for a peace initiative with Israel emerges from the new state in Syria. Understanding these developments within the context of long-standing regional tensions is essential for assessing the future of Syrian sovereignty and Israel’s growing influence in the aftermath of the Assad regime’s collapse.
