Syria’s Changing Landscape and Its Impact on the Region

As soon as the Assad regime’s over five-decade-long era of oppression and tyranny came to an end, Israel immediately seized the opportunity to advance its military objectives. Israeli forces have captured key positions within Syria’s border regions, including a non-militarised buffer zone on the Golan Heights. Israel has conducted hundreds of strikes against ‘military targets’ in Syria. Furthermore, the Israeli army has occupied the buffer zone in the Golan Heights, which was under United Nations supervision.

Israel claims its military operations in Syria aim to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens. However, some analysts assert that Israel is exploiting the situation to weaken one of its long-standing adversaries. Israel has also confirmed a major attack on Syria’s naval fleet. According to a statement from the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), their warplanes targeted the ports of Al-Bayda and Latakia on Monday night, where 15 Syrian naval ships were docked. This raises the critical question: why is Israel relentlessly attacking Syria?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his usual aggressive tone, announced that he had ordered the IDF to enter the buffer zone and other “strategically commanding positions” in the Golan Heights. Israel has described this as a temporary measure to safeguard itself against attacks from Syrian rebels following the collapse of the Assad regime. However, many Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, have condemned Israel’s actions.

Since the militant group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham seized control of Damascus, Israeli warplanes have carried out 350 airstrikes on Syrian military installations and targets linked to the group in Aleppo, Hama, Damascus, Latakia, Tartus, and other areas. The aim of these strikes, according to Israel, is to degrade the combat capabilities of the Syrian army. Israel also claims its attacks are meant to prevent chemical weapons in Syria from falling into the hands of extremists. Yet, the continuous violations of Syrian borders and airspace suggest broader objectives.

Israel’s narrative about safeguarding against chemical weapons is questionable. Following the fall of the Assad regime, the fate of Syria’s alleged stockpile of chemical weapons remains uncertain. While there are no confirmed details about their locations, Israel’s possession of its own arsenal of lethal weapons raises the question: should similar military actions be justified against Israel? Recently, the UN arms watchdog warned Syrian authorities to secure any remaining chemical weapons stockpiles.

Syrian forces have been accused of using chemical weapons such as sarin gas and chlorine gas in several regions. In 2013, the Syrian army reportedly deployed sarin gas in an attack on the Ghouta suburbs of Damascus, killing over a thousand people. The Assad regime reportedly maintained chemical weapons as a deterrent to balance power with Israel, though it allegedly never intended to use them proactively. With the regime now replaced, the dynamics have changed entirely. Israel also alleges that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham possesses chemical weapons, having used them against its adversaries. However, the question remains: if no chemical weapons are stored in the buffer zone, what is the purpose of occupying it?

The Golan Heights is a region in Syria that has been under Israeli occupation since 1967. Spanning 1,200 square kilometres, it is located about 60 kilometres southwest of Damascus. During the 1967 war, Syria launched an attack on Israel from the Golan Heights, but Israel repelled the offensive and subsequently occupied the region. Syria attempted to regain control of the Golan Heights during the 1973 Yom Kippur War but failed.

In 1974, a ceasefire agreement was signed between Syria and Israel, mandating the withdrawal of military forces from an 80-kilometre-long demilitarised border strip known as the “Area of Separation.” Since then, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has monitored the ceasefire agreement in the region. Despite this, Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, a move condemned globally and never recognised internationally. However, in 2019, the Trump administration reversed the longstanding US policy and recognised Israeli sovereignty over the region.

Syria has repeatedly stated that it will not engage in any peace agreement with Israel until the complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights. In November 2024, Syria lodged complaints with the United Nations, accusing Israel of digging trenches near and even within the buffer zone.

The Strategic Significance of the Golan Heights

When the Golan Heights were under Syrian control, from 1948 to 1967, they were frequently used for artillery shelling across northern Israel. The Syrian capital, Damascus, is located approximately 60 kilometres north of these heights, and the elevated terrain provides a clear vantage point over Damascus and much of southern Syria. This geography offers Israel a strategic advantage in monitoring Syrian military movements. Controlling these heights also provides Israel with a natural buffer against potential Syrian military offensives, such as the one that occurred during the 1973 war.

On the other hand, the Golan Heights are a critical source of water in a predominantly arid region. Rainwater flowing from the heights feeds into the Jordan River, enabling fertile lands around the river to sustain vineyards and orchards while also serving as grazing grounds for livestock. In the past, one of the major obstacles to a peace agreement between Syria and Israel has been Syria’s insistence on a return to the pre-1967 borders and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area.

If such a withdrawal were to occur, Syria would gain control of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, depriving Israel of a vital source of fresh water. Israel argues that the border should remain further east to prevent the loss of critical resources. Public opinion in Israel largely supports retaining control of the Golan Heights, with many believing that the region is too strategically important to relinquish.

The Golan Heights: Settlements and Occupation

Most of the Syrian Arab residents of the Golan Heights were displaced during the 1967 war. Today, over 30 Israeli settlements exist in the area, with an estimated population of 20,000 settlers. The settlements were established shortly after the 1967 conflict, but they are considered illegal under international law. These Israeli settlers now live alongside roughly 20,000 Syrians, predominantly from the Druze community, who remained in the area during Israel’s occupation.

Syria maintains that the Golan Heights have always been its sovereign territory and has repeatedly vowed to reclaim the region. Meanwhile, Israel asserts that the Golan Heights are critical for its defence and must remain under its control.

Israel’s Recent Actions in the Golan Heights

Syrian forces withdrew from the Golan Heights when rebel groups advanced towards Damascus, threatening the Assad regime’s grip on power. Taking advantage of this situation, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) seized control of the demilitarised buffer zone in the Golan Heights. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to frame this move as a step towards ensuring peaceful relations with any future Syrian government. However, he has also stated that Israel will take all necessary measures to protect its borders if peaceful relations cannot be established.

Israel claims its incursion into Syrian territory is meant to prevent groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from entering Israeli territory through the Golan Heights. The IDF has admitted to moving beyond the demilitarised zone but insists that their presence is limited. According to the Israeli military, this is a “temporary defensive measure” until a more permanent arrangement can be made. Netanyahu has further claimed that Israel seeks peaceful relations with any emerging forces in Syria but will take any action necessary to defend its borders.

Reports from Syria suggest that Israeli forces have advanced within 25 kilometres of Damascus. However, Israeli military sources have denied this claim, stating that while their forces have moved beyond the buffer zone, the extent of their advance has been exaggerated. Several Arab nations have strongly condemned Israel’s recent actions in Syria. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry described it as “an occupation of Syrian land and a blatant violation of the 1974 agreement.”

Netanyahu has justified these actions as necessary for securing Israel’s borders, claiming that the 1974 agreement is no longer effective due to rebel control in Syria. Many analysts, however, remain sceptical of this justification and dismiss Netanyahu’s argument that Israel is acting pre-emptively to prevent attacks similar to Hamas’ assault on 7 October.

The International Response

Syria has consistently maintained that it has not violated the 1974 agreement. Israel’s actions in the buffer zone, framed as pre-emptive measures for security, are widely regarded as unjustified and amount to blatant aggression. The situation has further complicated efforts to establish peace in a region already fraught with conflict.

The likelihood of Syrian rebel groups reclaiming the Golan Heights from Israeli control in the near future appears slim. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is so deeply engrossed in internal matters that it has little time to consider creating a new conflict with Israel. However, Israel’s presence in Syrian territories will likely sour its relations with future Syrian governments.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has stated that Israeli airstrikes on Syrian military bases are solely for the defense of Israeli citizens. According to him, Israel targets strategic weapon systems, such as remnants of chemical weapons or long-range missiles and rockets, to prevent them from falling into the hands of extremists. However, Middle East analysts believe that Syria does not possess significant quantities of chemical weapons. They suggest that only two or three such sites remain, and the claim of hundreds of airstrikes appears to be more about significantly weakening Syria.

This approach reminds many of the baseless accusations levelled against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, which led to the devastation of Iraq’s ancient civilization, the deaths of millions of Iraqis, and ongoing foreign control over its oil resources.

Israel claims to be taking precautionary measures to handle worst-case scenarios, but such efforts could backfire. This is not a constructive way to establish friendly relations with a new Syrian government. Since the fall of the Assad regime, often labelled as brutal and spanning decades, under the leadership of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, significant questions have arisen about Syria’s future. HTS leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani has vowed to unify Syria, but it remains uncertain whether he can achieve this goal. The United Nations has emphasized the importance of fostering cooperation among all groups in Syria.

Given the rapidly evolving situation, predicting Syria’s future is challenging. However, experts highlight three potential scenarios for the country’s future. The most favourable outcome for Syria would be for HTS to collaborate with other political forces in the country and govern responsibly. Post-conflict Syria offers an opportunity to foster an environment of national reconciliation. This moment can break the cycle of vengeance and looting that has plagued neighboring states. Failure to seize this opportunity could give rise to new conflicts.

In his initial statements, Jolani stressed the importance of unity and mutual respect among Syria’s diverse sects. However, it is equally crucial to acknowledge that the agendas of various groups in Syria do not always align. There is a significant risk that Syria, like Libya, could be fragmented into warring factions, with no single faction emerging that harbours hostility toward Israel.

Israel and its allies are likely to exploit divisions among these groups, potentially triggering a civil war to advance their agenda of a “Greater Israel.” In such a scenario, other regional nations—those highlighted in green during Netanyahu’s recent UN speech—must awaken from their complacency.