The circumstances in southern Syria have become significantly different since the Bashar al-Assad regime fell. Given such a situation, Israel introduced a new concept to the region, focusing on security, stability, and control over the area. As the center of such a program, they offered the "sterile defense zone." It would be a safe area aimed at safeguarding the borders of Israel and keeping under control the hostile forces, most crucially those that are related to the Iranian regime, especially Hezbollah.
This is more than a response to the urgent and acute threats that are now being presented by the power vacuum in Syria; instead, it is the crucial and strategic rebalancing of Israel's orientation in regional affairs. Act decisively to seize the strategic points in the territory; massive, well-prepared military operations—the "new" borders and rules—are set by these actions in building them, especially so, aimed at the total overhaul of terms about the northern neighbor. That implies a new landscape of relations in the region.
Background
Israeli-Syrian history is deep in complexity, shaped by a sequence of tense conflict and episodic hostilities lasting decades. However, during that major one-off moment, the 1973 Arab-Israeli War saw the creation of a buffer zone in southern Syria itself within the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). This zone, intended to separate Israeli and Syrian forces, has served as a fragile barrier to full-scale conflict for nearly five decades.
Strategically significant territories like the Golan Heights have been central to this dynamic. Captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed to its own, Golan Heights offers an evident view of southern Syria and is thus a handy security resource. Most other countries in the world have been outraged by the annexation, but only the United States supports Israeli authority over the territory.
In recent years, the Syrian civil war and the regional influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah have added layers of complexity. For Israel, Golan Heights and the adjacent buffer zone represent much more than history; they are an existential part of efforts targeted against perceived threats from Tehran and its proxies. The fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime made the region even more unstable by offering both opportunities and challenges to try to rewrite Israel's strategic situation.
The Sterile Defense Zone
At the core of Israel's strategy in southern Syria is the establishment of a "sterile defense zone," a buffer area designed to shield its borders from emerging threats. According to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, this zone aims to "prevent the establishment and organization of terror in Syria" while maintaining security without a permanent Israeli troop presence.
The sterile defense zone represents a proactive approach to regional security. It stands as a buffer separating Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights; it serves as a very effective barrier against hostile forces such as Iranian-backed militias and extremist factions. Creating this buffer, in Israel's view, prevents the flow of weapons, personnel, or influence into the border region and stabilizes it.
While details about the precise dimensions and enforcement mechanisms remain sparse, the sterile defense zone underscores Israel's commitment to a policy of preemption. This includes neutralizing potential threats before they can materialize, as evidenced by extensive airstrikes on Syrian military targets and infrastructure. These measures reflect Israel's intent to use the vacuum left by the Syrian government’s collapse to reinforce its security architecture.
Military Operations and Strategies
Israeli hopes for making their dream come true over southern Syria are actualized through the vicious military campaign. Within 48 hours, the Israeli army dropped more than 350 attacks directly and precisely on key strategic locations in Syria, including anti-aircraft systems, ammunition stores, rocket manufacturing facilities, and naval bases. What Israel wanted was to strip what may be taken and used by hostile forces that may capture these depots for its disadvantage to Iran-occupied militia forces and extremist groups.
On the ground, Israeli forces moved into the demilitarized buffer zone established after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Strategic locations, such as the Syrian side of Mount Hermon, were seized to strengthen Israel's defensive posture. Although Israel maintains that its troops have not advanced significantly beyond the buffer zone, reports suggest incursions reaching as far as Qatana, a town near Damascus.
The operations are not limited to countering immediate threats but also focus on long-term deterrence. By destroying critical military infrastructure, Israel aims to weaken the capabilities of potential adversaries and create a security buffer that minimizes future risks. The use of advanced airpower, precision targeting, and naval assets highlights the comprehensive nature of Israel’s military strategy in achieving these objectives.
Reactions and Controversies
Israel’s actions in southern Syria have drawn mixed reactions, reflecting the complexity of the regional and international landscape. While Israeli officials frame the operations as necessary for border security and countering terrorism, critics accuse Israel of exploiting the chaos in Syria to advance its territorial ambitions.
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia condemned the invasion of Israel saying that it violated international law as well as the 1974 disengagement agreement, which set up the buffer zone. The United Nations also reacted in opposition and Secretary-General António Guterres condemned unilateral actions that heightened tension in the area. Incidents reported by UN peacekeepers on the ground, including armed groups entering the buffer zone without identification, make the situation more difficult.
Domestically, Israeli leaders have defended the operations as vital for national security. However, the scale of airstrikes and reports of advancing ground forces have raised questions about the scope of Israel’s intentions. Critics argue that the sterile defense zone might become a de facto territorial expansion, drawing parallels to Israel's prolonged occupation of other contested areas like the West Bank.
The operations have also fueled discontent among Syrians. Many, celebrating the defeat of Assad, expressed anger over the Israeli attack, calling it an abuse of its sovereignty during these transitional days. Again, the view of Israel as a security actor who also takes advantage when she perceives the opportunity again reflects the contentious nature of its presence in southern Syria.
Israel’s Broader Goals in Syria
Israel’s military actions in southern Syria are not solely defensive but part of a broader strategy to reshape regional dynamics in its favor. A key goal is countering Iranian influence, which has long been facilitated through Syria and manifested in the form of weapons transfers to Hezbollah. By targeting strategic military stockpiles and infrastructure, Israel seeks to disrupt these supply chains and diminish Tehran’s foothold in the region.
Another objective is ensuring the long-term security of Israel’s northern border. The sterile defense zone provides a buffer against hostile groups that could exploit the Syrian power vacuum. Israeli officials have emphasized that any threats arising from rebel factions or remnants of the Syrian military will be met with force.
Moreover, Israel aims to position itself as a stabilizing force while avoiding direct involvement in Syria’s internal affairs. Statements from Israeli leaders suggest an intent to establish relations with a new Syrian government, provided it does not align with Iran or allow the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah. At the same time, Israel has sought to bolster goodwill by extending humanitarian aid to Syrian civilians, emphasizing a "good neighbor" policy.
This multifaceted approach underscores Israel's intent to secure immediate tactical advantages while shaping the region’s geopolitical landscape. However, the balancing act of addressing security concerns, countering Iranian influence, and managing international scrutiny makes this vision a complex and high-stakes endeavor.
Implications for Regional Politics
Israel's moves in southern Syria have significant meaning for the politics and security map of the region. This vacuum created by the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government has allowed Israel to express its strategic priorities while other regional players reassess their positions.
The first immediate impact, no doubt, is disrupting Iran's influence in Syria. Attacking Iranian militia forces and assets, also shared with Hezbollah, hurt significantly Tehran's capacity to employ proxy forces for its international goals. The balance in this region changes but so also potentially curbs an important capability Iran may leverage for threats against Israel and Israel's friends.
During these confrontations, Israeli activities incited tensions in border states. The Arab governments headed by Egypt and Jordan accused forces of invasion and identified Israel as an opportunist leveraging the chaos in Syria for regional expansion. These developments risk reigniting broader regional hostilities, particularly if Israel’s actions are perceived as a permanent occupation of Syrian territories.
Internationally, Israel’s strategy has drawn mixed responses. While the United States has supported Israel’s right to defend itself, other global actors, including the United Nations, have criticized the violations of the 1974 disengagement agreement. The international community’s reaction will likely shape the extent to which Israel can maintain its presence and influence in southern Syria.
Domestically, Israel’s military actions reinforce its security narrative but raise questions about long-term intentions. The parallels drawn between the sterile defense zone and other occupied territories, such as the West Bank, highlight the potential for prolonged regional instability.
In reshaping southern Syria's political landscape, Israel has positioned itself as simultaneously a security enforcer and a difficult interlocutor. Its effects on the balance of alliances and conflicts and the order in the Middle East writ large are likely to be felt over and beyond its borders.
Conclusion
Israel’s vision for southern Syria, centered on the establishment of a sterile defense zone, reflects a strategic recalibration in response to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Through extensive military operations and territorial control, Israel aims to secure its borders, counter Iranian influence, and preempt threats from extremist groups.
While these measures are temporary and defensive, they carry long-term implications for regional politics and security. The disruption of Iranian and Hezbollah networks has strengthened Israel’s strategic position but has also invited criticism from neighboring Arab nations and international bodies. The parallels drawn with Israel’s past territorial expansions add to the controversy, raising concerns about the permanence of these actions.
As southern Syria navigates a transitional period, Israel’s role will likely remain a focal point in the region’s evolving power dynamics. Whether this vision leads to greater stability or escalates tensions will depend on how Israel balances its security interests with diplomatic considerations and the international community's expectations.
The "new borders" and "new rules" that Israel seeks to establish may well shape not only its relationship with Syria but also the broader trajectory of Middle Eastern geopolitics in the years to come.
0 Comments