The Real Motive Behind Israel’s Relentless Assault on Syria

 Israel’s relentless assault on Syria, with more than 400 strikes following Bashar al-Assad’s dramatic flight to Russia, signals an unprecedented shift in regional dynamics. These actions include military incursions into the demilitarized buffer zone and targeted strikes on Syrian infrastructure. Despite UN protests, Israel has continued its campaign, citing self-defense. However, the scale and intensity of these operations demand a closer examination of Israel’s true motives.

For decades, Israel has justified its actions in Syria as a means to counter Iranian influence. Yet Iran’s denial of a military presence in Syria has undermined this narrative. Israel now claims to target Syrian military infrastructure to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This justification reflects a broader pattern of labeling opposition forces as extremists to legitimize military actions. Critics argue that these shifting explanations obscure Israel’s strategic ambitions in the region.

The Golan Heights, a contentious territory since the 1974 ceasefire, has become a focal point of Israel’s strategy. By deploying military units into the buffer zone and reportedly advancing tanks into Syrian territory, Israel is testing the limits of international law. While Israeli officials deny such incursions, satellite imagery and local reports tell a different story. These moves suggest a deliberate effort to assert control over strategic areas, complicating Syria’s recovery from decades of turmoil.

Israel’s airstrikes extend beyond the Golan Heights, targeting regions like Al Mayadin, Tartous, and Masyaf. These areas are critical to Syria’s military and logistical networks. Israeli leaders argue that these attacks are preemptive, aimed at preventing weapons from being used against Israel. However, the breadth of the targets raises questions about whether these operations are part of a larger plan to weaken Syria’s sovereignty and reshape its political future.

Prominent voices in Israel have begun to articulate visions for Syria’s future that align with these aggressive actions. Benny Gantz has called for strengthening ties with Syrian minority groups, while other experts suggest breaking Syria into autonomous regions. These proposals reflect a broader Israeli strategy to influence the region’s political landscape. Such ambitions risk escalating tensions and drawing in other regional powers, further destabilizing an already volatile situation.

Israel’s actions in Syria are not isolated. They coincide with attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, highlighting a pattern of regional aggression. Israeli leaders claim these operations are necessary for national security, but the lack of clarity fuels suspicions about ulterior motives. As Syria navigates a precarious transition, Israel’s actions could set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. The international community must scrutinize these developments to prevent further escalation and protect regional stability.