Israel's military escalation in the past few weeks against Iranian targets in Syria has killed military advisers to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and injured multiple Syrian soldiers. The strikes are the latest in a series of attacks launched by Israel, which, according to Israeli estimates, has reached more than 400 raids since 2017 as part of its strategy to deter Iran and limit its activity in its strategic depth.
This escalation coincides with unprecedented political unrest sweeping Israel since decades. It also comes amid a regional trend for de-escalation in crisis-ridden countries like Syria and Yemen, set by a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Arab rapprochement with the Syrian regime. These developments pose a new reality across the region and how they impact the Israeli-Iranian conflict, and also raise questions behind the timing and motive of Israel’s attack in Syria, and their possible repercussions.
Reasons for Escalation
There are several motives behind Israel's ongoing escalation against Iranian targets in Syria, which are outlined below:
1. Asserting its role in the Syrian conflict dynamics:
Israel wants to assert its presence as a key player in any possible scenario for de-escalation especially when it comes to Syria. Tel Aviv is doing so by rising the cost of any potential harm to its strategic interests, having intensified its airstrikes soon after Riyadh and Tehran resumed their diplomatic relations. As Arab countries reproach their relations with Syrian regime, and Damascus returning to the fold of the Arab League, Israel is aware that it might come under pressure for attacking targets on Syrian soil.
2. Achieving deterrence and limiting the cost of “open war”:
Israel’s strategic periphery is heavily restricting Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which has dropped the option of an “open war” against Iran, at least for the time being. This is influenced by a few reasons: internal political instability as a result of the mass protests proposed judicial reforms, which may lead to a “war between wars” campaign, a strategy preferred by the government to deal with perceived security threats; and pursuing a policy of deterrence, while avoiding escalation and slipping into a total war, which would push Israel to fight on several fronts in a war of attrition that may end up with a tactical retreat, especially if it fights that war without US support.
In this context, Israel may prefer to wage a proxy war with Iran on Syrian territory, instead of facing Hezbollah, for example. Fearing a catastrophic war, Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, has reported that Israel has been targeting Iranian weapon factories and ammunition warehouses in Syria.
3. Running away from internal crises:
The Israeli PM may be considering flaring the northern front through the recent military escalation in Syria in order to “skip ahead” the internal crises that has swept his government. Such an escalation, if Iran decides to respond, would trump any other ongoing issues, and the Israeli government would use this to campaign for a united nation against a foreign enemy. This is evident in Netanyahu's statements commenting on the attacks in Syria, saying that “Israel is fighting terrorism by relying on decisive strikes, and making everyone who supports terrorism outside Israeli borders pay a high price,” adding: “I am warning our enemies not to test us and not to make mistakes, the internal dispute will not harm our strength and our determination to work against enemies on all fronts and at any time.”
Similarly, the ‘skipping ahead’ tactic may explain Israeli’s escalation against Palestinians as Israeli police raided Al-Aqsa mosque, assaulting and arresting worshipers, which caused fury in the West Bank, and a series of strikes launched from Lebanon.
Possible Repercussions
There are possible repercussions or scenarios that may emerge following the Israeli escalation against Iran in Syrian territory, including the following:
1. limited military response by Iran:
Tehran may want to complicate the situation for Netanyahu by escalating with Israeli on the Syrian front with a limited response. Another possibility would be to postpone escalating until after the situation inside Israel clarifies. The Israeli military announced through local media on April 2 that it shot down a drone that had infiltrated Israeli territory from Syria, without posing any danger.
2. Continued coordination with Russia in Syria:
As Russia controls Syria’s airspace, Israel is well aware that it needs Moscow’s green light to carry out any strikes in Syria. For this reason, Tel Aviv needs to maintain good relations with Moscow and maintain its neural position in the Israeli-Iranian conflict. However, by allowing Israel to target and kill high-ranking Iranian officials, Russia may be jeopardising its relations with Tehran.
3. Tensions between Tehran and Moscow:
Interest-based relations between Moscow and Tehran dictate a certain dynamic that aims to balance the US influence in the region. It offers a degree of flexibility to for Moscow to deal with Tehran’s activity in Syria, while allowing Israeli air force to carry targeted operations against Iranian targets. Russia seeks to constraint Tehran’s presence in Syria while at the same time trying to prevent Tel Aviv from fully supporting Kiev in the ongoing Russian operation.
Israel well understands that in return for Iranian support in Ukraine, Moscow may support Tehran by expanding its missile capabilities and supporting its regional agents. This, however, may tip off the balance of power in the region to Iran’s favour. Therefore, Israel is careful not to provoke Moscow in Syria. But if Israel continues to neutralise high ranking Iranian officials, then it may lead to tensions between Tehran and Moscow who may be seen as allowing these airstrikes in favour of Israel’s interests.
4. Derailing Iranian nuclear negotiations:
Repeated Israeli strikes might be a tactic to obstruct US attempt to revive the Iranian nuclear deal. Washington lately has been trialling a ‘freeze-for-freeze’ approach with Tehran who is showing stiff resistance to the idea. Iran has announced on many occasions that any new deal has to match the one signed in 2015, according to reports by the American website Axios. Therefore, these repeated attacks by Israel may eventually lead to a hardened position by Tehran and complicating international efforts to reaching an agreement, especially as Tehran has reached 84% enrichment levels.
We may conclude that under the current circumstances which is seeing a deep shift in regional politics as well as inside Israel, Tel Aviv aims to assert its role and protect its interests in any upcoming understandings that may be reached soon. Tel Aviv is doing so by launching strikes against Iranian interests in the region, and is expected to continue its pressure on Iran in order to protect its strategic interests and gains achieved in recent years. For Israel, protecting its airspace is an absolute priority: this is the message being sent by unilateral airstrikes as the US and the West remain preoccupied with the ongoing war in Ukraine.
