Israeli-Iranian Clash: A Test for both Sides in Syria

Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
TT

Israeli-Iranian Clash: A Test for both Sides in Syria

Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)
Israeli security stands around the wreckage of an F-16 that crashed in northern Israel, February 10, 2018. (AP)

In Israel, they know that something new happened on the Syrian front. The developments may not lead to a dangerous escalation at this point, because Russia has moved to contain the situation, saying that it does not want further escalation.

According to sources in Tel Aviv, Tehran and Damascus share the sentiment to avert escalation.

Now all sides involved in the tensions will go about analyzing what happened, derive lessons and take strategic decisions later.

The first assessment is that after 34 years of calm and seven years of tolerating Israeli strikes and refraining from retaliating to them, an S-200 missile was fired at the jets, downing one and forcing another to an emergency landing.

We cannot say that this change was completely unexpected. In Israel, they had been debating the possibility of a change in the Syrian stance on repeated Israeli strikes. They predicted that the Syrian air defense would shoot at an Israeli jet, especially after the regime’s achievements on the ground against the opposition and with Russian and Iranian support. According to Israeli assessments, the regime has been boastful and arrogant as of late, all boosted by Iran and Russia.

All these factors made Israel suspect that the regime had something in store, so it threatened it. Israel had spoken several months ago about the danger of the Iranian project and the expansion of its “crescent” to include Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This expansion has reached the Mediterranean, Yemen and the Red Sea.

Over the past weeks, we had heard direct threats against Iran and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu had traveled to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin to inform him of Iran’s dangerous expansion. The expansion is creating a new reality and transforming Syria into an arena for an Israel-Iranian clash.

This same stance was presented before several European leaders, as well as, undoubtedly, US President Donald Trump.

On the ground, Israel struck a Syrian position in September which is known for its Iranian activity. In December, it struck Shi’ite militia positions near Damascus, in what was a direct hit against Iranian presence in Syria.

Over the past two days, signs of a change in the Syrian response began to emerge. Israel first struck a research center near Damascus and the regime responded by firing several missiles against the jets. Damascus claimed to have downed an aircraft, while Israel declined to comment. It did however acknowledge that a plane was damaged. On Wednesday, Netanyahu and his ministers carried out a field visit to the Golan where they made direct threats to Iran and Syria.

The new change is that Iran has now become part of the scene and it retaliated to the recent developments by dispatching on Friday a drone to fly over Israel and wander some 40 kilometers deep into its airspace before Israel discovered and downed it.

The explanation in Israel is that Iran’s flying of the drone was a stunt that was not aimed at espionage, but to show the Israelis that they were capable of infiltrating its airspace in spite of their advanced defenses.

Israel understood the message and it apparently was prepared for it. It had compiled a list of targets to that end and it consequently retaliated by first downing the Iranian drone and then carrying out air strikes against 12 joint Syrian-Iranian targets.

Four Iranian positions are among these targets. The largest is the T-4 airbase in the Palmyra region. This strategic base is used by both the Iranians and Russians. Coordination with Moscow was therefore necessary to avoid striking Russian jets or batteries during the Israeli raid.

On the Iranian and Syrian side, the goal was to achieve a morale victory in the retaliation against Israel that would create an appropriate “balance of fear”, said the Tel Aviv sources.

In the end, the Israeli strikes were a success, but the Syrian air defense tarnished this victory when it downed one of Israel’s F-16 jets. It was not just any F-16, but one of the most modern ones in Israel.

The Israelis described its downing as a “painful blow”. Preliminary investigations focused on whether its pilots were reckless in their mission.

Most significant in these developments was that Iran responded directly to Israel. It achieved two goals: The first is successfully retaliating to Israeli raids and the second is that it is now in a direct confrontation with Israel.

It managed to deliver the message that future Israeli strikes will not be a cakewalk. It also sent a message to not only Israel, but to the United States and Russia that Iran will not be a “punching bag” like Syria and Gaza. They should not expect a strike to go without a response. The third message is directed to Damascus itself and that is that the Iranian request for the establishment of a naval base in Syria will benefit Iran and Syria. The regime has been hesitant to meet this demand and has not yet agreed to it.

Israeli military spokesman Ronen Manelis was severe in commenting on Friday’s developments, saying: “Iran is dragging the entire region towards an adventure, which it will pay for.”

This was interpreted as a sign that more strikes are in store.

This was also an invitation to Russia and the US to restrain Israel. Tel Aviv expects Moscow to intervene between it, Damascus and Tehran to put in place new rules of engagement. At the same time, it is trying to draw the attention of the American administration and see how it will comment on the escalation.

Will it follow the lead of the Obama administration and call on all sides for calm and restraint? Or will it take a more hardline stance in favor of Israel that will give it free reign to strike Iran and even become a partner in such as step?

In Israel, they believe that calm will be restored to this front after these mutual strikes and diplomacy will now take centerstage. There is also a conviction that the situation is headed towards the edge of the abyss and a slight nudge could send everything toppling over.



Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's brash campaign posters are still up on Israeli public buses -- images of him, US President Donald Trump and soaring warjets that laud the two leaders attacking Iran together.

Neither is now advertising the state of the two countries' alliance.

A week after an inconclusive election for Netanyahu, Americans overwhelmingly rejected Trump and chose a Congress led by Democrats who want a tougher approach to Israel, whether on Iran, Gaza or settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

The back-to-back elections look to many observers like a turning point, with Israel no longer able to take for granted the cover of the world's most powerful country.

"This is a new era. The confluence of the Gaza war and the war with Iran have really changed how mainstream Americans -- not people particularly concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- see Israel," said Yael Sternhell, an expert on the United States at Tel Aviv University.

Vice President JD Vance, assessing why his Republicans fared poorly, listed four ways to bring voters back, including ending the Iran war and changing "our relationship with Israel".

Trump did not disagree. Just as voting was underway Tuesday, Trump said he had agreed with Netanyahu to end the $3.8 billion in annual US military aid to Israel by the end of this year, explicitly tying the decision to the US political mood.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister who has served on and off for nearly two decades, had eagerly sought Trump's endorsement but also acknowledged his country's growing isolation.

In the final days of the campaign, he suggested Israel turn to cryptocurrencies to circumvent international sanctions he expected would intensify.

Netanyahu has not commented on the US election or Trump's aid remarks.

Amit Segal, a journalist known for his proximity to Netanyahu, posted that the political situation in the United States marked a "catastrophe" for Israel.

- Can Eisenkot restore the alliance? -

Opposition contender Gadi Eisenkot, who is trying to cobble together a coalition to oust Netanyahu, has cast himself as capable of repairing relations.

In an English-language statement, the former military chief said he believed in "liberal values" and also wanted to work "closely and constructively" with Trump.

Yair Golan, the main left-wing leader inside Eisenkot's bloc, called for Israel to restore a bipartisan approach destroyed by Netanyahu who he said promoted a "destructive Israeli narrative of eternal war and authoritarian rule".

Netanyahu boasted in his campaign about standing up to Democratic presidents including Barack Obama, who remains a hero for many Democrats. Netanyahu openly aligned with Republicans a decade ago to attack Obama's diplomacy on Iran.

"Netanyahu certainly rubs Democrats the wrong way and has made every effort to alienate them," Sternhell said.

"But Eisenkot can't just be a nicer man to receive a softer approach from this new Congress," she added. "He's going to need new policies."

She said Eisenkot would likely enjoy Israeli public support for cracking down on extremist settlers, who have attacked Palestinians in the West Bank with virtual impunity.

But Israel has shifted to the right, with wide initial support for the Gaza war.

- Broadening criticism of Israel -

The new Congress will include progressive Democrats such as Abdul El-Sayed, the first Muslim elected to the Senate, who describe the devastation in Gaza as genocide, an assertion rejected by Israel.

Netanyahu "made a bet not only on the Republicans but almost personally on Trump", said Eli Kowaz, senior policy director of the Economic Cooperation Foundation, an Israeli think tank that backs a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

"These results show that bet had an expiry date," Kowaz said. "Also, for the first time, really, I think there's a realization that it isn't only about the Democrats. It's a problem with the relationship with America."

Without US assistance, Israel still has its own major arms industry and retains a clear edge fighting non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, said Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for the Israeli defense ministry.

But he said Israel would need to rely more on cheaper artillery or non-sophisticated bombs, further increasing risks of civilian casualties that have enraged international opinion.

"Israel can adjust to a new strategic reality of losing much and even all US military aid, but it will be tough for Israel. It will require Israel to consider hard choices such as taking huge loans or raising taxes," Eilam said.

Kowaz said that Eisenkot, aware of politics in Washington, was trying to show he is interested in regional stability and strategic agreements and not just "an indefinite state of war".

"He is definitely laying out a different vision for Israel's relationship with the United States."


Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
TT

Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)

The rebuke President Donald Trump suffered in the US midterm elections could prompt him to step up efforts to re-engage North Korea, but any willingness to make major concessions risks creating friction with regional allies.

Analysts and officials in Asia expect Trump to focus on foreign policy as he seeks to build his legacy in the final two years of his term. With efforts to resolve the wars in Ukraine and Iran yet to produce breakthroughs, he is likely to turn to Asia, where he believes he has room to maneuver.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump has been eager to restart talks, is likely to be a key part of that effort, they say.

"Trump is likely to devote significant effort to achieving foreign policy successes, especially if he faces greater constraints on the domestic front," said Ban Kil-joo, international relations professor at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy in Seoul.

"Given Trump would want a successor to win in 2028, there is a strong possibility that engagement with North Korea would be part of that agenda," he ‌said.

But there is ‌little incentive at the moment for Kim to respond, analysts say.

Asked about Trump's plans for diplomacy with North ‌Korea, the White ⁠House said Trump ⁠has restored American strength on the global stage and strengthened ties with world leaders.

"His foreign policy decisions have never been motivated by politics," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in emailed comments to Reuters.

"The Commander-in-Chief will always act in the best interest of the American people and our national security."

Trump met Kim three times during his first term after a war of words that raised fears of military conflict.

But their 2019 summit ended without agreement after they failed to reach a deal on North Korea's nuclear weapons program and sanctions relief.

Seven years later, the stakes are higher. North Korea has expanded its nuclear and missile arsenal, while Pyongyang's ties with Russia and China are the best in years, giving Kim less incentive to negotiate and potentially increasing pressure on Trump to offer concessions.

TRUMP CALLS KIM 'GREAT GUY'

Trump has touted his relationship with Kim, ⁠calling him a "great guy" and saying that they "get along very well."

Nonetheless, US and South Korean officials see ‌fading chances of a meeting this year, with Washington receiving no response from Pyongyang ahead of a regional ‌summit in China this month where they might have met.

Kim's influential sister, Kim Yo Jong, has said dialogue remains a path to peace, but Pyongyang sees no need ‌for talks now. She denounced what she called Washington's "hostile policy" while denying US accusations that North Korea stole more than $6 billion in virtual assets from Binance ‌last week.

Her brother has previously said he was open to talks if Washington stopped insisting his country give up nuclear weapons. Regional allies South Korea and Japan are opposed to any such concession.

"A summit that shelves denuclearization would undermine deterrence and create policy friction among Washington, Seoul and Tokyo," said Leif-Eric Easley, professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

Officials in Japan and South Korea are concerned they could be "cut out of the loop" if Trump deals directly with Kim, with the quiet blessing of Beijing and Moscow, a ‌senior Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"(Japanese officials) are concerned about the lengths he will go to get a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, such as dropping the issue of denuclearization."

'BIGGEST CHANGE ⁠SINCE WORLD WAR TWO'

Trump has referred ⁠to North Korea as a nuclear power, a status that allies in the region and the West have refused to recognize despite the dozens of nuclear warheads Pyongyang is believed to have built and its stockpile of fissile material.

"If US-North Korea talks lead Washington to accept North Korea's nuclear status, the security environment in Asia would change dramatically," said Professor Kazuhiro Maeshima at Sophia University in Japan.

"The biggest change since World War Two could occur in the remaining two years of the Trump administration. It is a serious situation."

Kim now has a vastly more advanced arsenal than at the time of the 2018-2019 summits, including more weapons and missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, a growing fleet of modern warships and submarines, and improved drone capabilities.

If Trump were to bring Kim back to the table, he might need to offer more than partial sanctions relief.

Such concessions could face hurdles at home from a Democratic-controlled Congress and Trump's limited time in office, said Moon Chung-in, a Yonsei University Professor in Seoul who served as a presidential adviser on national security.

"And what is important is North Korea's perception and calculation; if North Korea thinks that Trump has entered a lame-duck period and he cannot get the support from Congress... there's no reason for Kim Jong Un to come to dialogue," he said.

Former US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, who led US negotiations with North Korea during Trump's first term, also said there were few incentives for Pyongyang currently.

"The North Koreans, I think, have very little upside to a meeting like this right now, and potentially some downside."


Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
TT

Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

Has MAGA fever finally begun to fade? Will the American right abandon the Make America Great Again slogan and Donald Trump's populist ideology in favor of a more traditional brand of conservatism?

Following a crushing defeat in midterm elections that revolved almost entirely around one man, many Republicans have begun questioning the party's future and what role, if any, Trump should play in shaping it.

The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages have long represented the establishment right, called for "soul-searching" and urged Republicans to move away from the ultranationalist, identity-driven rhetoric that helped return the 80-year-old Trump to power.

In an editorial titled "The Trump Reckoning Arrives," the newspaper argued that tariffs and mass deportations were no substitute for higher real incomes.

It added: "Playing to the bro MAGA base is no substitute for persuading Hispanics, independents and suburban swing voters who abandoned the party on Tuesday."

"Still Your President"

The White House, however, appeared far less inclined toward introspection.

Its first post on X on Wednesday featured a stern-looking Trump accompanied by the words "Trump is still your president," a reminder that he will remain in office until January 2029.

But the American political calendar never stands still. Wednesday also effectively marked the beginning of the 2028 presidential campaign, which will culminate in the election of Trump's successor.

The US Constitution bars Trump from seeking a third term.

There was no realistic scenario in which Trump could have emerged from the midterm elections in a stronger political position.

The scale of the Republican defeat on Tuesday night, which exceeded even some of the Democrats' most optimistic expectations, has accelerated the erosion of his political influence.

Eyes on 2028

Vice President JD Vance, widely regarded as a potential contender for the White House in 2028, was careful not to confront his boss directly.

In a lengthy, essay-like post on X on Wednesday, Vance wrote: "The reason we lost is the war."

He immediately added: "The president himself said so last night."

That was not entirely accurate. Trump had attributed the defeat partly to the war in the Middle East, while also arguing that Republicans had fielded weak candidates.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described the outcome as an "extinction-level event" for the Republican Party, suggesting Republicans might have to wait until 2032 to regain control of Congress.

Republican lawmaker Don Bacon wrote on X that the party "needs to reclaim our Reagan principles."

He added: "Voters rejected populism, chaos, Putin and tariffs."

Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right figure who has turned against Trump, went further.

"If the GOP wants any chance in the future, it will have to kick Donald Trump out of the party," she said.

Matthew Boyle, a prominent figure at the far-right news outlet Breitbart, wrote on X that "Republicans need to get back to basics."

"No more endless wars," he said.

On the economy, which he identified as the top issue, Boyle called for policies that benefit ordinary Americans rather than special interests.

He also urged Republicans to "be sane with immigration enforcement."

Criticism Without Naming Trump

For now, however, criticism remains relatively muted. Only a handful of conservative figures, whether moderates or hardliners, have been willing to attack Trump by name.

After all, the Republican Party has tied its political fortunes almost entirely to Trump since 2016.

"The big question is, are some of these Republican leaders in the House and Senate going to distance themselves from Trump?" Amy Dacey, a former Democratic official who is now an expert at American University, told AFP.

The same question applies to far-right influencers whose prominence and financial success have been closely linked to Trump's popularity.

Dacey said a devastating electoral defeat could diminish their influence, but it would by no means eliminate those associated with the MAGA movement.

Some of MAGA's online supporters have already attempted to shift the blame elsewhere.

"Great work, neocons," Jack Posobiec wrote sarcastically on X, referring to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, known for its interventionist foreign policy and hawkish stance toward Iran.

Nevertheless, it may only be a matter of time before the divisions become more pronounced.

Former congressman Bob Good wrote on the same platform: "Gotta start by acknowledging that Trump was and is the problem. Quietly whispering it won't do it."