From the very moment Syrian opposition armed forces entered the capital, Damascus, and overthrew Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Tel Aviv intensified its military operations against the Syrian state by land, air, and sea, in what looked like a full-scale war. This dramatic escalation has sparked significant political and strategic questions about what motivated Tel Aviv to take such a dangerous course of action, including the possibility of advancing on the ground toward Damascus.
The rapid escalation by Israel cannot be separated from what can be termed the collapse of guarantees that had shaped the relationship between Tel Aviv and the Assad regime since the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, brokered by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This agreement included secret clauses and side understandings, revealed decades later in declassified Israeli and American documents, as well as disclosures from former Syrian Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam after his defection from the regime.
These documents indicate that the Damascus regime had implicitly pledged to both the US and Israel to avoid any return to combat. This pledge is evident in sensitive military details concerning the size and type of Syrian forces deployed—not only along the disengagement line but even beyond the buffer zone. In return, the US and Israel guaranteed the regime’s stability and allowed it to play a regional role, as long as it refrained from challenging the status quo in the Golan Heights. This understanding significantly altered the nature of the Syrian army and ensured full stability along this front until the final days of the Assad regime.
The equation of Golan stability in exchange for regime survival became the cornerstone of strategic policy for both Hafez and Bashar al-Assad, even at the height of Iranian influence and proxy wars in the region. This understanding played a crucial role in preserving the regime despite a series of major crises—from the Hama massacre to the strikes on Damascus, from the inheritance of the presidency to the assassination of Rafik Hariri, and ultimately the Syrian people’s revolution, during which the regime used chemical weapons and crossed Barack Obama’s red lines.
This arrangement also underpinned the Assad regime’s role in Lebanon starting in 1976. Its intervention in Lebanon served two objectives: the first, aligned with American interests, was to suppress the National Movement; the second, aligned with Israeli interests, was to dismantle the Palestinian resistance. Lebanon became a bargaining chip under the pretext of “unity of path and destiny,” though this framework unraveled after Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
For Tel Aviv, which had to ease its commitment to safeguarding the Assad regime due to shifting regional and international dynamics, the focus shifted to securing its own guarantees—previously provided by the same regime. As a result, Israel has systematically destroyed Syria’s military infrastructure, effectively neutralizing the Syrian army’s capabilities. This strategy mirrors the US decision to dissolve the Iraqi army. The outcome could leave any new authority in Damascus unable to maintain stability, potentially leading to localized chaos, violence, or even partition—all of which serve Tel Aviv’s interests.
Strategically, Israel’s systematic dismantling of Syria’s heavy military capabilities, which had remained intact until October 8, 2023, marks a significant shift. Previously, Israeli strikes primarily targeted Iranian facilities and their affiliated militias. Now, Israel has adopted a preemptive approach to prevent Syria from ever rebuilding a military force capable of confronting Tel Aviv within the occupied territories. This policy is tied to a broader Israeli plan for territorial annexation and is driven by a deep-seated distrust of any majority-led regime in Damascus with strong ties to the Palestinian cause.
