SAEDNEWS: In a striking divergence from U.S. and Turkish strategy in the Levant, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has doubled down on unilateral military operations in Syria—rejecting both American détente and Turkish partition plans.
According to Saed News, Dr. Mansour Barati, a senior analyst of Israeli affairs, has drawn attention to the growing rift between Israel’s military agenda in Syria and that of its traditional Western allies. While former U.S. President Donald Trump sought to normalize relations with Syria’s transitional leadership under Ahmad al-Sharaa and proposed lifting sanctions, Israel has pursued a much more aggressive course—launching a wave of targeted strikes across southern Syria.
The attacks, Dr. Barati notes, follow a triple-pronged doctrine:
Strategic decapitation – Israeli airstrikes have severely degraded Syria’s remaining defense infrastructure, including the symbolic destruction of the presidential palace and the military general staff’s headquarters in Damascus.
Territorial foothold – By occupying swathes of southern Syria near the Golan Heights, Israel seeks to prevent any future effort by the Syrian government to reclaim the disputed territory captured in 1967. These regions, home to the Druze minority, have become a central pillar of Israel’s "humanitarian" justification for intervention.
Ethnic fragmentation – The Israeli leadership, according to Barati, is not aiming to overthrow the new government in Damascus but rather to ensure that it remains fractured, decentralized, and ultimately toothless. A weakened Syria composed of autonomous ethnic enclaves—particularly Kurdish and Druze territories—is seen as a strategic asset by Tel Aviv.
While Washington and key European capitals have reportedly begun a quiet normalization with the so-called "Jolani government" (led by the former Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham), Netanyahu’s administration has refused to follow suit. Israel opposed Trump’s plan to lift sanctions on Damascus, arguing it would prematurely legitimize a regime Israel considers unstable and untrustworthy. Tel Aviv lobbied hard for a delay—at least one year—to allow Israel to establish stronger "facts on the ground."
In an especially telling episode, Israeli officials warned al-Sharaa’s forces not to enter the southern provinces of Suwayda and Daraa—home to Druze communities considered under Israeli protection. Once Sharaa’s troops crossed this red line, Israel retaliated swiftly and decisively.
Tensions have also emerged between Israel and Turkey. Ankara had proposed a de facto tripartite division of Syria: the north under Turkish influence, the center under Damascus, and the south under Israeli sway. But Netanyahu rebuffed the offer, signaling Israel's unwillingness to share power in a region it considers essential to its long-term strategic depth in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Even radical suggestions from members of Netanyahu’s own cabinet—such as Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s call for the assassination of Jolani—have been dismissed as rhetorical excess. Yet, the message remains clear: Israel does not trust the new Syrian leadership and will continue to shape the battlefield to fit its vision of regional deterrence.
As the Levant reconfigures itself amid geopolitical tremors, Israel’s approach to Syria appears increasingly detached from alliance diplomacy—and rooted instead in a doctrine of preemption, division, and dominance.
