Hello! Your friendly neighbour Middle East policy person here.

I saw a post about this that just got removed (I was writing this as it was being removed and I thought I would create my own post to raise the issue, as it's an important one. There's a link to an article about it: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/katz-confirms-israeli-strikes-in-southern-syria-we-will-not-allow-it-to-become-southern-lebanon/

Israel is not attacking Syria per say, it’s targeting terror infrastructure, weapons caches, etc, things that could still be used by terror groups, militias, to attack Israel or even attack Syria internally. This makes both Israel and Syria safer. Don’t forget, Syria is still not a united country - fighting is still occurring between some groups and the country is still spilt between various groups.

What isn’t being reported is that IS is still operating in Syria - multiple terror attacks have been thwarted since Jan 1 (by the SDF, the Syrian Kurds in the north-east).

So for Gaza and Lebanon, both sides are clearly valid targets as both are led by parties who's primary objective is the destruction of Israel, and had launched attacks beforehand. But as for for the new Syria, why?

If it's just the destruction of military hardware, that would have been easier to understand. But an incursion? harder to do so, they already have a buffer zone with the Golan Heights, and Jolani has not expressed his wish to destroy Israel, let alone had done physical attacks against Israel, and to the contrary, even stated his disinterest on conflict with Israel.

Despite his past, I respect Jolani for his attempt on reconstructing a more pragmatic government in Syria. Something that the middle east needed for quite a while.

Yes, Syria (like most Arab countries) has a population that is anti-Israel. But so does Jordan and Egypt, or Gaza so it isn't really sufficient cause. HAMAS especially has been pumping anti-Israel propaganda for years and it took a real attack on October 7 before Israel kicked the door, same thing with Lebanon launching missiles into Israel for months before Israel went in. But Jolani's new Syria hasn't made any attacks nor stated their interest to do so, which makes the incursion even more confusing.

if Israel wants peace and good relations with the new Syria, an incursion isn't a good way of introduction, if they have problems with each other, wouldn't it be just better for them to talk it out through diplomatic channels? Even if it fails to resolve persisting problems, at least it'd look like Israel tried to do things the diplomatic way.

First megathread

While the events in Syria are ongoing, and the outcome is uncertain, we understand that many people will have questions and concerns.

Please use this megathread to share any questions, comments, speculation etc.

Also, any updates or news that might be related to events in Syria but are off topic for r/Israel are welcome.

Keep in mind: we have community members from all over the world. Perspectives will vary, different groups of people will have different concerns. This topic is not straightforward, and causes strong reactions. Be civil when engaging here.

Why is Israel attacking your country?

Why doesn’t your country defend itself? Does it not have any drones or missiles to attack back like Iran did?

Does it not have any air defence system? Also when do you think Syria will be safe for tourists to visit?

does anyone have any idea what are we trying to accomplish

Re: This article

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israel-said-readying-list-of-government-and-military-targets-in-syria/

I haven’t been following developments in Syria closely. I know the Syrian government has been attacking Syrian Druze. Is this related to that? The article doesn’t give any reasoning.

The new Syrian government, despite consisting of many people with radical past, seems like a much better choice for Israel than the Assad family which actively enabled the Iranian agression. Considering the events of the last decade and half, the Syrians are unlikely to warm up to Iran now and will probably seek to join the geopolitical ranks of other Muslim states like Turkey or Saudi Arabia. And these countires generally oppose the ideas of conflict with Israel due to their economic and military ties with firm Israeli allies.

With Hezbollah now on their knees, there is a good chance that the northern border can be long-term secured, if the Syrian government cooperates as they hold power over the former Hezbollah supply routes from Iran. That would be a massive security win for Israel, which could then focus vastly more personnel and material to guard the ever dangerous areas in Gaza and the West Bank.

Hence, I am very confused, why did Israel decide to launch a bombing campaign right after the revolution against, mostly extremely outdated, pieces of Syrian Arab Armed Forces equipment. It seems like talking to the new government, which openly states that it has a "live and let live" policy towards Israel, and trying to reach an agreement about countering Iran would be a better choice.

Similarly, I do not see a good reason to launch a campaign to occupy parts of Syria with the already stretched armed forces, when the Israeli-Syrian border consists of the, already very defensible, Golan Heights (the famous Ben-Gal's defence of the Valley of the Tears is a testament to how well this can be done).

I believe that this move was very short-sighted and populist and it may come to bite Israeli security in the long term. Change my view!

They bombed airports in syria in the current war, how can this be acceptable and not considered a war declaration?

As soon as Syrian rebels successfully overthrew the Assad regime, Israel launched an aggressive military campaign in Syria. Over three days, the IDF conducted approximately 500 airstrikes, devastating 70-80% of Syria’s military assets and destroying nearly its entire naval fleet. In parallel, Israeli forces advanced into Syria from the Golan Heights, seizing control of strategic surrounding territory.

But what does Israel aim to achieve with this operation? The collapse of Assad’s regime already represents a significant strategic gain for Israel. Iran has lost a key ally and a critical supply route for arming Hezbollah. Furthermore, the leading rebel faction, HTS, which is poised to dominate the new Syrian government, harbors deep hostility toward both Iran and Hezbollah.

While I understand Israel’s concerns about the potential threat posed by HTS—given its Islamist ideology and its roots as an Al Qaeda affiliate—their aggressive approach appears premature and counterproductive. The world is closely observing HTS to determine whether their supposed shift toward moderation is genuine or merely a PR move to gain legitimacy during the civil war. And the jury is still very much out. At the moment, HTS is focused on consolidating power and forming a functional government, not initiating conflict with Israel or anyone else for that matter.

By preemptively treating HTS as a direct threat, Israel is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rather than taking a measured approach to gauge the intentions of Syria’s new leadership, these actions are forcing their hand. It just seems strategically short-sighted. Even if HTS does pose a future threat, Israel’s immediate aggression could ensure a more adversarial relationship than might have otherwise developed.

Thoughts?

The way I see it, on the one hand, weakening Assad means weakening Iran's influence and limiting the ways Iran can help Hezbollah. On the other hand, Assad is perceived as weak and doesn't try to attack Israel directly. Also the rebels can be unpredictable and it can be worrying (given some of them have Al-Qaeda roots) if they manage to get access to chemical or strategic weapons.

Do I understand the situation correctly or am I missing something?