The recent escalation of Israeli aggression against Syria—targeting the General Staff headquarters and issuing a “warning” strike near the Presidential Palace—did not come as a surprise. This escalation was entirely expected for anyone who understands the nature of the relationship between the Zionist entity and the Arab region, and how the occupation views itself and its Arab surroundings, including non-Arab actors like Turkey and Iran.
The implications of this latest act of aggression reaffirm long-standing geopolitical realities in the region—realities that some try to ignore or circumvent. But the nature of political reality is that it cannot be bypassed; it imposes itself, whether friend or foe. The wise approach, therefore, begins with acknowledging these realities—recognising yourself, your enemy, and your allies—before drafting any strategy to engage with them.
1. Israel Is an Enemy to All, Regardless of Policy
The first and most glaring message of this Israeli strike on Damascus is that the occupation considers itself an enemy to every state in the region, regardless of their behaviour or diplomatic tone. The post-war Syrian state has not taken any position that could be deemed provocative by the Zionist entity. It has been justly criticised for extending unreciprocated reassurances to the occupier. Yet despite this, Israel has bombed Syria hundreds of times—before and after Assad’s fall—once under the pretext of preempting military threats, another time claiming to protect Kurdish factions, and now supposedly to shield the Druze.
Clearly, Israel is not concerned with Syria’s diplomatic language or moderate behaviour. What matters to it is strategic perception. It views itself as a foreign implant in the region—an entity that can only survive through unchallenged military and security superiority. This superiority, in turn, requires the systematic weakening of surrounding states. Hence, Syria must remain fragile, fragmented, and on the verge of division.
This foundational principle of Zionist policy is further reinforced by the current Israeli government, which—like most of Israel’s political establishment today—belongs to the school of “Revisionist Zionism,” founded by Ze’ev Jabotinsky. This ideology serves as the intellectual foundation of the Likud party and its offshoots. Its cornerstone doctrine, the “Iron Wall,” asserts that only through overwhelming force can Arabs be deterred from confronting Israel. This view has gained further traction post–October 7, especially as Tel Aviv grows confident in its ability to strike any regional capital with impunity, backed fully by American and Western support.
In this context, Israel no longer accepts the mere existence of peaceful Arab neighbours or those that pose no immediate threat. Its strategic vision now demands full regional dominance—control over the political dynamics of surrounding countries, including internal affairs, where possible. Only after rendering these states politically and strategically subordinate will Israel consider “coexistence.”
2. Israel Is Present in Every Arab Conflict
The second message confirmed by this assault on Syria is a reality long denied by certain Arab isolationists—namely, that Israel is entangled in nearly every Arab conflict, internal or cross-border. Although the Palestinian struggle remains the most visible and tragic consequence of this occupation, it is not the only one. Israel’s fingerprints can be found in many sectarian or ethnic issues, including those involving the Kurds, Christians in South Sudan, and other minority populations. In Syria, the Druze issue is now being weaponised. Elsewhere in the region, Israel has exploited crises over energy, arms sales, refugees, and more. There is always a “wound” through which the occupation inserts itself into Arab political life.
This means Arab states will never truly stabilise so long as the occupation exists, which brings us to the third implication of these strikes.
3. Appeasement Will Never Lead to Stability or Development
Some Arabs continue to argue that appeasing Israel with soft language and political reassurances is necessary for calm—and that this calm, in turn, is necessary for development. They go further to claim that Arab economic progress will eventually serve the Palestinian cause.
But the Israeli attack on Syria proves that this theory has collapsed. Israel has no interest in allowing any Arab state to genuinely develop, because true development would eventually challenge Israeli dominance. While it may turn a blind eye to superficial forms of luxury or consumerism in some Arab capitals, it swiftly turns hostile the moment any Arab state attempts to build strategic capacities, especially outside the oil economy.
We saw this clearly in Israel’s vehement opposition to Saudi Arabia’s request to the United States for a peaceful nuclear reactor, and its interference in the UAE’s attempt to acquire American F-35 fighter jets. Whether militarily, scientifically, or industrially, Israel will oppose Arab advancement whenever it senses a threat to its hegemony.
4. Syria’s Current Government Is Not an Israeli Project
The fourth message of this aggression is a rebuke of the narrative—often stemming from ideological biases against the Syrian revolution—that labels the post-2011 Syrian state as an Israeli creation. While there are certainly legitimate criticisms of the regime’s position toward the occupation, it is a gross oversimplification to call it a Zionist project.
Israel may have welcomed Assad’s downfall early on, but it has since repeatedly described the new Syrian leadership as “extremist and hostile.” Thus, the claim that the current Syrian authority is executing an Israeli agenda collapses under the weight of repeated Israeli strikes and official Israeli declarations to the contrary.
Conclusion: The Future of the Region Is Still Being Written
The continued Israeli aggression against Syria confirms that the region’s destiny remains undecided—an open battlefield. What began in 2011 marked the failure of the post–World War I order. Everything that followed is a struggle over the new regional arrangements.
Unfortunately, any solitary Arab actor entering this conflict is doomed to fail. But that failure is not final. The struggle is ongoing, and the shape of the future Middle East is still unfolding.
