War in Syria: The stakes for Israel

Israel is deeply worried about the war in Syria. But has few good policy options. The Jewish state is afraid that Assad might lose - and also that he might win.

Baz Ratner/Reuters
An Israeli field hospital, where wounded Syrians are treated, is seen a top a ridge overlooking a Syrian villages, close to the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria, in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights September 9, 2013.

Part of a series of articles looking at the regional interests at stake in Syria's civil war. The full list is on the left of your screen.

Though Syria has technically been at war with Israel for decades and has long pressed for the return of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in the 1967 war, the government of President Bashar al-Assad has long been one of Israel’s quietest and least aggressive enemies.

At several junctures, most recently in 2008, Israel nearly concluded a peace deal with Mr. Assad, who would have become only the third Arab leader to sign such an agreement.

So in the early stages of Syria’s civil war, some Israelis quietly hoped Assad would retain power, preferring a known quantity over the potential for a Sunni militant regime rising to power, particularly one with links to Al Qaeda.

However, Israel is deeply concerned by Assad’s support for Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based Shiite militant movement whose proclaimed raison d’être is fighting Israel. Both Syria and Iran have cultivated Hezbollah as an ally that could pummel Israel with its vast supply of weaponry, which is believed to include long-range missiles that could hit Tel Aviv. Israel has a strong interest in the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah “axis of resistance” becoming weaker or destroyed altogether.

At this point, the ideal outcome in Syria from the Israeli point of view is a drawn-out war, in which Assad’s forces continue to battle the rebels, weakening both sides and reducing the threat that either poses to Israel. Israel has so far stayed out of the civil war, except for four attacks on Syrian weapons stores, intended to prevent their suspected transfer to Hezbollah. Assad has refrained from any counterattacks.

Though Israel has prepared for possible fallout from the fighting, which has already spilled into neighboring Lebanon, most Israeli security experts tend to agree that Assad is likely to use restraint if he launches a retaliatory attack in the wake of a US strike.

"I think [Assad] understands that the meaning of attacking Israel might have very severe consequences to [his] ability to continue his regime,” says Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, who recently retired from a long career in the Israel Defense Forces, most recently as defense attaché in Washington. 

The worst-case scenario for Israel would likely be Assad either turning his chemical weapons capabilities on Israel in a last-ditch move of desperation, or losing control of them to Sunni militants who could then direct them toward Israeli targets.

But a broader Israeli concern is that Iran will become emboldened by the lack of decisive Western action on Syria, and that the US in particular will be too distracted or too lacking in credibility to effectively address what Israel sees as the biggest regional threat: an Iranian nuclear bomb.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to War in Syria: The stakes for Israel
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today