Israel to Turkey: Divide Syria into Spheres of Influence

For years, I’ve noted that Israel’s geostrategic policy envisions Syria as fragmented into sectarian fiefdoms controlled by itself and other major powers.  Though the country has had relatively stable relations with Israel since 1973–the civil war, beginning in 2011, caused it to devolve into a frenzy of competing factions and major powers seeking influence. 

The two most dangerous as far as Israel was concerned were Hezbollah and Iran. Both were allied with the Syrian regime.  Thus it was in Israel’s interest to destabilize the country: to set the factions against each other and undermine Assad’s central authority.

For that reason, Israel has launched hundreds of air attacks on Hezbollah and Iranian weapons shipments and military assets on Syrian territory over the past decade or more.  It has assassinated both Hezbollah and Iranian military commanders inside Syria.

In fact, an Israel bombing destroyed an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus and murdered a top Iranian commander.  This was the trigger which caused Iran to launch a missile attack on Israel. That in turn, led to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the assassination of most of Hezbollah’s senior leadership.

Now that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has toppled Assad, Israel has exploited this opportunity to invade and occupy what it’s calling a “buffer zone” on sovereign Syrian territory, allegedly to protect its northern border.  Netanyahu has also abrogated the 1974 armistice agreement, which had been the main stabilizing factor governing Syria-Israel relations for the past 50 years. 

During the 1973 War, Israel conquered a portion of the Syrian Golan and has illegally occupied and annexed it.  Now, it has further expanded its reach.  Reuters reported that Israeli forces are now operating even beyond this zone and Syrian eyewitnesses saw troops only 16 miles from Damascus.

Though the Biden administration and IDF have declared the Israeli occupation is “temporary,” Israeli media have added “the assumption is it will be for a relatively long period of time.”  An Israeli presence throughout the entire southern portion of Syria up to the capital itself guarantees precisely the fractured state Israel is seeking.  It will exert its influence and ensure that its enemies–Hezbollah, Iran, and any others who might arise from the ranks of HTS itself–cannot renew their presence.  It will do that by playing the parties off against each other as it has done historically between Fatah and Hamas in occupied Palestine; Hezbollah and the PLO in Lebanon; the South Lebanese army and Amal from 1982-2000; and al-Nusra and Hezbollah during the Syrian rebellion.

During the civil war, Israel armed its al-Nusra proxy on its northern frontier to prevent Hezbollah from opening a new military front there.  It provided the Al Qaeda-affiliated group weapons, supplies, medical care and camps for families of fighters, in return for it serving as a buffer against the Lebanese militia, one of Assad’s key military allies.

As happens with marriages of convenience between major powers and their local allies–when conditions change, the ally can turn into a mortal enemy.  This happened in Afghanistan with the Mujahadeen, which eventually morphed into the Taliban.  In the case of Al-Nusra, it turned against Al-Qaeda and eventually became HTS, which marched on Damascus from its northern Syrian redoubts and overthrew Assad. 

In its new iteration, it no longer is an Israeli proxy or ally. It has its own interests in consolidating power and establishing central authority.  In that sense, Israel’s interests have not only diverged from those of al-Nusra/HTS, they portend a direct conflict.

HTS’s new ally and patron is Turkey, which has its own potentially conflicting interests in Syria.  It occupies a swath of Syrian territory in the north which acts as a buffer against both Kurdish and ISIS forces in the area.  Turkey is also waging a decades-old campaign against Kurds both inside the country itself and in northeastern Syria.  If HTS can establish control of the country, then Turkey can have free reign to pursue and dismantle the Kurdish forces, which maintain their own autonomous presence there.

Both Israel and Turkey have all but declared their occupation permanent.  Or at least until they are forced out by a central Syrian authority.

Israel’s “proposition”

Now, Turkish officials have reported that Israel approached them with a plan to divide the country into spheres of influence with Israel in the south, Turkey in the north and HTS governing the central zone:

Israel…approached Turkey with a proposal for a military coordination mechanism between the two nations. Israel suggested dividing Syria into three geographic zones reflecting each side’s interests: Turkey would have interests in the northern sector, requiring Israeli pre-approval for operations there.

Israel would have freedom of action in the south, while both sides would need to notify each other before operating in the central region.

Turkey was prepared to discuss these issues with Israel, but rejected the proposal.  It is in Turkey’s interest to have a unifying governing authority in the country, as long as it reflects its interests.  For Israel, however, HTS will never share its interests for a number of reasons. First and primary, is that Israel wants a weak, fragmented country in which it can project its interests without interference.  Israel has fought three wars against Syria since 1948, and recognizes that it is a potential battlefront for any future conflict.  Second, HTS is a Syrian nationalist movement and it cannot countenance any party, especially a non-Arab one with a history of colonial occupations (Sinai, West Bank, southern Lebanon, Syria Golan), encroaching on its territory.

The proposal outlined above highlights Israel as a colonial regime. It proposes that Syria lose its independence and sovereignty and become a vassal subservient to foreign powers.  This parallels Israel’s own settler-colonial relations with its Palestinian minorities both inside the state and in the Occupied Territories. Colonialism may have ended in much of the Third World, but it is alive and well in the Middle East, thanks to Israel.

The Israeli proposal is reminiscent of agreements reached among colonial powers in 19th century China and early 20th century Syria-Lebanon (the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement). Regarding China, the goal was to divide up the spoils of the opium trade.  Geographical spheres of influence were parceled out to England, Germany, France, etc. 

Israel and Turkey’s goals are geostrategic rather than mercantile–though there are key resources over which Turkey and the Kurds will battle in the oil-rich northeast.  Control of territory equals freedom to project power and influence.

Both Turkey and HTS have demanded Israeli withdrawal, as have many in the Arab world.  It is in the interests of regional stability that Syria be a whole, integral state in control of all its territory.  If it is not, it will continue to be a playground for all the other powers in the region. Each will pursue their interests and provoke hostilities with the others, which has been the case since 2011.  If you add the spoiler role that a reconstituted Hezbollah and Iran might play, Syria becomes a catalyst for conflict that could easily become a regional war with disastrous consequences.

Please leave this field empty

Welcome to Tikun Olam!

Sign up to receive new posts daily in your Inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.