Dr. Omar Rahhal: Netanyahu is anticipating events to strengthen Israel’s future negotiating cards with Syria to ensure full control over the Golan

Akram Atallah: Israel's cancellation of the truce agreement with Syria indicates a dangerous shift towards preparing to launch military operations deep inside Syria

Khalil Shaheen: Israel's control over the buffer zone goes beyond the security dimension to imposing facts on the ground that may later turn into permanent arrangements

Major General Wassef Erekat: Israel has expanded its geographical and military control over vital and strategic areas and is entering a new phase of escalation

Dr. Ashraf Badr: Israel has learned lessons from the October 7 attack and is moving towards establishing buffer zones on the border and shaping a new security reality

Dr. Tamara Haddad: The absence of the Syrian army from the border areas allowed Israel to fill the security vacuum, exploiting the armistice agreement that did not turn into a binding treaty

Coinciding with the acceleration of events after the fall of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regime, the Israeli Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the 1974 armistice agreement with Syria, in an important strategic step that strengthens its expansionist policies in the region.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts and experts believe that the Israeli move goes beyond the security dimension to imposing new facts on the ground, indicating Tel Aviv’s tendencies to exploit the current Syrian situation to strengthen control over vital areas, such as the Golan and Mount Hermon, which were areas that posed major challenges to Israel in the past.

They point out that the Israeli move may be an introduction to a new phase of escalation and the possibility of going beyond Syria, in light of Israel's policies that aim to reshape the political geography of the Middle East, in a way that serves its agenda and interests.

Deep strategic implications related to Israel's expansionist tendencies

Omar Rahhal, director of the Shams Center and a writer and political analyst, believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement of the cancellation of the armistice agreement with Syria carries deep strategic implications related to Israel’s expansionist tendencies.

Rahhal points out that this announcement reflects Netanyahu's desire to preempt events by strengthening Israel's negotiating cards. In the event of future negotiations with Syria, Israel seeks to ensure full control over the occupied Syrian Golan and negotiate over other areas such as the northern slopes of Mount Hermon and Quneitra.

Dr. Rahhal explains that this approach is in line with the Israeli expansionist policy, despite its clear contradiction with international law and the UN Charter, pointing to statements by Israeli officials, such as Bezalel Smotrich, that indicate a future vision that makes Damascus similar to Jerusalem in Israeli control, and it reflects Israel’s ambitions to expand its control, with clear American support, especially in light of the expected administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Rahhal points out that Syria, which is currently witnessing a bloody internal crisis and Arab inability to intervene, is an arena that Netanyahu seeks to exploit.

"Political Barter" Between the United States and Russia

According to Rahhal, it is possible that there will be a future bargain with Syria, which includes lifting sanctions in exchange for its entry into the framework of American influence on the path to normalizing relations with Israel.

Regarding international developments, Rahhal believes that the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime came as a result of a "political trade-off" between the United States and Russia.

Rahhal rules out the possibility of direct military conflicts between major powers on Syrian territory, expecting the region to witness more political deals and trade-offs between the United States and Russia.

Moving to what resembles an open military war

Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah believes that Israel’s announcement of the cancellation of the armistice agreement with Syria indicates a dangerous shift in its policies in the region, giving it cover to launch military operations inside Syrian territory and change the status quo that has been in place for years.

Atallah asserts that the Israeli move, which began with the entry of occupation forces into the demilitarized zone in Syria, reflects a transition from a period of relative calm to something resembling an open military war, and this vital area includes sites that directly overlook the occupied Golan Heights.

According to Atallah, the world is looking at these developments with great caution, especially in light of the escalating regional tensions, but for Israel, the current developments bring it a number of strategic gains. It sees these developments as an opportunity to weaken the Iranian axis, which it considers a major threat. These events also contributed to getting rid of the Assad regime, which was a conduit for weapons and support for the Lebanese Hezbollah, one of Israel’s most prominent enemies in the region.

Atallah points out that weakening Iran and the Assad regime represent direct gains for Israel, as these developments lead to the dismantling of the axis of resistance, the alliance that includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and a number of anti-Israel groups. However, Israel does not hide its fears of extremist Sunni Islamic forces taking control of power in Syria, as it is very cautious in monitoring this possible scenario.

Atallah points out that the Israeli press did not hide its relief at the idea of the fall of the Assad regime, as it believes that the collapse of this regime could greatly weaken the resistance front.

Atallah stresses that the impact of these changes on the regional scene will remain limited, especially since the Arab countries, which intervened at the beginning of the Syrian crisis and spent enormous resources, have withdrawn their interest in Syria over time.

Atallah points out that the regional conflict between some Gulf states and Iran may witness a shift, as Iran's losses are gains for some Arab states that are hostile to it.

Semi-public coordination between major powers

As for the major powers, Atallah explains that Syria has previously witnessed a conflict between Israel and Iran on the one hand, and Russia and the United States on the other, as an arena for settling scores. However, Atallah believes that the coming stage will not witness major conflicts on the Syrian scene, as recent tensions, especially in Ukraine, have led to a reordering of international priorities, which has reduced the intensity of major confrontations in Syria.

Atallah points out that Turkey, which has been a major supporter of armed opposition groups, has gained from the status quo, as it has begun to coordinate clearly with various parties, including Russia, the United States, and perhaps even with Israel.

Atallah believes that the region has moved from a stage of declared conflict between major powers to a stage of semi-public coordination, where these powers are working to control tensions in a way that achieves their strategic interests.

However, according to Atallah, Israel is still seeking to exploit the current situation to weaken its regional opponents, while closely monitoring the movements of forces that may pose a new threat to its security.

Israel paves the way for expanding its regional influence

Writer and political analyst Khalil Shaheen asserts that Israel considers controlling the buffer zone, which is 235 square kilometers, a step that represents a dangerous strategic shift, after Israel cancelled the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria and exploited the withdrawal of the Syrian army following the fall of the Assad regime to expand its control. It considered this a free strategic achievement, especially after it took control of areas in the Syrian Mount Hermon, areas that had resisted it in the 1973 war.

Shaheen points out that Israel, by controlling this buffer zone, goes beyond the security dimension, as it seeks to impose new facts on the ground that may later turn into permanent arrangements, paving the way for expanding the scope of its regional influence, exploiting the current Syrian situation and the absence of decisive regional and international responses.

This move, as Shaheen sees it, reflects a long-term Israeli strategy that seeks to expand its geographical and political borders, even aspiring to reach the outskirts of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The Israeli leadership believes that the administration of former US President Donald Trump may support its expansionist tendencies, whether by legitimizing the annexation of parts of the West Bank or expanding its control over Syrian territory.

Shaheen believes that Israel is aiming through its moves to impose new arrangements on Syria after the Bashar al-Assad regime. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the disengagement agreement no longer exists, Israel may seek to renegotiate with any future Syrian government a new agreement that guarantees its interests. This step aims to enhance Israel’s political and military influence in the region, including influencing the shape of the future Syrian political system.

According to Shaheen, the effects of the Israeli moves extend beyond Syria’s borders to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Israeli expansion in the areas adjacent to the Syrian-Lebanese-Jordanian borders could create a state of regional instability. The triangle of geography extending from southern Syria to the Lebanese border is a sensitive area that could become the focus of new tensions, especially with concerns that the Israeli moves could lead to demographic change in the West Bank, by displacing Palestinians to Jordan.

Shaheen believes that from an Israeli perspective, Tel Aviv sees the current phase as an opportunity to reshape the political geography of the Middle East to serve its interests, and this includes dividing Syria into small entities, a scenario that could extend to Iraq and perhaps Jordan.

According to Shaheen, Israel considers the current Jordanian regime an obstacle to implementing its plans for the forced displacement of Palestinians, so it may seek to create conditions similar to what happened in Syria.

Shaheen explains that Israel has begun to adopt a policy of imposing facts instead of negotiating, as it did by cancelling the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Authority. It sees previous agreements as an obstacle to implementing its expansionist policies, and Israel is adopting a unilateral approach to imposing new arrangements that serve its military and political interests, as is evident in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.

Unified strategies to confront Israeli plans

Despite the Israeli moves, Shaheen stresses that these steps are not inevitable, as regional countries and powers can adopt effective deterrence policies to confront Israeli threats.

Shaheen stresses the need for the Palestinians and other parties in the region to realise the dimensions of these movements, and to work on forming unified strategies in coordination with the affected countries, such as Jordan, to stand up to the Israeli plans.

Shaheen believes that in light of these transformations, the Palestinian cause faces existential risks, especially with the Israeli escalation in the West Bank, stressing that the next stage requires Palestinian unity and a comprehensive strategy to confront the Israeli dangers. This includes coordination with influential countries in the region such as Jordan and Lebanon, and working to confront Israel’s expansionist plans that aim to redraw the map of the Middle East.

Strategic and supervisory point for several countries

Retired military and security expert Major General Wassef Erekat believes that Israel's move to cancel the 1974 disengagement agreement with Syria is entering a new phase of escalation in the region, going beyond mere non-compliance with the terms of the agreement, which Israel has not fully implemented since it was signed.

Erekat points out that under the pretext of “defending its security,” Israel has expanded its geographic and military control over vital and strategic areas, especially Mount Hermon, the occupied Golan Heights, and Quneitra. The importance of these areas is not limited to being occupied Syrian territory, but rather goes beyond that to constitute a strategic and monitoring point of supervision over large parts of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine.

Erekat stresses that Israel did not stop at the step of canceling the agreement, but rather escalated its military operations deep inside Syria, carrying out more than a hundred air strikes targeting military sites, air defense systems, weapons and missile depots, and security and intelligence centers. These attacks were accompanied by the destruction of basic infrastructure under the pretext of preventing it from falling into the hands of “hostile parties.”

Erekat refers to the Israeli Defense Minister's statements that Israel is working to create a "safe space" free of heavy strategic weapons, while Erekat stresses that this is a term that lacks clear geographical boundaries, which raises questions about Israel's true intentions.

Major General Erekat points out that this escalation is consistent with the statements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition, and Israel realizes that the opportunity is ripe to strengthen its positions and impose a new reality that will enable it to play a fundamental role in implementing future international projects in the region, especially in light of the regional and international changes.

On the Syrian side, Erekat explains that Syria is experiencing a complex transitional state surrounded by difficult questions about the future of the country, the most prominent of which revolve around the identity of the next government, the form of the political system, the fate of the Syrian army, and the unity of Syrian territory.

Erekat points out that the ongoing transformations come under the influence of regional and international powers, most notably the United States, Turkey, and Israel, in addition to internal divisions between the conflicting factions, which number about 37 factions.

According to Erekat, some of these factions have declared that they do not pose a threat to any party, while others have expressed their readiness to establish official relations with Israel, including the exchange of embassies. This division highlights the major challenges facing the unity of the Syrian decision and the stability of the country, especially with Israel’s attempts to exploit these divisions to impose its agenda.

"Israel is one of the parties seeking to divide Syria into warring sectarian and ethnic entities, taking advantage of the chaos the country is witnessing," Erekat said.

Erekat believes that the Israeli leadership sees the transitional circumstances as a golden opportunity to achieve its goals that were not implemented in the past.

These goals, according to Erekat, include strengthening Israel's control over the Golan Heights and its surroundings, and establishing a new security equation that serves its long-term interests, including paving the way for the division of Syria and repeating the scenario in other countries such as Iraq and Libya.

Erekat points out that the statements of US President-elect Donald Trump, in which he spoke about the necessity of expanding Israel’s territory, constitute part of the US support for Israeli expansionist policies. The current Israeli government is exploiting this support to strengthen its position in the region, adopting a policy of imposing a fait accompli instead of adhering to agreements.

Major General Erekat believes that the answer to the question of Syria's resilience in the face of these dangers is linked to the ability of the next Syrian leadership to benefit from the lessons of Arab countries that have gone through similar circumstances.

Erekat stresses that the most important challenge lies in preserving the unity and stability of Syrian territory, and preventing Israel from achieving its expansionist goals, which will not be limited to Syria, but may extend to include other countries in the region.

Israel considers that Syria, in its old concept, as a state has ended.

The writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, Dr. Ashraf Badr, explains that Netanyahu’s announcement carries strategic dimensions that reflect Israel’s vision for a radical change in dealing with the Syrian situation.

Badr points out that Israel views Syria in its old concept as a state that has practically ended, and seeks to form a new security reality on the border.

Badr points out that Israel has learned lessons from the October 7 attack, and is moving towards establishing buffer zones on the border with Syria as a means of ensuring the security of its settlers.

Badr explains that these buffer zones aim to create a security belt that can be easily monitored and prevent any surprise attacks similar to what happened in October.

Badr points out that in light of the Syrian chaos, Israel has exploited the current situation to carry out qualitative military moves, including taking control of Mount Hermon, a strategic location that strengthens its control over the border areas.

He stresses that, however, the Israeli position towards Syria remains hesitant, as its opinions vary between welcoming the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, which is part of the axis of resistance, and concern about the nature of the regime that may be formed in the future in Syria.

Badr believes that the repeated Israeli attacks on strategic sites in Syria after the fall of the Assad regime reflect deep Israeli concern about the future, as Israel seeks to destroy weapons and sites that may pose a threat to it before they come under the control of any unknown party. This indicates a clear Israeli policy of not leaving things to chance, especially in light of the lack of certainty about the nature of the coming regime in Syria and its relationship with Israel.

Badr believes that the statement of the Israeli Chief of Staff regarding Syria joining as a fourth front in Israeli wars clearly indicates Israel's future plans to launch military operations inside Syrian territory.

According to Badr, this announcement reflects Israeli preparations to confront complex scenarios on the Syrian scene, which may further complicate the regional situation.

Badr points out that the way the Assad regime collapsed suggests the existence of regional and international understandings to bring it down, especially in light of the lack of effective intervention by his allies to defend him. This ambiguity increases the indications of the existence of prior international arrangements to change the regime in Syria in a manner consistent with regional interests.

Badr points out that the coming days will reveal more details about the Syrian scene, but the recent Israeli moves reflect a strategic concern about the future, and clear efforts to reformulate the security situation in a way that guarantees its superiority in the region.

Deep implications that go beyond merely defending “Israel’s security”

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad explains that Netanyahu’s announcement of the cancellation of the armistice agreement with Syria, the occupation of Mount Hermon, and the advance in Quneitra, carry profound implications that go beyond merely defending “Israel’s security.”

Haddad points out that these Israeli steps come in the context of sudden and radical changes on the Syrian scene, which have far-reaching strategic effects, most notably the weakening of the axis of resistance, of which Syria is one of the main pillars.

Haddad points out that the fall of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad means the collapse of the largest link in the axis of resistance, which leads to the practical end of the concept of "unity of arenas," a goal that Israel seeks to achieve strategic superiority in the region.

According to Haddad, Israel will be the biggest beneficiary of the absence of the Assad regime, especially with regard to cutting off military supplies to Hezbollah through Syrian territory, which represents a severe blow to the axis extending between Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

Haddad explains that the absence of the Syrian army from these border areas allowed Israel to fill the security vacuum, taking advantage of the 1974 armistice agreement, which did not become a binding treaty, and which indicated that in the absence of one party to the conflict, the other party could fill the vacuum.

Haddad points out that Israel is acting based on the conviction that the absence of the Syrian side allows it to expand and impose a new fait accompli.

Haddad believes that the presence of Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham in conflict areas gives Israel a pretext before the international community, especially Europe, to justify its actions as fighting terrorism, and this tactic allows it to control more Syrian territory without strong opposition from major powers.

Haddad asserts that what is happening in Syria is linked to the overlapping interests of regional and international powers, as Assad’s exit from the Syrian scene may be the result of agreements between Iran, Turkey, the United States and Russia, within deals that include other arrangements in the region. These balances indicate that the fall of the Syrian regime is not just a local event, but rather part of the reshaping of the regional scene in favor of certain powers, most notably Israel.

Haddad believes that the next stage will witness rapid developments on the Syrian scene, as Israel remains the player that benefits most from the disintegration of the Syrian state, in light of the absence of a unified Arab position capable of confronting these transformations.

Three scenarios after the fall of the Assad regime

Dr. Haddad believes that Syria, after the fall of the Assad regime, may face three main scenarios, the possibilities of which vary in terms of impact and implementation.

The first scenario, according to Haddad, is rebuilding the unified Syrian state, as this scenario includes arranging the internal Syrian house and forming a unified democratic republic capable of protecting the Syrians and ending the bloodshed. However, this option seems out of reach in light of the intertwined regional and international conflicts.

Haddad points to the second scenario, which is the establishment of an Islamic republic led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. This scenario involves Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham controlling the Syrian scene and forming an Islamic regime, which opens the door to internal chaos and long-term sectarian fighting. In this context, Syria is likely to be divided into warring cantons, which would greatly weaken the Syrian state.

The third scenario, according to Haddad, is through the establishment of the Syrian Federal Republic, which is the most likely scenario by dividing Syria into multiple states according to the sectarian and ethnic composition, such that each state will enjoy self-rule and be linked to the United States.

Haddad points out that these states are expected to include a Kurdish region in the north that is allied with the United States of America, a Druze region in the south that is allied with Israel, a Sunni state, and a state for the Alawites and Shiites.

Haddad stresses that Israel considers the division of Syria a golden opportunity to achieve its expansionist ambitions, especially on the Syrian border.