Tuesday, November 13th | 5 Kislev 5779

Subscribe
July 15, 2018 11:36 am

Israel’s Active Defense Campaign in Syria: The Next Phase

avatar by Yaakov Lappin

Email a copy of "Israel’s Active Defense Campaign in Syria: The Next Phase" to a friend

Hezbollah fighters stand near tanks in Western Qalamoun, Syria, August 23, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Omar Sanadiki/File Photo.

Tehran’s recent decision to attempt direct clashes with Israel resulted in a resounding defeat on May 10, when the IDF destroyed 50 Iranian military targets in Syrian territory. Iran is now shifting gears back to its traditional proxy approach. While Iran appears reluctant to mobilize Hezbollah against Israel right now — and risk a full-scale regional war — it is continuing to work on securing a military position in Syria to use for future aggression. Israel must maintain its flexibility and responsiveness in order to prevent the creation of a second Iranian mass missile front on the border.

Judging from international media reports, Israel’s campaign to keep Iran out of Syria has entered a new phase.

In the previous phase, Tehran injected its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) forces into Syria, where they proceeded to build drone, missile, and infantry bases. Iran’s grander ambition is to set up naval and air force bases on Syrian soil as well. In addition, it wants to flood the country with projectile launchers and terrorist cells that would assault Israel in the future.

The initial effort ran up against persistent and accurate Israeli defensive countermeasures. Israel relied on advanced intelligence, combined with precision firepower, to destroy Iran’s budding military presence in Syria.

Related coverage

November 12, 2018 11:35 am
0

The Truth About American Jews and Israel’s Borders

JNS.org - More than three-quarters of American Jews want Israel to be reduced to just miles wide -- narrower than Washington, DC or...

In an effort to deter Israel from continuing with its campaign and force it to accept Tehran’s military presence in Syria, the IRGC’s Quds Force began directly attacking Israel using drones and truck-mounted mobile rocket launchers. This represented a break from the older Iranian pattern of aggression via proxy.

The confrontation ended with a resounding defeat for Iran in the May 10 IDF strikes. Israeli air defenses also successfully dealt with an Iranian rocket barrage over the Golan Heights.

Iran’s decision to use its own forces to directly attack Israel proved to be a strategic error: it exposed the Iranian assets to Israeli firepower and saved Israel the trouble of having to deal with Iran’s proxies. It also underlined Israel’s solid intelligence coverage of Syria. Israel used the event to send a firm message to Tehran about its willingness and ability to enforce red lines in its own backyard.

A secondary message was sent to the Assad regime, which tried to shoot down Israeli fighter jets using a combination of surface-to-air missile batteries (SA-5s, 17s, and 22s). Every battery that took part in an attack on Israeli aircraft was destroyed. In total, more than half of the Assad regime’s air defenses have been knocked out by Israel in recent months.

Yet as the latest international media reports indicate, Tehran has not given up. It has merely switched tactics. Iran is still seeking to establish a foothold in Syria, but is now relying more on its militias, a development that marks a return to the older proxy model.

Iran may have switched gears, but Israel’s defensive campaign appears to be responding in the same way. In mid-June, according to international media reports, Israel conducted a major airstrike on a military base housing the Iran-backed Katai’b Hezbollah, an Iraqi Shiite militia. The airstrike occurred in eastern Syria, near the Iraqi border. This is the area where Iran is trying to build a land bridge to link it directly to Syria and Lebanon via Iraq.

Dozens of militia members were reportedly killed in the attack. At the start of July, according to media reports, a blast rocked an arms depot belonging to an Iran-backed militia in Daraa, in southern Syria, where the Assad regime is involved in a major push to retake the area from Sunni rebel groups.

It is worth recalling that leaders of Iran-sponsored militias have visited Lebanon in recent months, where they were given tours of the Israeli border by Hezbollah and threatened that they would take part in future fighting against Israel. Meanwhile, Israel still seems to be targeting Iranian heavy weapons trafficking across Syria. An airstrike rocked the Damascus airport at the end of June, reportedly targeting an Iranian missile transfer.

For years, Iran has been trying to use Syria to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. More recently, it tried to assemble missile bases in Syria itself and build a new arsenal to target Israel. Iran wants the new missiles in Syria to join the estimated 120,000 Hezbollah projectiles already stationed in Lebanon.

Israeli officials have stated that they will not let Iran turn Syria into a second Lebanon. Such statements appear to be backed with consistent action.

One initial conclusion that can be reached from recent reports is that Iran is trying to change its modus operandi in Syria to avoid Israeli strikes, but these efforts have not been successful.

A second conclusion is that Iran is reluctant to activate Hezbollah against Israel right now. Generally speaking, Tehran seems deterred at this time from taking a risk big enough to spark a regional war with Israel, but it still wishes to build up a military force in Syria for future aggression.

Following the losses it incurred in May, Iran seems to be more aware of the risks involved in directly confronting Israel and is thus falling back on militias, as well as weapons trafficking, to lower the stakes. But it is continuing its efforts to take over Syria militarily, meaning the threat of a wider confrontation has not vanished by any means.

Iran’s calculations cannot be divorced from other strategic developments, such as the cancellation of the nuclear deal by the Trump administration, internal unrest, and economic troubles. Despite growing pressure, Iran has signaled that it refuses to be rolled back to its own borders, meaning that the potential for escalation remains.

The Israeli Air Force is in charge of rapid response to Iran’s activities. The IAF has been able to keep up a very high operational tempo while displaying flexibility in its policing of Israel’s security interests in Syria.

Russia, which is the senior partner in the pro-Assad coalition, appears to have reluctantly accepted Israel’s activities despite protesting them, and despite concerns that the Iranian-Israeli conflict could spin out of control without warning. That scenario could bring down the Assad regime.

The IAF has had to learn how to fly in the region in a way that evades Russia’s considerable intelligence-gathering abilities. The growing Israeli F-35 squadron, now at 12 jets, and the IAF’s ability to keep upgrading its older legacy F-16 and F-15 aircraft, have meant that Israel’s regional air superiority has been maintained so far in the face of increasing challenges.

The Syrian civil war appears to be winding down and Hezbollah is reportedly beginning to withdraw some of its forces from Syria and deploy them back to its southern front against Israel. This means Hezbollah will soon be less stretched along two fronts.

Because of the inherent explosiveness and instability of the region, Israel takes a calculated risk every time it pursues its “active defense” campaign in the northern arena. But the risk of not acting, and allowing the Iranian axis to build up its force freely, is far greater.

For Israel, failure to act would mean facing two Iranian mass missile fronts in Lebanon and Syria, which would represent an intolerable threat to Israel’s homefront.

Israel’s campaign not only contains the threat from the north. It also serves to continually remind the Iranian axis of Israel’s own evolving capabilities, thereby reinforcing Israeli deterrence and keeping full-scale war at bay.

Israel’s campaign not only contains the threat from the north. It also serves to continually remind the Iranian axis of Israel’s own evolving capabilities, thereby reinforcing Israeli deterrence and keeping full-scale war at bay.

Yaakov Lappin is a Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He specializes in Israel’s defense establishment, military affairs, and the Middle Eastern strategic environment. BESA Center Perspectives Papers, such as this one, are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com