Israel seeks to weaken Turkey’s influence in Syria by lobbying the U.S. for measures to decentralize the country and maintain Russia’s military presence. Israeli officials fear that a Turkish-backed Islamist government in Syria, following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, could pose a threat to Israel’s borders.
Tel Aviv insists that Syria remain weak and decentralized, including allowing Russia to maintain its military bases there to counter Turkey’s growing influence in the country. Israel’s interest in preserving Russian military bases in Syria is driven by several strategic considerations:
- Stability and Predictability: Russia has maintained a relatively stable and predictable military presence in Syria since 2015, mainly through its airbase in Khmeimim and its naval facility in Tartus. This stability is valuable to Israel, which prefers a predictable actor over a chaotic power vacuum that could be filled by hostile forces.
- Deconfliction Mechanism: Israel and Russia have a deconfliction mechanism in place to avoid accidental clashes in Syrian airspace. This arrangement allows Israel to conduct airstrikes against Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria without Russian interference. If Russian bases were replaced by Iranian or Turkish forces, for example, this freedom of action could be compromised.
- Balancing Iran’s Influence: Russia’s presence in Syria acts as a counterbalance to Iranian influence. While Russia and Iran both support the Assad regime, their interests do not always align. Moscow has, at times, limited Iran’s military entrenchment near Israel’s borders, aligning with Israel’s objective of preventing a stronger Iranian foothold in Syria.
- Preventing a Power Vacuum: If Russia were to withdraw from Syria, it could create a power vacuum that might be filled by Iranian forces, Hezbollah, or radical Islamist groups. Such a scenario would pose a significant threat to Israeli security.
- Diplomatic Relations: Israel maintains diplomatic relations with Russia and has sought to maintain a neutral stance in the Russia-Ukraine war, partly to preserve its strategic interests in Syria. Supporting Russian bases in Syria aligns with Israel’s broader strategy of balancing relations with major powers while focusing on its own security priorities.
- Regional Stability: The presence of a global power like Russia, with its interests in maintaining a status quo, can contribute to broader regional stability. Israel may see this as preferable to an unpredictable shift that could destabilize its northern border.
The preservation of Russian military bases in Syria could help Israel limit the activity of Iranian proxies, such as Hezbollah, through several mechanisms:
1. Deconfliction and Coordination:
Israel and Russia have a deconfliction mechanism that allows the Israeli Air Force (IAF) to conduct airstrikes in Syria with minimal risk of Russian interference. This coordination helps Israel target Iranian weapon transfers and proxy positions without provoking direct conflict with Russia. Maintaining Russian bases helps preserve this arrangement.
2. Limiting Iranian Influence:
Russia and Iran, while both backing the Assad regime, have competing interests in Syria. Russia generally prefers a stable, centrally governed Syria under Assad, while Iran seeks to expand its influence through proxy forces. Russian forces have, at times, acted as a moderating force on Iranian ambitions, including discouraging Iranian entrenchment near the Israeli border.
3. Preventing a Power Vacuum:
If Russian forces withdrew, it is likely that Iranian forces or their proxies would attempt to fill the void, potentially establishing more permanent military infrastructure. The continued Russian presence can act as a buffer, limiting the operational freedom of Iranian proxies.
4. Diplomatic Leverage:
Russia’s influence over the Assad regime gives it leverage to push back against Iranian activities when it aligns with Russian interests. Israel can engage Russia diplomatically to exert pressure on Assad to limit Iranian proxy activities, particularly in southern Syria.
5. Intelligence Sharing and Influence:
Through its relationship with Russia, Israel can potentially gain valuable intelligence about Iranian and Hezbollah activities in Syria. Russia’s monitoring of military operations in the region, including those of Iranian proxies, can indirectly benefit Israeli security assessments.
6. Maintaining the Status Quo:
The Russian military presence contributes to a more predictable status quo. Moscow’s interest in maintaining stability in Syria often aligns with preventing escalation along Israel’s borders, which could undermine Russia’s broader strategic goals.
In Israel, the idea of preserving Russian military bases in Syria to counterbalance Iranian influence could find support among several political and security-oriented groups:
1. Likud Party and Right-Wing Blocs:
- Under Benjamin Netanyahu and other right-wing leaders, there has been a pragmatic approach to Russia. Netanyahu maintained strong ties with Vladimir Putin to ensure freedom of action for the Israeli Air Force (IAF) in Syria. The Likud party and its allies might support this idea to maintain the deconfliction mechanisms with Russia.
2. Security Establishment:
- Israel’s defense and intelligence community, including the IDF, Mossad, and Shin Bet, might advocate for this strategy as it aligns with their focus on limiting Iranian entrenchment. They value the coordination with Russia, which has often turned a blind eye to Israeli airstrikes against Iranian assets in Syria.
3. Centrists and Pragmatists (e.g., National Unity Party):
- Politicians like Benny Gantz and others with military backgrounds may support maintaining Russian bases as a pragmatic solution to enhance regional stability and security. They might frame this as a lesser evil compared to increased Iranian influence.
4. Opposition Parties (with Reservations):
- While the left-leaning and centrist opposition might traditionally be wary of aligning with Russia, they could support this approach if framed through a security lens. However, they may push for assurances that this policy aligns with broader Western alliances.
5. Ultra-Orthodox Parties (e.g., Shas and United Torah Judaism):
- These parties often align with right-wing policies on national security. If the policy is presented as beneficial for Israel’s security and maintaining stability, they would likely support it.
6. Pro-Russian Israeli Communities:
- There is a significant Russian-speaking population in Israel that maintains cultural and familial ties to Russia. Political parties like Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, often consider the interests of these communities and might support maintaining Russian bases if it helps balance against Iranian threats.
7. Business and Trade Advocates:
- There are also economic considerations. Some politicians might see this as a way to maintain economic ties with Russia, avoiding diplomatic fallout while keeping Israel’s security needs prioritized.
The idea of allowing Russia to maintain control over military bases in Syria as a counterbalance to Iranian influence carries several risks for the United States:
1. Undermining U.S. Influence in the Middle East:
- Ceding control of Syrian bases to Russia could signal a retreat of U.S. influence, weakening Washington’s strategic position in the region. It may embolden adversaries and concern allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey, potentially driving them closer to Moscow or Beijing.
2. Strengthening Russia’s Regional Position:
- A continued Russian military presence in Syria would allow Moscow to project power in the Eastern Mediterranean, challenging U.S. naval and air operations. It could also enable Russia to further its ambitions of being a key power broker in Middle Eastern conflicts.
3. Complicating Relations with NATO Allies:
- Many NATO members, especially those in Eastern Europe, view Russia as a direct threat. Supporting Russia’s military foothold in Syria could strain U.S. relations with these allies and weaken NATO’s cohesion.
4. Contradiction of Sanctions Policy:
- The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russia due to its actions in Ukraine and other geopolitical moves. Facilitating Russia’s military entrenchment in Syria could undermine this policy and create inconsistencies in U.S. foreign policy.
5. Impact on U.S.-Israel Relations:
- While supporting Israel is a cornerstone of U.S. policy, backing a strategy that empowers Russia could create friction within the pro-Israel bipartisan consensus in Washington, especially among those who advocate for a tougher stance against Moscow.
6. Potential for Increased Conflict with Iran:
- If the U.S. indirectly supports Russian bases in Syria, it might not effectively curb Iranian influence. Instead, it could lead to a dangerous proxy conflict where U.S. and Iranian interests clash more openly, especially if Israel uses this as a cover for more aggressive actions against Iranian assets.
7. Risk of Russian-Iranian Bargaining:
- There is no guarantee that Russia would fully constrain Iranian proxies. Moscow and Tehran could negotiate arrangements that serve Russian interests while allowing Iran to maintain a degree of influence in Syria.
8. Blowback from Congress and Domestic Critics:
- Any policy perceived as a concession to Russia could face backlash from U.S. lawmakers, particularly in the context of ongoing tensions over Ukraine. It might be seen as undermining support for Ukraine and playing into Russian hands.
9. Perception of Weakness:
- If the U.S. appears to outsource regional stability to Russia, it could embolden adversaries like China in other theaters, including the Indo-Pacific, where American resolve is under scrutiny.
Would you like to delve into how this might affect specific U.S. policies in Syria, such as support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) or the broader anti-ISIS strategy?
Relations between Turkey and Israel worsened during the Gaza war. Israeli authorities told Washington that the new Syrian rulers, backed by Ankara, pose a threat to Israel’s borders.
Tel Aviv is conducting a coordinated campaign to influence U.S. policy in response to rebel efforts to stabilize Syria after Assad’s overthrow.
Israel fears that Turkey could support and protect a new Syrian Islamist regime, which could become an ally of Hamas.
Israel hopes to influence the U.S. position, believing the administration to be pro-Israel.
Israel has publicly expressed its distrust of the new Syrian authorities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Sunday that Israel would not tolerate the presence of Damascus military forces or other forces linked to the new rulers in southern Syria, demanding the demilitarization of the area.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whom Western media and Israel label as an “Islamist,” said last year that Islamic countries should form an alliance against the “growing threat of expansionism” from Israel.
In Tel Aviv, there are concerns that Turkey might allegedly support Iran’s efforts to rebuild Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, Turkey has stated that it wants Syria to become stable and not pose a threat to its neighbors. Ankara has repeatedly claimed that Israel’s actions in southern Syria are part of its expansionist policy and that Israel does not want regional peace.
Israel insists that Russia maintain its bases in Tartus and Hmeimim “to contain Turkey.” In Israel’s view, Russia’s presence in Syria is a positive factor, as it believes a NATO member like Turkey would not be the best guarantor of Israel’s security.
The U.S. might support the idea of leaving control over Syrian military bases to Russia for several strategic and pragmatic reasons:
1. Preventing Iranian Expansion:
- The U.S. sees Russia as a counterbalance to Iran in Syria. By maintaining its bases, Russia can limit Iranian influence and the entrenchment of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, aligning with U.S. interests in curtailing Iran’s regional power.
2. Avoiding a Power Vacuum:
- A sudden withdrawal of Russian forces could create a power vacuum that Iranian forces or extremist groups might exploit. The U.S. wants to avoid a scenario where Iranian militias gain more control in Syria, which could destabilize the region further.
3. Reducing U.S. Military Burden:
- The U.S. is focused on pivoting resources to other geopolitical priorities, such as countering China in the Indo-Pacific. Allowing Russia to maintain its bases could help the U.S. reduce its direct military commitments in Syria while still achieving its strategic goals through Russian presence.
4. Deconfliction and Stability:
- The U.S. and Russia have established communication channels in Syria to avoid direct military conflicts. The continued presence of Russian bases under predictable Russian control might be preferable to chaotic shifts in power or increased Iranian militarization.
5. Supporting Israeli Interests:
- Israel benefits from the status quo, where Russian control helps limit Iranian military buildup near its borders. The U.S., as a close ally of Israel, might see Russian bases as a stabilizing factor that indirectly supports Israeli security.
6. Minimizing Risks of Escalation:
- If Russian bases were handed over to Iranian forces or Assad’s military, it could provoke military escalation, including potential Israeli strikes and broader regional conflict. The U.S. wants to avoid such an escalation.
7. Maintaining Diplomatic Leverage:
- The U.S. can use Russian control as a bargaining chip in broader geopolitical negotiations, including arms control, sanctions relief, and cooperation in other conflict zones like Ukraine.
8. Managing Humanitarian and Refugee Issues:
- Stability in Syria, partially ensured by Russian military control, could reduce refugee flows into Europe and prevent further humanitarian crises, which aligns with broader Western interests.
