What lessons Israeli capture of Syria’s Golan buffer zone has for India

The Israeli attacks on Syrian military bases and occupation of the UN-patrolled buffer zone in Syria, following the collapse of the Assad regime, have added another dimension to the Middle East dynamics. This is a classic example of its proactive defence policy and offensive defence strategy of disrupting, degrading, and defeating Islamist forces to ensure that they do not exploit the void.

Israeli forces reportedly conducted over 300 strikes over two days, obliterating Syria’s military-industrial complex, including chemical weapons facilities, naval and air force assets, and ammunition depots. This rendered Syria under a new regime incapable of any military misadventure.

Israel has “seized” territory in Syria-controlled areas of the Golan Heights. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the decades-old agreement had collapsed and that Syrian soldiers had abandoned their positions, necessitating the Israeli takeover.

More from Opinion

Trump 2.0 and the end of strategic trust: Why Bharat must prepare for a long separation from America What Trump-Putin summit could mean for US-EU trans-atlantic alliance

Israeli forces grabbed a buffer zone in the Golan Heights established by a 1974 ceasefire agreement with Syria. This prevented the Islamist forces from establishing themselves close to the Israeli border. The Israeli prime minister said Israeli control of the high ground “ensures our security and sovereignty”, adding, “The Golan will be part of the State of Israel for eternity.”

Israel’s Strategic Intent

Neutralising Threats Islamist Jihadis: The fall of Assad’s regime created a power vacuum, raising fears of strategic assets falling into the hands of Islamist jihadists or Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah. Israel’s preemptive strikes aimed to prevent these groups from acquiring chemical weapons, advanced rockets, or other military capabilities that could pose a direct threat to it.

Impact Shorts

View All

Israel and Palestine: Two-state solution looks good only on paper

Trump’s tech hiring ban: India’s chance to redefine global innovation

Defence Minister Israel Katz underscored this, stating the operations sought to create a “sterile defence zone” in southern Syria. Israel’s actions effectively neutralised 80 per cent of Syria’s strategic capabilities, leaving the country largely demilitarised. It also showcased the civil-military fusion at the national level and the harmony of the national security apparatus.

Securing Key Terrain Features: Israel’s capture of Mount Hermon, Syria’s key terrain feature (KTF), demonstrates its operational art and battle readiness. The capture of Mount Hermon not only enhanced Israel’s radar coverage deep into Syria but also strengthened its northern defences against low-flying drones and other aerial threats. This has resulted in dislocating the enemy forces and disrupting their launch pads. By occupying ground of tactical importance, Israel has consistently sought to mitigate threats before they materialise, displaying its proactive and preemptive acumen.

Israel’s recent strikes echo its broader security doctrine: deter, disrupt, disarm, and deny adversaries the opportunity to harm its citizens. Its ability to act decisively in a fragmented geopolitical landscape with effect under a compressed time frame speaks of its detailed contingency planning and military preparedness.

Regional and Global Implications

Regional Criticism: Israel’s actions have drawn denunciation from Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, which accused it of opportunism to exploit Syria’s instability for territorial expansion. Turkey’s foreign ministry criticised it as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty and disregard for international law.

While the Arab world broadly opposes Israeli policies, its tacit alliances with Gulf states over shared concerns about Iran may mitigate some of the fallout.

International Responses: The United Nations and other global bodies have condemned Israel’s operations, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres labelling them as violations of the 1974 separation-of-forces agreement. However, Israel’s invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter—citing self-defence—provides a legal shield for its actions, especially so when the Assad regime no longer exists.

The United States, as an all-weather ally of Israel, defended it as a self-defence action while advocating for a Syrian-led political process. These nuanced positions reflect the complexity of navigating Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Implications for the Middle East

Dwindling Iranian Influence: Israel’s objective is also curbing Iranian influence in post-Assad Syria. By destroying Iranian supply routes and disrupting Hezbollah’s access to advanced weaponry, Israel has sent a clear message to Tehran. The strikes also diminish Iran’s ability to project power through proxy networks, altering the regional power balance.

Potential Civil War in Syria: The decimation of Syria’s military capability leaves the country vulnerable to instability and external interference. While Israel’s immediate goal of securing its borders is justified, the long-term effects of a weakened Syria could invite greater involvement from external powers, including Russia and Turkey. The concoction of a civil war is looming at large with internal fault lines and external influences.

A New Security Paradigm: Israel’s actions highlight a shift in Middle Eastern conflict dynamics. Rather than reactive measures, states are adopting pre-emptive strategies to safeguard their interests. This trend could redefine regional security frameworks, encouraging other nations to adopt similarly assertive policies.

Lessons for India

India faces parallel challenges, particularly in managing its borders with Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh and addressing the threat of terrorism. Israel’s doctrine offers valuable insights.

Proactive Operations (PAO) Doctrine: Israel’s ability to preemptively strike threats serves as a blueprint for India, especially regarding cross-border terrorism. The Balakot airstrike (2019) is a case in point, demonstrating India’s willingness to emulate Israel’s proactive stance. We must similarly have our options for conventional threats from China, Pakistan, and now Bangladesh.

Strategic Territorial Control: Israel’s capture of Mount Hermon reflects the importance of securing critical terrain for long-term strategic advantage. The occupation of the Kailash Range—Rezang La and Rechin La complex by the Indian Army, the most dominating features looking onto China’s Moldo garrison—brought the Chinese to the negotiating table with a back foot. Such areas must be identified, and plans should be fine-tuned.

Intelligence and Technology: Israel’s integration of advanced radar systems and surveillance capabilities exemplifies the role of cutting-edge technology in modern warfare. India could further enhance its capabilities by adopting similar innovations and enhancing its cutting-edge technologies for deterrence and warfighting.

Civil-Military Strategic Fusion: There is a need to understand the strategic powerplay of war and coercion as credible deterrence both by the polity and bureaucrats and fine-tune resources for defined tasks to the military. There is presently a mismatch in this sphere.

Diplomatic Dexterity: Despite international criticism, Israel maintains strong relationships with key allies, balancing its security needs with diplomatic engagement. India, too, must navigate global perceptions while pursuing its national interests.

National Security Strategy Void: There is a glaring need for a well-defined national security strategy for the nation. This strategy should be dynamic, adaptable, and inclusive, involving all national stakeholders and instruments of national power. Besides, there is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment of potential threats and vulnerabilities, both traditional and non-traditional, and develop strategies to mitigate these risks through a combination of deterrence, defence, and resilience-building measures.

Conclusion

Israel’s preemptive operations in Syria underscore its unwavering commitment to safeguarding its citizens and securing its borders. While the strikes have drawn international criticism, they reflect Israel’s proactive approach to its national security. For the Middle East, these actions signal a shift toward more assertive strategies in addressing threats.

India, with its burgeoning external and internal threats, needs to draw lessons from Israel’s national security strategy. While the compulsions and operational environment are different, the military strategy outlook at the national level is worth emulating.

By adopting a proactive, preemptive, technologically empowered, and diplomatically nuanced approach, India can better address its security concerns while contributing to regional stability. It also is a reminder of the urgent need for a national security strategy for a coordinated response to national security. The price of peace often lies in preparedness and resolve to take the path of tough decisions. Time may not always be on our side.

The author is former Director General, Mechanised Forces. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.