By Ramez Homsi *

A few days ago, the Israeli army announced the entry of commandos into Syrian territory to kidnap a Syrian collaborator with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, yesterday the Israeli army announced the targeting of Hezbollah's intelligence centre near #Damascus International Airport, and today the army also announced the attack on weapons depots used by Hezbollah's armament unit in the city of Qusayr in the Homs countryside.

A file development in Israel's official announcement of its operations against Hezbollah inside Syrian territory. Before, #Israel had refused to comment on any operation inside Syria, but what is surprising is Israel's new tone against the Syrian regime and its public accusation that Hezbollah, with the support of the Syrian regime, is jeopardizing the safety of civilians by establishing its infrastructure in civilian areas.

This suggests that Israel intends to engage in a limited war inside Syria as it did in Lebanon after the end of its operations in the Gaza Strip.

The change in Israel's public acknowledgment of operations against Hezbollah within Syrian territory marks a significant shift in its strategic communication and policy. Here are some key points to consider:

Strategic Shift in Public Policy:

Historically, Israel has maintained ambiguity about its military actions in foreign territories, particularly in #Syria, to avoid escalation or confrontation. This ambiguity was part of a strategy known as 'strategic ambiguity'. The public acknowledgment breaks from this pattern, suggesting a new willingness to directly address and possibly engage with threats on Syrian soil openly.

Accusations Against the Syrian Regime:

By directly implicating the Syrian regime in supporting #Hezbollah, Israel is potentially setting the groundwork for broader strategic actions or diplomatic efforts. This could be aimed at pressuring international bodies or countries like Russia, which has significant influence in Syria, to curb Hezbollah's activities or face repercussions.

Civilian Safety Concerns:

Israel's emphasis on Hezbollah's use of civilian infrastructure might serve multiple purposes:

International Legitimization: By highlighting the endangerment of civilians, Israel could be attempting to garner international sympathy or legal justification for its military actions under the guise of self-defense or protection of civilian lives.

Psychological Warfare: This could be part of an information campaign aimed at reducing local support for Hezbollah by portraying them as endangering civilians, thereby isolating them from the population they claim to represent or protect.

Potential for Limited War:

The suggestion of engaging in a "limited war" in Syria mirrors Israel's approach in Lebanon. This could involve:

Targeted Strikes: Focusing on Hezbollah's military infrastructure while trying to minimize civilian casualties, which aligns with the narrative of protecting civilian areas.

Containment: Aiming to prevent Hezbollah from gaining strategic advantages or expanding its influence in Syria close to Israeli borders.

Post-Lebanon Strategy:

After operations in #Gaza and #Lebanon, Israel might be looking to address other fronts where it feels threatened. Hezbollah's involvement in Syria could be seen as an extension of the threat Israel faces from its northern borders, necessitating a proactive military strategy.

Implications for Regional Stability:

Such operations could lead to heightened tensions with Syria, Iran, and potentially Russia, especially if there are civilian casualties or if the strikes are seen as infringing too deeply into Syrian sovereignty.

This development reflects a complex interplay of military strategy, political messaging, and international law, indicating Israel's intent to manage regional threats more while possibly shifting the narrative around its military engagements.

* Strategic Media Consultant & Investigative Journalist | Navigating the Complexities of Middle East Politics | Your Trusted Source for Media Insights & Political Analysis