Introduction: Power Through Provocation
To understand modern conflict, one must study how it is manufactured. Israel’s long-standing strategy toward its neighbors especially Syria has never been purely defensive. Instead, it relies on calculated provocation, artificial instability, and the exploitation of internal divisions. Over time, this approach has allowed Israel to secure its interests, expand its influence, and neutralize perceived threats without formally declaring war.
Today, as Syria struggles with internal recovery and regional pressure, it finds itself once again entangled in a much larger strategic game. But this is not a new phenomenon. The roots of Israel’s approach go back decades—and they are grounded in a consistent pattern of action: provoke, escalate, isolate, and control.
This article explores how Israel systematically applies this doctrine to Syria, transforming its borders into zones of disruption and shaping the future of its neighbor through invisible force.
Before the Assads: A Doctrine of Manufactured Conflict
In the decades before Hafez al-Assad came to power in Syria, Israel had already begun to implement a military strategy rooted in provocation. The idea was simple: create confrontations in contested zones, frame them as acts of self-defense, and use the resulting clashes to justify broader military actions.
One of the most revealing pieces of evidence comes from Moše Dayan, Israel’s former Chief of Staff and Defense Minister. In a 1976 interview published later in 1997 Dayan openly admitted how the majority of Israel’s early clashes with Syria were deliberately provoked:
“ I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes with Syria started. We would send a tractor to plow in the demilitarized zone, and we knew in advance that the Syrians would shoot. If they didn’t, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until the Syrians finally fired. And then we would use artillery, and later, the air force.”
This wasn’t a rogue policy it was a calculated tactic. The demilitarized zones, established after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, became strategic tools in Israel’s hands. Rather than avoiding conflict, the Israeli military exploited these zones as bait knowing that Syrian forces would be compelled to respond to what they perceived as clear violations.
By provoking these engagements, Israel created international cover for its aggressive actions. The narrative became one of response, not initiation despite the clear evidence that the triggers were deliberately planted.
This set the tone for decades to come. Even before Syria had a strong, centralized regime, Israel had already written the rules of engagement: provoke until attacked, then retaliate with overwhelming force.
Post-1973: Tactical Pause, Strategic Patience
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War also known as the Yom Kippur War marked a turning point in Israel’s strategy toward Syria. After fierce fighting and temporary Arab gains, Israel ultimately retained control over the Golan Heights. But what followed wasn’t more open warfare. It was a shift toward what could be called strategic patience.
With Syria under the firm leadership of Hafez al-Assad and later his son Bashar, Israel faced a state that, while hostile in rhetoric, became predictable in behavior. The Syrian regime, focused on internal consolidation and regional diplomacy, posed less of an immediate military threat. In parallel, Egypt’s peace agreement with Israel in 1979 effectively neutralized the southern front, allowing Israel to divert attention elsewhere.
For a time, this created a cold stability. Israel maintained its occupation of the Golan Heights with little pushback, and the Syrian front remained quiet compared to Lebanon or Gaza. However, this calm was never an end goal. It was a pause a period in which Israel could solidify gains and prepare for future shifts in the region.
Importantly, during this phase, Israel also began to invest heavily in intelligence, covert operations, and air superiority, preparing itself for a new era where direct occupation would be replaced by remote control and pre-emptive strikes.
October 7 and the Return to Open Aggression
The events of October 7, 2023, triggered a strategic shift across the region. What began as a devastating surprise attack from Gaza exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s security doctrine and reignited fears about its long-term regional standing. But rather than reinforcing old alliances or strengthening defensive postures, Israel responded by reviving and amplifying its doctrine of engineered chaos.
One core principle emerged: stability near hostile or independent neighbors is now considered a threat. In other words, if a border state isn’t under direct influence, indirect control, or persistent internal crisis, it could eventually become a platform for future attacks.
Thus, the “soft border” doctrine came into full effect. This modern Israeli strategy rejects the idea of fixed, secure borders. Instead, it promotes fragmented borderlands—zones filled with proxy militias, political vacuum, or dependent minority groups. These areas act as buffers not through walls or fences, but through instability itself.
In this context, Syria reemerged as a primary target not through formal declarations, but through increased airstrikes, sabotage, and alliances with non-state actors operating inside its territory. The return to open aggression wasn’t an emotional reaction to October 7 it was the reactivation of a long-standing plan, updated to fit today’s political realities.
Syria Under Siege: Israel’s New Frontlines
Syria today stands at the center of Israel’s soft border strategy. No longer seen as just a neighboring state, it is treated as a fragmented battleground. Rather than confronting Syria as a whole, Israel targets it in parts, exploiting internal divisions to ensure that the country remains weak, distracted, and disunited.
Three main zones define this approach:
1. The Druze South
In southern Syria, near the occupied Golan Heights, the Druze-majority regions have long been a focus of Israeli influence. Through quiet diplomacy, intelligence ties, and selective aid, Israel has built informal relationships in this area. While full alignment hasn’t occurred, the goal is clear: create a semi-neutral zone that disrupts Damascus’s full control over the border.
2. The Coastal Axis
The western coastal strip, where the Syrian regime maintains its strongest base of support, is closely monitored. This region is key for the survival of central authority. By keeping it under threat through sporadic strikes and intelligence operations, Israel ensures that no part of Syria becomes too stable, even within the core of regime-held territory.
3. The Kurdish-Controlled Northeast (QSD/SDF)
In the northeast, U.S.-backed Kurdish forces hold vast territories under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). While not directly aligned with Israel, these groups represent a useful obstacle to Syrian reunification. Their autonomous status prevents Damascus from reclaiming full sovereignty, while their opposition to Iran-aligned militias makes them strategically convenient for Israel’s interests.
Together, these zones function as a geopolitical pressure ring. They fragment Syria’s territorial integrity, divide its military focus, and limit its ability to engage regionally. And crucially, they allow Israel to intervene without occupying a form of remote destabilization that’s cheaper, quieter, and harder to condemn.
The Surround and Exploit Doctrine
What Israel is doing in Syria is not isolated. It reflects a wider regional doctrine: every potential adversary must be surrounded, weakened, or preoccupied with internal strife.
This is how the strategy unfolds across multiple fronts:
▪ Lebanon
Israel conducts frequent airstrikes under the justification of targeting Hezbollah, but these also serve to degrade Lebanon’s military infrastructure and deter political cohesion. The message is clear: if you align against Israel, your country will never be allowed to stabilize.
▪ Iraq & Turkey
By supporting or leveraging Kurdish separatist elements (like the PKK or allied militias), Israel benefits from the continued fragmentation of these countries. Every internal distraction in Iraq or southeastern Turkey serves Israeli interests by limiting regional cooperation.
▪ Yemen & the Gulf
Through close ties with the UAE and silent coordination in South Yemen, Israel helps shape political realities on the Arabian Peninsula. It’s not just about alliances it’s about ensuring no unified Gulf opposition can rise.
▪ The Horn of Africa
In Sudan and Ethiopia, Israel’s presence is growing. It builds security ties, invests in conflict zones, and positions itself as a backdoor powerbroker. The goal here is strategic depth access to the Red Sea, pressure on Egypt, and leverage over African migration routes.
Across all these examples, the pattern holds: surround, isolate, exploit. No strong rival. No sovereign challenge. Just a region too broken to resist.
Controlled Crisis as National Security
Israel’s approach toward Syria and its neighbors is not about achieving peace or deterrence in the traditional sense. Instead, it is a doctrine of prevention through persistent crisis. The goal is not coexistence but control achieved by ensuring no country in the region grows strong enough to challenge Israeli dominance.
Conflict, under this doctrine, is not accidental or reactive; it is deliberately manufactured. Whether through proxy forces, airstrikes, or political meddling, Israel leverages instability as a strategic tool. This “controlled crisis” keeps adversaries distracted, divided, and militarily overstretched.
By maintaining zones of instability and proxy influence, Israel can project power far beyond its borders without costly occupation or direct confrontation. This method is also politically convenient—it allows Israel to deny responsibility for wider regional chaos, framing itself as merely responding to threats it helped create.
Conclusion: Recognizing the Oppressor’s Playbook
Syria’s future is shaped less by its internal struggles and more by the persistent shadow of Israeli strategy. What may appear as random violence or isolated attacks are components of a deliberate, long-term plan to fragment and weaken the country.
For Syria and the wider region to reclaim sovereignty, it must first recognize the nature of the challenge: Israel is not a passive neighbor but an active oppressor, wielding instability as a weapon.
This recognition is not just political but strategic. Without understanding the engineered nature of the chaos, any efforts at reconstruction or peace risk being undermined from outside.
The path forward demands a unified, well-coordinated response that addresses both internal recovery and external aggression. Only by exposing and countering this playbook can Syria hope to rebuild with stability and sovereignty intact.
