’Israel’s’ Plan to Confront Hezbollah after the Victory in Syria
Jihad Haidar
The "Israeli" enemy is dealing with each stage using what it believes are assets that can confront the threats it faces or at least contain its effects, hoping to exploit the opportunities presented. Within this framework, "Israeli" Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz presented to the US administration an integrated plan to confront the effects of the victory achieved by the axis of resistance by eliminating the danger of the Takfir groups and the despair gripping the awareness and calculations of regional and international powers to radically change the prevailing equation.
The document - the content of which was reiterated at the Jerusalem Post conference in New York - explicitly and directly called for sanctions against Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran and for American recognition of "Israeli" sovereignty over the occupied Golan.
The need for such a plan did not take shape in Tel Aviv until after the victories achieved by the Syrian army and its allies in confronting the threat of the Takfiri groups. This proposal appears to be a summary of the estimates put forward by the relevant institutions. It was adopted along with other alternative options. What encouraged Tel Aviv's decision-makers to speak of this proposition is the Trump administration, which so far seems keen to show a divergence from the regional policies of its predecessor, Barack Obama, specifically toward Syria and Iran taking over.
Although the call for US recognition of "Israeli" sovereignty over the Golan is intended to exploit the Syrian crisis to detract from this "achievements" of the resistance, it also involves a strategic dimension that is linked to the continued occupation of this geographically advantageous area as part of the military strength that must be present in order to protect "Israel" and to enable the Western axis to contain the victory of the axis of resistance.
It is clear that the call for an overall opposition to the Iranian military presence in Syria is directed at the Trump administration because "Israel" continues to express its firm stance in this regard. Tel Aviv starts from the realization that without an American embrace of this demand, it has no prospects of success. This situation has become an urgent priority in light of the effects and implications of the failure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This is particularly related to the threat posed to "Israel's" national security by the direct military presence of Syria's allies on its territory.
It seems that this goal will be one of the constants and slogans of "Israel" in the next phase. It is also the focus of talks with Washington and Moscow. Within this framework, there are some "Israeli" red lines when it comes to the reported deployment of Iranian and Hezbollah forces along the Golan frontier, and the same goes for what "Israel" says about Iranian attempts to build a naval base in Syria.
Attempts to extract Iranian concessions related to "Israel" and Tehran's support for the resistance forces during the nuclear negotiations have not succeeded. The result of this is that the material and military support provided by the Islamic Republic to Hezbollah and other resistance factions continued. On the other hand, "Israel" moved to the stage of demanding that sanctions be imposed on Iran and Hezbollah.
As for Iran, the sanctions are aimed at trying to deter it from pursuing this policy by pushing the Iranian people to object to the strategic approach of the Islamic Republic, by making the people pay the price that will affect its economy and social security.
As far as Hezbollah is concerned, Katz has set the goal and magnitude of these sanctions to "paralyze Hezbollah", which may point to "Israeli"-US efforts to impose new sanctions on Lebanon in the coming stage.
But what is prominent about Katz's statement is his justification for these sanctions, which said were imposed "so that "Israel" will not have to respond forcefully on Lebanon in the future."
This position is aimed at pushing for the enactment of such sanctions and suggests that the options are between two scenarios: either sanctions or aggression. Meanwhile, the formula of deterrence imposed by Hezbollah provided Lebanon with strategic security for more than a decade, since the 2006 war.
Al-Ahed News
