Israel’s alternative plan
Israel would need to strike Syria to weaken Hezbollah, risking far bigger escalation that can include a refugee crisis, a resumed terrorism crisis, and Iran going nuclear.
Commercial Summary: With Israel’s massive two-day attack on Hezbollah’s mid-level leadership, the risk of war has never been higher. If Israel were to go to war, it would face two options. It can either fight through heavily fortified villages in south Lebanon, knowing that Hezbollah would rebuild and rearm. Or it can attempt to topple the Syrian government and facilitate a Sunni jihadi takeover of Syria. That would raise terrorism and instability risks in Jordan, while ensuring that Jordan receives more economic aid. Such an Israeli policy would trigger a refugee and terrorism crisis in Europe, facilitating the rise of the right to power. If Iran thought the risks were severe enough, it would likely acquire or announce that it has already acquired a nuclear weapon, while seeking to consolidate over Iraq.
In a previous article, we discussed how Israel can try to collapse the Syrian army in the north, as this was the only path to victory available to it. Israel needs to stop Hezbollah from resupplying for any war to achieve its strategic objective, and cutting off access to Syria is the only way.
In this piece, we discuss Israel’s second option: to attack Damascus directly, as well as Syrian Arab Army positions in the south of the country, in the hope that the uprising against Assad would restart there. Jordan would be a key conduit for weapons to Syrian insurgents in this scenario. With Hezbollah’s senior and mid-level leadership in disarray after two days of attacks in which Israel detonated the group’s walkie-talkie’s and pagers, the time to strike has never been better.
Israel’s logic and its risks
For Israel to transform the scene in the Levant, it would need to force a collapse of the Syrian state, while accepting the risk of Russian and/or Iranian intervention. It is unclear how Israel can achieve a strategic victory against Hezbollah without cutting it off from Syria, most likely by toppling the Assad regime. This would facilitate a Sunni jihadi takeover of Syria, paving the way for far more terrorism in the West, and another migrant/refugee crisis in Europe.
South Lebanon fortifications
The Commander of the Northern Command, Uri Gordin, suggested occupying a security strip in South Lebanon. This is either delusional or deliberate disinformation. Israel occupied such a strip from 1978 to 2000, and withdrew due to Hezbollah’s pressure, back when Hezbollah had nothing more than IEDs and Grad-type rockets. Today, South Lebanon is deeply and heavily fortified, with a combination of fortifications in urban areas intended for ground compound, and of “nature reserves” in rural areas that feature networks of tunnels, bunkers and other fortifications from which the defenders can fight for months. Entering southern Lebanon would be a disaster for Israeli armour, given that Hezbollah has advanced anti-tank weapons, while drones and helicopters would be extremely vulnerable to Hezbollah’s short range air defence systems. Even after 11 months of fighting, Israel has not been able to silence Hezbollah fire from the immediate vicinity of the border – from a strip of territory no deeper than 5-10 km from the border. Most critically, Hezbollah has missiles with ranges exceeding hundreds of kilometres, and Iran can equip it with missiles that have 2,000km ranges, as seen in Yemen. The dilemma Israel faces is regional, and a border strip is inadequate.
Risks to Jordan
If Israel were to try to overthrow the Syrian government, the risks to Jordan would focus on the Syrian and Iraqi borders, with Shia militant groups along the border with Syria trying to interdict weapons supplies to jihadis and to destabilise Jordan, through a combination of direct attacks on border positions and missile/drone attacks on military bases deep in the country. Given that the toppling of the Syrian government is an existential threat to Hezbollah, the Iranian reaction against Jordan would be commensurate with the risk that Iran perceives. If Hezbollah and the Syrian government were at risk of defeat, Iran may well resort to a terrorist campaign targeting Jordan, with the aim of ensuring that Syrian insurgent groups do not receive any support via Jordanian territory. Top targets would include embassies, banks and symbols of Western influence. Iran may even support Sunni jihadi groups that provide it with plausible deniability to instigate attacks against tourism and foreign civilians. Iran would also encourage Shi’a militias to attempt to cross the border from Iraq, and to interdict cargo to and from Jordan.
Commercial Impact
The good news, such as it is, is that Jordan would receive far more Western aid in this scenario, including economic aid intended to keep its finances from deteriorating any further. That is, unless Israeli actions in the West Bank trigger a Palestinian exodus that destabilises the monarchy. Which is Israel’s ultimate objective.
Iran would seek to enhance its grip over Iraq, as that remains its top national security priority - Iran’s biggest vulnerability is invasion from Iraq, including attacks that damage its oil industry along the border. Iran would seek to expel all US influence from the country. US bases in Kuwait would be at severe risk, as would perhaps Kuwait itself.
If Israel were to somehow succeed in toppling the Syrian government, this would trigger a wave of terrorism and refugees in Europe that would be comparable to that of 2015. This time, however, the European right would be in a much stronger position to seize power.
Finally, if Iran thought that it was facing a regional war, it would likely either build or announce that it has already built a nuclear device. Iran has the ability to build a device, in our view. The US’ treatment of an Iranian nuclear weapon would be different from how it deals with North Korea, given that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and that Israel remains the top ally of the US, according to the American political establishment.