December 31, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• A narrative circulating in Turkish media – appearing almost semi-official – attempts to frame the so-called “Caesarean operation” in Syria as a preemptive measure to avert a looming regional war. According to this account, the region was on the brink of a massive conflict because the occupying entity intended to intervene in Syria, marking its largest operation in the region since its wars on Gaza and Lebanon. Should Israeli forces have entered Syria, Iran would inevitably have drawn Iraq into the fray to counter this intervention. Such developments would have heightened Turkey’s anxiety, prompting it to align with Iran against Israel. Meanwhile, Russia would have exploited the situation to divert attention from Ukraine, provoking an American reaction. Iran, for its part, would have launched strikes deep into the occupying entity’s territory and targeted U.S. bases in the Gulf, potentially escalating into a full-scale regional war.
The narrative claims that this ‘Caesarean operation’ was orchestrated to prevent these calamities, securing long-term stability for the region, including Iran, Turkey, and the Gulf, for decades.
• This narrative suggests that the military collaboration between Turkey, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), and their allies against the Syrian state and its leadership was underpinned by a strategic and military doctrine. The aim was to establish a third axis – led by Turkey and HTS – that would pull Syria away from the Iran-Russia-Resistance axis, thereby weakening their regional influence. Simultaneously, it sought to neutralise Syria as a target for the U.S.-Israeli axis by repositioning it as no longer aligned with the opposing camp.
By seizing control of Syria, this third axis aimed to deprive both rival blocs of additional leverage, achieving a balance of power while presenting itself as a stabilising force. This maneuver, the narrative claims, prevented a broader war and ensured regional security. The head of HTS, a partner in the operation, reiterated this philosophy, branding the swift campaign a “blitzkrieg” that supposedly secured peace for fifty years.
• From a pragmatic perspective, the outcomes of the operation reveal stark discrepancies between the purported objectives and the results. The U.S.-Israeli axis reaped unprecedented gains, while the opposing axis suffered strategic setbacks. A pro-Iranian regime hostile to the U.S.-Israeli bloc was toppled, severing supply routes for the Resistance and ousting both Iran and Russia from Syria. Russia’s diminished role in Syria now makes its complete withdrawal a plausible scenario.
These developments represent significant gains for the U.S.-Israeli bloc and substantial losses for Iran, Russia, and the Resistance. As such, the central question arises: was the objective of averting a regional war – where U.S. bases, Iran, and Gulf oil interests might have been targeted – truly achieved?
• It remains uncertain whether Syria was indeed a likely theater for such a war. Even if one accepts this premise, the operation appears to have redirected the focus toward Yemen. Based on military developments and Israeli statements, the American-Israeli bloc, having secured Syria without a war, has shifted its attention to Yemen. In this context, a future conflict involving attacks on U.S. bases, oil infrastructure, and naval forces in the Red Sea remains a tangible possibility.
• In practice, the operation has granted Israel the latitude to systematically dismantle Syria’s military capabilities with impunity. Moving forward, it can act freely across Syrian territory, knowing the rebuilding of a formidable Syrian army is implausible under Turkish oversight and exclusive American armament. This freedom extends to strategic areas, from Mount Hermon’s slopes to the Syrian-Iraqi border, intersecting with Jordan’s border.
Control over these territories – comparable in size to the West Bank – enables Israel to claim definitive victory, treating Syrian land much like the occupied Palestinian territories. Unlike the West Bank, however, the northern route remains open to the Kurdish canton, with U.S. forces stretching from al-Tanf to the Euphrates. From Palmyra to the Syrian desert, the occupying entity stands poised to expand over 50,000 square kilometers, ensuring sustained connectivity with Kurdish militias.
• Israel has undeniably achieved its goals, with full backing from Washington. Meanwhile, Turkey and its allies are left scrambling to lift sanctions that stifle Syria’s economy, unable to secure funding, oil, or electricity. Ironically, while the prospect of a Gulf war and oil disruption seemed minimal before this “blitzkrieg,” it now looms larger than ever, a paradoxical outcome of the operation.
