For more than two years, Israeli leaders have insisted they had no intention of intervening in the civil war raging in neighbouring Syria.
All that changed in the last few weeks with a series of airstrikes aimed at stopping sophisticated weapons inside Syria from being transferred to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia group.
As the US-based independent intelligence analysts group Stratfor pointed out, the Israeli airstrikes on Syria were predicated on two key factors. The first is that the Syrian regime is weakening and cannot control its territory and, by extension, its weapons stockpiles could fall into the hands of non-state actors such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The second factor is that Israeli intelligence discovered a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 short-range tactical ballistic missiles was being delivered to Hezbollah.
Logistically it is difficult to prevent advanced weapons systems from proliferating once a regime has lost control of them, so further strikes can be expected.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel is "preparing for every scenario" and that "we will act to ensure the security interest of Israel's citizens in the future as well".
But as a recent article in the New York Times highlighted, there is a general feeling among Israeli officials that the next time Israel strikes a weapons convoy, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is much more likely to retaliate, given the increasingly strident statements coming out of Damascus lately.
Tensions have further heightened after Israeli soldiers exchanged fire with targets across the Syrian border in the Golan Heights, marking three consecutive days of cross-border fire. As far as Israel is concerned, Syrian regime loyalists and the rebel militias both threaten Israeli national security. Ironically, it is in Israel's interest to prolong the collapse of the al-Assad regime and to further the military stalemate.
This one would ensure the conflict remains confined to Syria as much as possible. Many Middle East-watchers, however, believe this will be near impossible given the volatile situation inside Syria.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article