A Famous Israeli General Discusses Potential Outcomes for a New Middle East
An influential figure in the Israeli military discusses various possible outcomes for the future of the Middle East.
TroibNews 
Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, the Middle East is undergoing significant changes, and Israel is actively responding. Recently, Israel has initiated a serious bombing campaign and deployed troops into Syrian territory, citing self-defense against potential terrorist threats.
To gain insight into Israel's objectives and the possible developments in Syria and the broader region, I moderated a discussion with Amos Yadlin, a leading Israeli military strategist. Yadlin is a former major general and head of intelligence for the Israel Defense Forces, renowned for his role in the 1981 mission that disabled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities in Iraq.
Our conversation took place via Zoom during a WORLD.MINDS gathering that included former senior officials from the United Nations and U.S. Congress. Several participants posed questions, which Yadlin answered on the record, adhering to the Chatham House Rule, ensuring anonymity for the questioners.
Edited for clarity and brevity, here are some key exchanges from the discussion:
**In the last few days and hours, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes across Syria. What is the objective behind these actions?**
Israel doesn’t want to take a chance. The threat to Israel is a jihadist neighbor who may use the weapons supplied to Syria by Russia and Iran. So, Israel is attacking the remains of the chemical weapons, the ballistic missiles, the drones, the airplanes and the Syrian Navy.
**Airstrikes are one thing. Israel is also invading Syria on the ground.**
On the ground there is a buffer zone between Israel and Syria. This zone was created in 1974 by Henry Kissinger when he brokered the disengagement after the Yom Kippur War. The buffer zone provided security for both countries as it was a designated area where no weapons were allowed.
After the 7th of October 2023, Israel decided that there will be no terror organization on its border with the capability to launch an attack within hours. And HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham], which just toppled the Assad regime, demonstrated their ability to emulate Hamas with a surprise attack from a point of zero distance to the border. So, Israel is making sure that this buffer zone will not be taken by terrorists. When Israel sees there is an accountable regime in Syria, a regime committed to the 1974 agreement, it will withdraw back to the lines it started from. Any rumors that Israel is moving toward Damascus are nonsense.
**When HTS moved to Damascus there was almost no fighting on the ground. Why did Assad’s army not stop the movement of those rebels?**
In 2015, when the Assad regime was about to collapse, the opposition forces had the upper hand on their way to Damascus. Then who came to help Assad? The Russians with an air force, against which the rebels didn’t have any air defense. And Hezbollah came to assist Assad on the ground. Iranians delivered money, weapons, and some Shia militia. What happened this time? All three players were absent. The Russians were in Ukraine, Hezbollah was weakened by Israel, and the Iranians were deterred by Israel. So the Syrian army was left alone.
**But it is an army after all.**
Syria is a weak state with a weak economy and therefore a weak army. Syria is essentially a factory for drugs under a corrupt dictatorship. The only business that works is sending drugs to Jordan and to the Gulf. The salary of soldiers is very low, between five to ten dollars a month. Assad’s soldiers simply chose not to fight.
**How do you assess Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of HTS?**
Jolani seemed to adopt a smart strategy. He understood that ISIS-style conduct would not serve him. He didn’t go to Damascus to kill, burn, or rape his people. He performed an excellent information campaign, offering everyone to put down their weapons and join him. He said, “I’m Syrian, you are Syrian, I’m going against Assad, I’m not going against the country or against you.”
**Russia has air and marine bases in Syria, which have incredible strategic importance for Russia. What will happen to these bases?**
The reason the Russians came to help Assad in 2015 was to reestablish themselves in the Middle East and secure these bases. They saw this as a significant strategic achievement and were willing to save Assad for it. Now the question is whether they will evacuate because of a very hostile regime in Syria or try to negotiate with the new regime. Since we don’t yet know what kind of regime it will be, I think the Russians are waiting to see.
Recently, however, we observed the Russians beginning to withdraw. Six naval ships have moved away from the Latakia naval base into the Mediterranean, and they have started removing S-300 and S-400 air defense batteries. Unlike in 2015, Russia's top priority is now focused on Ukraine. My guess is that if the war in Ukraine continues, they will evacuate their forces in Syria and return to Russia. If the conflict in Ukraine ends, they will likely attempt to maintain a presence in Syria and negotiate with the new regime.
**Can there ever be unity in Syria?**
Syria is an artificial country created by the Brits and the French after World War I. It has become a complex mix of sects, religious groups, and political factions, each with its own sub-groups. All stakeholders surrounding Syria have vested interests in the situation. Thus, the idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend does not apply. In the Middle East, there are “frenemies”: individuals or groups that are simultaneously friends and enemies.
**What scenarios do you envision for Syria?**
I can see four scenarios. The first one I call the “Libyan scenario.” Following Qaddafi's fall, various factions fought for dominance, ultimately leading to a lengthy stabilization process through two main entities, supported by external forces like Turkey, Russia, and Egypt. The second scenario resembles the “former Yugoslavia model,” where each sect retains autonomy and avoids conflict. The third scenario could involve a jihadist state, ranging from an extreme ISIS-type to a more moderate Taliban-style governance. The fourth scenario might be a political Islamic government modeled after Turkey and Qatar, emphasizing political Islam over jihadist Islam.
**Who will pay to rebuild Syria?**
Syria needs $200 billion, maybe $400 billion to rebuild itself into a normal country. Who can pay for it? It’s primarily Qatar and the Gulf states. The West will only contribute if Syria moves towards a Jeffersonian democracy, but we are very far from that.
**How will the situation in Syria shape the greater Middle East?**
Over the past two decades, two extremist camps have driven the dynamics of the Middle East: the Iranian Axis of Evil—comprising Iran, the Shia in Iraq, Assad in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—and the radical Islamist factions like the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State. Meanwhile, moderate and pragmatic forces from the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel have been on the defensive. Today, there is a significant opportunity for these moderate forces to shape the Middle East. This moment presents a chance to establish new rules based on a substantial bargain, with Israel also contributing, for instance, by reassessing its approach towards the Palestinians.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
To gain insight into Israel's objectives and the possible developments in Syria and the broader region, I moderated a discussion with Amos Yadlin, a leading Israeli military strategist. Yadlin is a former major general and head of intelligence for the Israel Defense Forces, renowned for his role in the 1981 mission that disabled Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capabilities in Iraq.
Our conversation took place via Zoom during a WORLD.MINDS gathering that included former senior officials from the United Nations and U.S. Congress. Several participants posed questions, which Yadlin answered on the record, adhering to the Chatham House Rule, ensuring anonymity for the questioners.
Edited for clarity and brevity, here are some key exchanges from the discussion:
**In the last few days and hours, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes across Syria. What is the objective behind these actions?**
Israel doesn’t want to take a chance. The threat to Israel is a jihadist neighbor who may use the weapons supplied to Syria by Russia and Iran. So, Israel is attacking the remains of the chemical weapons, the ballistic missiles, the drones, the airplanes and the Syrian Navy.
**Airstrikes are one thing. Israel is also invading Syria on the ground.**
On the ground there is a buffer zone between Israel and Syria. This zone was created in 1974 by Henry Kissinger when he brokered the disengagement after the Yom Kippur War. The buffer zone provided security for both countries as it was a designated area where no weapons were allowed.
After the 7th of October 2023, Israel decided that there will be no terror organization on its border with the capability to launch an attack within hours. And HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham], which just toppled the Assad regime, demonstrated their ability to emulate Hamas with a surprise attack from a point of zero distance to the border. So, Israel is making sure that this buffer zone will not be taken by terrorists. When Israel sees there is an accountable regime in Syria, a regime committed to the 1974 agreement, it will withdraw back to the lines it started from. Any rumors that Israel is moving toward Damascus are nonsense.
**When HTS moved to Damascus there was almost no fighting on the ground. Why did Assad’s army not stop the movement of those rebels?**
In 2015, when the Assad regime was about to collapse, the opposition forces had the upper hand on their way to Damascus. Then who came to help Assad? The Russians with an air force, against which the rebels didn’t have any air defense. And Hezbollah came to assist Assad on the ground. Iranians delivered money, weapons, and some Shia militia. What happened this time? All three players were absent. The Russians were in Ukraine, Hezbollah was weakened by Israel, and the Iranians were deterred by Israel. So the Syrian army was left alone.
**But it is an army after all.**
Syria is a weak state with a weak economy and therefore a weak army. Syria is essentially a factory for drugs under a corrupt dictatorship. The only business that works is sending drugs to Jordan and to the Gulf. The salary of soldiers is very low, between five to ten dollars a month. Assad’s soldiers simply chose not to fight.
**How do you assess Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of HTS?**
Jolani seemed to adopt a smart strategy. He understood that ISIS-style conduct would not serve him. He didn’t go to Damascus to kill, burn, or rape his people. He performed an excellent information campaign, offering everyone to put down their weapons and join him. He said, “I’m Syrian, you are Syrian, I’m going against Assad, I’m not going against the country or against you.”
**Russia has air and marine bases in Syria, which have incredible strategic importance for Russia. What will happen to these bases?**
The reason the Russians came to help Assad in 2015 was to reestablish themselves in the Middle East and secure these bases. They saw this as a significant strategic achievement and were willing to save Assad for it. Now the question is whether they will evacuate because of a very hostile regime in Syria or try to negotiate with the new regime. Since we don’t yet know what kind of regime it will be, I think the Russians are waiting to see.
Recently, however, we observed the Russians beginning to withdraw. Six naval ships have moved away from the Latakia naval base into the Mediterranean, and they have started removing S-300 and S-400 air defense batteries. Unlike in 2015, Russia's top priority is now focused on Ukraine. My guess is that if the war in Ukraine continues, they will evacuate their forces in Syria and return to Russia. If the conflict in Ukraine ends, they will likely attempt to maintain a presence in Syria and negotiate with the new regime.
**Can there ever be unity in Syria?**
Syria is an artificial country created by the Brits and the French after World War I. It has become a complex mix of sects, religious groups, and political factions, each with its own sub-groups. All stakeholders surrounding Syria have vested interests in the situation. Thus, the idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend does not apply. In the Middle East, there are “frenemies”: individuals or groups that are simultaneously friends and enemies.
**What scenarios do you envision for Syria?**
I can see four scenarios. The first one I call the “Libyan scenario.” Following Qaddafi's fall, various factions fought for dominance, ultimately leading to a lengthy stabilization process through two main entities, supported by external forces like Turkey, Russia, and Egypt. The second scenario resembles the “former Yugoslavia model,” where each sect retains autonomy and avoids conflict. The third scenario could involve a jihadist state, ranging from an extreme ISIS-type to a more moderate Taliban-style governance. The fourth scenario might be a political Islamic government modeled after Turkey and Qatar, emphasizing political Islam over jihadist Islam.
**Who will pay to rebuild Syria?**
Syria needs $200 billion, maybe $400 billion to rebuild itself into a normal country. Who can pay for it? It’s primarily Qatar and the Gulf states. The West will only contribute if Syria moves towards a Jeffersonian democracy, but we are very far from that.
**How will the situation in Syria shape the greater Middle East?**
Over the past two decades, two extremist camps have driven the dynamics of the Middle East: the Iranian Axis of Evil—comprising Iran, the Shia in Iraq, Assad in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon—and the radical Islamist factions like the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State. Meanwhile, moderate and pragmatic forces from the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel have been on the defensive. Today, there is a significant opportunity for these moderate forces to shape the Middle East. This moment presents a chance to establish new rules based on a substantial bargain, with Israel also contributing, for instance, by reassessing its approach towards the Palestinians.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
