Tension on Syria-Israel Border: Causes and Scenarios

 The Israeli army announced on Tuesday evening (June 3) that its artillery had shelled targets in southern Syria in response to an “attack” launched from Syrian territory.

 “The artillery shelled southern Syria in response to the firing of projectiles toward Israeli territory,” read a statement from the army.

Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz also held the head of the Damascus authority, Ahmad Al-Shara, responsible for the incident.

 Arab and Palestinian media outlets circulated a statement attributed to an unknown group called “Martyr Mohammed Al-Deif Brigades,” which claimed responsibility for the attack. The group's name refers to the military commander of Hamas, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in 2024.

 Escalating Tension and On-the-Ground Practices

 The region has witnessed a gradual escalation in recent weeks, including reports of Israeli military incursions into border villages, and complaints from residents about being prevented from farming their lands—reflecting a pattern of systematic restriction and mounting pressure on southern areas.

 A Sovereignty Test for the Damascus Authority

 Syrian researcher and political analyst Malik Al-Hafez told ANHA Agency that the latest escalation reveals the fragility of the current balance of power. It also raises a fundamental question: does the transitional authority in Syria today have a clear definition of southern security boundaries, and of concepts like sovereignty, deterrence, and “national responsibility”?

 Al-Hafez stressed that the Damascus authority, which is seeking to solidify its legitimacy, is facing a dual test: on one hand, it is expected to maintain security and control over firing locations; on the other, it risks being dragged into regional conflicts over which it has little control.

 He added that Israel’s response—marked by speed and breadth—went beyond a military reaction and carried political messages aimed at Israeli domestic audiences, regional partners, and the Syrian arena. He explained that while Israel recognizes the fragility of the new authority in Damascus, it also fears that southern Syria could become a launchpad or transit zone for threats.

 Political Vacuum and Indirect Messages

 Al-Hafez noted that Israel’s decision to hold the head of the Damascus authority responsible does not reflect political recognition, but rather highlights a deeper vacuum in the Syrian scene:

“This rhetoric reveals the dilemma of the Syrian situation, which is now being filled by coercive external assessments,” he said. He added, “An incomplete transitional entity is being held accountable for responsibilities that typically belong to fully formed states, with the institutional tools to manage them.”

 Al-Hafez anticipates that Israel will opt for limited, targeted strikes to prevent further rocket launches without being drawn into a full-scale confrontation. However, it may also reassert itself in the southern Syria file as a pressure card against international actors.

 On the other hand, the Damascus authority may find itself facing both internal and external challenges; it neither fully controls its territory nor possesses the comprehensive political legitimacy needed to formulate a cohesive official response.

 Exploiting the Syrian Vacuum

 For his part, political analyst Mahmoud Al-Afandi, who is based in Moscow, believes that Israel views the current situation in Syria as a golden opportunity to dismantle the Syrian state. According to him, Israel does not currently see the need for a peace agreement with Damascus.

 He added: “With the collapse of the old regime and the presence of a security and military vacuum, Israel is exploiting the situation by sowing conflicts. It doesn’t necessarily fear the emergence of a sectarian entity, but it does not view the new Syrian state—described as having an Islamic character—as a viable partner, especially one resembling Hamas on its borders.”

 Al-Afandi believes that what worries Israel more is Turkey’s growing role in Syria, which places it in strategic competition with Israel.

 In conclusion, Al-Afandi ruled out the existence of a genuine internal rebellion within the Damascus authority, clarifying that its structure consists of multiple factions, some of which have a hardline character. He said: “What’s happening on the border may, in part, be an intelligence-driven theater orchestrated by Israel or entities close to it, aimed at justifying military escalation and repeated interventions inside Syrian territory.”

 a.k

ANHA