Syria and Lebanon Through Eisenkot's Eyes: Between Redrawing Security Arrangements and Maintaining Military Presence

Attention is turning to Gadi Eisenkot as the designated successor to Netanyahu for forming Israel's government, amid questions about his approach toward Syria and Lebanon, balancing regional security reconfiguration with the consolidation of Israeli military facts on the ground.

His statements suggest that his expected approach toward Syria may involve reconsidering existing security and military arrangements without abandoning Israeli strategic interests or freedom of military action within Syrian territory.

In an extensive interview with "The Times of Israel," Eisenkot discussed the future of relations with Damascus, speaking about Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa while expressing distrust in his background and recalling his past ties to extremist organizations.

Eisenkot called at the time for leveraging the transformations witnessed in Syria to review the 1974 disengagement agreement, working to develop it through stricter security arrangements that ensure the removal of foreign forces from Syrian territory and provide additional security guarantees for Israel.

Mount Hermon and Israeli Military Presence

Regarding the Israeli military presence in Syria, particularly in the Mount Hermon area and other strategic locations, Eisenkot did not propose withdrawal as an immediate or unconditional step, but rather linked any settlement in this matter to negotiations leading to the expulsion of Turkish forces from Syria.

He also spoke about the necessity of providing strong American guarantees, an American umbrella, and an international monitoring mechanism that allows Israel to take what he described as calculated risks, preserving its security and strategic interests.

According to an analysis published by "The Jerusalem Post," Eisenkot does not view holding onto Syrian territory as an end in itself, but considers it a pressure card that can be utilized to reach better diplomatic and security arrangements.

These arrangements, according to the analysis, include distancing Syrian military forces from the Israeli border, maintaining the Israeli presence on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon due to its strategic importance, ensuring Israeli aerial freedom of action against potential threats, and strengthening the role of the United Nations and the United States in monitoring the implementation of security understandings.

The issue of protecting Syrian Druze and preventing them from facing any future attacks also emerges in this vision, as one of the files included in Israeli security calculations in southern Syria.

Between Past Positions and Next Phase Calculations

These positions gain added significance when compared to Eisenkot's statements during his tenure as Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, where in 2017 he spoke of Israel's interest in the existence of a stable Syrian entity capable of performing state functions, affirming that Israel is not a party to the Syrian war and that its movements aim to prevent the transfer of weapons threatening its security.

However, the changes witnessed in Syria over recent years impose different challenges on any upcoming Israeli government and open the door to reassessing security and military policy toward Damascus.

Regarding the security file, Eisenkot is among the "hawks" who adopt positions close to Netanyahu on multiple issues. He has frequently supported Israeli military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.

Concerning Lebanon, Eisenkot's name within the Israeli military establishment is associated with the "Dahiya Doctrine" (the southern suburb of Beirut), based on using overwhelming force against civilian infrastructure to deter future attacks, and with the "Campaign Between Wars," a strategy relying on covert and low-intensity operations aimed at undermining enemy capabilities without sliding into full-scale war.

It should be noted that discussions about Lebanon follow the IDF assessment days ago stating that "the experiment of handing over security responsibility to the Lebanese Army in three southern towns ended with disappointing results."

Based on these positions, Eisenkot's arrival at the prime minister's office does not seem to necessarily mean ending the Israeli military presence in Syrian territory, but may push toward utilizing this presence as a negotiating card to impose new security arrangements guaranteeing Israel military and strategic influence in the border region, while retaining freedom of intervention against what it considers threats to its security.

Given that the gains achieved by Israel on the field or in security are not tied to a specific prime minister, successive Israeli governments often build upon the legacy of their predecessors, making any change in political leadership more of an extension of an existing approach than a break with it.