Strategic Forecast: Israel’s Ground Operation in Syria Marks a New Phase — What It Signals and What May Follow.

waryatv.com | Exclusive Analysis

Israel’s latest confirmed ground operation in southern Syria signals a tactical and strategic escalation that experts say could reshape the current regional balance — or at the very least, spark new responses from Iran-backed militias and proxy groups across the region.

According to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), the operation was in direct response to gunfire from “terrorists” in southern Syria. In turn, IDF troops returned fire and launched airstrikes that reportedly targeted and destroyed hostile infrastructure near Daraa and Kuwaya. Syrian media claimed four people were killed and that Israeli forces briefly advanced on the ground before encountering resistance.

While Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes in Syria over the past decade, its confirmation of ground operations inside Syrian territory is rare — and notable.

“This is no longer shadow war,” said a former EU military attaché in Lebanon who spoke to WARYATV on condition of anonymity. “We are now seeing calibrated but open military incursions with the message: Israel is willing to raise the stakes.”

Why Now? A Multi-Front Reality

According to Israeli security sources and confirmed by former U.S. CENTCOM analysts, the decision to go in on the ground reflects growing Israeli concerns about an expanded threat network stretching from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq. Hezbollah’s deeper entrenchment in southern Syria, combined with Iran’s efforts to transfer precision missile technology through the region, has heightened Israeli fears of a coordinated multi-front war.

“From an intelligence perspective, it’s about timing,” said Michael R., a retired CIA Middle East analyst. “Israel likely detected weapons or personnel movements that crossed their red lines, prompting not just airstrikes, but a need to put boots on the ground to verify, seize intel, or destroy targets directly.”

Former Israeli intelligence officer Yossi K. added that while the operation was short, it was designed to demonstrate capability: “It’s as much about deterrence as it is about degradation. If you can show you’re willing to physically cross the border, you signal to Iran and Syria that the status quo is no longer tolerable.”

Implications for Syria and Iran

Damascus has condemned the operation but is unlikely to respond directly. Instead, analysts believe Iran may task its allied militias — particularly those in southern Syria and the Iraqi border area — with retaliatory actions. Already, some pro-Iranian media outlets have called the operation an act of war.

A former EU intelligence officer based in Brussels told WARYATV, “What we’re watching is not a sudden change, but an escalation of an already intensifying campaign. Israel is shifting its policy from indirect containment to limited offensive disruption.”

He added: “The Iranians will test this. They may not respond immediately, but they rarely allow direct Israeli incursions to pass without attempting a message of their own.”

Red Sea and Gaza Ties

Several Western analysts noted that the timing also aligns with increasing Israeli military action in the Red Sea corridor and against Houthi-linked targets, amid growing fears of a broader Axis of Resistance alignment. There is also speculation that the Syria operation could help relieve pressure from the Gaza front — drawing enemy resources and attention elsewhere.

“It’s classic diversion through escalation,” one European security source said. “If the north heats up, some actors aligned with Hamas could be redirected to a northern theater.”

What Comes Next?

While the IDF has not confirmed further ground missions, all signs suggest this was not a one-off.

“What we are seeing is the start of a new phase: Israel is laying the groundwork for a more kinetic approach in Syria, possibly even clearing corridors for deeper strikes or emergency deterrent missions in the event of northern escalation,” said an Israeli defense strategist now advising a think tank in London.

WARYATV’s sources also noted that civilian evacuations in southern Syria signal anticipation of further activity.

Strategic Forecast

• Israel is moving into a posture of “active forward deterrence” beyond its borders.
• Iran is unlikely to respond directly, but will lean on militias and proxy cells.
• Syria will likely remain passive but coordinate with Iran on information-sharing.
• Hezbollah and the IRGC may test Israeli lines elsewhere — especially in Golan, the Lebanon border, or via Iraqi militias.
• Expect increased Israeli air and limited ground operations in Syria through spring 2025.

This shift, while still short of full-scale war, places the region on a tighter wire.

Exclusive for waryatv.com.

Trump administration intensifies campaign against Iran-backed Houthis using advanced munitions, signaling broader strategic intentions in the Middle East. 

The United States has escalated its military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, deploying some of its most advanced precision-guided weaponry in a series of airstrikes aimed at degrading the group’s operational capabilities. The strikes come amid growing regional volatility, with U.S. and Israeli forces signaling broader strategic intentions that may extend beyond the Houthi threat.

According to The National Interest, the Trump administration has shifted from limited deterrence to direct, sustained action, using a combination of naval and air assets to hit Houthi targets. This follows the group’s continued attacks on international shipping lanes since late 2023, conducted with Iranian-supplied drones and missiles.

The military response from the U.S. has included aircraft launched from the USS Harry S. Truman, cruise missile strikes from USS Gettysburg, and widespread use of precision-guided munitions designed to strike deep into Houthi-controlled territory while minimizing risk to U.S. forces.

Key Weapons Deployed

F/A-18E/F Super Hornets have taken the lead in air operations, equipped with a range of standoff weapons such as the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missiles. These munitions are capable of hitting targets from long distances, staying clear of Houthi air defenses, which have been bolstered by Iranian support.

The JSOW, a glide bomb with GPS and infrared terminal guidance, allows for pinpoint accuracy from up to 70 miles. It is stealthy, difficult to detect, and versatile, with variants for penetrating hardened targets or dispersing submunitions.

Meanwhile, the SLAM-ER brings advanced mid-flight retargeting capabilities and a two-way data link, enabling operators to adjust strike parameters in real-time. With a range exceeding 150 miles and a 500-pound warhead, it is particularly suited to neutralizing Houthi command and control centers or missile storage sites.

JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions), though less technologically complex, remain a critical part of the arsenal. These kits turn conventional bombs into precision-guided weapons using GPS, with the ability to strike within a 16-foot radius in all weather conditions. Dropped from high altitudes, JDAMs offer cost-effective and reliable firepower.

Finally, the Tomahawk cruise missile, launched from surface ships like the USS Gettysburg, remains a strategic workhorse. With a range of up to 1,500 miles and advanced guidance systems including GPS, TERCOM, and DSMAC, the Tomahawk is ideal for striking deeply entrenched targets with minimal warning.

Why These Weapons Matter

The munitions deployed reflect a calculated strategy: suppress Houthi capabilities from a distance, avoid American casualties, and prevent escalation with Iran, all while sending a clear message of deterrence. These strikes are not random; they’re designed to degrade infrastructure used to launch anti-ship attacks and build momentum toward a larger strategic objective.

The use of these systems also highlights the limitations of the Houthis. Despite their use of Iranian-provided ballistic and cruise missiles, their ability to counter high-precision, standoff weapons remains limited. This technological imbalance reinforces the U.S.’s ability to project power in contested regions.

Strategic Implications

The strikes against the Houthis may be a tactical response to maritime threats, but they are unfolding within a broader context. The reopening of Israel’s southern front against Hamas, coupled with reported preparations for joint Israeli-American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, suggests that the region could be entering a more expansive and volatile phase.

If strikes against Iran materialize, the attacks on the Houthis—seen as Iranian proxies—may be viewed not as isolated events but as the opening salvos in a broader regional confrontation.

Conclusion

The U.S. campaign against the Houthis marks a shift in posture under President Trump, moving from defensive deterrence to proactive, high-tech strikes aimed at dismantling hostile capabilities. The use of precision-guided weapons reflects not only military efficiency but also a strategic calculus that places Yemen within a larger arc of tension between Washington, Tehran, and their respective allies.

As the region teeters toward further escalation, the current operations may well serve as both deterrent and dress rehearsal for potential conflicts to come.

Israel’s latest military operations spark global concern, with Trump’s envoy hinting at a temporary Hamas stay under strict conditions.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza and Israel’s military strategies have deep historical roots, interwoven with decades of geopolitical tension, shifting alliances, and complex international relations. Here’s a comprehensive analysis that covers the history and potential future implications of these strategies from various angles:

The foundation of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war laid the groundwork for ongoing regional conflicts. Gaza has often been a flashpoint in these disputes, with its geopolitical significance magnified by its location and the density of its population.

Hamas’s emergence in the late 1980s as a significant force in Palestinian politics changed the dynamics in Gaza. Its control over Gaza since 2007, following a conflict with the Palestinian Authority, has led to a series of military confrontations with Israel, shaped by the organization’s refusal to recognize Israel and its stated aim to liberate Palestinian territories.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza, in place since 2007 and supported by Egypt, aims to prevent arms from reaching Hamas but has also led to severe humanitarian issues. This blockade has been the backdrop for various military operations, each resulting in significant casualties and destruction.

Current Scenario

Israel’s recent military strategies, including targeted assassinations and threats to annex parts of Gaza, aim to degrade Hamas’s capabilities. However, these actions also risk escalating violence and worsening humanitarian conditions. The assassination of a Hamas intelligence leader signifies a tactical move to weaken the militant leadership directly.

The ongoing conflict has devastated Gaza’s infrastructure, with significant impacts on health, sanitation, and food security. The UN’s warnings of a humanitarian crisis underscore the severe consequences of continued military actions without robust humanitarian corridors.

The role of international actors like Egypt, Qatar, the US, and others in mediating ceasefire talks highlights the complex international stakes involved in the Gaza conflict. Each player brings different priorities and influences, affecting the negotiation dynamics.

Future Implications

The current trajectory suggests a bleak outlook for immediate peace. The cyclical nature of conflict in Gaza, driven by deep-seated grievances and geopolitical strategies, poses significant challenges to lasting peace agreements.

Increased calls for investigations into actions by both Hamas and Israeli forces reflect a growing international appetite for accountability and adherence to international law. How this will influence future military and diplomatic strategies remains to be seen.

The situation in Gaza influences global policies on military engagement, humanitarian aid, and conflict resolution. The international community’s response, including potential shifts in policy or increased diplomatic engagement, could set precedents for handling similar conflicts globally.

Conclusion

The Gaza conflict is a manifestation of broader regional and international tensions, with deep historical roots and complex future trajectories. Understanding this context is crucial for any meaningful analysis of the situation and for crafting strategies that address both the symptoms and root causes of the conflict. Each development in the region could potentially reshape the broader Middle East’s geopolitical landscape, making it essential for international observers and stakeholders to maintain a close watch on unfolding events.

The recent announcement of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to significantly ramp up its artificial intelligence (AI) investments in the United States marks a pivotal shift in both technological and geopolitical landscapes. This development is underscored by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed’s visit to Washington, signaling a robust commitment to advancing AI capabilities through strategic international collaborations.

The UAE’s decision to invest $25 billion in the US AI sector is not just an economic maneuver but a strategic positioning within the global tech landscape. This investment could catalyze significant advancements in AI technologies, potentially positioning the US even more prominently as a leader in the AI field. For the UAE, this move diversifies its economic dependencies away from oil and toward technology, aligning with its broader economic transformation goals.

Sheikh Tahnoon’s role in managing two sovereign wealth funds and his direct involvement in this substantial investment highlight the UAE’s strategic pivot towards the US. This realignment might be indicative of a shift in global alliances, with the UAE positioning itself closer to Washington’s sphere of influence, distancing itself from China’s technological ecosystem. This could realign technology sourcing and security alliances in favor of the US, potentially altering the balance in tech dominance between the US and China.

By securing access to cutting-edge American AI chips, the UAE could leapfrog in developing high-tech industries, from autonomous vehicles to smart city infrastructure, which are pivotal for its future economic landscape. For the US, granting the UAE access to advanced AI technologies ensures a partner in technological development and potentially a diplomatic ally in regional conflicts and broader geopolitical strategies.

Predictions and Outcomes

The infusion of capital and resources from the UAE is likely to accelerate innovation in AI within the US, leading to faster development of new technologies and AI applications. This could spur further investments in AI research and development, fostering a cycle of innovation and investment that benefits the global AI landscape.

As the UAE aligns more closely with the US in technology and security, there may be shifts in how Middle Eastern politics are navigated, particularly concerning relations with China and Russia. The US might leverage this partnership to strengthen its influence in the Middle East, countering China’s Belt and Road initiatives in the region.

With increased investment in AI, both nations will need to address the ethical implications of AI technology, including privacy concerns, surveillance, and the potential for AI in military applications. This partnership could lead to a harmonization of AI governance standards between the UAE and the US, influencing global norms and practices in AI ethics and regulation.

Overall, this deepened partnership between the UAE and the US in AI could herald a new era of technological progress and geopolitical cooperation, reshaping economic and strategic priorities on a global scale. As AI continues to be a critical element of national power, the ripple effects of this partnership will likely be observed across various sectors and regions.

UAE’s High-Tech Gambit in Somaliland

The latest resurgence of hostilities in Gaza underscores a critical juncture in Israeli-Palestinian relations, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserting the necessity to resume military operations in Gaza. This decision follows a brief period of relative calm afforded by a ceasefire, which Netanyahu justified as essential for achieving Israel’s strategic objectives either through negotiations or military means if required. This stance reflects Israel’s broader military strategy aimed at decisively curtailing Hamas’s capabilities.

During a military ceremony, Netanyahu conveyed Israel’s readiness to reinitiate intensive combat operations at any moment, highlighting the precariousness of the ceasefire that had momentarily paused hostilities. The cessation of hostilities had enabled the release of several Israeli hostages in staged events, which Netanyahu criticized as humiliating, leading to a halt in the planned release of Palestinian prisoners. This impasse underscores the fragility of the ceasefire and the complex dynamics at play, where each side accuses the other of violations that could derail peace efforts.

Furthermore, the introduction of Israeli tanks into Jenin represents a significant escalation and broadening of military operations in the West Bank, the first such deployment in two decades. This action indicates a strategic expansion of Israel’s military footprint in Palestinian territories, coinciding with ongoing tensions in Gaza.

This situation remains volatile with Netanyahu under domestic pressure to deliver on war objectives while navigating the intricate politics of a ceasefire that has both strategic and humanitarian implications. The international community, particularly the United States, continues to play a crucial role in mediating these tensions, with envoys seeking to extend and solidify the ceasefire phases to ensure further releases and de-escalation.

Assad’s Regime Gains Ground with Kurdish Alliance, Promising Stability Amid Regional Tensions.

The recent agreement between the Syrian government and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) signifies a major shift in Syria’s political landscape and regional dynamics. This pivotal moment has effectively bolstered President Bashar al-Assad’s control over the country, promising a period of stability in regions that have endured years of tumult.

The integration of SDF forces into the Syrian government’s military underscores a strategic consolidation of power for Assad. This move not only enhances his control over critical areas including borders, military bases, airports, and oil fields but also signals a reduction in the operational autonomy of the SDF. This strategic alignment could potentially streamline governance and boost Syria’s capabilities in securing its territories.

The backdrop to this agreement is deeply rooted in regional security concerns, with a key focus on preventing the resurgence of ISIS. The collaboration between neighboring countries—Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan—highlights a concerted effort to secure detainee camps and stave off threats posed by remaining ISIS cells. This regional effort is further bolstered by the United States’ involvement, emphasized by the visit of CENTCOM Commander General Michael Kurilla to Syria. His discussions reflect the U.S.’s ongoing commitment to the defeat of ISIS and its strategic interests in stabilizing the region.

Diplomatically, the scenario presents a significant realignment. The U.S. and Turkey, along with support from Arab states like Qatar, backing the Assad regime marks a shift towards a more pragmatic approach in handling Syrian affairs. This newfound acceptance of Assad’s government, supported by diplomatic engagements, contrasts sharply with its previous international isolation and suggests a geopolitical shift where stabilizing Syria aligns with broader security and humanitarian interests.

However, not all regional actors align with this perspective. Iran and Israel remain significant outliers with separate strategic concerns that this agreement does not address. The exclusion of Iran from these discussions and Israel’s ongoing security concerns about Iranian influence in Syria pose potential challenges to the regional stability this agreement seeks to establish.

On the domestic front, the implications for the Syrian populace, especially in former SDF-controlled regions, are profound. The integration into the Syrian state apparatus promises more standardized governance but raises valid concerns regarding the rights and protections for Kurdish and other minority communities. Economically, the control over oil fields by the Syrian government could inject much-needed resources into Syria’s economy, potentially improving public services and infrastructure.

While this agreement holds the promise of ushering in a new era of reduced conflict in Syria, its durability will depend on the political will for genuine integration, sustained international support, and the Syrian government’s management of its regained territories. The success or failure of this agreement will not only shape Syria’s future but also set precedents for conflict resolution in similar geopolitical contexts.

How Saudi Arabia’s Investment Could Redefine the Berbera Port  and Horn of Africa’s Geopolitical Landscape.

Saudi Arabia is setting the stage for a profound strategic shift in the Horn of Africa through its planned multi-billion-dollar investment in Eritrea’s Assab port. This move not only positions Riyadh as a key player in the region but also challenges the existing dominance of other global powers such as the UAE, Turkey, and China within the crucial Red Sea trade corridor.

The investment in Assab port could significantly disrupt Ethiopia’s maritime ambitions. Given Ethiopia’s landlocked status, its government under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has long coveted access to the sea, viewing Eritrea’s ports as vital gateways. Secret reports suggest that Ethiopia might even consider military action to secure such access. However, Saudi Arabia’s involvement could deter such aspirations by enhancing Eritrea’s defensive capabilities and economic stability, making any aggressive move by Ethiopia both costly and politically untenable.

For Eritrea, aligning with Saudi Arabia could serve as a protective strategy against Ethiopian military ambitions, ensuring that its sovereignty over Assab remains unchallenged. This partnership would not only fortify Eritrea’s position but could also shift the regional power dynamics, potentially neutralizing Ethiopia’s influence over the Red Sea access points.

The potential Saudi investment in Assab port signifies more than just economic development; it reflects a strategic realignment in the Horn of Africa’s geopolitics. This realignment underscores a growing partnership between Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, aimed at safeguarding their interests along one of the world’s most vital maritime routes. Such a partnership could significantly alter regional power balances, offering Eritrea the backing needed to withstand Ethiopian pressures and enhancing Saudi influence in African geopolitics.

Furthermore, the move could recalibrate alliances and provoke reevaluations of strategic priorities among other regional players, including the UAE, Turkey, and China, all of whom have vested interests in the region’s maritime corridors. Each nation has been working to extend its influence through infrastructure investments and diplomatic engagements, and Riyadh’s new focus on Assab could prompt a rethinking of their strategies in response to the shifting sands of alliance and power.

For Somaliland, the developments surrounding Assab could have mixed implications. On one hand, a stronger Assab might divert some attention and resources away from Somaliland’s Berbera port, which has been backed by UAE investments. On the other hand, the geopolitical tensions and the strengthening of Assab could validate the strategic importance of having multiple allied ports along the Red Sea, potentially increasing the overall security and economic activity in the region.

The MOU signed between Somaliland and Ethiopia, which envisaged mutual recognition and economic cooperation, might also come under strain. Ethiopia’s potential isolation in the Red Sea arena could lead to a reevaluation of its foreign policy, especially towards its agreements with Somaliland.

Inconclusion, the anticipated Saudi investment in Assab is more than an economic venture; it is a strategic maneuver that could redefine regional alignments and power dynamics in the Horn of Africa. As the Red Sea becomes an increasingly contested geopolitical space, the actions of Saudi Arabia, coupled with the responses of other regional and global powers, will undoubtedly influence the future political landscape of this critical region.

The relationship between Israel and the Kurdish people is increasingly significant amid the evolving geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Historically marginalized, the Kurds have found in Israel a supporter of their aspirations, particularly in Syria, where the Kurdish struggle has gained international attention.

The Middle East’s shifting political dynamics, particularly since the events of October 7 that saw the defeat of the Shiite belt, have opened new avenues for Kurdish-Israeli relations. This shift has been further complicated by the lack of a direct border between the Kurdish regions and Israel, a fact that previously hindered more open interactions.

Dr. Ahmadi Mullah highlights that while the Palestinian issue has dominated Arab-Israeli relations since 1948, the Kurds were often left without such a spotlight, limiting their geopolitical leverage. However, the recent changes have presented new opportunities for Kurdish-Israeli cooperation, potentially altering the region’s power dynamics.

Dr. Sardar Aziz points to a new Middle East where power centers are increasingly fluid, featuring key players such as Israel, Turkey, and the Gulf countries. While the Gulf states exert growing influence due to the weakening of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, there is a concern about Turkey’s rising power potentially destabilizing the balance.

The Kurds, who have long sought recognition and rights within Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, often face accusations of attempting to establish an entity akin to Israel in the Middle East. Such comparisons are strategically used by their opponents to invoke regional and religious opposition against them.

The topic of Kurdish-Israeli relations remains a taboo, laden with emotional and political charges that complicate rational discourse. Turkey’s fluctuating relationship with Israel exemplifies the complex nature of regional alliances, which although strained at times, remains a model of strategic partnership that the Kurds might consider emulating.

Israel’s support for the Kurds, especially noted in Syria, is seen by some as a strategic move to secure an ally in a turbulent region. The alignment with Israel could potentially shield the Kurds from regional adversaries and foster stability through mutual support.

However, Dr. Mullah questions the long-term intentions behind Israel’s support, pondering whether it is a strategic ploy to exert pressure on Turkey or genuinely aimed at fostering regional peace. The Kurdish leadership must carefully navigate these international waters to leverage their geopolitical position without becoming overly reliant on fluctuating alliances.

The future of Kurdish-Israeli relations depends heavily on the Kurds’ ability to strategically engage with Israel and other regional powers. As the Middle East continues to experience profound transformations, the Kurds could potentially emerge as a significant player, but this will require nuanced diplomacy and a clear understanding of the regional and international stakes involved.

In conclusion, as Israel expresses open support for Kurdish aspirations, the potential for a meaningful alliance hangs in the balance, contingent on strategic decisions that will either cement the Kurds as a pivotal force in the Middle East or leave them as pawns in the broader geopolitical game.