A kiss of life from Israel to Assad

What does it mean that Israel, after quietly watching events unfold for 22 months while the Assad regime plays its last cards and fights a ruthless life-or-death struggle against its own people, bombed Syria a few days ago?

To be fair, it was not silent for the whole of those 22 months; a few months ago it also bombed a position near the Golan. Yet while the picture that reached the world press was that Israel had bombed Syria, it later became clear that those bombed were elements of the Free Syrian Army, which is fighting the Assad regime. But this reality, which we came to understand, was not reflected to world public opinion with the same emphasis or from the same angle. The first image simply froze where it was.

One of the most important elements that has so far established the Assad regime's legitimacy in the eyes of the Syrian people is hostility to Israel. Those who know Syria know that at the level of official ideology there is a nauseating degree of anti-Israeli sentiment. Yet despite this official ideology, Assad's Syria never did the slightest harm to Israeli interests, nor made any move in that direction. In appearance a cold war order was established, and Israel bought Syria's official ideological enmity, ensuring that it never turned into a real threat.

Going back a little further, throughout the rule of the father Assad, who virtually made a gift of the Golan to Israel without any fighting, and of his son, all their policies served no purpose other than consolidating Israeli interests. That is why, since the day the Syrian revolution began, it has been no secret that the most anxious center in the region is Tel Aviv.

The uncertainty over possible scenarios after Assad leaves everyone hesitant, Israel most of all. The possibility that the revolution in Syria might bring a new Brotherhood government to power is an outright nightmare scenario for Israel. Yet to voice this so openly is something it would find hard to explain within the cold war concept established so far.

Even if it can ultimately accept his departure, an actor to fill Assad's place is very important for Israel. Since a figure with Assad's profile to replace him has probably become impossible, the lesser evil for Israel is a still longer civil war and the shattering of Syria. A Syria not ruled by Assad will become an acceptable neighbor for Israel only if it is fragmented.

Interestingly, in bringing about this project, which would be even better for Israel than the present situation, Assad is rendering Israel one last service. To the extent that he persists in his heroic (!) struggle against his own people, Assad is bringing Syria to the brink of partition.

Probably in return for this service, at moments when his will to fight or his legitimacy is on the verge of collapsing completely, Israel does not refrain from attacking him and giving him a little more of the elixir of legitimacy.

Otherwise, is there anyone who can explain what damage the latest Israeli attack did to Assad?

At the end of the war Assad is waging against his own people, his departure is in any case inevitable. Is it possible for him to rule, from now on, a people to whom he has offered nothing but death?

We can still understand Assad, who, by postponing his inevitable end, makes the partition of Syria inevitable as well; but does Iran also fail to see that a divided Syria serves no one's interest except Israel's? If it does see it, what kind of calculation is it making?

In this picture, before an Islamic Republic fumes and thunders over this attack, which will have exactly the effect of a kiss of life for the Syrian regime, when will it remember that all sixty-five thousand people (65,000 in figures) killed by Assad were Muslims? Or does an Islamic Republic have no responsibility whatsoever toward the lives of Muslims?