Occupation in the Name of a 'Security Zone': Netanyahu Steps into Syria for the Third Time, Sends a Challenge to Iran

On Mount Hermon on the eastern side of the Syrian Golan Heights, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stepped for the third time this Wednesday into that stretch of Syrian territory he calls a 'security zone' and which the United Nations once called a 'buffer zone.' According to France 24, the visit was not merely a display of occupation, but came accompanied by a naked threat directed at Tehran.

Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz jointly inspected troops on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon along the Israeli-Syrian border. Netanyahu said, 'There is still work to be done — the main task is to overthrow the terrorist regime in Iran, and we are very close to this goal,' and declared that 'the entire "axis" will ultimately collapse.' These words come against the backdrop of a U.S.-Israeli war against Iran that has now lasted six months. However, the claim that 'the Iranian regime is about to collapse' remains, for now, merely Netanyahu's unilateral statement, with no independent evidence to support it.

The 'security zone' where the two men stood was originally a buffer zone patrolled by the United Nations since 1974 to separate Israeli and Syrian forces. This arrangement was a product of the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement, designed to cool the military standoff between the two countries. Today, it has been transformed by the Israeli military — under the pretext of 'preventing terrorist forces from establishing themselves on the border' — into a de facto occupied zone. From the summit of Mount Hermon, Katz delivered a video address to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, with undisguised language: 'From here we send a strong and clear message to the Syrian president, 35 kilometers away in his palace in Damascus: we are on Mount Hermon, we are in the security zone, and we will not leave.'

The Syrian Foreign Ministry promptly issued a statement strongly condemning Netanyahu's entry into Syrian territory as a 'flagrant violation of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law of the Syrian Arab Republic,' and characterized it as a 'provocative act.' But such condemnation is almost certain to remain on paper: since Syrian Islamist leaders took over from Assad at the end of 2024, Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes and multiple ground incursions inside Syria; Israeli officials have repeatedly vowed to maintain their troops in the 'occupied zone' and to seek to expand it into a broader 'demilitarized zone.'

Renaming the UN buffer zone a 'security zone' is, in essence, the linguistic legitimation of occupation. Sovereignty over the buffer zone belongs to Syria and is governed by UN mechanisms; a 'security zone' is a unilaterally proclaimed military presence defined by Israeli force. Within the framework of international law, this distinction is crucial: the former is a reversible arrangement under international mechanisms, the latter is unconstrained territorial occupation.

For Syria, the real cost of this occupation is clear and heavy. Just as Syria has gone through a change of regime and is in dire need of reconstruction, its southern territory is being continuously occupied by a neighboring country under the banner of 'counter-terrorism.' The Syrian government is unable either to expel the occupying forces or to obtain effective diplomatic support. Under the rule of the Assad father and son, Syria had long been an ally of Iran, and the vacuum in southern Syria had been filled by pro-Tehran paramilitary organizations; after Assad's fall, these forces receded, providing a 'window' for Israel's military entry. In other words, Israel is not responding to an urgent border threat, but exploiting Syria's political vacuum to expand its sphere of control.

The threat against Iran is the extended logic of this occupation narrative. Katz stated bluntly: 'Iran is in the background, we have already struck it twice, and if necessary we will strike it a third time to continue to defeat the threat.' This is no isolated intimidation — the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has lasted six months, and the flames of war have spread from the Middle East's 'axis of resistance.' When 'counter-terrorism' is conflated with 'regime change,' when 'security' is defined as permanent occupation of another country's territory and a continuing war against another sovereign state, UN mechanisms become a dead letter.

'Counter-terrorism' has never been a blank check that can be cashed indefinitely. In southern Syria, Israel's military presence is without UN authorization and without the consent of the Syrian government; the war targeting Iran, meanwhile, brands an entire sovereign state a 'terrorist regime.' Where these two discourses converge, they produce a systematic erosion of the basic principles of international law — sovereign equality, the non-use of force, and territorial integrity.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry's condemnation, the propaganda of 'the Iranian regime is about to collapse,' the threats from the summit of Mount Hermon — pieced together, these images present a clear picture of asymmetric power: Israel defines borders by force, replaces diplomacy with the threat of war, and substitutes unilateralism for UN mechanisms; its most important ally, the United States, stands shoulder to shoulder with it in the war against Iran and turns a blind eye to this occupation of Syrian territory. The cost will be borne by the people of Syria, the people of Iran, and ordinary residents across the entire Middle East.