Published On 3 Dec 20243 Dec 2024

Washington, DC – The Pentagon has confirmed that the United States carried out a strike against military assets in eastern Syria after a rocket attack near one of its bases.

Pentagon spokesperson Pat Ryder told reporters on Tuesday that the US military struck weapons systems — including rocket launchers and a tank — that “presented a clear and imminent threat” to its forces in the area.

The US strike comes as violence escalates across the war-torn country. Over the last week, armed opposition groups carried out a blistering offensive in northwest Syria against the government forces led by President Bashar al-Assad, ushering in a new stage of the country’s long-running civil war.

The offensive has raised questions about how the US might respond and whether it could become entangled in the conflict, given its significant military presence in Syria.

Ryder said on Tuesday that the attack was in response to a rocket launch that fell “in the vicinity” of Military Support Site (MSS) Euphrates, a US base in eastern Syria.

He added that it is not clear who was operating the weapons, but Iran-backed groups and Syrian government forces are known to be in the area.

The Pentagon spokesperson stressed that the action is “not linked to any broader activities in northwest Syria by other groups”.

But on Tuesday, Damascus accused the US of providing air support for the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which pushed to advance against government-controlled villages east of the Euphrates River, near the city of Deir ez-Zor.

The SDF has received US support for years under the stated aim of fighting ISIL (ISIS).

Syrian state-run Alikhbaria TV reported on Tuesday that clashes were taking place between SDF and government forces near the village of Tabiyet Jazira “with the intervention of US occupation jets that are targeting the frontlines in the area”.

The SDF had claimed earlier in the day that it took control of seven villages east of the Euphrates due to the “serious threat related to the imminent movement of large ISIS terrorist cells”.

“The deployment of our forces to these villages is in response to the urgent pleas and appeals of the local populace, following the increasing potential risks that ISIS will exploit the events in the west of the country,” the SDF’s Deir ez-Zor Military Council said in a statement.

But the Syrian government said the villages remain under its control.

Farther west, government troops have been battling rebels trying to advance towards the central city of Hama as the front lines of the war, which had gone mostly dormant over the past four years, see major shifts.

Rebel groups, led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which had been confined to the northwestern Idlib province, launched their offensive last week, taking control of Aleppo and heading south towards Hama.

The country had experienced relative calm since 2020 with the government, rebel groups and SDF largely remaining within their unofficial territories.

But the opposition appears to have struck at an opportune moment when President al-Assad’s main military backers — Russia, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah — are focusing on their own conflicts elsewhere.

The US, which calls Assad a “brutal dictator”, has denied any involvement in the rebels’ offensive, highlighting that Washington considers HTS to be a “terrorist” group.

HTS is a reiteration of al-Nusra Front, which operated as al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria early in the war.

According to the Pentagon, Washington has 900 troops in Syria and a deep alliance with the SDF, one of the major parties to the conflict.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon’s Ryder declined to answer questions about the SDF’s operations in the Deir ez-Zor area.

“Our focus has been on working with the SDF as it relates to countering ISIS, and that continues to be our focus,” he said.

In his book How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict, Ivan Arreguín-Toft presents a compelling perspective on how conflicts unfold when there is a significant power imbalance. Toft argues that in asymmetric warfare, the more powerful side often ends up being defeated, not because they are outright beaten, but because they fail to achieve a decisive victory. Conversely, weaker parties win by enduring, persevering, refusing defeat, and maintaining sustained resistance. This explains how resistance movements interpret their confrontations with powerful adversaries – as seen in the Israeli war on Lebanon, where the outcome of a ceasefire, without realizing the stated objectives, left many in Israel disillusioned despite military superiority.

The Lebanese front: A force that transformed the conflict

Militarily, Hezbollah's involvement forced Israel to split its focus between Gaza and the northern border of occupied Palestine. This divide stretched Israeli forces thin, hindering their progress and complicating their strategy. Hezbollah's actions indicated that, for over a year, Israel faced a two-front battle – diverting troops and resources from Gaza to secure its northern regions. As acknowledged by The Times of Israel in August, Israel's shortage of manpower was evident, “The IDF is suffering manpower shortages caused by the hostilities on the northern border and the ongoing war in Gaza.”

This two-front struggle also stalled several planned Israeli ground operations in Gaza. The heightened tension on the northern border gave Palestinian resistance movements the time they needed to regroup and disrupt Israel's military timetable. An example of this was Israel's delay of a major ground offensive in Gaza until the US reinforced their air defenses in the area – a move attributed to fears of escalation from Lebanon.

Economic and psychological impact on Israel

The war on the Lebanese front led to severe economic losses for Israel. Israeli newspaper Walla reported in August that Hezbollah's attacks set off fires that destroyed approximately 180 dunams (around 44.5 acres) of land, including 7,500 dunams (around 1,853 acres) in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights and 4,600 dunams (around 1,137 acres) in the Upper Galilee. Extensive devastation was seen in agricultural fields and forests, contributing to environmental and economic losses. Agriculture, a key sector in Israel's economy, was heavily affected; over 1,000 dunams (around 247 acres) of cultivated land were damaged, including avocado, pear, apple, olive, and grape plantations. The departure of Thai and Palestinian workers due to the lack of safety and security in the area further exacerbated irrigation and pest control issues, as well as overall agricultural productivity.

Israel suffered from another huge blow – mass emigration – that came as a result of the Lebanese resistance's attacks on the north. Around 62,480 settlers in Israel's north fled or were evacuated – with many choosing not to return, citing safety concerns. Moreover, as of August 2024, 4,378 claims for property damage had been filed in the north, and losses in tourism reached NIS 1.15 billion (around $320,998,164) in direct revenues, with indirect losses at over NIS 2.64 billion (around $736,900,135). Agricultural and poultry production, which represents 70 percent of Israel's chicken supply, was significantly jeopardized, raising concerns over local food security.

The resistance heavily engaged in psychological warfare against the occupation state, planting an undeniable sense of insecurity and fear among the settlers and disrupting daily life across the north. Psychological warfare waged by Hezbollah also sought to influence the awareness of Israeli leaders and civilians about the risks of confronting the Axis of Resistance forces beyond Palestine.

Hezbollah employed hybrid warfare, integrating military and non-military strategies, including cognitive warfare, to shape Israeli perceptions. This approach involves introducing and promoting narratives about the Israeli occupation that align with the resistance movement's objectives while strengthening its social media presence to amplify these views. Hezbollah also highlighted internal issues within Israel through multilingual broadcasts, videos, and media campaigns that underscore Israel's vulnerabilities. Additionally, it periodically showcases its military advancements and directly addresses the Israeli public to foster uncertainty about their security and the country's future. These diverse tactics aim to influence the morale and perceptions of the Israeli population.

From resistance to repelling aggression

Despite these notable achievements, the war between Israel and Lebanon did not lead to the end of the war on Gaza. However, the occupation army was made to pay a hefty price, strategically undermining its broader objectives. As John Mearsheimer argues in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, objectives in warfare are dynamic, often shifting when external pressures collide with internal challenges. Israel’s campaign, which began offensively, became increasingly defensive as the focus diverted from achieving outright victory to ensuring survival.

The Lebanese front’s objective developed, too – from supporting Gaza to directly countering Israeli aggression against Lebanon. Israel initially sought to eliminate Hezbollah and establish a buffer zone along the Lebanese border, aiming to reassure northern settlers of their safety. However, these goals remained out of reach; rather than demonstrating overwhelming dominance, Israel found itself embroiled in a familiar quagmire.

Hezbollah performed an average of 23 military operations per day on Israel since the start of the war, targeting military outposts, barracks, and bases – even reaching deep into occupied Palestinian territories. This displays the resistance movement's enhanced capabilities. Moreover, Israel's ground invasion of south Lebanon, which was launched in early October, caused a lot of setbacks for the occupation forces: over 130 Israeli soldiers were killed, and 59 Merkava tanks, alongside various other military equipment, were destroyed. Despite multiple aggressive attempts to enter, Israeli forces failed to occupy any key towns in south Lebanon or to create a secure buffer zone. Hezbollah’s resilience turned what Israel had hoped would be a swift campaign into a costly ordeal, mirroring Israel’s defeat in the 2006 war.

The cost of war and the measure of victory

Modern warfare shows us that victory is not solely about inflicting the greatest losses or causing the most destruction; it is about achieving strategic goals. In conflicts like the Vietnam War or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the weaker side's ability to endure ultimately led to victory despite overwhelming casualties and devastation. The Lebanese resistance movement demonstrated the same resilience during the July 2006 war and again now – managing to withstand Israeli attacks and preventing the occupation from meeting its strategic goals.

Wars of national liberation always come at a high cost, especially for civilians. However, this is often a prerequisite for success against a militarily superior adversary. Hezbollah’s ability to withstand Israeli pressure and sustain its operations solidified its position as a formidable opponent – proving once again that true victory lies in thwarting the enemy's stated objectives, and not in mere survival.