Can the rehabilitation of southern Syria keep Iran away?

Ofek Ish Maas, Jerusalem Post

Image from article, with caption: What is next for southern Syria

Excerpt:

After failing repeatedly to push the international community – and mainly the US – to bring about the creation of safe zones, Ankara started working by itself to secure its interests. It did so via a combination of public diplomacy, civil and military aid, rehabilitation of vital infrastructure, and yes, military action as well.

Should the schoolchildren or their parents fall ill, they will drive to Turkish-funded clinics, on roads built with asphalt and machinery provided by Turkey.

Should they drive too fast, they will be fined by policemen of the Free Syrian Army riding motorcycles made in Turkey.

That being the case, as the war in Syria is entering a formative stage with the establishment of de-escalation zones and the nearing defeat of the Islamic State, it is apparent that foreign actors including Turkey, the US and Iran are no longer limiting themselves to strictly military actions.

Through rehabilitation efforts of war-torn areas in Syria, they seek to create security and stability to serve also their own interests.

While the uncompromising stance Israel is taking with regard to the vast Iranian presence in Syria is important and has its own realistic justifications, it would be wise to start promoting the rehabilitation of southern Syria as one of the means to keep Iran away from Israeli and Jordanian borders.

Assuming that one of the main fears in Israel is from the formation of a powerful “Syrian Hezbollah” along the Syrian front, the local Sunni population residing in the Syrian Golan could play a key role in thwarting this plan. With its strong motivation and the patience of those who are fighting for their homes, the locals also have better chances of success than Israel has with military strikes or a broader military campaign, as history teaches us.

A meaningful support of the local community, with stabilization and rehabilitation on its entire social, economic, political and military aspects, could lay the foundations for better neighborly ties and a stronger, more viable resistance to Iranian presence.

Those who would argue that this policy is not free of risks; that there are no guarantees this approach will provide security or that the money and resources will not be turned against us in the future, would be right. Having said that, and knowing that our only current alternative is the use of military force, which could easily escalate into conflict with the Shi’ite axis, it is at least worth trying.