idf_combat

Gaza: Attack on Kamal Adwan Hospital. Israel and the al-Shifa Precedent – A New Humanitarian Standard.

by Claudio Bertolotti.

Article from the book by C. Bertolotti, Gaza Underground. La guerra sotterranea e urbana tra Israele e Hamas. START InSight (2024).

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), during a raid on the Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza—used by Hamas as a command post for the terrorist organization—eliminated 19 militants, including key figures involved in the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

In coordination with Shin Bet (the Israeli Security Agency), the IDF also arrested over 240 terrorists as part of an operation aimed at thwarting Hamas’ latest attempt to re-establish itself in northern Gaza. The Palestinian militia leadership had deliberately exploited the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Jabaliya, employing the well-documented strategy of using human shields—this time, patients inside the hospital. This incident not only highlights Hamas’ criminal intent but also underscores the IDF’s efforts to minimize the war’s impact on Palestinian civilians, despite widespread media narratives depicting the conflict as disproportionately violent. In fact, this war has resulted in historically low civilian casualties compared to other urban conflicts.

Operation at al-Shifa Hospital: A New Humanitarian Standard?

The Israel-Hamas war has provided Israeli forces with the opportunity to conceptualize and implement an unprecedented standard of urban warfare. In March 2024, the IDF conducted a targeted operation at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza—repurposed by Hamas as a logistical and operational base—while adopting extraordinary measures to protect civilians during the approach, entry, and management of the facility. This approach integrated not only military personnel but also Israeli medical teams and paramedics tasked with assisting Palestinian patients, along with logistical units ensuring the supply of food, water, and medical resources.

This strategy aimed to limit the collateral damage caused by Hamas’ presence within civilian infrastructure, while simultaneously prioritizing patient welfare and minimizing civilian casualties. It stands as a first in the history of urban warfare—an innovative yet costly standard in terms of resources and the inherent risks faced by military personnel operating within hostile environments. From a doctrinal and historical perspective, this marks the first instance of an army undertaking such extensive measures to safeguard an adversarial civilian population, even as offensive military operations unfolded within the same building.

Military analyst John Spencer, in his article Israel Has Created a New Standard for Urban Warfare. Why Will No One Admit It?, remarked that Israel had implemented “more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history—exceeding international legal requirements and surpassing the measures taken by the U.S. in recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The al-Shifa precedent stands as a case study in urban warfare and civilian protection in operational areas. Despite posing a tactical disadvantage, this approach allows militaries engaged in highly scrutinized operations to prevent accusations of violating jus in bello and international conventions. It prompts reflection on the tactical applications and self-imposed limitations designed to protect civilians—not purely for humanitarian reasons but also as a defensive measure against adversary propaganda and cognitive warfare. Hamas, by using civilian infrastructure for military purposes and exploiting civilian casualties to bolster international pressure on Israel, demonstrates how lawfare (the use of legal frameworks as a weapon) plays a central role in modern conflicts.

The dominant Western military doctrine, as described at the beginning of this chapter, revolves around “maneuver warfare”—designed to physically and morally overwhelm an enemy through overwhelming force and speed, striking political and military centers of gravity to compel surrender or destruction. This doctrine underpinned the invasions of Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), and Russia’s attempt to swiftly capture Ukraine in 2022. In each case, civilians were given little warning or time to evacuate, resulting in significant non-combatant casualties.

Israel, however, has deviated from this entrenched “textbook” approach, prioritizing civilian protection. The IDF pre-announced nearly every operation, allowing civilians time to relocate—often forfeiting the element of surprise. This gave Hamas the opportunity to reposition military and political leaders (along with Israeli hostages) within urban areas, concealing them among civilians or through underground tunnels during evacuations. Unlike the IDF, Hamas fighters do not wear uniforms, granting them a tactical advantage—striking from within civilian populations and blending in to retreat alongside them.

As a result, Hamas has successfully pursued a dual strategy—inflicting suffering on the Palestinian population while crafting a narrative that leverages images of civilian casualties to amplify international pressure on Israel to halt its operations.

MDHM in the Digital Age: The Dual Role of Artificial Intelligence as Both a Threat and a Solution for Democracy.

by Claudio Bertolotti.

Abstract

The spread of false, misleading, or manipulated information—summarized under the acronym MDHM (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and hate speech)—represents one of the most critical challenges of the digital age, with profound consequences for social cohesion, political stability, and global security. This study examines the distinctive characteristics of each phenomenon and their interconnected impact, highlighting how they contribute to the erosion of trust in institutions, social polarization, and political instability. Artificial intelligence emerges as a crucial resource for combating MDHM, offering advanced tools for detecting manipulated content and monitoring disinformation networks. However, the same technology also fuels new threats, such as the creation of deepfakes and the generation of automated content that amplifies the reach and sophistication of disinformation. This paradox underscores the need for the ethical and strategic use of emerging technologies. The study proposes a multidimensional approach to addressing MDHM, structured around three main pillars: critical education, with school programs and public campaigns to enhance media literacy; regulation of digital platforms, aimed at balancing the removal of harmful content with the protection of freedom of expression; and global collaboration, ensuring a coordinated response to a transnational threat. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of concerted efforts among governments, technology companies, and civil society to mitigate the destabilizing effects of MDHM and safeguard democracy, security, and trust in information

The spread of false, misleading, or manipulated information is one of the most complex and dangerous challenges of the digital age, with significant repercussions on social, political, and cultural balance. The phenomena known as misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and hate speech—collectively summarized under the acronym MDHM—represent distinct yet closely interconnected manifestations of this issue. A thorough understanding of their specificities is essential for developing effective strategies to contain and counter the threats these phenomena pose to social cohesion and institutional stability.

Definitions and Distinctions

Misinformation: False information shared without the intent to cause harm. For example, the unintentional sharing of unverified news on social media.

Disinformation: Information deliberately created to deceive, harm, or manipulate individuals, social groups, organizations, or nations. An example would be the intentional dissemination of false news to influence public opinion or destabilize institutions.

Malinformation: Information based on factual content but used out of context to mislead, cause harm, or manipulate. For instance, the release of personal data with the intent to damage someone’s reputation.

Hate Speech: Expressions that incite hatred against individuals or groups based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.

Impact on Society

The spread of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and hate speech poses a critical challenge to the stability of modern societies. These phenomena, amplified by the speed and global reach of digital media, have significant consequences that manifest across various social, political, and cultural domains. Among the most notable effects are the erosion of trust in institutions, social polarization, and heightened security threats.

Erosion of Trust

False or manipulated information directly undermines the credibility of public institutions, the media, and even the scientific community. When individuals are inundated with a constant flow of contradictory or blatantly false news, the inevitable result is a widespread crisis of trust. No source is spared from suspicion—not even the most authoritative journalists or the most transparent government bodies. This process weakens the very foundations of society, fostering a climate of uncertainty that, over time, can turn into alienation.

A striking example can be observed in the democratic process, where disinformation strikes with particular intensity. Manipulative campaigns spreading falsehoods about voting procedures or candidates have a devastating effect on electoral integrity. This not only fuels suspicion and distrust in democratic institutions but also creates a sense of disillusionment among citizens, further alienating them from active participation.

The consequences become even more evident in the management of global crises. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the wave of conspiracy theories and the dissemination of unverified remedies significantly hindered public health efforts. Disinformation fueled unfounded fears and skepticism toward vaccines, slowing the global response to the crisis and exacerbating the virus’s spread.

However, this erosion of trust extends beyond the individual level. Its repercussions impact society as a whole, fragmenting it. Social bonds, already weakened by preexisting divisions, become even more vulnerable to manipulation. This creates fertile ground for further conflicts and instability, isolating institutions and increasing the risk of a society unable to respond to collective challenges.

Social Polarization

Disinformation campaigns thrive on exploiting existing societal divisions, amplifying them with the aim of making them insurmountable. These phenomena, driven by targeted strategies and enhanced by digital platforms, intensify social conflict and undermine the possibility of dialogue, paving the way for ever-deepening polarization.

The amplification of divisions is perhaps the most visible result of disinformation. Information manipulation is used to radicalize political, cultural, or religious opinions, constructing narratives of opposition between “us” and “them.” In contexts of ethnic tensions, for example, malinformation—spread with the intent to distort historical events or exploit current political issues—exacerbates perceived differences between social groups. These existing contrasts are magnified until they crystallize into identity conflicts that are difficult to resolve.

Adding to this is the effect of so-called “information bubbles” created by digital platform algorithms. These systems, designed to maximize user engagement, present content that reinforces their preexisting opinions, limiting exposure to alternative perspectives. This phenomenon, known as the “filter bubble,” not only entrenches biases but isolates individuals within a media reality that thrives on continuous confirmation, hindering the understanding of differing viewpoints.

The polarization fueled by MDHM extends beyond ideology. In many cases, the radicalization of opinions translates into concrete actions: protests, clashes between groups, and, in extreme cases, armed conflicts. Civil wars and social crises are often the culmination of a spiral of division originating from divisive narratives disseminated through disinformation and hate speech.

Ultimately, the polarization generated by MDHM not only undermines social dialogue but also erodes the foundations of collective cohesion. In such a context, finding shared solutions to common problems becomes impossible. What remains is a climate of perpetual conflict, where “us versus them” replaces any attempt at collaboration, making society more fragile and vulnerable.

Threat to Security

In conflict contexts, MDHM emerges as a powerful and dangerous weapon, capable of destabilizing societies and institutions with devastating implications for both collective and individual security. Disinformation, coupled with hate speech, fuels a cycle of violence and political instability, threatening peace and compromising human rights. Concrete examples of how these dynamics unfold not only illustrate the severity of the problem but also highlight the urgency for effective responses.

Propaganda and Destabilization.One of the most insidious uses of disinformation is propaganda and destabilization. States and non-state actors exploit these practices as tools of hybrid warfare, aimed at undermining the morale of opposing populations and fomenting internal divisions. In recent geopolitical scenarios, the spread of false information has generated confusion and panic, slowing institutional response capabilities. This planned and systematic strategy goes beyond disorienting public opinion; it strikes at the very heart of social cohesion.

Hate Speech as a Precursor to Violence.Hate speech, amplified by digital platforms, often serves as a precursor to mass violence. A tragic example is the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, preceded by an online hate campaign that progressively dehumanized this ethnic minority, laying the groundwork for persecution and massacres. These episodes demonstrate how entrenched hate speech can translate into systematic violent actions, with irreparable consequences for the communities involved.

Individual Impacts.On an individual level, the effects of MDHM are deeply destructive. Phenomena such as doxxing—the public release of personal information with malicious intent—directly endanger the physical and psychological safety of victims. This type of attack not only exposes individuals to threats and assaults but also amplifies a sense of vulnerability that extends far beyond the incident itself, undermining trust in the system as a whole.

The cumulative impact of these dynamics undermines overall social stability, creating deep fractures that demand immediate and coordinated responses. Addressing MDHM is not merely a matter of defending against disinformation but an essential step in preserving peace, protecting human rights, and ensuring global security in an increasingly interconnected and vulnerable world.

Mitigation Strategies

Combating the MDHM phenomenon requires a comprehensive and coordinated response capable of addressing its multifaceted nature. Given the complex and devastating impact these phenomena have on society, mitigation strategies must be developed with a multidimensional approach, combining education, collaboration among various stakeholders, and an appropriate regulatory framework.

Education and Awareness

The first and most effective line of defense against MDHM lies in education and the promotion of widespread media literacy. In a global context where information circulates at unprecedented speeds and often without adequate oversight, the ability of citizens to identify and critically analyze the content they consume becomes an essential skill. Only through increased awareness can the negative effects of disinformation be curbed and a more resilient society built.

Critical thinking is the foundation of this strategy. Citizens must be empowered to distinguish reliable information from false or manipulated content. This process requires the adoption of educational tools that teach how to verify sources, identify signs of manipulation, and analyze the context of news. This effort goes beyond simple training: it is about fostering a culture of verification and constructive skepticism—essential elements in countering informational manipulation.

Schools play a crucial role in this battle. They must become the primary setting for teaching media literacy, preparing new generations to navigate the complex digital landscape conscientiously. Integrating these teachings into educational curricula is no longer optional but essential. Through practical workshops, real-case analysis, and simulations, young people can develop the skills needed to recognize manipulated content and understand the implications of spreading false information.

However, education must not be limited to young people. Adults, who are often more exposed and vulnerable to disinformation, must also be engaged through public awareness campaigns. These initiatives, delivered through both traditional and digital media, should highlight the most common techniques used to spread false content and emphasize the societal consequences of these phenomena. An informed citizen, aware of the risks and able to recognize them, becomes a powerful asset in the fight against disinformation.

Investing in education and awareness is not just a preventive measure but a cornerstone in combating MDHM. A population equipped with critical tools is less susceptible to manipulation, thereby helping to strengthen social cohesion and the stability of democratic institutions. This path, though requiring constant and coordinated effort, represents one of the most effective responses to one of the most insidious threats of our time.

Cross-Sector Collaboration

The complexity of the MDHM phenomenon is such that no single actor can effectively address it alone. It is a global challenge requiring a collective and coordinated response in which governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), tech companies, and civil society collaborate to develop shared strategies. Only through synergistic efforts can the destabilizing effects of this threat be mitigated.

Government institutions must take a leading role. Governments are tasked with creating effective regulations and safe environments for the exchange of information, ensuring that these measures balance two fundamental aspects: combating harmful content and protecting freedom of expression. Excessive control risks veering into censorship, undermining the democratic principles being safeguarded. The approach must be transparent, targeted, and adaptable to the evolution of technologies and disinformation dynamics.

Tech companies, particularly social media platforms, play a central role in this challenge. They bear significant responsibility in countering MDHM, as they are the primary channels through which these dynamics propagate. They must invest in developing advanced algorithms capable of identifying and removing harmful content promptly and effectively. However, the effectiveness of interventions must not come at the expense of users’ freedom of expression. Transparency in moderation criteria, data management, and reporting mechanisms is essential to maintain user trust and prevent abuse.

Alongside these actors, NGOs and civil society serve as intermediaries. NGOs can act as a bridge between institutions and citizens by providing verified and reliable information, monitoring disinformation phenomena, and promoting awareness initiatives. These organizations also have the capacity to operate locally, better understanding the specific dynamics of certain communities and tailoring counter-strategies to their needs.

Lastly, fostering public-private partnerships is essential. Collaboration between the public and private sectors is crucial for sharing resources, knowledge, and technological tools to combat MDHM. Companies can offer innovative solutions, while governments can provide the regulatory framework and support needed to implement them. This synergy allows disinformation to be addressed with a broader and more integrated approach, combining technical expertise with monitoring and intervention capabilities.

The response to MDHM cannot be fragmented or limited to a single sector. Only through cross-sectoral and global collaboration can the consequences of these phenomena be mitigated, protecting institutions, citizens, and society as a whole.

Role of Advanced Technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Context of MDHM

Emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), play a crucial role in the context of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and hate speech. AI represents a double-edged sword: on one hand, it offers powerful tools to identify and combat the spread of harmful content; on the other, it fuels new threats, making disinformation tools more sophisticated and harder to detect.

Automatic Detection

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized the way we address disinformation, introducing advanced detection systems capable of quickly identifying false or harmful content. In a digital landscape where the volume of data generated daily is immense, human monitoring alone is no longer sufficient. AI-powered tools are therefore essential for managing this complexity, providing timely and precise responses.

Among the most significant innovations are machine learning algorithms, which form the core of automatic detection systems. These algorithms use machine learning techniques to analyze vast amounts of data, looking for patterns that indicate the presence of manipulated or false content. Trained on datasets containing examples of previously identified disinformation, these systems can recognize common features such as sensationalist headlines, emotionally charged language, or altered images. The effectiveness of these tools lies in their ability to adapt to new manipulation patterns, continually improving their performance.

Another critical area is source verification. AI-based tools can compare online information with reliable sources, identifying discrepancies and facilitating the work of fact-checkers. This accelerates verification processes, enabling more efficient counteraction against false content before it reaches a wide audience.

AI is also pivotal in tackling one of the most sophisticated threats: deepfakes, which will be discussed further below. Using advanced techniques, AI can analyze manipulated videos and images, detecting anomalies in facial movements, lip synchronization, or overall visual quality. Companies like Adobe and Microsoft are developing tools dedicated to verifying the authenticity of visual content, providing a concrete response to a technology easily exploited for malicious purposes.

Monitoring hate speech is another area where AI proves valuable. Through natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, texts can be analyzed in real time to identify expressions of hate speech. These systems not only categorize content but also prioritize interventions, ensuring rapid and effective responses to the most severe cases. In a context where hate speech can quickly escalate into real-world violence, the ability to intervene promptly is crucial.

Lastly, AI can detect and analyze disinformation networks. By examining social interactions, AI can identify patterns suggesting coordinated campaigns, such as the simultaneous dissemination of similar messages by linked accounts. This functionality is particularly useful for exposing orchestrated operations, whether political or social, aimed at destabilizing public trust or manipulating opinions.

In summary, artificial intelligence is an indispensable tool for addressing disinformation and hate speech. However, like any technology, it requires ethical and responsible use. Only through transparent and targeted implementation can the full potential of AI be harnessed to protect the integrity of information and social cohesion.

Content Generation

While artificial intelligence is a valuable resource for countering disinformation, it also contributes to making the MDHM phenomenon even more dangerous by providing tools for creating false and manipulated content with unprecedented levels of sophistication. This dual nature makes AI both a powerful and insidious technology.

A prime example is the aforementioned deepfakes, generated using technologies based on generative adversarial networks (GANs). These tools enable the creation of highly realistic videos and images in which individuals appear to say or do things that never occurred. Deepfakes severely undermine trust in visual information, which was once considered tangible evidence of reality. Their use extends beyond trust issues: they can be deployed for defamation campaigns, public opinion manipulation, or destabilization in already fragile political contexts. The ability to create alternative visual realities poses a direct threat to the credibility of visual sources and social cohesion.

Similarly, automatically generated texts from advanced language models, such as GPT, have opened new frontiers in disinformation. These systems can produce articles, comments, and social media posts that appear entirely authentic, making it extremely difficult to distinguish machine-generated content from that created by real individuals. Unsurprisingly, these tools are already being used to power botnets—automated networks that spread polarizing or entirely false narratives, often aiming to manipulate opinions and fuel social conflicts.

Another crucial aspect is the scalability of disinformation. AI-driven automation allows for the creation and dissemination of false content on a massive scale, exponentially amplifying its impact. For instance, a single malicious actor can use these tools to generate thousands of variations of a false message, further complicating detection efforts. In mere moments, manipulated content can be disseminated globally, reaching millions of people before any intervention is possible.

Finally, AI provides tools for content obfuscation, making manipulated messages even harder to detect. Advanced algorithms can make minor but strategic modifications to texts or images, bypassing traditional monitoring systems. This adaptability poses an ongoing challenge for developers of countermeasures, who must continually update their tools to keep pace with new manipulation techniques.

In conclusion, artificial intelligence, with its ability to generate highly sophisticated content, represents a double-edged sword in the MDHM landscape. Without proper regulation and ethical use, it risks accelerating the spread of disinformation, further eroding public trust in information and destabilizing society. Addressing this threat requires awareness and appropriate tools, combining technological innovation with ethical principles to limit the effects of this dangerous evolution.

Challenges and Opportunities

The use of artificial intelligence in the fight against MDHM represents one of the most promising yet complex frontiers of the digital era. While AI offers extraordinary opportunities to counter the spread of harmful information, it also presents significant challenges, underscoring the need for an ethical and strategic approach.

Opportunities Offered by AI

Among its most relevant advantages is AI’s ability to analyze data in real time. This capability makes it possible to anticipate disinformation campaigns by identifying signals before they spread on a large scale. Such proactive measures can reduce the impact of these phenomena by enabling timely interventions to mitigate damage.

Another key advantage is the use of advanced tools to certify the authenticity of content. Technologies developed by leading organizations allow verification of the origin and integrity of digital data, restoring trust among users. In a context where visual and textual manipulation is increasingly sophisticated, these solutions serve as an essential bulwark against informational chaos.

AI also streamlines fact-checking activities. Automating verification processes reduces the workload on human operators, accelerating responses to the spread of false content. This not only enhances efficiency but also allows human resources to focus on particularly complex or sensitive cases.

Challenges of AI in Combating MDHM

However, the same technologies that offer these opportunities can also be exploited for malicious purposes. Tools designed to combat disinformation can be manipulated to increase the sophistication of attacks, creating content that is even harder to detect. This paradox highlights the importance of rigorous oversight and responsible use of these technologies.

The difficulty in distinguishing between authentic and manipulated content is another critical challenge. As disinformation techniques evolve, algorithms must be continuously updated to remain effective. This requires not only technological investments but also ongoing collaboration among experts from various fields.

Finally, the inherent biases in AI models cannot be overlooked. Poorly designed algorithms or those trained on unrepresentative datasets risk removing legitimate content or failing to detect certain forms of disinformation. Such errors not only compromise the effectiveness of operations but can also undermine trust in the system itself.

Conclusions

Artificial intelligence is a strategic resource in the fight against misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and hate speech, but it also presents a complex challenge. Its ambivalence as both a defensive and offensive tool demands conscious and responsible use. On one hand, it offers innovative solutions to detect and counter manipulated content; on the other, it enables the creation of increasingly sophisticated disinformation, amplifying risks to social and institutional stability.

MDHM (Misinformation, Disinformation, Hate Speech, and Malinformation) is not an isolated or temporary phenomenon but a systemic threat undermining the foundations of social cohesion and global security. Its proliferation fuels a vicious cycle where the erosion of trust, social polarization, and security threats reinforce each other. When disinformation contaminates the flow of information, trust in institutions, the media, and even science crumbles. This phenomenon not only fosters alienation and uncertainty but also diminishes citizens’ ability to actively participate in democratic life.

Social polarization, amplified by information manipulation, is a direct consequence of this dynamic. Divisive narratives and polarizing content, driven by algorithms prioritizing engagement over accuracy, fragment the social fabric and make dialogue impossible. In a “us versus them” climate, political, cultural, and ethnic divisions become insurmountable barriers.

From a security perspective, MDHM represents a global threat. Disinformation campaigns orchestrated by states or non-state actors destabilize entire regions, incite violence, and fuel armed conflicts. The use of hate speech as a dehumanizing tool has demonstrated its destructive potential in various contexts, contributing to a climate of collective and individual vulnerability.

Addressing this challenge requires an integrated approach that combines education, regulation, and global cooperation.

Promoting critical education: Media literacy must be a priority. Educating citizens to recognize and counter disinformation is the first step toward building a resilient society. Educational programs and awareness campaigns should equip people with the tools needed to navigate the complex informational landscape.

Strengthening the regulation of digital platforms: Technology companies can no longer remain passive observers. Clear and transparent standards for managing harmful content are essential, while also ensuring respect for freedom of expression. Independent oversight can ensure a balance between security and fundamental rights.

Encouraging global collaboration: The transnational nature of MDHM requires a coordinated response. Governments, private companies, and international organizations must work together to share resources, develop innovative technologies, and combat disinformation campaigns on a global scale.

Only through concerted action can the devastating effects of MDHM be mitigated, paving the way for a more resilient and informed society. The future of democracy, social cohesion, and security depends on our collective ability to face this threat with determination, foresight, and responsibility.

The new Syria: between the Islamist threat, Israel’s preventive response, and the Turkish ‘buffer zone’.

by Claudio Bertolotti.

The recent conquest of Damascus by the jihadist leader Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), marks a turning point in the political-military balance of the Middle East. After thirteen years of civil war against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Syria now finds itself in the most critical phase of its contemporary history: the rise to power of the Islamists led by al-Jolani, previously affiliated with al-Qaeda, sets the country on the path to becoming an “Islamic State” destined to reshape regional dynamics. Once again, the jihadist factor emerges as a destabilizing element with potentially global repercussions.

The Israeli occupation of the Golan: a preventive and strategic maneuver
The Islamist advance in Syria, and the consequent loss of centralized control from Damascus, create a power vacuum in which radical groups and external actors seeking geostrategic advantages can proliferate. Israel’s action—specifically, the consolidation of its occupation of the Golan Heights—must be understood in this context. It is not yet another expansionist incursion, but a defensive and preventive maneuver. On the one hand, Tel Aviv aims to prevent jihadist forces from settling along its northern border, directly threatening its security. On the other, Israel’s military presence in the area also serves to protect UN peacekeeping forces, who might otherwise be exposed to attacks by radical groups in the absence of a reliable central authority in Damascus.

The preventive strike against strategic and chemical arsenals
The lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq—where conventional and unconventional arsenals fell into the hands of extremist groups—have made it clear that rapid, surgical interventions are necessary. Israel’s preventive strike on Syrian strategic weapons depots, including those suspected of containing chemical agents, seeks to prevent these tools from ending up with jihadists. This is not merely an Israeli interest: if radical groups were to gain access to chemical weapons, the entire region and even the West could suffer the consequences. As highlighted by the latest analyses from the Institute for the Study of War (Iran Update, December 11, 2024), non-state actors’ control of Syrian arsenals opens the door to extremely high-risk scenarios. Israel thus acts with strategic intelligence aimed at preventing future large-scale terrorist attacks.

The Israeli move and the Turkish choice: two sides of the same coin
Israel’s policy in the Golan cannot be viewed in isolation: it is consistent with Turkey’s strategic logic of threat containment through its occupation of parts of northern Syrian territory. Ankara, as demonstrated in the past, intends to maintain a “buffer zone” between the areas under its control and regions inhabited by Syrian Kurds, regarded as a threat due to their connection with the PKK in Turkey. This action not only limits the movement of Kurdish militias, but also serves a dual purpose: curbing Kurdish power and preventing the establishment of Islamist groups hostile to Turkey. Israel’s advance on the Golan and Turkey’s buffer zone are, in different ways, two examples of preventive containment of the jihadist threat.

The rise of Islamists in Syria: the rights dilemma and the Taliban parallel
The Islamist takeover led by al-Jolani and his men cannot be viewed favorably. The reassuring statements regarding minorities, women, and the Christian community sound like mere rhetoric. The history of jihadist movements is well known: the strict application of sharia, the lack of respect for religious and cultural differences, and the elimination of any pluralistic space. As previously seen in Taliban-led Afghanistan, the establishment of an Islamic State under the leadership of recycled ex-al-Qaeda members turned local political force will merely institutionalize a repressive regime contrary to fundamental human rights principles.

The terrorist threat extends to the West
The Islamist victory in Syria, as was the case with the Taliban’s return to Kabul in 2021, will act as a catalyst for international terrorism. Recent reports show that every advancement of jihadist ideology is accompanied by an increase in attacks and violent propaganda, prompting radicalized or sympathetic individuals to carry out copycat acts in the West. As highlighted by recent analyses in international media (see the 5th Report on Radicalization and Counter-Terrorism #ReaCT2024 and Il Giornale), HTS’s success in Syria increases the risk that Europe will become the target of new attacks, inspired or orchestrated by individuals who draw fresh momentum and symbolic legitimacy from al-Jolani’s “victory.” The jihadist media dimension is such that controlling territory—and proclaiming an Islamic State—becomes a powerful message directed at potential supporters and recruits.

Perspectives and conclusions
Al-Jolani’s new Syria is no less dangerous than Assad’s regime. On the contrary, the open adherence to fundamentalist principles, the impending power struggles between Islamist and jihadist groups competing—primarily with the Islamic State—the influence of radical groups, and the absence of an international guarantee system make the situation more unpredictable. Israel’s move in the Golan and Turkey’s strategy in the north reflect a understandable, though partial, response to these threats. The West cannot afford to fall under the illusion of a “pragmatic” al-Jolani: the Islamist and jihadist nature of the new leadership is a fact. Added to this are the risks associated with the availability of strategic and chemical weapons, making the Israeli and Turkish interest in creating buffer zones and conducting preemptive strikes on arsenals tragically sensible. In this scenario—akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan—Syria could become an attractive hub for a jihadism now in search of legitimacy and symbolic victories, with direct consequences for Europe as well.

The Fall of Damascus and the Crumbling of the Iranian Resistance Axis.

by Claudio Bertolotti.

Bashar al-Assad’s Syria no longer exists.

Syria, a land with a millennia-old history, is currently undergoing a moment of epochal and unforeseen upheaval. After nearly fourteen years of a bloody conflict—one woven through with international and regional interests—the longstanding dominance of the Assad family, unbroken for over half a century, now appears to be nearing its end. Bashar al Assad, who succeeded his father Hafez in 2000, is currently portrayed as a leader on the run, while the Islamist insurgents, advancing from both the north and the south, are ominously pressing at the gates of Damascus.

International reports, including those cited by outlets such as MSN and NPR, depict a scenario of rapid disintegration of the regime’s political and military apparatus. The lightning advance of the Islamist formations led by HTS (Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, began roughly ten days ago in Idlib near the Turkish border and has shattered what were once considered unassailable fortifications. Aleppo, Hama, and Homs—long regarded as regime strongholds and pillars of the “Resistance Axis,” an alliance uniting Syria, Iran, affiliated armed groups, and Russia—have fallen. The apparent withdrawal of Russian support has further accelerated the collapse of a system built on authoritarian control and external backing.

Meanwhile, rumors abound about Assad’s fate. Some sources already claim he is in exile, with Tehran as a potential safe haven. In the United States, speculation suggests he is no longer in the Syrian capital, and there is even talk of his possible presence in Moscow or Doha. The presidential office attempts to deny such claims, insisting that the raìs remains in Damascus, but trust in these assertions appears to have waned drastically.

As Lorenzo Trombette (ANSA) reports, Doha has become the stage for high-level diplomatic consultations. While the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, and Turkey confer in Qatar, a Western “quartet”—the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany—has met with European Union representatives and UN Special Envoy Geir Pedersen. From these meetings has emerged the intent to initiate, as early as next week in Geneva, a post-Assad political transition process. This path aims to involve figures from the Assad system who have not been directly implicated in the regime’s worst atrocities, along with some representatives of armed opposition groups, in order to prevent new bloodshed and forestall institutional collapse. The goal is to preserve the Syrian state—distinguished from the disintegrating regime—and offer the population a prospect of stability.

The prospective, albeit indirect, inclusion of figures linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in the Geneva talks signals an unprecedented flexibility. Although HTS has been labeled a terrorist organization by various Western powers, its mediated involvement through lesser groups associated with it appears to be a compromise aimed at forging a negotiating framework that could lead to a lasting agreement.

The sudden downfall of Assad is accompanied by the fragmentation of the Resistance Axis. Iran, a longtime supporter of the Damascus government, may now opt for a more cautious stance, focusing on its strategic interests along the coast and in territories home to ancient Shiite-Alawite clans historically loyal to the Assad family. Russia, preoccupied on multiple international fronts, seems less inclined to maintain its support, paving the way for a more uncertain scenario.

As the Islamist insurgents reach the outskirts of Damascus, the imminent collapse of the regime throws open the doors of symbolic places of repression: the notorious prisons of Adra and Saydnaya. Within these facilities, thousands of dissidents, activists, and political opponents have been detained and disappeared over the decades. Their fate, long shrouded in silence, may now be revealed, potentially marking one of the first symbolic steps of a new chapter in Syrian history.

The entire Middle East is feeling the repercussions of this upheaval. Assad’s fall affects not only Syria’s borders but also has implications for Lebanon, Iraq, and even relations between Israel and Iran. In a context where sectarian, ethnic, and political tensions have never been fully resolved, the region will be forced to reassess its balance of power. The international community, through its gatherings from Doha to Geneva, must now tackle a crucial challenge: managing a transfer of power that, from a secular dictatorial regime, may yield to an Islamist surge capable of reigniting jihadist violence.

In short, Syria risks becoming another Afghanistan: similar dynamics, worrisome prospects linked to international jihadism that, originating in Syria, could threaten the region and the West. What is even more concerning is the role Turkey might play, having supported the regime’s downfall through direct assistance to the Islamists of HTS—an organization whose roots trace back to al-Qaida and ISIS—and how it may now seek to leverage its influence in the Middle East and North Africa.

Syria. Al-Jolani’s Advance on Damascus: A New Front of Unease for Iran, Russia, and Israel.

by Claudio Bertolotti.

From the interview by Francesco De Leo on Radio Radicale – Spazio Transnazionale (episode of December 7, 2024).

Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, born Ahmed Al Sharaa, is the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an armed group active in the Syrian civil war and still designated by the United States as a terrorist organization. Originally affiliated with Al Qaeda and known as the head of Jabhat Al Nusra, Jolani started out as a radical jihadist sent to Syria in 2011 with funding and support from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—who would later become the world’s most wanted terrorist—to establish Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch.

Over the years, he has transformed both his image and his strategy. At first, he announced a formal break from Al Qaeda, then focused primarily on toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime and controlling key areas such as Idlib Province. This “break” was widely viewed as a tactical move aimed at avoiding direct international attacks against transnational jihadist formations.

At the same time, Jolani also changed his appearance and public rhetoric. He traded in his camouflage fatigues for a blazer and Western-style shirt, presenting himself as a moderate Syrian revolutionary fighting the Damascus regime rather than waging a global war against the West. In recent interviews, he has minimized references to global jihad, instead emphasizing Syria’s “liberation” and the role of HTS as a local force committed to ensuring security and governance for millions of people living under its control.

Despite this rebranding strategy and his attempt to appear as a more pragmatic interlocutor, Jolani remains an extremely controversial figure, undoubtedly tied to insurgent jihadism and one of its foremost leaders today. He has a past deeply rooted in international jihadist networks and currently leads an organization still considered terrorist by Washington. His trajectory is that of a leader seeking to distance himself from transnational extremism in order to gain local and possibly international legitimacy, positioning himself as a revolutionary political actor rather than a jihadist leader.

The Situation on the Ground
Syrian rebels are advancing toward Damascus with Turkish support and are besieging Homs, a strategic hub en route to the Mediterranean and a regime stronghold.
While Russia, Turkey, and Iran are set to meet in Doha to negotiate a possible political transition excluding Assad, on the ground pro-Iranian forces seem to be retreating, and Russia appears weakened and no longer proactive, as the UN reports a massive wave of displaced people.
Rebel leader al-Jolani claims the right to use any means against the regime but promises not to persecute minorities. We shall see.
Meanwhile, a pleased Erdogan openly announces Damascus as his next objective, while Iran, Syria, and Iraq declare their unity against “terrorism.”
In the country’s south, anti-government groups are moving north, easily taking positions abandoned by fleeing loyalists, and the Druze communities of Suwayda are creating a semi-autonomous region.
Meanwhile, Lebanon is closing its borders for fear of the conflict spilling over, and clashes continue between pro-Turkish forces and Kurdish militias.

Concerns for Iran and Israel
It is certain that, given the current situation, this is a problem for Iran, as well as for Russia, and also for Israel: all are watching developments with deep concern. For Moscow, it’s a major issue related to maintaining its naval mobility in the Mediterranean. For Tehran, it’s a question of the overall stability of the “Axis of Resistance” since the fall of Syria could block the vital link with Lebanon, and therefore with Hezbollah. Perhaps the Doha agreements aim to find a mediated solution that would allow Iran to maintain control over a strip of Syrian territory essential for connecting with Hezbollah.

What about Israel? Israel is very worried because the presence of a weak Syrian regime is, for it, the best-case scenario; the fall of Syria under Islamist control could open a new front of additional instability along its borders. Not to mention that “al-Jolani” takes his name from the Golan, currently occupied by Israel, and he has always held openly anti-Western and anti-Israeli positions.

Back to Top