Ignoring security concerns: Guterres’s simplistic view on Syria

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Thursday criticized Israeli airstrikes in Syria, calling them violations of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and demanded that they "must stop." 

His remarks, however, betray either a profound ignorance of the geopolitical realities or a clear partisan bias.

Since the rebel offensive ousted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Israel has conducted targeted airstrikes on military sites within Syria. These operations, according to Israel, aim to destroy stockpiles of strategic and chemical weapons and dismantle military infrastructure constructed with Iranian support under Assad’s regime.

While these actions may technically infringe upon Syrian sovereignty, they serve a critical purpose: ensuring that these dangerous weapons do not fall into the hands of uncontrolled militias or other destabilizing forces. For both Syria’s security and Israel’s national defense, these operations are not optional—they are essential.

Guterres’s blanket condemnation demonstrates a detachment from geopolitical realities, as he fails to acknowledge the serious risks posed by these arsenals. By ignoring these nuances, the Secretary-General’s remarks reduce a complex situation to an oversimplified narrative of territorial violations.

A Pattern of Bias Against Israel

Guterres’s stance is hardly surprising, given his history of skepticism toward Israeli actions on the international stage. His consistent failure to recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns raises questions about his neutrality as the leader of the United Nations.

This latest statement exemplifies a recurring pattern: Guterres condemns Israel’s defensive actions without providing a credible alternative to address the underlying threats. This one-sided perspective erodes trust in the United Nations as a balanced mediator in the Middle East.

The weapons stockpiles and military infrastructure targeted by Israeli airstrikes were built over years with Iranian support under Assad’s regime. These installations pose a significant threat not only to Israel but also to regional stability.

By failing to address the root cause of these issues—namely, Iran’s influence and the legacy of Assad’s militarization—Guterres’s comments offer no constructive path forward. Instead, they risk emboldening malign actors who thrive on the absence of accountability and decisive action.

From his office in New York, Guterres seems far removed from the on-the-ground realities of Syria and the broader Middle East. His remarks reflect a failure to grasp the intricate balance of security, diplomacy, and counterterrorism efforts necessary to stabilize the region.

It is worth asking: what practical solutions does Guterres propose to address the threats posed by unchecked stockpiles of advanced weaponry in Syria? Simply demanding that airstrikes "must stop" without addressing the broader context is not only naïve but also irresponsible.

The dismantling of these weapons and military installations is not just in Israel’s interest—it is in Syria’s as well. The presence of such arms in uncontrolled or hostile hands would exacerbate instability, jeopardizing any potential for peace or rebuilding in the post-Assad era.

Israel’s actions, while controversial, address this existential threat in a way that the international community has largely failed to do. Guterres’s criticism, devoid of realistic alternatives, undermines efforts to ensure a safer and more stable Syria.

If Guterres seeks to contribute meaningfully to resolving the Syrian crisis, he must first acknowledge the complex interplay of threats in the region. His role as Secretary-General requires him to act as a neutral arbiter, not a critic driven by bias or detachment from reality.

Rather than condemning Israel’s defensive measures, the United Nations should focus on addressing the root causes of instability in Syria, ensuring that weapons of mass destruction and advanced military infrastructure are neutralized and secured. 

Anything less would be a disservice to the region and to the principles of peace and security the UN purports to uphold.