Recently, Israeli warplanes struck targets on the outskirts of the Syrian capital, an act Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed as a “surgical warning” against elements allegedly plotting attacks against the Druze minority in nearby Sahnaya. With bluntness, Netanyahu declared the strike an “unmistakable message” to Damascus and its allies: Israel would not stand idly by while threats to the Druze community, with whom it claims to share deep historical ties, fester on Syrian soil.
The response from Ankara was swift and scathing. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, never one to mince words, lambasted the strike as “yet another reckless provocation” by a regime he accused of exporting chaos across the region. “After reducing Gaza to rubble and playing with fire in Lebanon, Israel now seeks to turn Syria into its next playground.” He warned that the attack dangerously undermined the fragile political detente emerging under Syria’s new leadership, calling it a transparent bid to "sabotage the first shoots of stability."
Beneath the surface of these exchanges lies a far more consequential struggle. Israel’s strike serves as a litmus test, probing not just Syria’s defenses but Türkiye’s thresholds. For Erdoğan, the calculus is delicate: how to project strength without triggering an unwanted escalation, particularly as he prepares for high-stakes talks in Washington. Yet, the underlying warning is clear: Israel’s strikes in Syria are no longer just about Syria. They are becoming a referendum on whose influence will shape the region’s future and Türkiye has no intention of failing that test.
The entire story unfolds from a singular, unshakable conviction: Israel cannot stomach the rise of any neighboring government that truly reflects the will and desires of its nation. To the Israeli establishment, such a prospect is not merely unsettling but an existential peril. The logic is as stark as it is revealing.
While Arab states may be coaxed into normalization, the overwhelming majority of the people across the region remain unyielding in their rejection of Israel’s legitimacy or endorsement as a part and parcel of the region. The searing horrors and dreadful images coming out of Gaza have etched an indelible divide, rendering hollow any facade of genuine acceptance between Israel and the broader Arab and Muslim world.
Syria, ever the linchpin in this volatile calculus, finds itself caught in the crosshairs. Despite assurances from Damascus’ new leadership, pledges to Washington that Syria will neither serve as a staging ground for regional provocations nor permit foreign actors, Palestinian, Lebanese or Iranian, to exploit its soil for destabilization, Israel remains obstinate. Stability in Syria, it seems, is an outcome Tel Aviv refuses to countenance.
Rather than engaging in diplomacy, Israel has entrenched its military dominion within Syrian borders, seizing land, exacting a bloody toll on civilians and raining down airstrikes with impunity, even at the heart of the capital. It has audaciously dictated terms, demanding Syrian forces retreat from their own sovereign territory south of Damascus.
And what banner does it fly to mask its aggression? The protection of the Druze, a community cynically wielded as both shield and spear, a convenient pretext to cloak intervention in the garb of humanitarian concern. It is a familiar stratagem: exploiting sectarian fissures to fracture solidarity, all while perpetuating the very chaos it claims to oppose.
At the heart of Türkiye’s Syria policy lies an unwavering principle: it will not stand idly by as external forces tip the scales toward chaos. Through deft regional diplomacy and close coordination with Washington, Ankara has made its position unmistakable; its military operations in northern Syria are not acts of aggression but defensive measures. Their aim? To dismantle the influence of separatist terrorist militants and to thwart any bid to carve out an autonomous zone along its southern frontier.
Yet this very objective places Ankara on a collision course with Israel, whose strategic calculus appears increasingly rooted in one overriding goal: preventing the resurgence of a strong, sovereign country. Thus, Israel’s maneuvers, from airstrikes to territorial encroachments and annexation, suggest a preference for a fractured Syria, one where perpetual instability serves as a buffer against cohesive opposition.
Beneath the surface of Israel’s bombardment campaigns lies a layered strategy, one that extends beyond mere saber-rattling at Damascus. The timing and targets of these strikes raise a provocative question: are they also calibrated to checkmate Türkiye?
As far back as 2021, Israeli security assessments began casting Türkiye as a potential adversary, a sentiment later enshrined in the 2025 Nagel Committee report. The document, unveiled amid the ongoing Syrian conflict, explicitly urged Israel to brace for possible military friction with Türkiye in the coming years. Tel Aviv’s overt backing of the YPG/Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a group Ankara views as an existential threat, further fans the flames. Add to this Israel’s escalating rhetoric framing Türkiye as a security liability and the subtext becomes clear: this is as much about containment as it is about coercion.
In a move that caught allies and adversaries off guard, U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled his intent to lift U.S. economic sanctions on Syria – a decision sending shockwaves through the Middle East and triggering immediate alarm in Tel Aviv. For Israel, the sanctions have long been a critical lever, starving Damascus of reconstruction funds and foreign capital. Their sudden dismantling – especially under a president who has repeatedly defied diplomatic norms – threatens to upend Israel’s containment strategy and reshape the region’s power dynamics.
For Türkiye, however, the shift presents a strategic opening. Ankara sees a sanctions reprieve as a chance to stabilize Syria – a priority now central to its border security and efforts to repatriate Syrian refugees. Yet this very prospect risks inflaming tensions with Israel, whose escalating military strikes appear designed to sabotage any such outcome, setting the stage for a dangerous new confrontation.
At the core of Türkiye’s Syria policy remains an unyielding principle: external actors must not be permitted to drag Syria back into fragmentation and disorder. Ankara’s military presence in northern Syria is not a projection of imperial ambition, but a defensive necessity – aimed at preempting the rise of destabilizing autonomous zones along its southern border and curbing the influence of armed separatist factions.
Ankara’s skepticism persists – even as the PKK has announced its dissolution, a potential breakthrough for regional diplomacy. Turkish officials still regard the SDF as an enduring menace, inextricably tied to the PKK’s militant network. And Israel’s unwavering support for the SDF only fuels the fire, hardening Ankara’s belief that Tel Aviv is manipulating proxy alliances to steer Syria’s trajectory – directly undermining Türkiye’s security agenda.
Add to this Israel’s escalating rhetoric, which increasingly frames Türkiye as an emerging regional antagonist and a clearer strategy comes into focus: a campaign of strategic containment, draped in the language of counterterrorism, even as realities on the ground evolve. The disconnect is stark – and the risks of confrontation grow.
Ankara’s restraint is not born of submission but strategic patience. A direct clash with Israel, especially on Tel Aviv’s terms, would risk derailing Türkiye’s delicate balancing act with Washington, where Erdoğan’s impending White House visit looms large. The stakes could not be higher: sanctions relief, U.S. recalibration of its YPG/SDF partnership and a potential reshaping of America’s military footprint in Syria all hang in the balance.
For now, Türkiye’s playbook favors diplomatic leverage over battlefield escalation. By embedding its relations deeper into Syria’s fabric, fortifying bases, entrenching alliances and rendering any Israeli strike a potential flashpoint, Ankara aims to erode Tel Aviv’s room for unilateral action.
Türkiye may well pursue indirect bargains with Israel, using Washington as an intermediary. Trump’s recent remarks, hinting at U.S. mediation to avert a Türkiye-Israel crisis, underscore this plausible pathway. But make no mistake: while Ankara may tread carefully, it will not cede ground. Syria’s future and Türkiye’s foothold within it remain a prize too strategic to surrender. Patience, not provocation, is Ankara’s winning move in this high-stakes chessboard.
