Why Israel and Turkey are trading insults and jockeying for power in neighbouring Syria
- Written by: Weekend Times
When Israeli jets struck the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northern Syria on August 18, Israel said the attack was meant to stop Turkish forces from deploying there to help rebuild Syria’s army.
US intelligence found no evidence to support the claim, and Turkey and Syria denied any such plan.
In the weeks since, Israel and Turkey – the two countries with the most powerful militaries in the region – have traded their harshest words in years.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has branded Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan an “antisemitic tyrant”, while Erdoğan has accused Israel of being a “terror state”.
Israeli media also reported this week that Turkish warships have approached Israeli vessels in the Mediterranean Sea and forced them to change course.
Both governments say they do not want war. So, why are two close US allies – one a NATO member, the other a nuclear power – suddenly circling each other over Syria?
The tensions are tied to Syria’s collapse in late 2024 when a rebel army led by now-President Ahmed al-Sharaa overthrew dictator Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Syria’s two powerful neighbours have since exploited this moment very differently: Turkey has acted at the invitation of the Syrian authorities, while Israel has not. It therefore has no legal basis to police Syria’s territory or determine its security and political future.
Rushing to fill a power vacuum
When al-Sharaa came into power as Syria’s new leader, Turkey became the main backer and military partner of his new government.
Turkey undoubtedly wants a strong, unified state anchored to Ankara and has agreed to train and equip Syria’s army. Ankara has also stationed about 20,000 troops inside Syria, ostensibly to help maintain Syria’s territorial integrity and prevent attacks from Kurdish separatists over the border.
However, some believe its real intentions are to expand its presence to central Syria as a bulwark against Israel.
Turkish tensions with Israel did not begin over Syria. The countries’ relations began hardening in 2023 over Israel’s war in Gaza. Erdoğan called Israel’s campaign a genocide and joined South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Turkey also suspended trade with Israel over the war.
Israel, meanwhile, wants a Syria too weak and fragmented to threaten its northern frontier.
In the hours after al-Assad fell, Israeli aircraft destroyed much of what remained of Syria’s military. Israel has since pushed past the Syrian border to Mount Hermon, declaring southern Syria off-limits to the country’s armed forces.
Its deeper worry is that a larger Turkish presence would limit its own freedom to operate in Syrian skies.
While both countries have stationed their forces inside Syria, there’s a crucial distinction: Turkey is there at Damascus’ invitation; Israel is there against its wishes. Legally, that distinction matters.
Clear law, selective enforcement
Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. Israel’s pledge to keep its troops in a “security zone” in southern Syria has been rightly called a violation of this law.
Israel has made similar moves in the past. In 1967, it captured Golan Heights in the Six-Day War against Egypt, Syria and Jordan and officially annexed it in 1981. The UN Security Council declared this annexation “null and void”.
Last week, Syria’s UN ambassador, Ibrahim Olabi, told the UN Security Council that Israel’s continued occupation of Mount Hermon was “a blatant defiance of international legitimacy and the resolutions of this council”.
Syria also has the right under international law to raise an army and choose its own partners. Syria insists it alone will decide its alliances.
However, the bodies that enforce these rules – in particular, the UN Security Council – act only when the major powers allow. And because the United States has veto power on the council, it provides diplomatic cover for Israel.
This is one reason Syria is looking to strengthen ties with regional partners such as Turkey, as a way of pressuring Israel without resorting to conflict.
Turkey may be doing the same thing, signing a mutual-defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that gives it other friends outside its US and NATO alliances.
What happens next
Open war remains unlikely for now. The Trump administration is the key to ensuring this as a close ally to both countries.
Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, has been trying to keep the peace through back-channel talks. He has not been afraid to criticise Israel’s behaviour, though, calling its strike on the Syrian airbase last month an “unnecessary escalation”.
The situation remains volatile. Because Israel claims the right to strike whatever it dislikes in Syria and Turkey has deployed troops in the country, this raises the risk miscalculation could result in open conflict.
The deeper question is what is being obscured – that only the people of Syria have the right to decide Syria’s future.
Self-determination belongs to people, not just governments. Yet, for Syrians, there is no settled path for them to exercise this.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
