Tensions between Israel and Turkey over Syria are escalating after Israel struck the Abu al-Duhur airbase earlier this week, warning that it would not accept a Turkish military presence at the site.
Israel said Syria was close to allowing Turkish forces to deploy at the base, which it argued would threaten Israeli security and violate an existing security “status quo.”
Turkey has strongly rejected the allegation, while Syria has now also denied that it is preparing to establish a Turkish military base.
The dispute highlights a growing strategic rivalry between Israel and Turkey over Syria’s post-Assad security order, with both countries seeking to shape the military and political environment emerging in the country.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Why Did Israel Strike the Syrian Airbase?
Israel attacked the Abu al-Duhur airbase on Tuesday after warning Syria against permitting Turkish forces to establish a presence there.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had issued a clear warning to Syria before the attack.
“Our message was very clear. Don’t. I guess they didn’t quite understand the message,” Netanyahu said.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz subsequently escalated the rhetoric, accusing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of dragging Turkey into “dangerous adventures in Syria.”
Katz said Israel would not allow any actor to threaten its security.
Israel’s position is that a Turkish military deployment close to its area of operations in Syria could create a new security threat.
Syria Denies a Turkish Military Build-Up
Syria has rejected Israel’s justification for the strike.
Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani said there were no plans to establish a Turkish military base at Abu al-Duhur and no intention to maintain a permanent Turkish military presence there.
According to Shaibani, the facility was being rehabilitated for use by the Syrian Air Force.
He said Turkish military officers had visited the site as part of training and broader military cooperation, but denied that Turkey was building up forces there.
The distinction is important because Israel’s attack was based on the assumption that the base could become a Turkish military facility.
Damascus says that assumption was incorrect.
Why Is Turkey Supporting Syria?
Turkey has emerged as one of the strongest supporters of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s new administration.
Ankara has assisted with military training, state-building and infrastructure while providing political and diplomatic backing to Damascus.
Turkey views a stronger Syrian state as important to regional stability and its own security interests.
That support has increasingly brought Ankara into conflict with Israel, which has its own military and security objectives in Syria.
Turkey argues that Israel’s continued military operations undermine Syria’s sovereignty and destabilise the country’s fragile transition.
Why Is Israel Concerned About Turkey’s Role?
Israel’s concern is not simply about one airbase.
Turkey is a major regional military power with NATO’s second-largest army, and its growing involvement in Syria could significantly alter the regional balance.
Israel wants to prevent hostile or potentially threatening military forces from establishing positions close to its borders.
The prospect of Turkish forces operating from Syrian territory therefore introduces another powerful actor into an already complicated security environment.
For Israel, the question is whether Turkey’s involvement will help stabilise Syria or create a new strategic threat.
For Turkey, Israel’s attempts to restrict its role in Syria amount to interference in the reconstruction of a neighbouring country.
Why Are Turkey-Israel Relations Deteriorating?
The confrontation comes against an already strained relationship.
Turkey and Israel have sharply disagreed over the Gaza war, with Ankara becoming one of Israel’s strongest regional critics.
Syria has now added another major point of friction.
Both countries have military interests in Syria, but their objectives increasingly diverge.
Turkey is supporting the new Syrian government and wants Damascus to develop stronger state institutions and military capabilities.
Israel, meanwhile, is seeking to prevent developments in Syria that it believes could threaten Israeli security.
That makes Syria an increasingly important arena of Turkish-Israeli competition.
Did Turkey Actually Plan to Establish a Base?
According to the Syrian government, no.
Shaibani explicitly said there was no intention to establish a Turkish base, create a permanent Turkish military presence or deploy Turkish forces at Abu al-Duhur.
He acknowledged that Turkish military officers had visited the facility for training and cooperation.
The base itself, he said, was largely empty and not operational.
This creates a significant gap between Israeli and Syrian interpretations of the situation.
Israel saw the potential for a Turkish military deployment.
Syria says it was simply rebuilding its own airbase with Turkish cooperation.
Why Is Washington Trying to Mediate?
The United States is concerned that increasing Turkish-Israeli tensions could escalate into a broader confrontation.
Tom Barrack, the U.S. special presidential envoy for Syria and Iraq, said Washington was working to establish a deconfliction mechanism involving Israel, Turkey and Syria.
The goal would be to improve communication between the parties and reduce the risk that military operations are misinterpreted.
This is particularly important because Turkey and Israel are both U.S. partners, while Washington is also attempting to support stability in post-Assad Syria.
A direct confrontation between Turkey and Israel would therefore create a major diplomatic problem for the United States.
Can Turkey and Israel Avoid a Direct Confrontation?
Both countries have strong incentives to avoid a wider conflict.
Turkey does not appear interested in directly confronting Israel militarily, while Israel has little interest in opening another major front against a NATO member.
The danger instead lies in overlapping military operations.
If Turkey increases its support for Syria’s armed forces, Israel could interpret that as the emergence of a new threat.
If Israel responds by striking Syrian military infrastructure, Turkey could increasingly view those attacks as an attempt to undermine its ally and restrict its regional influence.
That cycle could gradually increase tensions even without either side deliberately seeking a direct confrontation.
Is a Syria-Israel Security Agreement Still Possible?
Despite the latest escalation, Syria says it remains open to negotiations with Israel.
Shaibani said the two sides had made significant progress toward a security agreement during a year of U.S.-mediated talks.
However, he claimed Israel later withdrew from commitments and the agreement was never implemented.
Damascus says any future agreement would have to address the security concerns of both sides while respecting Syrian sovereignty.
It also warned that continued Israeli military operations could increase regional instability.
Is Syria Becoming a New Turkey-Israel Flashpoint?
The dispute over Abu al-Duhur reveals a much larger struggle over who will shape Syria’s post-Assad security order.
Israel wants to maintain freedom of action against threats emerging from Syrian territory and prevent rival military forces from establishing positions that could threaten it.
Turkey, meanwhile, is investing heavily in Syria’s reconstruction and has emerged as one of the most important external supporters of the new government.
That puts Ankara and Jerusalem on a collision course.
The most significant development in the latest dispute may actually be Syria’s denial that Turkey planned to establish a permanent military base.
If Damascus is correct, Israel’s decision to strike the facility demonstrates how quickly perceived threats can translate into military action. If Israel’s intelligence assessment is correct, Turkey’s expanding role in Syria could represent a genuine change in the regional balance.
Either way, the incident exposes the weakness of Syria’s emerging security architecture.
Syria is becoming a strategic arena where Turkish influence, Israeli security concerns and U.S. diplomatic interests increasingly overlap.
Washington’s proposed deconfliction mechanism could help prevent miscalculation, but it cannot resolve the fundamental disagreement between Turkey and Israel over what Syria’s future security structure should look like.
For Ankara, a stable and sovereign Syrian state requires rebuilding its military and institutions.
For Israel, that same process must not create new military threats near its borders.
Unless those competing visions can be reconciled, Syria risks becoming the next major flashpoint in Turkey-Israel relations, with every new military deployment or airstrike carrying the potential for wider regional escalation.
With information from Reuters.
