What’s behind the unprecedented tension between Israel and Turkey?

Commentary: Jerusalem’s latest moves in Syria – increased air attacks, expanding buffer zone, cultivating relations with Druze and Kurds – reflect a lack of clear policy and objectives, with political, military leadership ‘firing in all directions’

The Israeli government continues to avoid clearly articulating its strategy in the Syrian arena. In the absence of a formal policy, observers are left to decipher its intentions based on scattered military actions and political statements. The result is a picture of growing uncertainty, and potentially dangerous escalation.

Nowhere is this ambiguity more evident than in Syria. The Israel Defense Forces have increased airstrikes against a range of armed factions across the country, strengthened their presence in the buffer zone along the Golan Heights, and cultivated relationships with internal Syrian actors, including the Druze and Kurdish populations. These moves reflect a policy that some describe as “firing in all directions,” lacking a clear, guiding objective.

In the past two weeks, tensions have reached a new high with Turkey, which backs Syrian leader Ahmad al-Sharaa and seeks to expand its influence in Syria. Israel’s air force has reportedly targeted four airports, including the T4 air base near Palmyra in Homs province. Turkish forces were allegedly preparing to deploy to that base, particularly units operating drones and UAVs.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded with a stark warning: Turkey’s intent to establish military footholds in Syria poses a direct threat to Israel’s security. He vowed to act against such moves. Defense Minister Israel Katz went further, issuing a direct threat to al-Sharaa and stating that Israel would not allow hostile entrenchment in Syria and would hold Damascus accountable.

Ankara, for its part, attempted to defuse the situation. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Turkey does not seek conflict with Israel and that the future of Syria should be decided by the Syrian regime. Notably, his comments were delivered in English during a NATO meeting in Brussels—clearly intended for Western audiences.

“Turkey is taking Israel’s military activity in Syria seriously,” said Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak, a scholar of Turkish affairs. “Ankara urgently summoned al-Sharaa to coordinate a response.”

Turkish analyst Mustafa Özcan added that Ankara views Syria as a strategic priority. “Turkey will not leave this arena to Israel,” he said. Lebanese commentator Omar Ma’arabouni noted Turkey’s economic interests in Syria, including a proposed gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria to Turkey and on to Europe. Ankara fears Israeli actions could derail that project.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump sought to calm tensions, stating during a joint appearance with Netanyahu, “I have great relations with Turkey. Erdogan likes me, and I like him. If you have a problem with him, I’ll fix it.”

Washington appears concerned about the friction between its two regional allies and may push for a division of influence zones or other mechanisms to prevent further escalation. Israel and Turkey have reportedly begun discussing a coordination mechanism similar to the one Israel maintained with Russia before the collapse of the Assad regime. A preliminary meeting was held this week in Azerbaijan.

The Arab world remains largely passive, watching two non-Arab regional powers jockey for influence in Syria. Lebanese scholar Ahmad Ajaj argued that Arab nations must take a more active role. “They have good ties with all sides, including Israel. It’s essential they help stabilize Syria to prevent its collapse,” he said.

Azmi Bishara, founder of the Balad party and now a Qatar-based political figure, recently warned, “Without Arab involvement, the entire region will fall under Israeli hegemony.” While many Arab states are wary of Erdogan, they view Turkey’s ambitions as a lesser evil compared to Iranian influence or Syrian state collapse. Some suspect that Israel’s true aim is to fragment Syria, while Turkey, for all its ambitions, seeks to preserve a stable state under its sway.

The crisis with Turkey is only the latest flare-up in a long-standing, deteriorating relationship. Erdogan’s recent Ramadan address included a call for “Allah to destroy Zionist Israel,” a statement some saw as an attempt to distract from domestic political turmoil following the arrest of opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu.

At the same time, Netanyahu has reportedly lobbied U.S. officials to block the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to plan attacks from its Ankara-based headquarters, which operates under Turkish protection. One recently uncovered cell in Nablus planned a series of major attacks, raising further concerns in Jerusalem.

There is also growing fear that Turkey will lead a new axis of influence in Syria based on the Muslim Brotherhood, replacing the waning dominance of Iran’s Shiite-led coalition.

Amira Oron, former Israeli ambassador to Egypt and a former envoy to Ankara, cautioned against turning Turkey into another adversary like Iran. “Despite Erdogan’s hostility, Turkey plays a key role in Syrian stability. Israel would do well to engage Ankara diplomatically rather than risk a military clash,” she said.

Beyond Ankara, Israeli forces have stepped up air and ground strikes in southern Syria, particularly near the buffer zone. These operations have killed dozens of militants, including those affiliated with al-Sharaa’s forces. The strikes sparked public protests in Damascus, with chants of “The people want to declare jihad” and “With blood and spirit, we redeem Daraa.”

Al-Sharaa’s organization, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, has released videos threatening retaliation against Israel. In Daraa, local leader Imad al-Masalma declared, “We are tired after 14 years of war, but we have the strength to resist Israeli incursions. Our youth are on alert and support the Damascus regime.”

Syrian analyst Rashid Hourani noted, “Julani must encourage a popular uprising in the south to block Israel’s attempt to entrench itself.”

As in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank, where Israel is conducting wide-scale military operations, its use of force in Syria must serve a clear political objective. Right now, it appears that the act of warfare itself has become the strategy. That approach is not sustainable.

If left unchecked, Israel’s current course could trigger several perilous scenarios: growing clashes with Syrian forces, entanglement in sectarian conflict, or even a new front with Turkish forces. At a time when existing fronts remain unresolved, opening a new one is a risk Israel can ill afford.

• Dr. Michael Milshtein is director of the Palestinian Studies Forum in Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center.

As reported by Ynetnews