editor
Israel’s recent series of intense airstrikes in Syria signals a rising tension that may be poised to reshape the balance of power in the region. The Tel Aviv administration has taken a hardline stance against Syria’s new government, which came to power in December after toppling Bashar al-Assad. Israel is particularly unsettled by Turkiye’s growing influence over Syria, especially as Turkiye emerges as the primary backer of the new regime. Through its air operations in Syria, Israel is not hiding the fact that it is sending a warning both to the new leadership in Damascus and indirectly to Ankara.
These developments appear to be part of a provocation strategy that could be described as indirect diplomacy in the chessboard of the Middle East. But what exactly is the geopolitical message Israel is trying to send? Why is Israel reacting so strongly to Turkiye’s role in Syria? How might these moves impact Turkiye-Israel relations, and more importantly, what strategic consequences could they entail? Furthermore, do Washington and Brussels share the same outlook on the region, or does this trajectory conflict with their expectations? In searching for answers to these questions, it is also essential to examine where Europe’s concerns over energy security and the refugee crisis fit into this complex equation.
Israel’s Geopolitical Message: A Warning Through Airstrikes in Syria
According to statements by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, the recent airstrikes on Syria reflect Israel’s deep security concerns and serve as “a clear message and warning for the future.”
While the message appears to be directed primarily at Syria’s new government, the real target is Ankara’s expanding sphere of influence. In fact, immediately after the fall of Assad, the Israeli military moved to secure control over strategic areas in southern Syria, establishing a buffer zone along the border.
By emphasizing that it will not tolerate any formation in these areas that could pose a threat to its security, Tel Aviv is effectively warning the new government in Damascus: “If you turn a blind eye to hostile elements against Israel on your soil, you will pay a heavy price.”
The intensity of the airstrikes on key military bases such as Hama and Homs—strikes that even destroyed runways and hangars—shows just how seriously Israel takes this warning.
These operations also carry an implicit diplomatic message: instead of traditional diplomacy, Israel is speaking through military action and enforcing its presence on the ground. As reflected in official statements, these strikes are also a direct warning to Turkiye, essentially stating: “Don’t build military bases in Syria or interfere with our airspace operations.”
In short, Israel is sending a bold and unmistakable message: “We will act freely in Syria—stay out of it.” Thus, this geopolitical maneuver is aimed not only at curbing the emerging new order in Syria, but also at limiting Turkiye’s operational space in the region.
Turkiye’s Growing Influence in Syria and Israel’s Unease
Israel’s harsh reaction is largely driven by Turkiye’s increasing influence over Syria. The regime change in Damascus in December 2024, which brought a new coalition to power, marked a victory for opposition forces long supported by Ankara. Israeli sources openly describe this transformation as a “Turkiye-backed coup” and note that “Ankara has now become the main power center in Syria.”
Turkiye now directly or indirectly controls an estimated 8,000 square kilometers of territory stretching from Aleppo to Idlib and extending east of the Euphrates to Ras al-Ayn. Furthermore, Ankara’s open support for the newly formed government is accompanied by plans to sign a defense pact with Damascus, aiming to establish permanent military bases and deploy advanced air defense systems inside Syrian territory.
Such a scenario would radically shift the region’s strategic balance to Israel’s disadvantage.
Tel Aviv’s concerns go beyond Syria’s borders. Ankara’s regional influence is increasingly viewed as a top-tier threat—potentially even eclipsing Iran, which traditionally occupied the number one spot in Israel’s security doctrine. Recent reports from Israeli defense circles describe “Turkiye’s expanding military presence in Syria as more dangerous than the Iranian threat.”
This anxiety is rooted in Turkiye’s NATO-level military capabilities, its advanced drone (UAV/SİHA) technologies, and its use of proxy forces to extend influence near Israel’s borders. Some Israeli analysts even warn that Turkish drones breaching Israeli airspace is no longer a distant possibility but a looming and tangible threat.
There’s also an ideological and security dimension to Israel’s unease. The Islamist orientation of Syria’s new government, coupled with its alliance with Ankara, raises fears in Tel Aviv of a potential “Hamas stronghold” emerging just across its northern frontier. Israeli officials have openly voiced concerns that this new order, under Turkish protection, could become a safe haven for Hamas and other radical groups.
International commentary echoes this sentiment, stating: “Israel’s greatest fear is that Turkiye will protect this new order in Syria and turn it into a base for Hamas and other militants.”
Past allegations that Ankara has harbored Hamas members—including claims that senior Hamas leaders have resided in Turkiye—have only served to reinforce these fears within Israeli security circles. Therefore, to understand Israel’s increasingly aggressive posture in Syria, it must also be seen as a reflexive response to Turkiye’s rising power in the region.
Emerging Fault Lines in Turkiye-Israel Relations
The latest maneuvers in the region are inevitably casting a dark shadow over the already fragile relationship between Turkiye and Israel. The bilateral ties, which had significantly deteriorated following the Gaza war that erupted in late 2023, are now entering an even more turbulent phase—this time centered around Syria. Ankara has reacted strongly to Israel’s airstrikes in Syria, denouncing them as violations of Syrian sovereignty and destabilizing actions for the broader region. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s recent rhetoric further illustrates the depth of the rupture. In a speech at the end of March, Erdoğan used unprecedentedly harsh language, even appearing to curse Israel, stating his wish for the “destruction of cruel Israel.”
Israel, in turn, has labeled these remarks as blatantly antisemitic and a threat to regional stability.
Such discourse makes it increasingly difficult for even a minimal diplomatic dialogue to be sustained between the two nations.
Just a few years ago, particularly in 2022, there had been signs of normalization, with discussions of energy cooperation and regional trade creating a brief thaw in relations. However, the latest developments appear to have extinguished those hopes entirely. In response to Israel’s policies in Syria and Palestine, Ankara has reduced diplomatic engagement to a minimum. Meanwhile, Israel now views Turkiye as a rival actor opposing its interests both in Syria and the Palestinian arena.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry has condemned Israel’s military operations in Gaza as manifestations of an “unlawful and peace-averse policy,” while Tel Aviv describes Ankara as a disruptive force seeking to expand its regional influence.
These mutual accusations and the pervasive atmosphere of distrust have brought the already delicate diplomatic bridge between the two countries to the brink of collapse.
In such a climate of tension, the risk of unintended military encounters also rises. With Israeli jets operating in Syrian airspace and Turkish-backed forces present on the ground, the likelihood of either accidental or deliberate confrontations becomes a pressing concern. As Israel pushes to establish a de facto no-fly zone over parts of Syria and Turkiye seeks to expand its strategic reach in the same areas, the possibility of a direct military standoff between the two becomes more tangible—potentially igniting a broader regional conflict.
Should such a clash occur, it could lead to a complete unraveling of Turkiye-Israel relations, already teetering on a knife’s edge.
The Risks of Indirect Diplomacy and the Provocation Strategy
Israel’s current approach can be seen as a form of indirect or “backdoor diplomacy” deployed when conventional diplomatic channels are deemed ineffective. Yet calling it “diplomacy” is somewhat ironic, as the messages being sent are far from diplomatic courtesy—they’re conveyed through military shows of force. At its core, this strategy appears to aim at provoking Turkiye into taking certain actions on the Syrian front. Tel Aviv likely hopes to escalate tensions through airstrikes and thereby force Ankara into a dilemma: either to back down, or to respond with an uncontrolled reaction. In either scenario, Israel sees potential strategic gains. Should Turkiye retreat, it would limit its growing influence in Syria; if it lashes out, it risks being portrayed internationally as the aggressor—the country willing to set Syria ablaze for its own interests.
However, this provocation strategy carries significant risks. First and foremost, there is the danger of escalation spiraling out of control. As one Israeli analyst put it, if both sides continue to ramp up their rhetoric and on-the-ground maneuvers, “a direct military confrontation could become inevitable.”
Such a scenario could pit two powerful armies—NATO-member Turkiye and Israel—directly against each other, sparking an unprecedented crisis. The consequences wouldn’t be limited to these two nations; the entire region could be pulled into the vortex. Syria remains a geopolitical chessboard, involving global and regional players like Russia, Iran, and the United States. A direct Israeli-Turkish military clash in Syria could even fracture NATO, potentially forcing Washington to choose between two key allies—an outcome that would be a nightmare for the Western alliance.
Secondly, Israel’s strategy of drawing Turkiye deeper into the Syrian quagmire could backfire. If Ankara feels cornered, it may respond not by stepping back but by intensifying its military presence in Syria. Possible countermeasures include deploying additional troops, expanding safe zones, or activating air defense systems against Israeli incursions. Recent reports in the Turkish press even suggest that some government-aligned sources are considering the use of the Russian-made S-400 missile systems as a deterrent against Israeli air operations.
Such retaliatory moves would further restrict Israel’s freedom of action in Syria and could push Tel Aviv into an undesirable escalation spiral.
Moreover, Israel’s indirect signaling may trigger the involvement of unexpected actors on the Syrian battlefield. Russia, whose future moves in Syria remain ambiguous, is a case in point. There are signs that Israel may be tacitly supporting a continued Russian military presence in Syria as a counterbalance to Turkiye. Indeed, some reports suggest that Israel has lobbied Washington to ensure that Syria remains weak and fragmented—part of which involves maintaining Russia’s military footprint there.
In such a scenario, Ankara may find itself facing not just Israel, but an Israel backed—at least indirectly—by Moscow, changing the entire strategic calculus.
In the end, this high-risk strategy of indirect diplomacy is fraught with unpredictable consequences. The provocation tactics employed by Israel could take an unintended turn and ignite a broader regional crisis.
U.S. and European Expectations: Contradictions and Concerns
From the perspective of Washington and Brussels, the shadow conflict between Israel and Turkiye is far from desirable. For the United States, the prospect of two allies—Turkiye, despite strained ties, still a NATO member, and Israel, a close strategic partner—clashing in Syria undermines its regional interests. Although the new U.S. administration under Donald Trump, which took office in 2025, maintains a markedly pro-Israel stance, sidelining Turkiye altogether is not an easy option. Especially in a scenario where radical elements are gaining ground in Syria, Washington remains cautious toward the new Syrian government. Nevertheless, the U.S. does not want the region to descend into total chaos. America continues to maintain its military presence in northeastern Syria, in cooperation with PKK/PYD elements, while simultaneously trying to curtail Iranian influence. An overt conflict between Turkiye and Israel could disrupt both its counterterrorism efforts and its broader stability agenda in Syria. While the Trump administration may sympathize with Israel’s concerns about Syria’s new leadership, it is likely to quietly urge both sides to show restraint behind the scenes.
On the European front, the situation is even more delicate. The European Union has long hoped for peace and stability in Syria, with the aim of halting the refugee flow and ideally facilitating the voluntary return of Syrian asylum seekers. Although the new post-Assad government has triggered ideological concerns in Europe, it is also seen by some as a potential turning point—a chance to break the cycle of conflict and drain the swamp that feeds terrorism and mass migration.
Thus, the prevailing sentiment in Brussels is to support Syria’s stabilization and economic recovery. However, Israel’s relentless airstrikes risk sabotaging precisely these goals. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy officials have openly voiced concern over Israel’s escalating military actions in both Syria and Lebanon. During a recent visit to Israel, an EU representative warned that the ongoing strikes could further deteriorate the situation. Since Syria has not posed a direct threat to Israel at this stage, such aggression was deemed unnecessary and counterproductive. Moreover, the official cautioned that Israel’s actions might actually foster radicalization, posing long-term security risks—even to Israel itself.
These statements clearly summarize Europe’s perspective: Israel’s aggressive posture is fundamentally at odds with European expectations for the region.
Europe’s reaction may not be limited to diplomatic warnings. Concrete interests such as energy security and migration management are also at stake. On the energy front, the EU has been focusing on Eastern Mediterranean gas reserves to reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Back in 2022, when Turkiye-Israel relations had started to improve, a serious proposal was tabled to transport Israeli gas to Europe via Turkiye.
Such a project would have not only strengthened Turkish-Israeli cooperation but also provided Europe with an alternative to Russian gas. However, in light of the current tensions, such an energy partnership now seems virtually impossible. Under the current Israeli government, even maintaining diplomatic dialogue with Ankara has become challenging—let alone reviving a pipeline project. Europe, therefore, may have to put its hopes of tapping Eastern Mediterranean gas on hold, dealing a blow to its broader energy diversification strategy.
Moreover, the continued instability—or even deterioration—in Syria threatens to increase volatility in global oil and gas prices, indirectly impacting the European economy.
The Refugee Issue: A Ticking Clock for Europe and Turkiye
When it comes to the refugee question, the escalating tensions in Syria severely undermine the already slim prospects of millions of Syrian refugees—currently residing in Turkiye and Europe—returning home any time soon. Worse still, if the conflict intensifies, a new wave of refugees could be triggered. This scenario raises particular concern for Turkiye, which borders Syria and already hosts the largest Syrian refugee population, as well as for EU member states that have established agreements with Ankara to manage migration flows. Europe has not forgotten the political and social upheaval caused by the 2015 refugee crisis.
As a result, every Israeli action that undermines efforts to stabilize Syria is perceived in Europe not just as a local issue but as an indirect threat to the continent’s own security and stability. Accordingly, European leaders are adopting a cautious stance toward Israel’s moves in Syria while simultaneously calling on Turkiye to act with restraint and prioritize international cooperation.
Europe’s broader expectation is clear: that this new Middle Eastern equation yields cooperation rather than further conflict. If it doesn’t, Europe—by virtue of its geographic proximity—will be among the first to bear the cost.
Conclusion: A New Fault Line in the Middle East
The recent developments in Syria have created a new fault line in the already complex dynamics of the Middle East. Israel’s message—delivered through intense and repeated airstrikes—is in essence a diplomatic maneuver aimed at curbing Turkiye’s rising influence in the region. Tel Aviv is visibly disturbed by the emerging new order in Syria and Ankara’s role in shaping it, and it is expressing this discomfort in the language of military force.
On the other hand, Ankara has made it clear that it will not back down from its policy of maintaining a strategic foothold in Syria to protect its national security interests. This mutual hardening of positions not only deepens the rupture in Turkiye-Israel relations but also poses a broader threat to regional stability.
This geopolitical chess game is no longer limited to local players—it now implicates global power balances as well. Washington finds itself trying to maintain equilibrium between its two allies, while Brussels watches with concern as its interests in energy security and regional stability come under threat. The consequences of Israel’s provocative strategy may ultimately diverge from its intended goals and spiral into unpredictable territory.
Unless reason prevails and the language of diplomacy is revived, this indirect power struggle—originating on Syrian soil—could escalate into a direct confrontation. Such a conflict would not only spell trouble for Israel and Turkiye but could also open the door to a prolonged crisis for the entire Middle East and even for Europe.
Stability in the region serves the long-term interests of all parties. While Israel’s security concerns are valid, imposing its will unilaterally through military force could backfire, fueling new cycles of mistrust. Likewise, Turkiye’s quest for regional influence will not be sustainable without broader regional stability. Ultimately, unless moves toward diplomacy and dialogue are made in the Syrian chessboard, this emerging tension risks turning into a conflict with no winners.
Sources: For Israeli statements and international responses, see Reuters and The Jerusalem Post.
Author: Hayati Esen
Editor-in-Chief, Konu Yorum News Website
