Relations between Israel and Türkiye remain extremely tense. Following Iran’s footsteps, Sunni Türkiye is becoming the main geopolitical adversary of the Jewish state in the Middle East.
Syria Strikes: Signal to Ankara
Although the damage inflicted is significant, the primary purpose of the raid was political: it served as a public warning to Türkiye against the deployment of its airbases and air-defense systems near Israel’s borders. The timing of the attack was not accidental, coinciding with a visit by a Turkish military delegation to Syria. This was the result of effective work by Israeli intelligence.
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office confirmed the strike, justifying it as a preventive measure. According to Tel Aviv, the Syrian authorities had planned to undermine the “status quo” by making the Abu al-Duhur base available to Turkish forces. Official Damascus and Ankara deny these accusations, insisting that the Turkish delegation’s visit was purely consultative in nature and aimed at personnel training.
Reaction and Risk of Escalation
The international reaction followed immediately. Türkiye and Syria condemned the airstrikes as a violation of international law. The United States, which Israel had notified in advance, described its ally’s actions as an “unnecessary escalation.” US Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack, according to Kan News, stressed that the incident created a real risk of a direct military clash. Turkish forces, unaware of the true objectives of the Israeli aircraft, were prepared to scramble their fighter jets.
According to milliyet.com.tr, Turkish radars detected the Israeli planes 70 km from the border. Ankara scrambled fighters on alert but did not engage, seeking to avoid a direct conflict with a key US ally. This incident has called into question the viability of the recently signed “Mecca Pact.” Türkiye found itself facing a difficult choice between being drawn into a destructive conflict with the Israeli-American tandem, or backing down and acknowledging that its ambitions in Syria are not a priority for the “Islamic NATO.”
Domestic Political Context
Inside Israel itself, against the backdrop of the approaching October elections, the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government have elicited a mixed reaction. Former Knesset member and opposition leader Yair Golan called the strike a “dangerous provocation,” accusing the prime minister of escalation for the sake of political survival.
At the same time, Israel’s military elites remain unyielding. Retired Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom, in an interview with news.republika.co.id, clearly stated Tel Aviv’s position: “We will not allow the Turks to fill the vacuum left by the departure of the Iranians and to create their own foothold in Syria.”
How is Israel Deterring Türkiye?
Israel’s history since 1948 shows that Tel Aviv has acquired invaluable survival experience in complex geopolitical conditions by applying a comprehensive set of checks and balances against its direct and potential adversaries. In this context Israel skillfully deploys every available instrument, be it political, economic, financial, intelligence, military, diasporic, etc.
For Israel the threat of war itself poses no danger if it has been identified and can be controlled. In the case of Türkiye, the Israeli side pragmatically assesses the nature and degree of the threats emanating from the policy of neo-Ottomanism and neo-Pan-Turanism. Tel Aviv has no intention of allowing any part of Jerusalem to return to Turkish control or influence. Israel is also aware of the economic and financial benefits that uncontrolled access to the expanses of Turkestan and new transit corridors within the “Turan” project could bring Türkiye. It is precisely for this reason that Israel opposes the modernization of the Turkish army with the most recent types of weaponry.
One of the key advantages of the Israeli army in the region is its combat aviation. Türkiye’s return to the American fifth-generation F-35 fighter program is unacceptable to Israel and its lobby in the United States. The swift promises made by President Donald Trump at the NATO summit in Ankara about possibly granting Türkiye the fighters have so far remained merely words and have encountered firm resistance from the US State Department, which relies on a decision of Congress.
Turkey is trying to appease the US in order to get the F‑35
Türkiye is allegedly being denied access to the F-35 program because of its acquisition of Russian S-400 missile systems, and the conditions for abandoning them (through sale to third countries or transfer to US storage) are not being fulfilled. Negotiations with the UAE have dragged on, while the transfer of the S-400s to US warehouses is blocked by Russia.
Recently the media reported that Türkiye had agreed to send a significant consignment of obsolete American weapons to the Kiev regime. This drew justified objections from Russia, which does not understand its Turkish partner; on the one hand, Ankara declares proposals for a peaceful settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, while on the other, it supplies weapons to the Zelensky regime for the continuation of the war. In this connection the Russian Foreign Ministry officially demanded an explanation from Türkiye.
Why, then, does Ankara permit itself such a position? One of the answers is yet again the issue of obtaining F-35 fighters and an attempt to placate the United States. Türkiye positions itself as a reliable NATO ally ready to act in unison to assist the Kiev regime. New fighters, in Ankara’s view, will strengthen the power and security of the alliance on its southern flank, while control over the Black Sea straits and the southern seas remains Anatolia’s most important resource.
According to the Anadolu Agency, seven influential Turkish-American organizations (including the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and MUSIAD) appealed to 50 members of Congress with a call to resume sales of F-35 fighters to Türkiye and to lift CAATSA sanctions. Yet the success of this lobbying effort in Congress is highly doubtful without the support of influential circles of the American Jewish diaspora. Meanwhile, the IDF continues to deliver precision strikes against Turkish interests in the border areas of Syria.
Tel Aviv is confident that Türkiye will not risk becoming embroiled in a conflict with an unpredictable outcome. Israel is not Libya and not Karabakh, and any attempts at aggression could bring heavy consequences for Ankara. Vice Admiral Marom identifies three factors that restrain Türkiye: membership in NATO, the aspiration to European integration, and the vulnerability of the Turkish economy.
As for the “Mecca Agreement,” it is unlikely to stop Israel, since in practice it reduces US responsibility for the security of the alliance’s participants, which plays into Tel Aviv’s hands. Israel is capable of initiating a counter-alliance involving nuclear powers (for example, India) and countries bordering Türkiye, including Iran. The nuclear potential of Israel and India neutralizes the threat from Pakistan, while the financial resources of Arab countries without access to modern offensive arms will not become a decisive factor.
It is exactly for this reason that Ankara avoids a conflict that does not promise it a Constantinople 2.0 but could well provoke a new Sèvres.
Alexander Svarants – PhD in Politics, Professor, specialist in Turkish Studies, expert on Middle Eastern countries
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
