Israel’s strike on the old Syrian airbase of Abu al-Duhur, which Turkey had planned to use, is not a routine episode in the Syrian war. It is a signal to Ankara: Israel reserves the right to veto Turkish military presence in Syria. And that changes the rules of the game.
The evolving Syria story has a similar Strangelovian logic, although it isn’t yet a nuclear confrontation. The recent bombing of an old Syrian airbase that the Turks were interested in using for their purposes speaks louder than words.
The progression is roughly:
Israel bombs Syria → because of Turkey. Turkey is a NATO member → Washington calls it an unnecessary escalation → everyone now has to establish mechanisms to prevent the parties from fighting one another.
And now Trump talks of the US withdrawing from NATO, so is there some nexus, and does this somehow all make sense?
That’s where the Dr Strangelove analogy becomes useful. The danger isn’t merely the individual bomb or the fate of some airstrip. It is the possibility that the machinery designed to manage conflict begins producing new conflict.
“Bombs Away is not the same as Ride ’em Cowboy”
“Ride ’em, cowboy” evokes swagger, bravado, and the romanticized mythology of American military power. “Bombs away,” by contrast, is the moment when the machinery actually goes into motion. Once the bombs are away, political rhetoric has to catch up with physical reality and the Greater Israel scheme, which is backed by the US.
In Kubrick’s film, the terrifying thing is not that one madman wants nuclear war. It is that an entire system can make catastrophe appear rational.
Israel isn’t simply attacking another Syrian target. It is upsetting the applecart. If my reading of the event is correct, it is sending a message to Ankara: your military presence in Syria has limits, and Israel reserves the right to enforce them.
But Turkey isn’t some militia that has to absorb a warning strike without retaliating. It is a major regional power and a NATO member. Suddenly what looked like another Israeli strike becomes a problem involving the architecture of the Western alliance itself.
And that is where the Strangelove reference gets darker. The absurdity comes from the possibility that everyone can insist they are acting defensively while simultaneously creating the conditions for escalation.
We are like a narrator watching the increasingly bizarre logic of Middle Eastern geopolitics and asking, somewhat sarcastically:
At what point did bombing become the preferred language of diplomacy?
What makes this more consequential is the Israel–Turkey dimension. Turkey isn’t Iran, Hezbollah, or a non-state militia. It is a NATO member with a substantial military and a government that has increasingly divergent interests from Israel in Syria. ACLED’s assessment is particularly blunt: the timing—coming shortly after a Turkish delegation visited the airfield—strongly suggests that the strike was intended as a warning to Ankara.
And Washington appears to recognize the danger. The U.S. has characterized the strike as an “unnecessary escalation” and is trying to establish a mechanism for Israel, Turkey, and Syria to avoid direct confrontation.
There is a potentially significant structural shift underway with the potential to change the dynamics of the region, especially between Turkey, a NATO member, and others in the Western camp. I predict that the “the world is about to change” and not for the better.
It should come as no surprise that Israel is increasingly treating Turkish military influence in Syria as a security problem.
- Turkey is increasingly acting as an independent regional power rather than simply following the preferences of Washington or NATO.
- Syria is becoming a place where Israeli, Turkish, and, potentially, American interests directly intersect.
- And critically, two U.S.-aligned states—Israel and Turkey—are now getting close to a situation in which their militaries could find themselves in a direct firefight.
That last point is the one I’d watch.
There is also an intriguing diplomatic wrinkle: Reuters reports that Netanyahu says Israel warned Turkey about the issue, while Syrian officials say they had assured Israel that no Turkish deployment was planned. In other words, there is already a dispute over whether Israel struck an actual Turkish deployment or struck to prevent one from happening.
If Turkey accepts the Israeli action as a one-off warning, this may eventually be contained. If Ankara decides Israel has effectively established a right to veto Turkish military activity inside Syria, the calculation changes dramatically.
Given my broader interest in the Caucasus and regional geopolitics, I will be watching Turkey’s next concrete move, rather than the rhetoric. That will tell us considerably more about whether this is just another dangerous individual incident—or the beginning of a much larger realignment.
My broader interest in the region, my predictions, and what comes next have been an ongoing discussion for years. Even in recent podcasts. It is considerably wider than simply “Israel just hit a Turkish-linked facility.”
Greater Israel Project
This is really an act of desperation on the part of the Israeli regime, with likely backing or agreement from the Trump administration, who is trying to balance between Turkey and other NATO members at the same time.
It goes deeper, keeping up the Zionist rhetoric, and counteracting the slogan “From the Jordan to the Sea, Palestine must be free”, As written in recent articles, the region, Middle East and the South Caucasus are a strategic junction, not as three isolated small states. The recurring triangle—or sometimes quadrilateral—has been:
All this has repeatedly returned to the idea of a “Great Game” being reconstructed in modern form, with transport corridors, military access, energy infrastructure, and political alignment replacing some of the older imperial mechanisms.
That isn’t an unreasonable analytical framework. In fact, current developments are making the Middle East–Caucasus connection harder to ignore. Analysts are explicitly describing the 2026 Iran conflict as increasing the strategic importance of the South Caucasus.
Where my predictions have been heading
The existing regional order is becoming unstable because too many external powers are simultaneously trying to reshape the same geographical space. It is worth noting the real possibility that the apparent normalization of one conflict can actually open the door to another strategic contest.
That’s why today’s Syrian development catches my attention.
The Israeli strike isn’t important merely because Israel bombed Syria. Israel now says it was trying to prevent a Turkish military presence at Abu al-Duhur. Turkey denies that allegation and says Israel is destabilizing Syria. The United States is now reportedly trying to establish mechanisms to prevent an Israeli-Turkish military confrontation.
That is a qualitatively different situation from Israel simply attacking Iranian proxies. It is clear that erstwhile that alliances are becoming less tidy. And the collective West must not lose sight that Turkey is simultaneously a NATO member and a strategic American partner while wearing many other hats.
That’s a much more complicated world than the post-Cold War model of “America and its allies versus Russia and its allies.”
And frankly, that is the part of my broader thesis I think is most worth pursuing seriously, rather than assuming every new development is evidence of a predetermined master plan.
The really interesting question now isn’t “Who is going to win?” It’s whether the Middle East, the Black Sea, and the South Caucasus are beginning to merge into one interconnected strategic theatre.
There are already substantial indications that policymakers and analysts are beginning to see them that way.
Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
