Understanding the Middle East: a New Threat in Syria

For years, Israel’s biggest problem in Syria was actually Iran. Tehran used Syrian territory to move weapons to Hezbollah and build a military presence near Israel. Israel responded with hundreds of airstrikes to keep that network from taking hold.

Then Bashar al-Assad fell in 2024, and Iran’s influence in Syria largely collapsed.

Now Turkey is stepping into the picture.

Ankara has become one of the biggest supporters of Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Turkey is helping rebuild Syria’s military and deepen its political and economic ties with Damascus.

For Turkey, that is an opportunity to become a major power in post-Assad Syria.

For Israel, it raises a very different question: What happens if Turkey starts building a military presence just across Israel’s northern frontier?

Why Israel is worried

Turkey is not Iran. It is a NATO member and is not threatening Israel with war.

But Israel does not want another powerful country building military infrastructure in Syria, particularly if that infrastructure could make it harder for Israel to monitor or strike threats there.

That concern came into focus on August 18, when Israel carried out eight strikes on the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria.

The strikes came shortly after a Turkish delegation visited the site. Israel said it believed Turkey was preparing to deploy military equipment there, including radar and air-defense systems.

Syria and Turkey rejected that claim. Syria said the base was being restored for Syrian use and that there were no plans for a permanent Turkish military presence.

So there is an important caveat: the alleged Turkish deployment has not been independently confirmed.

Israel nevertheless decided it was safer to strike before the situation developed further.

Washington has a problem

The attack has also exposed a growing disagreement between Israel and the Trump administration.

Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s special envoy for Syria, called the strike an “unnecessary escalation.” He said it brought the region dangerously close to a direct confrontation between Israel and Turkey.

Barrack went further, suggesting Israel may have been trying to “bait” Turkey into a confrontation and raising the possibility that Israeli politics played a role.

Israel strongly rejected that accusation. Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel had reliable intelligence, had warned Syria and had informed Washington about its concerns.

The competing accounts remain disputed.

But the larger disagreement is clear.

Washington wants Turkey, Israel and Syria to communicate closely enough to prevent their militaries from accidentally stumbling into a much bigger conflict. The U.S. is working on a system for exactly that.

Israel, meanwhile, does not want “let’s talk first” to become “let’s wait until the threat is already here.”

The bigger picture

This is why the Abu al-Duhur strike matters beyond one Syrian airbase.

Iran spent years building influence in Syria. Now that influence is largely gone, Turkey is becoming one of the most important foreign powers shaping what comes next.

That does not make Turkey “the new Iran.” The two countries have very different interests, and Turkey remains a U.S. ally through NATO.

But Israel has spent years learning one lesson about Syria: once a foreign military presence becomes established, removing it is much harder.

So Israel appears determined to act early.

Iran may be out of Syria, but Israel’s Syria problem is not over. The question now is whether Turkey will become the next power Israel feels it has to keep at arm’s length.