Israel\u2019s strikes on the Abu al-Duhur military airfield in the Idlib province in northwestern Syria on Tuesday were necessary to avoid a direct clash with Turkish forces on its borders, two experts on the region told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak, an expert on Turkey at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, told the Post that Jerusalem was \u201cnot interested\u201d in clashing with Turkey, and was therefore \u201cdoing everything possible to keep Turkey away from its borders.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ankara rejected allegations made by Jerusalem that the deployment of Turkish forces violated the \u201cstatus quo\u201d and posed a threat to Israel\u2019s security. Turkey\u2019s Presidency said Netanyahu\u2019s remarks stemmed from his intention to pursue \u201cexpansionist and destabilizing policies\u201d ahead of elections, adding that lasting regional peace could only be achieved if Jerusalem abandoned its \u201caggressive and coercive policies.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe untenable allegations put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister\u2019s Office are intended to legitimize Israel\u2019s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria\u2019s sovereignty and territorial integrity,\u201d it said on X\/Twitter.<\/p>\n
\u201cTurkey will resolutely continue to cooperate with the Syrian Government on a legitimate basis for the establishment of \u200cpeace, stability, \u2060and prosperity in Syria, and will never allow the destabilization of Syria.\u201d<\/p>\n
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (credit: TUMAY BERKIN\/REUTERS AND MARC ISRAEL SELLEM\/THE JERUSALEM POST)<\/p>\n
Yanarocak said that \u201cthe geographical contiguity between Turkey and Syria\u201d makes it harder for Israel to avoid a direct clash with Turkey.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo long as Turkish forces remain in their current positions in the north and do not seek to gradually penetrate southward\u2026Israel can feel secure,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Turkish influence extends beyond military presence in Syria<\/p>\n
Jonathan Hessen, a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said Turkish influence was far more deeply embedded in Syria and that the threat from Syria, even if it is a \u201ccountry in creation,\u201d was not limited to Ankara\u2019s presence alone. Israel has faced numerous attacks from Islamist forces in Syria under the Assad regime, while many members of the new Syrian Transitional Government have yet to sever their ties with groups that have also expressed hostility toward the Jewish state.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we focus on the emergence of the new government in Damascus, which was essentially installed with Turkish backing in December [2024], we also need to take into account the developments that have taken place from a geostrategic perspective, including efforts by Turkish forces, or Turkey specifically, to establish a military presence beyond the security belt it had established over the course of the past several years to defend itself against potential threats emanating from Syria during the Assad regime,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Claiming that Damascus\u2019s Defense Ministry is controlled \u201cin many respects\u201d by Turkey, Hessen noted that it was strange for such a newly established regime to be \u201carmed to the teeth\u201d and to have built up its military so rapidly, particularly given the economic challenges in Syria that might have demanded another government\u2019s attention at the expense of the military.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is investing heavily in its military buildup, despite the fact that many people within its military are clearly still maintaining their jihadist pasts in both vocal form as well as indicating their unruliness in areas of friction with minorities and other aspects,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The National reported in June 2025 that Syria had recruited around 100,000 personnel into its new army, half of its planned 200,000-strong force, including 30,000 members of the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army.<\/p>\n
The new military also incorporated foreign fighters, including a 3,500-member brigade composed mostly of Uyghurs, many of whom belong to the al-Qaeda-linked Turkistan Islamic Party. The fighters were reportedly promised Syrian citizenship in exchange for their service.<\/p>\n
Israel signals limits on Turkish military expansion<\/p>\n
Hessen said that Israel\u2019s use of military force must be understood in the context that it is being utilized in a region marred by years of violence and where there are evident threats in addition to \u201cconcrete intelligence of malign intentions towards Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re also talking about Turkey\u2019s proactive and deliberate effort to establish a military presence in Syria, with a number of bases already established in northern Syria and efforts to expand that presence, particularly its aerial presence, into areas such as the T4 airbase,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cTurkey attempted to rehabilitate the base to its own advantage, which Israel, in a decisive signal as part of its messaging, essentially struck on March 21-22, 2025.\u201d<\/p>\n
Though Israel<\/a> had previously targeted the base to prevent Iranian and Assad-era forces from using it to transfer equipment to Hezbollah, Israel\u2019s March strike specifically targeted T4\u2019s runways after Turkey sought to convert the base into a Turkish drone base following the fall of Bashar al-Assad, as previously reported by the Post.<\/p>\n Despite the strikes and condemnation from Syrian and Turkish leadership, Hessen maintained that there was likely some degree of diplomacy behind-the-scenes and reporting on the attack \u201cmight be framed differently than what actually is happening on the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n US seeks to prevent Israel-Turkey escalation<\/p>\n US Ambassador to Turkey and the Trump<\/a> administration\u2019s special envoy to Syria<\/a> Tom Barrack told the Post that the Israeli attack was \u201cserious\u201d and could have resulted in a military escalation. However, Hessen said he \u201cwouldn\u2019t necessarily say\u201d that Washington was seriously at odds with Jerusalem over the incident.<\/p>\n Hessen argued that the United States understood Israel\u2019s \u201cnew realm of more assertive doctrine,\u201d but that there were also competing interests within Washington, with some officials more concerned about the fiscal benefits of a stable Syria than Israel\u2019s security interests.<\/p>\n