Israel bombed Syria to send Turkey a message ahead of the election. It may end up backfiring

 Israel says it struck to prevent Turkey from establishing a military foothold that could restrict its freedom of action. But the attack risks pushing Damascus closer to Ankara, while officials in Washington, Syria and Turkey suspect Israeli election politics played a role

August 20th, 13PM August 20th, 14PM

Israel took responsibility Wednesday for bombing the Abu al-Duhur military airfield in northern Syria, accusing Damascus of escalation by allowing Turkey to establish a military presence at the site.

Ankara rejected the claim, Damascus has so far avoided escalating its response, and Washington has accused Israel of deliberately raising tensions. Officials in all three capitals believe the unusual Israeli strike was linked, at least in part, to Israel's general election in two months.

Turkey first became involved in Syria in 2011, when Ankara sent aid to rebels fighting Bashar Assad's regime. Turkish forces officially entered the country in August 2016, and in 2020 Turkey significantly reinforced its presence as Assad's forces and their Russian allies prepared an offensive against rebels in Idlib, which borders Turkey.

After rebel forces led by Ahmad al-Sharaa, now Syria's president, overthrew the Assad regime, Turkey's influence in the country grew further. At the same time, Damascus sought to develop relations with other countries in an effort to avoid becoming wholly dependent on Ankara.

So why did Israel order the strike on Abu al-Duhur – and why now?

Israel has suggested that Turkey is seeking to establish air defense systems in Syria that could restrict the Israeli Air Force's freedom of action, particularly in operations against Iran.

The decision may also reflect recent Israeli security assessments of al-Sharaa's government, whose leader Israeli officials have repeatedly portrayed as a "jihadist in a suit."

Israeli military activity in Syria has intensified sharply over the past two weeks. According to Syrian sources, Israel has struck Syrian targets 27 times, carried out 36 ground operations and detained 11 Syrian citizens.

Nevertheless, Damascus has so far refrained from threatening a broader response. Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani urged Israel to reconsider its approach, saying its attacks harm "not only Syria" but also "the U.S. and its allies in the region."

The official who most forcefully condemned the strike was U.S. Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, who is also the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and is known to be close to Ankara.

U.S. President Donald Trump has an especially close relationship with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and recently promised to put Turkey back on track to purchase advanced American F-35 fighter jets.

Trump also has warm relations with al-Sharaa, whom he has met three times since beginning his current term. Washington views the Syrian president as an important player in efforts to stabilize both Syria and Lebanon.

Israel, by contrast, views al-Sharaa and his Turkish allies as a genuine threat. Israeli officials have recently adopted an increasingly confrontational tone toward Turkey, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government appearing to cast Ankara as its latest regional adversary.

Netanyahu has called Erdoğan an "antisemitic dictator" who "oppresses his own people," while Erdoğan routinely accuses Netanyahu of genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The question is whether strikes like the one on Abu al-Duhur can actually curb Turkish influence in Syria – or whether they will produce the opposite result by encouraging Damascus to draw even closer to Ankara.

Damascus and Ankara already have close ties, reinforced by their critical geographic proximity. But since coming to power, al-Sharaa has sought not only to rely on Erdoğan but also to build relationships with Arab leaders, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Western leaders including Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron.

If Israel were genuinely interested in changing Syria's trajectory, it would pursue serious negotiations with the country's new government rather than reluctantly engaging in talks under American pressure. It could also use its relationships with other Arab states active in Syria to help ensure the country does not become wholly dependent on Turkey.

Instead, the Netanyahu government has chosen the path it knows best: military force.

Even if Turkey was seeking to install sophisticated air defense systems at the Syrian airbase, the dispute could potentially have been addressed diplomatically. Channels to senior Syrian officials are open, and Damascus might have acted differently to avoid a confrontation – potentially with help from its new partners in Washington.

According to Reuters, Mossad chief Roman Gofman spoke with the Syrian foreign minister about Turkey's presence in Syria several days before the strike, though it remains unclear whether that conversation represents a meaningful and sustained channel of communication.

Ultimately, the Abu al-Duhur strike has complicated Israel's relationship with Washington, which has adopted a markedly different approach toward Syria, while doing little to generate goodwill in Damascus.

Anyone who believes the attack strengthened Israeli deterrence should consider the statements coming from Washington, Damascus and Ankara in recent days. In all three capitals, officials believe Israel's security considerations have become entangled with political calculations surrounding the upcoming election.

Israel will still have to contend with Turkey's efforts to expand its influence in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. But stopping that expansion will require a more sophisticated strategy than military force alone – an iron fist may inflict damage, but it cannot by itself prevent Turkey from expanding its regional influence.