What’s happened: The IDF conducted an air strike early Tuesday morning on a Syrian airbase in the Idlib Governate in northwestern Syria. According to Israeli reports, two Israeli fighter jets carried out the strike, and according to Syrian reporting, eight targets were hit.
- The air strike came just hours after the visit to the airbase by a Turkish delegation, and it was widely interpreted as an Israeli warning against deepening Turkish involvement in post-Assad Syria.
- Official reaction from the US came not from Washington but rather from US Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, who also serves an American special envoy to Syria and Iraq. He called the Israeli air strike an “unnecessary escalation” and said that the US was for working to establish a “deconfliction mechanism” for Israel, Syria, and Turkey.
- US Ambassador to Israel also spoke of the need for an American-led deconfliction mechanism, saying that “all the various parties—Syria, Turkey, Israel—will be able to have a mechanism through which they can communicate and make sure that any intentions are clearly understood. Nobody wants to see an escalation of intention, an intention of violence.”
- Prime Minister Netanyahu released a pre-recorded video in which he addressed the operation in Syria on Tuesday explaining the rationale behind the IDF operation. “We will not tolerate Turkish military entrenchment that descends southward,” he said in the video. “It threatens us. That is something that we conveyed generally speaking. Now, we have seen that Turkey intends on establishing itself at an airport that is south of its [border] line, near Aleppo, and we sent a clear message. How might I define that message? Don’t. The message was delivered, but apparently it wasn’t heard, so we made sure they might understand it better.”
- Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani condemned the Israeli air strike as “unjustified,” while also making a point of emphasising that Syria has no plan to let Turkish forces be stationed at the targeted airbase. Syrian officials were quoted in media reports as claiming that the Turkish visit to the airbase was intended to review ongoing rehabilitation work.
- Turkish officials strongly condemned the Israeli air strike while refraining from addressing the central Israeli claim of a possible Turkish military presence at the site. Ankara’s communications directorate instead accused Israel’s leadership of making “untenable allegations … intended to legitimise Israel’s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and of pursuing “expansionist and destabilising policies in the region ahead of the elections in Israel.”
Context: Over the past decade and a half the IDF has carried out extensive operations in southwestern Syria, in areas close to the border with Israel, this particular operation was unusual in that it took place far from Israel and close to Syria’s border with Turkey.
- This latest strike has been justified by Israeli officials as a violations of the agreed “status quo” in place in Syria. The status quo, as Israeli officials see it, essentially respects full Syrian sovereignty over Syrian territory despite the presence of both Israeli and Turkish forces in small parts of Syrian territory. As understood by the Israeli side, it commits the Syrians not to allow any further encroachment into Syrian territory of another regional power — including Iran and Turkey. Importantly, this would mean that Israel has not demanded that Turkey be ejected from the Syrian territory it currently holds, but that Israel strongly objects to any expansion of the Turkish presence. This would be doubly true if that presence involved air or naval forces.
- Turkish forces currently occupy about 5,000 square kilometres of Syrian territory in northern Syria. This is roughly half the territory that Turkey occupied during the peak of the Syrian Civil War, when it held at times as much as 10,000 square kilometres. In comparison, Israeli forces moved into southwestern Syria following the collapse of the Assad regime and presently control roughly 350 square kilometres of Syrian territory.
- According to reports in Israeli media, a telephone call was held between the Syrian Foreign Minister and the Director of the Mossad earlier this week to discuss the status quo arrangement in general and Israel’s concerns about a possible Turkish military buildup in Syria. This is the highest level direct contact between Syrian and Israeli officials that has ever been publicly acknowledged. In the call, which took place only days before the air strike on the Syrian airbase, the Mossad Director told the Syrian Foreign Minister that Israel would not tolerate any deepening of the Turkish military presence in Syria.
- Israel and Turkey conducted talks in Azerbaijan in 2025 intended to come to some discreet understandings about the two countries’ priorities in post-Assad Syria. Whatever agreements may have been reached there were not publicly disclosed.
- Israeli officials have long been concerned about Erdoğan’s aggressive posture, both domestically and across the region. As his rule becomes more authoritarian at home, Erdoğan has increasingly drawn on the legacy of the Ottoman Empire to advance Turkey’s regional ambitions. These concerns are compounded by Turkey’s continued financial support for Hamas and its provision of safe haven to Hamas terrorists. Erdoğan also routinely employs anti-Israel rhetoric in political campaigning and official communications. In June, for example, he accused Netanyahu of “following the path of Hitler”, while Turkey’s interior minister called for the “liberation of Jerusalem”.
- The proposed “deconfliction mechanism” was the same term used to describe the coordination between Israel and Russia under the Assad regime, and was primarily aimed to ensure there would be no direct entanglements between the two militaries, particularly their air forces.
- Under the Assad regime, Syrian airbases were occasionally leased to the Iranians. The fall of the regime removed a potent threat from Israel’s immediate neighbourhood. But Israeli planners are concerned that the new regime could be angling to replace the Iranian presence in Syrian bases with a Turkish one. Israel is also concerned about heightened Turkish naval activity in the Syrian arena. Turkey’s NATO membership and its close relations with the United States — and the Trump administration in particular — make any threat assessment by Israel particularly sensitive.
Looking ahead: From Israel’s perspective, the limited air strike should establish a clear red line that ends the affair without any direct confrontation with either Syria or Turkey — and without any unnecessary provocation of the United States.
- The moves in Syria by the new regime and two close US allies with vastly differing interests all occur on a backdrop of a stalemate in the US-Iran conflict and potential progress on the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan for Gaza, which ended the war there in October 2025.
- President Trump announced an economic “D-Day” that would go into effect, severely limiting Iran’s ability to trade internationally, while multiple reports indicate that traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been partially restored on the Omani side of the Strait.
- If Trump’s new sanctions can effectively cripple the Iranian economy, and if Iran has lost the ability to completely shut off commercial traffic through the Strait, that would indicate that the US can wait for now before threatening any new military action, at least until after elections take place in both the US and Israel in the next ten weeks.


