On the night of August 18, the Israeli Air Force carried out a targeted strike deep inside Syrian territory, at the Abu al-Duhur military airfield in Idlib Governorate—only about 60 kilometers from the Turkish border.
The successful strike destroyed runways, hangars, and logistical infrastructure intended to support a Turkish military presence that had begun establishing itself at the site. The purpose of the strike was to prevent the possible deployment of air-defense systems and unmanned aerial vehicles, thereby preventing the creation of facts on the ground that could restrict Israel’s freedom of aerial operations.
A Direct Message to Ankara—and an Indirect One to Washington
This operation was not merely another tactical event, but a vital strategic step intended to convey an unequivocal message: Israel will not allow Turkish expansion or the takeover of military assets in Syria.
The signal is directed first and foremost at Ankara, but it may also carry an indirect message to Washington. Israel is making clear that it will not tolerate the emergence of new threats along its borders and expects its allies to recognize that conflicting strategic interests do not simply stop at the border.
Just as Israel conveyed this message in Lebanon through strikes against Hezbollah targets in Beirut’s Dahiyeh immediately following the signing of the MOU between the United States and Iran—remember that?—it did the same in Syria this week.
Beyond preventing Turkey’s military deployment in the arena, Israel views Syrian airspace as a “strategic corridor” that provides the air superiority required to continue carrying out strikes against Iran, should the need arise. For this reason as well, it is both necessary and important to prevent any attempt to introduce advanced air-defense systems into Syria—certainly by actors hostile to Israel, such as Erdoğan’s Turkey.
Erdoğan’s Neo-Ottoman Ambitions as a Strategic Threat
President Erdoğan’s policy is driven by a clear neo-Ottoman imperial vision, which views Syria as a natural and central sphere of influence for expanding Ankara’s foothold in the Middle East.
Turkey is exploiting the geopolitical vacuum that has emerged in the region, the weakening of the Iranian-led Shiite axis, and the relatively favorable approach of the U.S. administration. This window of opportunity enables Turkey to advance its strategic plans, particularly while the regime in Damascus is currently controlled by its protégé, Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Jolani), who received the keys to power with Ankara’s blessing and direct support.
The strategic danger to Israel is dramatic. Turning Syria into a Turkish client state would not merely alter the regional balance of power; it could encircle Israel from the north with a powerful ideological and military front backed by a stable regime, a modern military, and international legitimacy. In the long term, such a threat could prove no less complex or dangerous than the Iranian threat.
Pushing Turkey Out of Syria—With Determination and Caution
Israel’s military action is justified and appropriate at this juncture. Just as Israel has acted since 2013 to push back against the military entrenchment of Iran and its proxies in Syria—a campaign that became known as the “Campaign Between the Wars”—it must now act against Turkey with determination, strength, and without compromise, while exercising the caution necessary to avoid being drawn into escalation.
As we have learned from the fronts in Lebanon and Gaza, preventing hostile forces from establishing themselves in advance is essential to preventing a significant future threat.
In a regional reality characterized by chaos and multiple hostile actors, Israel must adhere to two iron principles: maintaining continuous control over security buffer zones, such as the Golan Heights, and fully preserving its freedom of action to carry out proactive deep strikes designed to eliminate threats before they materialize.
Diplomatic Activism Toward the U.S. Administration
Alongside military activity on the ground, persistent diplomatic engagement with the United States is required.
The objective must be to make Washington understand that, from a long-term perspective, Turkey is no less dangerous than Iran, and to prevent Ankara from receiving economic and military incentives that would enable it to expand its influence.
Now is the time to exert influence and establish clear red lines before Turkey’s buildup spirals out of control. This applies both to preventing arms deals—such as the F-35—and to denying Turkey strategic economic leverage, including through projects such as IMEC and regional energy transit.
A National Strategy, Not Domestic Politics
Finally, those who attempt to attribute these moves to domestic political struggles are making a serious and damaging mistake.
An analysis of the situation and the nature of Israel’s actions in Syria shows that they are part of an existential regional strategy designed to safeguard Israel’s security future and have nothing whatsoever to do with the domestic political arena.
Even during an election period, Israel must make consequential choices and decisions to fortify its security. It is worth remembering—and reminding others—that our enemies do not wait, nor do they distinguish between one political camp and another in Israel.
Israel’s security belongs to us all.
