The expert consensus was that if any power was to challenge the collective self-defense of NATO, it would be Russia. The fear has been for some years that President Vladimir Putin might launch an attack on a smaller NATO member, perhaps in eastern Europe or the Baltic, to test if the world’s most powerful military alliance would hold together.

But what if it is not Russia but Israel that is the first to challenge NATO’s integrity and collective will for self-defense?  

After Israeli aircraft struck the Abu Al-Duhur air base in northern Syria last week, many wonder if clashes between the region’s two strongest militaries is possible. What does this mean for Syria?

Israel alleges that Turkiye was planning to deploy forces there, further south than where they were stationed during Syria’s civil war. The base also has a long runway, and is capable of acting as a major command and control center.  

The polling is making Netanyahu desperate.

Chris Doyle

This all appears to be part of a contest of power that will be played out over Syria. Turkiye and Israel are the two powers vying to determine Syria’s path forward. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan cherishes a Syria in his orbit to be Turkiye’s hinterland to the south. Part of this is to exercise control over the Kurdish issue, as a domestic Turkish security concern.  

The Turkish leadership still occupies areas in the north of Syria, but is the leading patron and ally of the new Syrian authorities. It is the most influential external actor at present in Syria. One key issue for Turkiye is stability in Syria that will encourage Syrian refugee return.

In contrast, the Israeli leadership craves a weak and divided Syria, but also a space where Israel has total freedom to operate. It wants Syrian skies to be open to Israeli aircraft, not least to take on Iran and even Iraq if necessary. Israel has made clear that it will act to ensure Turkiye has no military bases inside Syria. This is why Israeli forces attacked Syrian targets over 1,000 times in the seven months after the fall of the Assad regime. It has expanded its occupation in the south and interfered in Syrian Druze issues — anything to bleed power away from Damascus and a strong central state authority.

Most observers may have surmised that Israel was struggling to deal with Iranian influence in the Middle East. Even with the avid assistance of the US, Iran has held its ground against Israeli aggression, and its allies Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis have continued to present a challenge.

So why then pick a fight with another regional hegemon, Turkiye? After all Turkiye is a part of NATO, and any attack on it could lead to Ankara invoking Article Five, the alliance’s central collective defense commitment. It also protects Europe’s southern flank.

In part, Israel’s current stance may be explained by domestic electioneering. Male candidates for the leadership are all marketing their macho status, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ramping up tensions on every front he can find. The polling is making him desperate, as he appears to be facing his political exit.  

Being tough on Turkiye can be part of this. Naftali Bennett, the former prime minister, got in on the act first back in February, declaring that “Turkiye is the new Iran.”

Selling the “Turkiye is the new Iran” line to the outside world will be a major challenge. Iran since 1979 had disastrous relations with many countries, not least the US. Turkiye has its own advanced weapons industries and can access NATO arms markets. In July, President Donald Trump made clear that he would ignore Israeli objections and be willing to sell F-35s to Turkiye.

Syrians deserve peace and a chance to recover.

Chris Doyle

Turkiye has a wide range of relationships, while Erdogan and Trump get on well. To emphasize the lack of Turkish isolation, it is a core part of the triumvirate that constitutes the Makkah pact signed on Aug. 7.

Are these the mild preliminaries to a great regional clash between Israel and Turkiye that could shape the Middle East over the next decade? Turkiye is arguably the leading rival to Israel for regional hegemony. 

Friends should be advising both parties, especially Israel, to cool it. While there is unlikely to be a direct head-to-head war, even a cold war fought over Syria, or Lebanon, would extend the crises that have already brought too much suffering.

Syrians deserve peace and a chance to recover. That is not going to happen if Israel seeks to promote another regional war over its territory. Any step back from this must begin with a sustainable memorandum of understanding between Israel and Syria, and an Israeli withdrawal from Syrian territory.

  • Chris Doyle is director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London. X: @Doylech