In recent days, tensions between Israel and Turkey have entered a new and unprecedented phase. The confrontation ranks among the most serious political disputes between the two sides since the Israeli regime recognized the Armenian genocide. Israeli airstrikes on the Abu al-Duhur military base in northwestern Syria, purportedly aimed at countering Turkey’s expanding military presence, have further intensified the dispute. Following remarks by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Netanyahu’s office issued a strongly worded statement accusing Ankara of seeking to destabilize the region, an allegation Turkey dismissed as lacking both historical basis and political seriousness. At the same time, Ankara has been pursuing legal proceedings to seek an Interpol Red Notice against Netanyahu.
Within this context, Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the US, has claimed that Tel Aviv has obtained intelligence indicating that Turkey intends to significantly expand its military presence in Syria. Israel Katz, Israel’s defense minister, has also accused Erdogan of taking Turkey into “dangerous adventures in Syria.” Taken together, these statements appear to be more than a bilateral dispute. They point to a contest over Syria’s future security architecture and the regional balance of power.
Syria: A Pretext for Expanding the Occupation
Israel is attempting to frame its actions in Syria as a response to Turkish militarization. But the reality on the ground tells a different story. The attack on the Abu al-Duhur base, the advance towards Tal al-Dariyat, incursions into areas of Quneitra, and earlier actions — including consolidating control over the occupied Golan Heights, expanding its presence into the Damascus countryside and taking control of the strategic Mount Hermon heights — form a series of measures whose nature as acts of occupation cannot be justified by security claims.
Highlighting Turkey’s role appears, in part of Tel Aviv’s calculations, to serve a purpose beyond a security dispute and could provide cover for expanding the scope of the occupation in Syria. Ultimately, this course seeks to reach the Iraqi border as part of the regime’s expansionist plans. The central issue, therefore, is not Turkey’s presence, but the continuation of the occupation by a regime that does not regard geographic borders as an obstacle to its expansionist project.
Netanyahu and the Need for a New Adversary
With Knesset elections approaching, Netanyahu’s position appears more difficult than ever. Failure to achieve many of the stated objectives of the wars, from Gaza to Iran, deepening economic and social crises, the erosion of the military’s capabilities, growing domestic pressure and increasing global revulsion at the regime’s conduct have placed his political position under serious strain.
Under such circumstances, when the ability to launch another war is itself in question, manufacturing a crisis does not necessarily mean entering into direct war. At times, simply creating a security atmosphere, emphasizing an external threat and reinforcing a sense of insecurity can serve as a means of strengthening extremist forces and creating conditions for Netanyahu’s political survival. The constant creation of enemies is part of this mechanism.
Trilateral Agreement: A Test for Regional Security
Israel’s actions against Syria and Turkey have now also put the trilateral security agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to a serious test. One of the agreement’s main pillars is mutual support in the face of military threats. It remains to be seen to what extent this commitment will translate into concrete action when one of its members faces a genuine threat.
If Saudi Arabia and Pakistan withhold effective support for Turkey, the credibility of the alliance and claims that new regional security mechanisms are taking shape could face serious questions. Security only has meaning when, at a moment of crisis, it goes beyond statements and agreements on paper.
At the same time, the West’s conduct has once again exposed the contradiction between its claims and its actions. European countries have largely limited themselves to condemning settlement construction and have failed to respond proportionately to Israel’s occupation and threats against Syria and Turkey. During his visit to Turkey, Trump also raised the issue of supporting Ankara and selling F-35s, but ultimately called for tensions not to escalate into military action against US interests in Syria and the region. This approach shows that preserving Washington’s interests takes precedence over regional security.
Recent developments have once again demonstrated that the West is not a savior of peace but, in many cases, part of the crisis itself. Under the “Israel First” framework, the security of other countries in the region is pushed to the sidelines. From this perspective, the intensification of the occupation in Syria and threats against Turkey once again underscore the validity of warnings from the resistance camp about the threatening nature of Israel to the security of the entire region.
Under these circumstances, the way out does not lie in relying on promises from extraregional powers. It lies in moving towards indigenous, independent security based on domestic capabilities. The region can break out of the cycle of crisis only when its countries stop tying their security to the will of external actors, redefine the role of foreign military forces, and adopt an independent and coordinated position against occupation and aggression. Iran’s experience in relying on indigenous defense capabilities and intelligently managing the region’s strategic assets shows that independent security is not a distant ideal, but an achievable path.
NOURNEWS