Turkey Prefers Safeguarding Its Alliance with Israel Over Ensuring Syria’s Stability
The recent visit by Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shibani, Defense Minister Marhaf Abu Qasra, and Intelligence Chief Hussein Salameh to Ankara resulted in the signing of a joint defense cooperation agreement between the two countries. The agreement aims to enhance the Syrian army’s capabilities, restructure its institutions, and support comprehensive reform of the security sector in Syria.
Syria’s objective behind this signing is, of course, to draw closer to Turkey—a country that has supported opposition forces for 15 years and backed their attempts to topple former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Turkey, in turn, hopes to secure a stronger foothold in Syrian territory and steer the new leadership in Damascus toward policies that serve Turkish interests, particularly in the Kurdish file and the dismantling of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Damascus, however, hopes the agreement will ensure Turkey, now a pivotal regional power, will stand by its side in the face of ongoing Israeli provocations and aggressions, which have long violated Syrian sovereignty and obstructed military operations—especially in relation to the Sweida file. Israel’s objective in such interference is to pressure Damascus into normalization, a step not currently viable for Syria, which otherwise faces the threat of partition.
Yet the pressing question remains: Can Turkey truly protect the Syrian regime from Israeli plans and attacks? And is Ankara willing to sacrifice its strategic alignment with the United States and Israel?
Israel’s July 16 attack on Damascus—targeting the presidential palace, the general staff headquarters, and military patrols on their way to restore stability in Sweida—demonstrated Tel Aviv’s complete disregard for Turkey’s influence in Syria. It highlighted Israel’s arrogance and determination to impose its will in the region, while Ankara stood powerless to defend its foremost ally in Damascus, leaving it vulnerable to Israeli designs. This outcome contradicts Turkey’s own strategic interests and regional vision for Syria’s and the Middle East’s future.
According to informed sources, Turkish officials justified their lack of response by citing concerns over the reaction of their American ally and fears that the United States and Israel might exploit Turkey’s political and economic vulnerabilities to destabilize the state and topple its leadership. Despite Ankara’s fiery rhetoric against both Washington and Tel Aviv—particularly over the Gaza issue—Turkey appears unwilling to risk angering them or severing strategic ties, especially regarding the U.S.-Israeli agenda of redrawing the Middle East map and dismantling certain states, even though such plans run counter to Turkish interests.
The United States, especially during the Trump era, has often issued contradictory and misleading statements, claiming no desire to partition the region—particularly Syria. Washington even dispatched envoy Thomas Barrack to maneuver politically between Beirut, Damascus, and Tel Aviv, speaking of stability, peace, and transitional justice while publicly rejecting partition. Yet behind the scenes, it quietly supported Israeli designs by granting the Israeli military free rein to pursue such plans.
Meanwhile, Arab states remain passive observers, offering little beyond condemnation and denunciation. Their role is secondary and marginal, based on the illusion that participation in the Abraham Accords will shield them from regional threats and schemes. In reality, these agreements offer no protection; rather, they bind Arab states officially to advancing Israeli and Western interests, leaving their economies and geographies vulnerable to exploitation—a long-standing dream of Netanyahu and Trump.
