Netanyahu's Answer to Election Trouble: Open a Front With Turkey and Syria -
The weekend saw an exchange of accusations between the U.S. and Israel over Israel's airstrike in northern Syria earlier in the week. Israel stands by its claim that the strike against the Abu al-Duhur airbase in Syria was meant to foil the transfer of war materiel and the placement of Turkish military advisers at the base before the attack. U.S. diplomat Tom Barrack, President Donald Trump's envoy to Syria and the American ambassador in Turkey, criticized the attack and hinted that it was carried out for political purposes. Trump himself has not yet spoken about this issue.
Barrack noted in an interview that one theory is that Israel was trying to "bait" Turkey. He said that the strike may have been a "very aggressive but well-received pre-election concept." Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a statement on Saturday, according to which the IDF has recommended carrying out such an attack at that airbase several times, given clear intelligence reports indicating Turkey's intention of taking action that would endanger Israel's security. Katz said that Barrack's statements were full of inaccuracies.
The IDF has confirmed that intelligence has been accumulating recently regarding Turkey's plans for establishing a military presence at the base. Turkey has had a military presence in northern Syria since at least 2017 and was very involved in supporting the main rebel organization, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, in its takeover of most of Syria's territory and the toppling of the Assad regime in Damascus at the end of 2024. However, relations between the two sides are complex and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa prefers getting aid from Turkey without also getting direct dictates from it.
The northern airbase in Syria was awaiting a deployment of aerial defense systems, as well as drones and Turkish military advisers who would help the Syrian army in training and in operating these systems. Israel warned the governments of Turkey and Syria directly on several occasions before it decided to embark on an aerial assault. Then, too, it took care to attack before any Turkish presence materialized there (in other words, without risking hitting Turkish military personnel).
But that is only half of the story. First, as hinted by Barrack, it is difficult to avoid suspicions that on the Israeli side other considerations are at play. Beyond the principle noted by Katz – the main lesson of October 7, as he describes it, is to act early and take military action to thwart dangers in advance – Israel's government is involved in stoking the flames on many fronts, simultaneously.
To Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (where extremist right-wing settlers are operating with government backing) one can now add the Syrian front. Each week, on several occasions, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz threaten numerous enemies.
The objective isn't just to deter them, but also to create the sense of a permanent state of emergency. With the government having nothing to sell, failing in its basic responsibilities like keeping the airport operating without interruption and with coalition parties lagging behind in public opinion polls, there is always the security-related pretext to fall back on.
The public spat between Katz and Barrack is a relatively rare event in the recent period, in which American-Israeli disagreements have been surfacing but generally more quietly. In the Gaza Strip, for now, the Americans are making do with reprimands and complaints heard behind closed doors. Last week, there was a very tense meeting between Netanyahu and the troika of Trump's representatives and the Board of Peace – Jared Kushner, Nikolay Mladenov and Tony Blair – but the administration has so far refrained from publishing the content of their exchanges.
After returning from his last visit to Washington, at the end of July, Netanyahu adopted a more restrained policy in the Gaza Strip, at Trump's request. But a week later, he again changed his mind and loosened the restraints on IDF attacks. The Americans are mainly interested in reducing what is known as "collateral damage," the killing of uninvolved civilians during those attacks. For now, there are no restrictions on the continuation of assassinations targeting Hamas terrorists who took part in the October 7 massacre, or those currently preparing new terror attacks.
The administration may be showing some understanding for the constraints faced by Netanyahu on his domestic political front and for his concerns about being perceived as weak by his voters. Meanwhile, American reservations about Israel's actions are focused on Syria (as articulated by Barrack, not Trump) and on the West Bank (with the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, spearheading the criticism on that issue).
Then there is U.S. policy toward Iran, which has indirect ramifications for the situation in Lebanon. Trump has almost completely abandoned his threats of resuming the military assault against Iran and is now focusing on tightening the economic screws. It appears that he is succeeding in this to some extent, although it is difficult to see how this will be translated into Iran's capitulation or its demonstration of greater flexibility.
Senior Iranian officials, headed by President Masoud Pezeshkian, are expressing growing concern at the immense harm caused to Iran's economy by the American blockade and the economic sanctions imposed on the country. In tandem, U.S. administration officials say that the United States has recently succeeded in augmenting the amount of oil being exported from the Persian Gulf, despite Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Up to now, with their backs to the wall, the Iranians have refused to surrender. Their response may again come in the form of enhanced military attacks on neighboring countries, chiefly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Almost unmentioned in this context is Israel, which is observing events from the sidelines. When it comes to Trump, it is impossible to dismiss any scenario, including a return to war. But concrete preparations for an American military attack, which were carried out just a few weeks ago, appear at the moment to be a distant issue, perhaps even a forgotten one.