A recent Turkish media report outlining ambitious plans for Ankara to establish military bases for its land, naval and air forces across Syria has ignited fresh concerns in Israel regarding Turkey’s long-term strategic intentions and the potential implications for Israeli operational freedom and regional stability.
The report, citing Turkish security sources and published by the Turkish OdaTV news portal on May 25, suggests intentions by Turkey to establish a significant and permanent expansion of Turkish military presence in its southern neighbor, ostensibly to battle ISIS.
“Security sources, reiterating that Turkey will assist in setting up the security and military organizations of the new administration in Syria, pointed out that the Turkish Armed Forces will establish an air, land and naval base in Syria for the fight against ISIS.
They added that the five-party mechanism—comprising Turkey and regional countries—formed for the fight against ISIS meets from time to time, and that every possible contribution will be made for ensuring Syria’s security and stability,” the report stated.
Dr. Hay Eytan Cohen Yanarocak, an expert on Turkey and a researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, told JNS that OdaTV is a well-known outlet in Turkey, sometimes utilized for “leaks from above.”
Speaking on Monday, Yanarocak stated that the report indicated that “Turkey will soon establish military bases for the army, navy, and air force as well.. it does not say south Syria, it does not say north Syria, it says Syria.”
He characterized this as “a completely new” development. Yanarocak added that talks held between Israeli and Turkish officials in Azerbaijan, designed to establish deconfliction arrangements, reached no understandings beyond the establishment of a communications line. “My impression is… no understandings were reached regarding who is going to operate where,” said Yanarocak.
He expressed concern that Turkey might be attempting to create a new reality on the ground. “From what I understand, the Turks now want to create a ‘fait accompli’ here. And apparently, they want to gauge the Israeli reaction,” he added.
This move, Yanarocak suggested, potentially negates recent optimism about the deconfliction mechanism between Israel and Turkey. While acknowledging that a communication channel now exists “to convey messages officially,” Yanarocak cautioned that Turkey is still “in their own agenda, and we [Israel] are in ours. And apart from a telephone line that allows us to talk to each other, nothing significant has been achieved.”
Yanarocak maintained some cautious optimism that so long as there is no significant official friction between the two militaries, there would be space to communicate with Turkey, but he also warned that this “should not lead us to be naive”.
Regarding Turkey’s justification of combating ISIS for its presence in Syria, Yanarocak dismissed it as “a fig leaf. Everything that Turkey does, it will say it’s to combat ISIS to gain legitimacy and silence critics. They want to control all of Syria.”
He pointed to the current geopolitical climate as favorable for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, noting that U.S. President Donald Trump is backing Erdoğan and lifting sanctions from the new Turkish-backed Syrian regime in Damascus.
“Additionally, let’s look at the Gazan front,” he said. “We have diplomatic friction for Israel here. All the European countries are coming out against us. As such, Erdogan is riding this wave, saying, ‘I want to build Syria.’ So, he is exploiting the narrative that Israel is supposedly fighting a destructive war while painting a picture of Turkey as building Syria. He is currently using the Europeans’ anger over Gaza.”
Yanarocak added that because European countries also wish to see Syrian refugees in European states repatriated, which they believe requires a rebuilt and stable Syria, their interests align with Turkey’s narrative of reconstruction, potentially muting European criticism of Turkish actions.
Last week, international media reports said Israel and Turkey had established a permanent communication line to avoid friction in Syria, with the assistance of Azeri mediators in Baku, following negotiations held since April.
Professor Eyal Zisser, vice rector of Tel Aviv University and the university’s chair of contemporary Middle East history, suggested that the Turkish plans might not fundamentally contradict existing, albeit quiet, understandings with Israel.
Speaking to JNS on Monday, Zisser stated, “I don’t think there is really a contradiction here, because the understandings speak of a certain division of Syria where Israel maintains absolute freedom south of Damascus, and the Turks do not reach there.”
For other parts of Syria, Zisser said, “similar to [the arrangement] with the Russians, a hot channel was likely established with the Turks that regulates flights, preventing collisions.”
He also doubted that the Syrian regime under its new leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, would act against Israeli interests. “After everything that has happened and been said, I don’t think Sharaa will go against Israel. That would be contrary to what he promised the Americans and contrary to his interests in maintaining good relations with Israel,” he said.
Zisser added, “My view is that there are understandings and I assume both sides will adhere to them.”