The Israeli aggression against Syria on July 16 was not the first of its kind, but it was the most violent in both scope and substance. The airstrikes extended from Sweida and Daraa to Damascus, directly targeting the ministries of Defence and Interior, and nearly destroying the Syrian General Staff Headquarters in the capital.
The damage from these strikes was not limited to infrastructure. The attacks resulted in casualties among Syrian security forces, both leadership and personnel.
Yet, it was the televised speech of Syrian President Ahmad Al-Shara, aired in the early hours of July 17, that marked a significant turn in the Israeli-Syrian confrontation. His message signalled the end of this round — or perhaps the beginning of a new phase in a conflict whose future remains wide open.
In his address, Al-Shara revealed that the Syrian leadership had faced two choices:
Either enter into “an open war with the Zionist entity at the expense of the Druze population and Syria’s overall stability,” or
“Allow Druze elders and local leaders to come to reason and prioritise national interests.”
He emphasised that his government had prioritised “the interests of the Syrian people over chaos and destruction,” and described the decision taken as “a precise choice to protect the unity of the nation and the safety of its citizens based on the supreme national interest.”
The state consequently tasked local factions and Druze religious leaders with maintaining security in Sweida.
Al-Shara explained the decision as a move to “avoid dragging the country into a new wide-scale war that could derail Syria from its greater goals of post-war recovery and push it deeper into the political and economic hardships left behind by the previous regime.”
But beyond calculations of gain and loss — and acknowledging that this is merely the beginning of a new round in the conflict — what occurred in the past two days will cast a heavy shadow, not only over Syria but across the broader region, especially Turkey.
After 14 years of war in Syria, Turkey has faced enormous geopolitical and security threats, prompting it to deploy military forces to northern Syria beginning in 2016 to prevent the country’s fragmentation and to block the PKK from creating a separatist corridor stretching from Qamishli in the east to the Mediterranean coast in the west.
The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, marked a strategic victory, not only for the revolutionary forces but also for Turkey, which had been preparing to reap the security and strategic dividends of the shift.
However, Israel’s continued aggression signals fresh dangers for the Syrian state, with inevitable consequences that extend beyond Syrian borders and into Turkish territory.
This reality raises critical questions:
How will Ankara deal with these new, serious threats?
Will it remain on the sidelines, resorting only to media condemnations and diplomatic manoeuvres?
And what concrete measures might Turkey adopt to confront the intensifying Israeli encroachment in Syria and the region?
Turkey’s Patience Runs Thin
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan delivered a message laced with unmistakable anger in response to the Israeli attack on Syria, declaring:
“Our patience has run out. That is all we will say to Israel. It does not want peace.”
But what does Turkey’s loss of patience mean?
Since the launch of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s brutal assaults on Gaza — and to a lesser extent, on Lebanon, Syria (under Assad), and more recently Iran — Turkey has assessed that this war could one day reach its borders.
Statements from President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli have both pointed to the possibility of a direct Turkish-Israeli confrontation.
This looming threat was one of the main motivations behind Bahçeli’s late 2024 initiative to eliminate terrorism within Turkey. That initiative culminated in the PKK announcing its dissolution and starting to hand over its weapons — a move aimed at unifying Turkey’s internal front.
These discussions have extended into the columns of nationalist and conservative Turkish writers and journalists and can be tracked across social media platforms through content produced by Turkish influencers and activists.
There is now a growing conviction inside Turkey that a military clash with Israel could break out at any moment — even as the country continues to work behind the scenes to delay or prevent it.
Fidan warned in public remarks that Israel’s policies “will throw everyone into the fire — including Israel itself.”
He called on the international community — particularly the United States, the European Union, and regional countries — to respond with seriousness and to restrain Israel. Otherwise, he said, “dire consequences will inevitably unfold across the region.”
The terminology used in this speech — “our patience has run out,” “everyone will be thrown into the fire,” “dire consequences” — is no accident. These are deliberately chosen words: a warning from Ankara to the global community, especially Washington, urging them to act before the situation spirals out of control due to Israel’s unchecked escalation — an escalation that would not be possible without unlimited support from the United States and European capitals.
Turkey’s Strategic Alternatives
It is not an exaggeration to say that Turkey finds itself in a highly delicate strategic position. Ankara had hoped to keep the Syrian front cool for several years and avoid friction with the United States until the end of President Donald Trump’s term, to resolve key disputes such as:
- Lifting U.S. sanctions on Turkey
- Readmitting Turkey into the F-35 fighter jet program
- Closing the PKK file for good
- Expanding economic cooperation and trade volume
However, Netanyahu’s expansionist and aggressive policies have imposed serious challenges on Turkish decision-makers.
The collapse of the Syrian state poses a direct threat to Turkish national security, one whose echoes would even reach European capitals, just as they did throughout Syria’s 14-year war.
Turkey now needs — in this analyst’s view — to take several strategic steps, chief among them:
1. Coordinated Regional Alignment
Turkey must work toward building a unified front with regional countries. These nations hold global leverage — through energy resources, financial capital, and control over major maritime and trade routes — that can pressure the United States and Europe meaningfully.
Fidan alluded to this during his remarks:
“We are meeting with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Americans. We are conducting serious assessments. The parties must recognise the challenges Netanyahu’s actions pose to the region.”
Following Israel’s attack on Iran, Turkey quickly convened an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul. Syria now needs a similar demonstration of solidarity — one that doubles as a strategic statement supporting Turkish national security.
2. Closing the SDF File
Turkey must urgently resolve the issue of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). This separatist militia’s presence along the Turkish-Syrian border remains a threat — especially given its documented ties to Tel Aviv, which is actively pursuing a safe corridor from southern to northeastern Syria to arm and fund the SDF.
These groups have backed secessionist movements inside Syria — as seen in the recent Sweida unrest and the coastal clashes in March 2025 — while stalling until a new U.S. administration (potentially Democratic) takes office.
Democratic U.S. administrations historically maintain colder relations with Ankara. Turkey is well aware of this, which is why Fidan issued a stern warning:
“There are also rumours that YPG units are involved in certain activities. Our message to them is to act cautiously, avoid exploiting instability, and not further complicate Syria’s already fragile situation. Opportunism carries serious risks.”
Turkey may still hope that these “Syrian” militias voluntarily disband and disarm, contributing to a peaceful resolution with the PKK. But it is equally prepared to dismantle them through unilateral action or in coordination with the Syrian government.
3. Mutual Defense Pact with Syria
A mutual defense agreement between Turkey and the new Syrian state is essential. Such a pact would legitimise Turkish military presence in Syria, grant Ankara the right to train and rebuild the Syrian army, and ensure regional stability.
Although this agreement has been discussed since the fall of Assad, regional sensitivities and political considerations have prevented its implementation.
Yet the recent Israeli aggression has made clear the urgent need for such a pact — not only to protect Syria, but also to shield Turkey’s national security.
Conclusion
Israel’s latest aggression in Syria serves as an early warning for Turkey — a reminder to take proactive measures in anticipation of a possible confrontation with Israel that could erupt at any moment.
Who is the author/analyst if this article? If this article is not by Sunna then it should be stated.
As an Islamic website proper acknowledgement must be made to author and publisher.
This is an original content by Sunna Files Web, thanks.