Strategic Assessment of Turkish Expansion into Central Syria and Implications for Israel’s National Security
Executive Summary
This report examines the ongoing negotiations between Turkey and Syria’s transitional authorities regarding Ankara’s proposed establishment of a military airbase near Palmyra. The area, formerly occupied by Iranian-aligned militias, now risks becoming a launch platform for Turkish and potentially NATO-aligned air power. Should the United States approve Turkey’s reentry into the F-35 program, the threat landscape would be significantly altered. This development demands urgent evaluation within Israel’s defense and diplomatic frameworks, as it presents a potential long-term strategic threat from a NATO member state.
Context and Strategic Overview
In the wake of the collapse of the Assad regime and the subsequent transitional restructuring of Syria, several regional actors have sought to fill the resulting power vacuum. Turkey, leveraging its support of select opposition groups and military influence in northern Syria, is now pursuing a more expansive role in central Syria. According to credible defense and intelligence sources, Turkey is currently negotiating a deal that would allow it to establish an airbase near Palmyra in exchange for military and economic backing to Syria’s interim authorities.
This airbase is projected to host Turkish F-16 fighter aircraft and potentially other NATO-compatible systems. Furthermore, if the United States accedes to Turkish lobbying to rejoin the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program—a prospect currently under informal discussion—the strategic implications for Israel would be profound.
Implications for Israel’s Security Posture
The establishment of a Turkish military airbase near Palmyra would introduce a NATO-standard force presence within operational proximity to Israel’s northern and central regions. This includes several key population centers and military assets. While Turkey and Israel do not currently face open hostilities, the deteriorating bilateral relationship—exacerbated by Ankara’s political and material support for Hamas during the Iron Swords War—necessitates reassessment of Turkey’s posture.
The airbase location would allow Turkish surveillance and strike capabilities to cover significant parts of Israel’s airspace. This undermines the strategic depth that has traditionally underpinned Israel’s national defense doctrine. More critically, the introduction of fifth-generation fighter aircraft—should Turkey obtain the F-35—would reduce Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.
NATO Ambiguity and Turkish Policy Divergence
Turkey’s increasing divergence from NATO’s collective strategic orientation raises additional concerns. Since 2023, Turkish foreign policy has reflected consistent alignment with anti-Israel narratives, including formal support for Hamas, public accusations of genocide against Israel, and the implementation of a 100% trade embargo in May 2024. These positions reflect a growing strategic and ideological gap between Turkey and other NATO members, particularly in regard to Israel.
This evolving reality requires a critical reassessment of the assumption that NATO-aligned states inherently serve as stabilizing forces in the region. Turkey’s current trajectory suggests the opposite: it is actively seeking leverage in post-war Syria while pursuing policies that directly challenge Israel’s legitimacy and security.
Policy Considerations and Recommendations
The State of Israel and its allies should adopt a structured and measured approach to this emerging development. The following policy considerations are recommended:
- Diplomatic Engagement with the United States and NATO: Israel should urgently raise the strategic risks of Turkey’s potential F-35 acquisition in bilateral and multilateral forums. Clarity should be sought on NATO’s mechanisms for accountability when a member state materially supports terrorist organizations or acts contrary to alliance security objectives.
- Defense Readiness and Intelligence Monitoring: The IDF should increase surveillance of the central Syrian corridor and conduct war-gaming scenarios involving Turkish aerial operations from the Palmyra region. This includes preparation for potential disruption of Israeli air operations in the north.
- Alliance Strengthening with Regional Counterweights: Closer security and intelligence cooperation should be pursued with Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, and the UAE—states that share concern over Turkey’s expansionist regional policy.
- Public Policy and Strategic Communication: It is essential to ensure that Israel’s position is understood in Western capitals not through the lens of bilateral tensions alone but as a structural challenge to regional balance and counterterrorism efforts.
Turkey’s Support for Hamas During the Iron Swords War
Since the outbreak of the Iron Swords War in response to the October 7, 2023 massacre, Turkey has adopted an openly hostile posture toward Israel, undermining any pretense of neutrality and aligning itself politically and ideologically with Hamas—a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. This alignment is not limited to rhetoric but extends to concrete actions, including diplomatic support, state-level hospitality for terrorist operatives, and sustained economic and political warfare against the Israeli state.
One of the most salient examples of Turkey’s support occurred in the months following the massacre, when Ankara allowed senior Hamas leaders, including Ismail Haniyeh and the late Saleh al-Arouri, to operate openly within its territory. Intelligence reports confirm that Turkish soil served not only as a refuge but also as a planning ground for Hamas operations. A failed suicide bombing targeting Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv in August 2024 was traced back to a Hamas cell operating from within Turkey.
This conduct marks a clear breach of international counterterrorism norms. Hosting and enabling a terrorist organization—especially one that publicly claimed credit for the worst mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust—places Turkey in violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the suppression of terror financing and safe havens for armed groups.
In parallel, Turkey implemented severe economic sanctions against Israel, including a full suspension of bilateral trade valued at approximately $9.5 billion annually. The decision, announced in May 2024, was framed by President Erdoğan’s administration as a response to Israeli military operations in Gaza. However, this economic offensive was accompanied by statements defending Hamas as a legitimate resistance movement and accusing Israel of war crimes—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including Hamas’s own footage of atrocities committed on October 7.
Beyond bilateral impacts, this posture has strategic consequences for the NATO alliance. Turkey’s actions raise serious questions about NATO’s internal cohesion and its capacity to enforce foundational values among member states. At a time when Hamas, Hezbollah, and the IRGC form a coordinated axis against Israel, Turkey’s support for one of these entities creates internal contradictions within the alliance’s purported mission of collective defense and counterterrorism.
Turkey’s dual position—as a NATO member and as a vocal backer of groups engaged in terrorism against a fellow U.S. ally—must be addressed through diplomatic, legal, and institutional channels. Silence or passivity risks emboldening further violations and eroding the legitimacy of collective security frameworks.
For Israel, the implications are clear. Turkey can no longer be considered a neutral or even adversarial state actor; it must be classified as a strategic enabler of terrorism. This requires recalibrating intelligence operations, defense planning, and foreign policy approaches to reflect the reality that one of NATO’s most heavily armed members is actively undermining Israeli national security.
Turkey’s Illegal Occupation of Syrian Territory
While Turkey frequently presents itself on the global stage as a defender of international law and territorial integrity—especially in its condemnations of Israeli policy—it continues to occupy significant portions of sovereign Syrian territory without legal mandate or international approval. This contradiction underscores a pattern of regional double standards and reinforces Turkey’s increasingly disruptive role in the Middle East.
Since 2016, Turkey has launched four major military operations inside Syria: Euphrates Shield (2016), Olive Branch (2018), Peace Spring (2019), and Claw-Sword (2022–2024). These operations, conducted without authorization from the United Nations or the Syrian state, resulted in the seizure of a vast corridor in northern Syria stretching from Afrin to Tal Abyad, and further into Kurdish-administered areas. Ankara maintains tens of thousands of troops in these areas, supports proxy militias, and exercises de facto control over local governance, education, and security.
While Turkey claims these incursions are defensive measures aimed at countering Kurdish militias affiliated with the PKK (a designated terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S., and EU), its continued military presence has evolved into a permanent occupation. Turkish currency has replaced the Syrian pound in several areas. Turkish-trained police forces operate local checkpoints. Turkish-language signage and school curricula are now widespread across cities like Jarabulus and Afrin. These actions meet several key criteria of occupation under international law.
This reality raises serious questions for regional actors and international institutions. Turkey cannot, on one hand, criticize Israel’s legal and defensive control of disputed territories while, on the other hand, unilaterally occupying large swathes of a neighboring sovereign state. The dissonance is not merely rhetorical; it reveals a structural hypocrisy at the heart of Turkey’s foreign policy—one that undermines its credibility as a regional power.
Furthermore, the Turkish occupation has facilitated demographic engineering and human rights abuses. Independent observers, including UN-affiliated monitors and NGOs, have documented cases of forced displacement of Kurdish populations, looting by Turkish-backed militias, and systemic abuses against minorities and political dissidents in the occupied territories. These actions have drawn limited international scrutiny, primarily due to Turkey’s NATO status and strategic positioning.
Israel, which faces persistent international condemnation for defending its citizens against terrorism, should highlight the Turkish precedent as a central point in global diplomatic forums. The contrast between Turkey’s illegal occupation of Syria and Israel’s defensive actions against Iran-backed terror infrastructure must be brought into sharper relief.
From a strategic perspective, Turkey’s expansionist behavior reflects a neo-Ottoman ambition to reshape regional borders and exert dominance under the guise of counterterrorism. This approach has not only destabilized northern Syria but also threatens to export Turkish influence into central Syria—precisely the area where Turkey now seeks to build a new airbase near Palmyra.
In sum, Turkey’s ongoing occupation of Syrian land further erodes its legitimacy as a neutral actor and casts doubt on its commitment to the principles of international law it claims to uphold. For Israel and its allies, recognizing and exposing this duplicity is essential to ensuring that regional norms are not shaped by the arbitrary assertions of power but by consistent, lawful conduct.
Turkey’s Relationship with Russia and Iran
Turkey’s evolving strategic posture in the Middle East cannot be assessed in isolation. Its increasingly complex and opportunistic relationships with two of Israel’s most dangerous adversaries—Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran—signal a broader geopolitical realignment that is undermining the cohesion of Western alliances and emboldening hostile regional actors. While Ankara continues to benefit from its formal position within NATO, its actions reflect alignment with a bloc of revisionist powers that directly challenge Israel’s security, Western influence, and international norms.
Turkey’s relationship with Russia is rooted in mutual pragmatism. Despite their historical rivalry and divergent interests in conflicts such as Syria and Libya, Ankara and Moscow have developed a functioning partnership centered on energy dependency, defense cooperation, and strategic bargaining. Turkey’s acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system—in direct violation of NATO protocols—was a watershed moment. This move not only led to Ankara’s suspension from the U.S. F-35 program but also demonstrated Turkey’s willingness to prioritize its regional ambitions over alliance discipline.
Beyond arms deals, Turkey has worked closely with Russia on the Syrian file through the Astana Process, sidelining Western influence while jointly managing Syria’s future alongside Iran. Turkish and Russian forces have coordinated patrols in northern Syria, effectively dividing zones of influence and minimizing confrontation. This coordination is pragmatic, but deeply problematic for Israel, as it allows both nations to entrench themselves militarily in a theater that remains a critical front in Iran’s war-by-proxy against the Jewish state.
Turkey’s relationship with Iran, though historically marked by sectarian and geopolitical rivalry, has in recent years evolved into a transactional alliance of convenience. This alignment has been most visible in their shared support for Hamas, opposition to Israeli security operations, and mutual condemnation of Western sanctions. Turkish leaders have openly met with senior Iranian officials throughout the Iron Swords War, while continuing to host Hamas leadership on Turkish soil—a move that Tehran has publicly applauded.
Economic collaboration has also intensified. In defiance of international sanctions, Turkish entities have been accused of facilitating Iranian oil exports through backchannels. Financial networks operating out of Istanbul have helped Tehran bypass restrictions, further empowering the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its regional terror affiliates.
This triangulated cooperation—between Turkey, Russia, and Iran—constitutes what may be termed a “gray-zone axis”: a loosely coordinated bloc that, while not formally institutionalized, effectively undermines Western policy objectives. For Israel, the implications are stark. The axis provides Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations with diplomatic cover, financial channels, and strategic depth.
Moreover, Turkey’s unique position as a NATO member affords it access to alliance intelligence and defense protocols, even as it engages with adversaries who actively work to erode Israel’s security and the West’s regional influence. This dual-track engagement poses a systemic risk—not just to Israel, but to the integrity of NATO itself.
Strategically, Israel must monitor these trilateral dynamics closely. Increased coordination between Turkey and Iran on intelligence, logistics, or proxy management could alter threat matrices on both the northern and southern fronts. Meanwhile, any future Russo-Turkish arms collaboration—particularly in UAVs, electronic warfare, or air defense—could introduce advanced adversarial systems into operational theaters bordering Israel.
The October 7 Massacre Changed Everything
The geopolitical landscape emerging in the wake of the Iron Swords War is one marked by complexity, unpredictability, and the erosion of traditional assumptions about alliance behavior and regional stability. At the heart of this shifting terrain stands the growing threat posed by Turkey—a NATO member state whose actions increasingly reflect strategic alignment with adversaries of Israel, including Hamas, Iran, and Russia.
From its support for terrorist organizations to its illegal military presence in Syria and its deepening entanglement with anti-Western powers, Turkey has positioned itself as a destabilizing actor with ambitions that extend beyond its immediate borders. The prospect of a Turkish airbase in central Syria, within operational range of Israeli territory, elevates these concerns from political divergence to strategic urgency.
This report has sought to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the risks posed by Turkey’s conduct, while placing them within the broader context of NATO inaction, regional opportunism, and systemic threats to Israel’s security architecture. Each element—from Ankara’s harboring of Hamas leadership to its occupation of sovereign Syrian land—contributes to a pattern of behavior that is incompatible with NATO’s stated values and directly harmful to Israel’s national interests.
For policymakers in Jerusalem, Washington, and allied capitals, the message is clear: the status quo cannot be sustained. Israel must continue to engage diplomatically, strengthen its regional partnerships, and invest in early-warning and deterrence capabilities that reflect the reality of a multipolar, contested Middle East. Meanwhile, international institutions—including NATO—must begin to reconcile the growing gap between alliance rhetoric and alliance accountability.
Israel’s enduring security and strategic autonomy will depend not only on its capacity to deter its enemies, but also on its ability to anticipate and respond to the evolving nature of regional threats—even when they come from within existing alliances.
The developments detailed in this report must serve as a wake-up call: strategic ambiguity in the face of rising threats is not a neutral posture—it is an enabler of instability. Israel, as always, must remain vigilant, deliberate, and resolute in securing its borders, defending its people, and shaping a future in which its sovereignty is never in question.
