The Unsettling Symmetry of Israeli Strikes in Syria’s North

The recent Israeli airstrikes on Abu al-Duhur airbase in Idlib province have sparked widespread condemnation from Damascus, Washington, and even Ankara. This rare instance of unified international outcry against Israel’s military actions in the region has been met with outrage from various quarters.

Syria’s northwestern region has long been a hotbed of activity, with various factions vying for influence and control. The Idlib airbase, once an operational hub for the Syrian military, has lain dormant for over a decade. Its revival as a training center for Syria’s new army under interim government Ahmed al-Sharaa raises questions about the intentions behind this sudden resurgence.

Tom Barrack, US ambassador to Turkey and special presidential envoy for Syria and Iraq, described the attacks as an “unnecessary escalation” that fails to advance regional stability. The Syrian Foreign Ministry echoed these sentiments, decrying the strikes as a blatant infringement on their sovereignty. The Israeli strikes have been met with tacit acknowledgement by all parties involved of a delicate balance of power in play.

For years, Israel has carried out targeted strikes against Iranian and Hezbollah installations within Syria, often under the guise of self-defense. However, its recent attacks on Abu al-Duhur appear to be testing the limits of Turkey’s tolerance for Israeli aggression. The uneasy relationship between Israel and Turkey has long been a subject of scrutiny, with Ankara walking a fine line in its dealings with Jerusalem.

Ankara has publicly condemned Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank while maintaining diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has even accused Israel of attempting to destabilize Syria’s new administration. The current Turkish government has sought to balance its own interests in the region, including its military presence in Idlib.

The timing of the Israeli airstrikes takes on added significance, particularly given Turkey’s military delegation visit to the airbase mere days before the strikes. Both parties appear to be positioning themselves for a larger regional showdown. The reactivation of Abu al-Duhur as a training center would grant Syria’s interim government a crucial foothold in the northwestern region, one that Israel has long sought to deny.

The US response is equally telling, with Tom Barrack’s condemnation of the Israeli strikes suggesting a deeper concern for regional stability than mere diplomatic niceties. By urging all parties to prioritize de-escalation over military incidents, the US envoy implicitly acknowledges the complex web of interests at play in Syria’s north.

These airstrikes represent more than just a localized incident; they’re a symptom of a broader regional conflict. With tensions simmering between Turkey and Israel, and the Syrian government’s precarious grip on power, one can’t help but wonder: what will be the next escalation point in this increasingly volatile landscape? Will Damascus find itself forced to choose between its new allies and the protection offered by its erstwhile enemy, or will Jerusalem succeed in carving out a “security zone” that effectively bisects Syria?

The people of Idlib and beyond deserve more than just hollow condemnations; they need a genuine commitment from their governments to safeguard their rights and protect their region from the ravages of war.