The Abu al-Duhur airbase near Idlib came under a suspected Israeli strike on August 18, 2026. In response, U.S. Ambassador to Türkiye Tom Barrack proposed the establishment of a “deconfliction mechanism” involving Türkiye, Syria, and Israel. Both Syria and Barrack blamed Israel for the attack, which the U.S. diplomat described as an “unnecessary escalation.”
—but despite this diplomatic effort, analysts argue the proposal is unlikely to restrain Israel’s military actions, citing its long-standing pattern of operations against Syria and its ongoing occupation of certain Syrian territories.
## Who Makes Peace When Only One Side Escalates?
Samy Akil, policy advisor with The Syria Report, questioned the viability of a deconfliction arrangement “when only one party [is] causing conflict in the first place.”
Israel, analysts say, bears responsibility for the stalling of dialogues aimed at reducing tensions with Syria. Damascus, now under the leadership of President Ahmed al-Sharaa since the ousting of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, is openly seeking warmer ties with Western nations—and is signalling its readiness to explore solutions with Israel, albeit short of full normalization.
Akil described the situation starkly: “Israeli-Syrian talks are stagnating because the ball is in Israel’s court and they don’t see a need to prioritise talks with Damascus currently.”
## Turkey, Syria and Israel: A Triangle of Power Plays
Before December 2024, under Assad’s regime, Israel targeted Iranian-affiliated entities in Syria—like the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024—while avoiding direct strikes on Syrian state infrastructure. That pattern shifted dramatically after Assad’s departure. Israel has since targeted key military installations belonging to Syria’s new government and pressured Syrian forces with threats of deployment near southern Damascus.
Turkey, meanwhile, has morphed from supporting anti-Assad rebels into building diplomatic ties with the new Syrian authority. Several exiled Syrian opposition figures reside in Türkiye, and Ankara has expressed support for a Syrian leader who once was its foe. Israel, suspicious of Turkish influence, has accused Syria of violating security understandings by allowing Turkish forces to move into an airbase close to Aleppo. Israel claims it issued warnings, which Syria ignored.
Türkiye pushed back sharply, denouncing Israel’s justification for the airstrike. Its communications authority stated that the Israeli position seeks “to legitimise … unlawful airstrikes” and characterised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policy as “expansionist and destabilising” in the lead-up to Israel’s October elections.
## What a Deconfliction Mechanism Would Entail
Ambassador Barrack’s idea is to initiate a diplomatic channel through which Israel, Türkiye, and Syria can coordinate to avoid military escalations. The U.S. would act as a mediator. The concept resembles ongoing U.S. efforts with Lebanon—attempts to curb Israeli strikes, disarm Hezbollah, and move toward Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
However, experts caution that Israel’s military dominance gives it considerable elbow room to sidestep agreements. Under Netanyahu’s administration, analysts believe the government has been willing to undermine negotiations through unilateral operations.
Syria has shown openness to dialogue, internal sources say, though it insists it will not agree to comprehensive normalisation unless certain territorial and sovereignty concerns—like Israel’s actions in the Golan Heights and Jabal al-Sheikh—are addressed.
## Preparing for an Escalated Election Season
Benjamin Netanyahu, campaigning for re-election in October 2026, may benefit politically from military confrontations abroad. Galip Dalay, research fellow at Chatham House, suggests the prime minister could spark confrontations with Syria, Lebanon, or within Palestine to rally support among nationalist constituencies.
Recently, Netanyahu rejected a Gaza disarmament proposal floated by Donald Trump, prompting revisions. Significantly, there was no public U.S. response pushing back against Israel’s decision.
Dalay argues that only credible and consistent pressure from Washington could force Israel to make concessions. “If the U.S. puts proper pressure on Israel, they would listen,” he said. Looking at Israel’s past deference to U.S. demands—even when leadership had objections—Dalay believes U.S. leverage is key.
## Challenges Ahead
Even if a deconfliction mechanism is established, its effectiveness hinges on all actors participating in good faith. Distrust runs deep—not just between the Israeli and Syrian governments but also involving Turkish perceptions of Israeli security concerns. Israel’s posture that any Syrian military presence within 186 miles (300 kilometres) of its border constitutes a threat exemplifies how difficult calibrated negotiation could be.
Syria’s modest Soviet-era air force, many analysts suggest, poses no real threat to Israel, but the perception of threat continues to drive military rhetoric and action.
## Why U.S. Pressure Might Make the Difference
Experts believe the United States holds the unique leverage to shift dynamics. Earlier this year, pressure from the U.S. led Israel to alter certain military plans involving Iran, despite initial resistance.
If Washington backs the proposed deconfliction device with serious consequences—diplomatic, economic, or political—it could force Israel to take steps toward reducing military operations in Syria. Without such pressure, analysts fear Israel will continue using strikes strategically to shape political narratives ahead of the elections.
—
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
