According to U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria Tom Barrack, Israeli aircraft approached within 80 kilometers of the Turkish border without alerting Ankara, and Israel’s attack on a Syrian air base almost led to a direct military clash with Turkey.
According to Barrack, Israel has acquired information indicating that Turkey may be transferring military personnel or equipment onto a Syrian air base. After reviewing the data, Washington concluded that the deployment was not happening.
Following that, the matter was reviewed diplomatically, including what Barrack claimed as a two-hour backchannel discussion between Mossad chief David Barnea and Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani.
Nevertheless, Israeli planes showed up.
In an interview with PBS NewsHour, Barrack stated that Israel attacked the Syrian base’s runways without informing Turkey or Washington.
As a result, the incident changed from being just another Israeli strike inside Syria to a potentially far riskier conflict involving two of Washington’s most important regional allies.
According to Barrack, Turkey saw the oncoming planes but was unaware of their target or purpose. There was a chance that Israeli and Turkish aircraft would clash directly because the Turkish military could be compelled to react.By the way, I think that the contentious political discourse between Israel and Turkey is primarily political,” Barrack stated. However, it arrived at their border 80 kilometers away without warning. Israeli aircraft.
According to Barrack, the US is currently concentrating on reducing hostilities between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to stop another incident from getting worse.Lowering the temperature, increasing the conversation and discourse, and avoiding these sudden energetic actions are the solutions to all of this,” he stated.
Despite the diplomatic talks, Barrack provided two reasons why Israel might have carried out the strike.
One was a significant communication breakdown between Mossad, the Israeli military, and Netanyahu’s office, he claimed.
A more calculated alternative was that “The Israelis were baiting the Turks.”
Barrack did not specify which explanation he thought was true.
Additionally, he saw the wider conflict as a component of an expanding geopolitical rivalry over Israel’s capacity to act against Iran and Syria’s future.
Israel wants Syrian territory to be free of military installations that could jeopardize its regional operations, according to Barrack. According to him, Israel sees Syrian airspace as offering a “clear line of sight to Iran” and has asked for guaranties that Syria won’t be used as a platform for offensive or defensive military hardware that would obstruct Israeli operations.
In the meantime, Turkey has become a more significant military and political player in post-Assad Syria and has aimed to play a significant role in shaping and securing the nation.
As a result, there is now a potentially hazardous overlap between the two nations’ interests.
Israel claims it wants to stop military dangers from arising in Syria and maintain its freedom to strike Iran. In addition to having its own security interests in determining Syria’s future political and military structure, Turkey seeks to retain influence over its neighbor to the south.
According to Barrack, the US prefers conversation over military surprises to resolve those conflicting interests.”Let’s return this to a table so that everyone can sit down and have a conversation,” he remarked. “It’s okay if you have problems with each other. However, the objective is to avoid surprises or physical activity.
Because Ankara has a strong military and air force and could perceive an unexpected Israeli operation as a direct threat, he advised Israel to consult with Turkey before carrying out operations near the Turkish border.Israel is astute. Their intelligence agency is among the greatest in the world. They are highly respected by all of us,” Barrack remarked. “The way to handle that is just have a discussion with Türkiye on a backchannel or front channel, rather than taking independent action.”
Additionally, Barrack stated that Turkey’s increasing regional power shouldn’t always be seen as a threat.He described Turkey as a strategically significant center connecting Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean. “Everyone is nervous about Turkey’s new powerful mode, but it’s a great thing for Turkey,” he said.
He stated that stopping the rhetoric between Jerusalem and Ankara from escalating into a military conflict is currently the top concern.