Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
TT
20

Netanyahu’s Messages: Beyond Türkiye, Closer to Tel Aviv

Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 
Men inspect the site of an Israeli airstrike on Thursday morning, following the bombing in southern Hama Province (AFP). 

Following a series of intensified Israeli airstrikes on Damascus and the airports in Homs and Hama, as well as a ground incursion into the city of Nawa near Daraa, Israeli officials on Thursday escalated their rhetoric, issuing fresh threats to the Syrian leadership and warning of further military action—this time citing concerns over Turkish military activity in the region.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar voiced particular alarm over Türkiye’s growing role in Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. Speaking at a press conference in Paris, he said: “They are doing everything they can to turn Syria into a Turkish protectorate. That is clearly their intention.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed this sentiment, stating that Israel “will not allow Damascus to become a security threat” to Israel.

Rising Concern Over Türkiye’s Military Footprint in Syria

Military officials in Tel Aviv confirm that Israel sees Türkiye’s growing military presence in Syria as a serious concern. Their fear stems from two key issues: first, Ankara’s reported efforts to rebuild the Syrian army along the lines of its own modernized military model; and second, its apparent goal of establishing a long-term military foothold inside Syrian territory.

Israeli defense sources point out that Türkiye’s armed forces operate based on a traditional ground warfare doctrine, featuring large-scale armored divisions and well-equipped infantry units—similar in style to the Russian military. This stands in contrast to the Israeli military, which relies heavily on air superiority and has long underinvested in ground forces.

Given this disparity, any significant Turkish deployment in Syria could pose a direct challenge to Israeli operations and raise the risk of confrontation.

While the recent Israeli airstrikes targeted mostly long-defunct Syrian military sites—many of which have been hit repeatedly over the years—the attacks signal a broader strategic shift.

In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on southern Israel, the Israeli military has moved away from a defensive posture of deterrence and containment. In its place, the army has embraced a more aggressive doctrine built around preemptive action.

This shift was further underscored by the appointment of a new chief of staff from the Armored Corps—the first in three decades—signaling a renewed emphasis on ground operations and offensive initiatives.

Not Just a Message to Türkiye

Despite the messaging around Türkiye’s presence, analysts say the recent wave of Israeli military action also serves broader geopolitical aims.

After failing to persuade Washington to pressure Ankara to scale back its involvement in Syria, Israel now appears determined to assert its own red lines militarily. The airstrike on the Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus—a facility already destroyed multiple times since 2018—was widely viewed as symbolic.

Israeli officials say the intended audience for that particular strike was Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa, whom Israeli intelligence continues to refer to by his former nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani. By launching the attack during the Eid al-Fitr holiday, Israel aimed to send a clear message: there will be no return to normalcy in Syria without accounting for Israeli interests.

Among those interests is normalization. Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his desire to see Syria and Lebanon join the Abraham Accords and establish formal diplomatic ties with Israel.

Hardline figures within Netanyahu’s coalition believe Israel currently holds a strategic upper hand. As right-wing think tank head Meir Ben-Shabbat recently wrote: “Israel is in its strongest position ever. It is transforming the Middle East, expanding its military capabilities, and pushing back the Iranian axis—while Syria is at its weakest.”

For many in Israel’s ruling right, this is an ideal moment to push for a peace agreement with Syria, possibly even one involving Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights.

The Real Audience: Domestic Israel

Still, perhaps the most significant message behind the military campaign is directed not at Ankara, Damascus, or even Tehran—but at Tel Aviv.

As protests against Netanyahu’s leadership have grown louder in recent months, military escalation has served as a convenient political shield. The wars in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon dominate public attention and have largely sidelined anti-government demonstrations.

“Netanyahu’s government must go, but we won’t take to the streets while our sons are fighting,” has become a common refrain among many Israelis who oppose his leadership but remain reluctant to protest during wartime.

By maintaining a state of conflict, Netanyahu is not only securing his coalition’s survival but also enabling his allies to advance a hardline agenda—particularly on the Palestinian issue—that would have faced greater resistance in peacetime.

Critics warn that this strategy, while politically expedient, comes at a steep cost to Israel’s democratic institutions, its judiciary, and the long-term stability of the region.

 

 



Washington Links Israeli Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon to Hezbollah’s Disarmament

Local residents inspect the debris and rubble from a collapsed building hit by an overnight Israeli airstrike in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut's southern suburbs on June 6, 2025. (Photo by AFP)
Local residents inspect the debris and rubble from a collapsed building hit by an overnight Israeli airstrike in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut's southern suburbs on June 6, 2025. (Photo by AFP)
TT
20

Washington Links Israeli Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon to Hezbollah’s Disarmament

Local residents inspect the debris and rubble from a collapsed building hit by an overnight Israeli airstrike in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut's southern suburbs on June 6, 2025. (Photo by AFP)
Local residents inspect the debris and rubble from a collapsed building hit by an overnight Israeli airstrike in the Haret Hreik neighborhood of Beirut's southern suburbs on June 6, 2025. (Photo by AFP)

Concerns are growing in Lebanon after the United States' reluctance to step in, either directly or through the International Monitoring Committee overseeing the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement, and prevent Israel from further escalating its strikes in the country.

On Thursday, the Israeli military struck several buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs that it said held underground facilities used by Hezbollah for drone production. The strikes, preceded by an Israeli warning to evacuate several buildings, came on the eve of Eid al-Adha.

What aggravated the Lebanese concerns was Israel’s prior notification to the United States of its plan to target these buildings, which were later found not to be used by Hezbollah for manufacturing drones.

According to official Lebanese sources who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, they said that Washington acknowledged that the buildings were not used by Hezbollah and directed blame at Tel Aviv citing that Israel’s justifications were unfounded.

But the US criticism of Tel Aviv is unlikely to deter the latter from carrying out further aggression against Lebanon, amid the failure of the monitoring committee to address Israel’s violations.

Washington blaming Israel will not change the reality on the ground as long as it enjoys a US cover that allows it to maintain pressure on Lebanon to set a timeline for Hezbollah’s disarmament linked to its own withdrawal from the south.

But Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have reiterated commitment to limiting weapons to the state’s control and urged the international community to pressure Israel into withdrawing from southern Lebanon.

Ministerial sources said that President Aoun stands firm in his position and is in ongoing communication with Hezbollah leadership paving way for dialogue aimed at ensuring the state’s exclusive control over arms once conditions are ripe for implementation.

The sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hezbollah has no choice but to engage in serious dialogue, which is not intended as a stalling tactic while awaiting the outcome of US-Iranian negotiations on the nuclear file.

They also assure that Lebanon is committed to the continued presence of the monitoring committee overseeing the implementation of the ceasefire.

They point out that the upcoming dialogue with Hezbollah on securing the state’s exclusive control over weapons is a cornerstone of Lebanon’s national security strategy.

The sources question the absence of the US engagement in Lebanon mainly regarding the military developments and Israel’s escalation. They highlight that Lebanon is witnessing one of its darkest times compounded by Washington’s dismissal of Morgan Ortagus, the deputy special envoy for the Middle East, from handling the Lebanese file.

This move has left US Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson, and the entire Lebanese state, in a state of uncertainty, as Washington is reportedly considering sending Ambassador Thomas Barrett, although no official date has been announced for his arrival in Beirut.

Barrett is currently the US envoy to Türkiye and recently appointed by President Donald Trump as special envoy to Syria.

On the other hand, political sources interpret the current absence of the US role, and Israel’s unrestricted freedom to act against Hezbollah’s remaining military capabilities, as a deliberate strategy it uses to safeguard its borders.

It also links withdrawal from south Lebanon to a timeline for containing Hezbollah’s weapons and limiting it to the state’s control.

The White House endorses the principle of linking Israel’s withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament as “it was crafted in the United States”, according to MPs who frequently visit Washington.

Lebanon has no choice but to adhere to that, viewing it as a mandatory passage to bring a political end to the Iranian interference in the region with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and to enter a new political phase for the Mediterranean country.