At a time when signs have emerged of growing dissonance between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the fallout of an Israeli strike on a Syrian military site may extend to a broader geopolitical shift.
The affected site, Abu al-Duhur Air Base in Idlib province, had just hours earlier hosted a military delegation from Turkey, which reportedly sought to rehabilitate the facility as Ankara cultivates ties with the government that drove longtime leader Bashar al-Assad out of Damascus in December 2024.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry unsurprisingly issued strong condemnation of the attack, the latest in a series of rhetorical spats between two U.S. allies in the Middle East.
Read More on Analysis
When Netanyahu’s office justified the strike by accusing Syria of moving to violate a security understanding “by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo,” the Turkish government dismissed “frivolous allegations” designed “to legitimize Israel’s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
But Washington, too, followed suit with criticism of the Israeli operation, with Special Envoy Tom Barrack expressing deep concern over “an unnecessary escalation.”
It’s not the first time that the administration appears to have sided with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan over Netanyahu. And with the U.S. leader having yet to endorse the Israeli premier ahead of crucial elections set to take place in October, that rift might prove consequential as they contend with domestic pressures pushing them in opposite directions.
Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and former U.S. official at the State Department, National Security Council and Pentagon, said that “President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu are both in weak political positions at home—Trump continues to suffer from his lowest voter approval ratings in his time in office including his first term, and Netanyahu’s standing and reputation remains severely damaged by the October 7 [2023 Hamas] attack and its aftermath.”
“Netanyahu’s primary policy and political objectives have centered on demonstrating that he can protect Israeli citizens once again, hence he has continued an aggressive military campaign on multiple fronts that appeals to members of his extreme right-wing coalition,” Katulis told Newsweek.
“Trump, by contrast, faces a war-weary American public feeling the economic pain caused by Trump’s war against Iran and unsteady foreign policy approach—so Trump seeks to deescalate, the opposite direction that Netanyahu is heading.”
Trump’s Middle East Balancing Act
Trump has long enjoyed close ties with both Erdogan and Netanyahu, though his admiration for his Turkish counterpart appears to have grown even before assuming office a second time last year.
Trump credited Erdogan with having played a role in Assad’s ouster just weeks before the U.S. leader’s return to the White House and went on to align with Ankara’s embrace of the new government in Damascus, led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former Islamist militant chief. Trump twice met Sharaa last year, lifted some sanctions on Syria and began building a new regional partnership.
The White House’s budding cooperation with Sharaa came despite repeated opposition from Netanyahu. The U.S. has criticized Israeli strikes in support of Druze militias clashing with Syrian security forces and tribal militias on several occasions, calling on Israel to refrain from actions that could undermine the new Syrian leadership’s efforts to consolidate power and stabilize a nation rocked by nearly 13 years of civil war.
After the latest NATO summit in Ankara saw a reaffirmation of U.S.-Turkey ties, even as relations with allies in Europe soured, Trump again defied Netanyahu’s protests when he declared that he would seek to lift restrictions on selling F-35 fighter jets to the NATO ally as a result of its previous acquisition of Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile systems.
At the same time, Trump’s historic rapport with Netanyahu has survived many past rumors of collapse.
Even as Trump entered office in January 2025 with criticism of Netanyahu’s war effort in Gaza and a pressure campaign to achieve a ceasefire by Inauguration Day, the administration has broadly aligned with Israel, most notably in twice launching direct action against Iran—first during the 12-Day War in June 2025 and then in a more concerted campaign ongoing since February 28 this year.
But indications of a divergence of interests between Netanyahu and Trump persist as the joint war on the Islamic Republic rages on nearly six months later with little indication of decisive victory. All the while, rising tensions between Erdogan and Netanyahu have only emboldened Trump’s push for regional players to take matters into their own hands.
“President Trump’s simultaneous praise of President Erdogan and alliance with Israel, despite the ongoing rivalry between Turkey and Israel, underscores how President Trump’s approach to the Middle East is one that prioritizes each country’s self-reliance, self-defense and resilient autonomy,” Katulis said. “Trump’s fundamental foreign policy message is: Take care of your own affairs so I can fulfil my ‘America First’ agenda to reduce U.S. security burdens.”
But while “this incentivizes actors in the region like Israel and Turkey to go their own way and test the limits of their power and influence,” he warned that “it also increases the chances of confrontations that turn into conflagrations.”
Rival Coalitions Emerge
Already, regional players appear to be accelerating efforts to explore new networks of deterrence as questions arise over the extent of U.S. security commitments.
Among the most notable recent developments on this front has been the mutual defense agreement signed between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, known as the “Mecca Pact.” The formalization of the growing ties among these three Sunni Muslim powers comes as Iran levies the might of its predominantly Shiite Muslim Axis of Resistance coalition in the ongoing war and Israel expands a diverse “hexagon” of alliances and partnerships that include the United Arab Emirates, India, Greece and Cyprus.
Ali Burak Daricili, an associate professor at Bursa Technical University and a former Turkish intelligence officer, described the decision by Turkey—officially known as Türkiye—to join the pact as “a response to the strategic axis that Israel has been developing with Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration and India.”
“This agreement is also important for Syria’s security,” Daricili told Newsweek. “A closer strategic alignment between Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could help balance Israel’s increasingly uncontrolled regional actions.”
Daricili also pointed out that “such a Sunni strategic bloc could limit Iran’s ability to rebuild its influence in the Middle East.” However, he noted that the Erdogan-Netanyahu rivalry may prove particularly precarious as “Türkiye and Israel are already engaged in serious competition and friction in several regions,” including Syria and even further fronts such as Sudan and Somalia.
Trump praised the formation of the Mecca Pact as a demonstration of “how the Middle East is coming together and how countries will finally be able to defend themselves in a more meaningful way.”
Daricili saw the U.S. strategy as one that is “seeking to establish a new regional order and balance of power in the Middle East,” resulting in “a relatively stable and manageable Middle East before focusing more heavily on China and the Asia-Pacific.”
But the course of the Middle East crisis has repeatedly frustrated U.S. attempts to execute a long-discussed pivot to East Asia. Dwindling munitions stockpiles have redirected weapons sales and deployments from the likes of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, while the need to substitute the war-fatigued USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf has pulled away the sole aircraft carrier operating in the western Pacific.
The prospect of a direct clash between Israel and Turkey adds another element of unpredictability to U.S. efforts to extract itself from the region.
Daricili assessed that “the United States will make serious efforts to prevent such a scenario,” though he argued that “establishing a formal deconfliction mechanism between Türkiye and Israel would be very useful.”
For now, he said Turkey “will continue to act cautiously and pragmatically” while likely also “waiting for the results of the next Israeli elections and considering the possibility that Netanyahu may not be able to form another government.” Ultimately, he said that “Türkiye would clearly prefer an Israeli government that is more pragmatic and easier to communicate with.”
Knowing the Limits
Netanyahu, on the other hand, appears more prone to escalation in the region, according to Eyal Zisser, vice rector of Tel Aviv University and a specialist in the history and politics of the Middle East.
He contrasted the “very aggressive” Israeli government under Netanyahu with that of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose outlook Zisser summarized as one of speaking softly while carrying a big stick, not unlike the ideology often associated with former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.
“This government believes that the best thing to do is all the time hit your neighbors,” Zisser told Newsweek of the Netanyahu administration.
Fervor against Erdogan appears to be mounting in Israel, with analysts and former officials describing Turkey and its growing influence among Sunni powers as a bigger threat than Iran.
In a recent interview with Newsweek, Israeli Consul General Ofir Akunis disparaged the Turkish leader as “extreme” and “insane,” accusing him of shifting once-amicable relations to a hostile dynamic characterized by Ankara’s support for activist flotillas seeking to break the blockade of Gaza.
“So maybe one day, maybe, I don’t know, in the near future, something will happen in Turkey as well,” Akunis said at the time. “And we can find ourselves in a much better situation, like it was until this crazy man actually changed his mind toward the State of Israel and encouraged terror attacks.”
But a confrontation between Israel and Turkey may be one step too far. Not only would such an encounter likely threaten the interests of both countries, but Zisser said Trump’s leverage over Netanyahu would likely ensure that any such plans proved to be a non-starter.
“Israel was careful enough to attack Syria, not Turkey,” Zisser said. “And second, well, these are two allies. In the case of Israel, it’s not only an ally, it’s a vassal country. Netanyahu does whatever Trump says to him. So, it’s not in their interest.
“After all, even Netanyahu knows his limits.”
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Tom O’Connor and Dave Siminoff.