The growing Turkish influence in Syria—particularly following the collapse of the Assad regime—has heightened Israeli concerns amid intensifying geopolitical rivalry over Syria between Ankara and Tel Aviv. While most analysts rule out the likelihood of direct military confrontation, the facts on the ground suggest that Syria has once again become a theater for regional power struggles.
Abu Zaid characterizes the Turkish-Israeli dynamic in Syria as a “competitive conflict,” underlining the existence of shared interests, historical alliances, and economic exchanges between the two nations. As such, he dismisses the notion of a fundamental or violent contradiction in their relationship, pointing instead to intersecting strategic interests.
In Syria, the swift regime change has opened space for competition, Abu Zaid argues, as both actors seek to expand their influence over the evolving landscape. He notes that their divergent agendas—such as their respective positions on Kurdish autonomy and relations with the United States—may occasionally place them at odds.
Despite this, he reiterates that Washington has the ability to manage and mitigate the tension. He adds that their overlapping interests could serve to reduce the likelihood of direct conflict. For instance, Turkey's principal concern is to prevent the establishment of any Kurdish autonomous governance in Syria, fearing that such a development could embolden similar aspirations within its own borders. Conversely, Israel does not perceive Kurdish autonomy with the same degree of strategic sensitivity.
Abu Zaid confirms that while competition persists—not only between Turkey and Israel but also with other regional players—it has not escalated into violent conflict or a serious confrontation. He explains that each side is actively seeking to cultivate networks of alliances within Syria to expand their respective spheres of influence. At the same time, other actors—particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—are also pursuing roles in Syria’s evolving power structure, sometimes finding themselves at odds with Turkey.
The United States, he notes, has yet to fully clarify its long-term objectives in Syria. “At times, it reinforces its military presence; at others, it appears to retreat—suggesting conflicting strategic calculations,” he said. In all scenarios, Syria remains unstable and verging on chaos, with no single actor capable of securing a definitive resolution. The competition continues, and this ongoing flux may shape the nature of regional relationships and influence future developments.
Abu Zaid concludes that the situation remains fluid and unresolved. No external power has yet emerged with the ability to establish a new political order in Syria that ensures unity and stability. As such, the unresolved nature of the Syrian arena may continue to fuel competition not only between Turkey and Israel, but also among other regional stakeholders.
a.k
ANHA
