Israel would benefit from a stable Syria, but not one under Turkish influence, expert tells ‘Post’

Israel bombed the Abu Duhur airbase last month to prevent Turkish troops from deploying there, according to Israeli officials. Ankara denied that it had planned to deploy troops to the site.

Jerusalem wants to see a stable federalized Syria in which minorities are protected, rather than a destabilized Damascus that is unable to control its own borders, Prof. Efraim Inbar, president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told The Jerusalem Post on Monday, a day after Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan alleged that Israel was seeking to weaken Syria.

Fidan made the comments during a visit to Damascus, where he met with his Syrian counterpart, Asaad al-Shaibani, and said Turkey remained committed to diplomacy despite Israel's strike on Syria's disused Abu Duhur airbase.

Israel bombed the airbase last month to prevent Turkish troops from deploying there, according to Israeli officials. Ankara denied that it had planned to deploy troops to the site.

“Just as Syria offers so much hope to the region and the world, there is suddenly an actor striving to destabilize the country,” Fidan said at a joint news conference. “You know the name of that actor: Israel … the policies Israel pursues constitute the most serious obstacle to this positive trajectory. The attack carried out against the Abu Duhur military airbase is one of the latest examples.”

Shaibani also claimed the attack “conveyed a destructive message aimed at undermining the path of building the Syrian state,” and insisted that it “had no legitimate or legal justification” and would not impact relations with Turkey.

Israel would benefit from a stable Syrian government

Though Fidan has portrayed Israel as an obstacle to regional stability, Inbar told the Post that Israel would benefit from a stable Syrian government capable of controlling its borders and potentially becoming a “partner for peace.” He offered Lebanon as an example, arguing that Israel wants to see a government in Beirut strong enough to confront Iranian influence and curb the forces destabilizing the region.

However, Inbar acknowledged that a state weakened by infighting, militias and instability would pose less of a threat to Israel because it would be unable to direct all of its attention and resources toward the Jewish state.

“Israel has a dilemma with its bordering states,” Inbar acknowledged.

Still, he argued that Fidan was overstating the extent to which Jerusalem could determine “how the neighboring states are being built or derailed.”

“We have limited power,” he reasoned.

Turkish support for President Sharaa growing

Though Jerusalem may have limited control over Damascus, Ankara’s support for now-President Ahmed al-Sharaa has continued to expand. Shaibani said that Ankara and Damascus had reached around 40 agreements and memoranda of understanding, connecting 22 Syrian ministries and government agencies with their Turkish counterparts, and announced that Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is expected to visit Syria soon.

Ankara’s growing influence in Syria, along with the presence of Turkish forces there, poses a significant risk to Israel, Inbar said. Given what he described as the “hate spewed by Erdogan,” as well as statements by Turkish officials about aspirations to one day govern Jerusalem, Inbar argued that Ankara’s “neo-Islamic and neo-Ottoman motivation” meant Israel could not ignore the threat.

“We learned the lesson that we do not try to destabilize regimes or build regimes. Regime change is not an easy thing,” he continued. “We are looking at the capabilities developing there and what they (government officials) say, and try to minimize the risks that are being posed to Israel.”