US Pursues Trilateral Deconfliction Mechanism for Turkey, Syria, and Israel Amid Rising Tensions

The US is working to set up a deconfliction mechanism between Turkey, Syria and Israel, US special envoy for Syria Tom Barrack said, following an Israeli strike on a Syrian airbase near the Turkish border.

Mr Barrack previously stated he was “deeply concerned” by Israeli strikes on a military airfield in Syria's eastern province of Idlib on Tuesday, describing the actions as “unnecessary”. Israeli forces carried out eight air strikes against the runway of Abu Al Duhur military airfield at dawn, according to Syrian state television.

The US envoy told Reuters that Turkey had not been notified about the strikes, meaning Ankara observed the aircraft heading north toward its territory and could have reasonably prepared a military response.

According to Mr Barrack, who also serves as the US ambassador to Turkey, the strikes “reflected a perception – whether accurate or misplaced – that Turkey might in the near future increase its presence at that base”.

“This underscores the need for a deconfliction mechanism involving Israel, Syria and Turkey. That is something we are actively working on to establish in order to prevent future miscommunication,” he said, emphasizing that the main focus remains on reducing regional tensions.

Hostility between Turkey and Israel has intensified, with Syria serving as a central point for their increasingly pointed rhetoric. Turkey strongly condemned the strikes and rejected claims by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Turkish troops were being sent to an airbase near Aleppo.

“The frivolous allegations put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister's office aim to legitimise Israel's unlawful air strikes targeting Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Turkey's Communications Directorate said in a statement released via the state-run Anadolu Agency. The directorate accused Mr Netanyahu of pursuing “expansionist and destabilising policies” ahead of Israeli elections in October.

The Israeli military expanded its operations in Syria following the fall of president Bashar Al Assad in December 2024, ostensibly targeting weapons and missile depots left by his regime. Israeli troops subsequently advanced into a demilitarised zone in southern Syria, including Mount Hermon, which overlooks the capital, Damascus.

Since that time, the Israeli military has continued launching strikes within Syria and detaining individuals. Operations have also been conducted under the pretext of protecting the ethnic minority Druze population in south-west Syria. In March, Israel reported conducting strikes on Syrian government infrastructure in response to attacks against the Druze in Sweida.

Syria's Foreign Ministry condemned these military actions as a “blatant violation” of international law and a direct assault on the nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Meanwhile, Israel has sought to curb growing Turkish influence inside Syria, where Ankara and Damascus previously signed agreements to establish a free zone in Idlib province.

Turkey played a pivotal role as a backer of the Islamist-led coalition that removed the Assad regime after nearly 14 years of civil war, subsequently establishing itself as one of the most prominent external powers in Syria.

During an April meeting with Mr Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump acknowledged Turkey's growing role, recounting that he told Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan he had “taken it over through surrogates”. Mr Trump told Mr Erdogan: “Congratulations, you've done what nobody's been able to do in 2,000 years. You've taken over Syria. With different names, but same thing.”

Syrian President Ahmad Al Shara stated that his administration is pursuing a security agreement with Israel. “An incident of the kind that occurred this morning demonstrates the need to intensify these efforts and expand the process,” Mr Barrack noted.

The US envoy explained that while a basic information-sharing and dialogue mechanism already exists among the parties, “What is required is a more robust architecture with greater resources committed to it. Investing in such mechanisms is far less costly than relying on kinetic means of communication that can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars,” referring to the financial toll of military force.