Unpacking Silence: Why Erdogan and Jolani Are Quiet Amidst Israel’s Attacks

The ongoing Israeli attacks on Syria have plunged the country into a complex web of challenges and issues, significantly impacting security and stability. The situation remains precarious, as various factions, including the leadership of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, struggle to navigate the political landscape amidst these external threats. This article delves into the implications of Israel’s military operations in Syria and the responses from both local and regional powers.

Since July and August 2025, Israel has executed at least six major military operations in Syria. These operations consist of airstrikes, drone strikes, and ground assaults, marking a significant escalation in military engagement. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes across Syria since December 2024, averaging one strike every three to four days. Al Jazeera also highlighted that Israel has undertaken at least 400 ground assaults since the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

In the most recent incident on August 27, a former air defense base near al-Kiswah in southern Damascus was heavily targeted by Israeli forces. The Israeli military strategy has extended beyond aerial attacks; as reported by The Guardian, additional operations have included artillery fire aimed at Syrian weapon depots, command centers, and military installations.

Key Points of Israeli Military Engagement in Syria:

• Israel has intensified operations in Syria, observing a lack of response from the local leadership.
• Military actions include airstrikes, ground assaults, and artillery fire targeting strategic military locations.
• Turkey, while politically opposing Israel’s actions, has maintained a relatively passive stance regarding the military operations in Syria.

The question arises: why do Turkey and the interim government in Damascus exhibit similar reactions to Israel’s aggressive tactics? This alignment suggests potential political coordination based on shared interests, particularly given the recent diplomatic exchanges between officials from Jolani’s team and Israeli representatives. Notably, two high-level meetings occurred with the mediation of the United States and Turkey, yet they failed to bring forth any substantial protest against Israel’s actions.

Who Is the Main Player?

Israeli officials often justify their military actions in Syria with claims of countering Iranian influence and preventing the transfer of advanced weaponry. For instance, The Times of Israel reported that these strikes target strategic military sites to thwart the transfer of weapons to hostile forces. However, various sources, including Reuters and The Guardian, assert that Israel’s primary objective is to establish a defensive zone in southern Syria to protect its northern border.

In reality, these justifications lack credibility, as Israel’s significant actions in Syria appear to focus on territorial occupation and provoking local factions such as the Druze community in Suwayda and the Kurdish SDF. Meanwhile, the United States, as Israel’s key ally, has engaged in a political performance to obscure Netanyahu’s activities, framing them as border disputes requiring ongoing diplomatic intervention.

Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Ankara and special envoy on the Syria file, has played an active role in this context. His involvement extends beyond Syria, as he has also engaged in negotiations regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament in Lebanon. While claiming to work towards resolving disputes, Israel continues to expand its control in the Golan Heights, violating the 1974 disengagement agreement.

This strategy reveals a deliberate attempt to establish a more entrenched security environment within Syrian territory. Despite Barrack’s assertions about reducing tensions and forging a new security framework, the reality remains unchanged, with Syria facing ongoing instability.

Fear, Restraint, or Tacit Agreement?

Many analysts suggest that Syria’s military and security apparatus have not fully recovered since the fall of Bashar al-Assad, resulting in limited military capacity and a fragile security environment. The focus on reconstruction efforts further complicates Syria’s ability to respond to Israeli aggression.

In recent months, several defense and security cooperation agreements have been signed between Syrian and Turkish officials, indicating that Turkey is playing a significant role in shaping Syria’s new military and intelligence structures. This relationship may explain Jolani’s passive attitude towards Israel’s military actions, which seems more rooted in political calculations than in military limitations.

Turkey’s position remains ambiguous; while Erdogan and other officials publicly condemn Israeli actions through parliamentary resolutions and diplomatic statements, they simultaneously avoid taking decisive action. Turkey aims to position itself as a defender of Palestinian rights while managing the Israeli threat through backchannel negotiations, often with US assistance.

In conclusion, the situation in Syria remains deeply complicated, with the ongoing Israeli military operations exacerbating an already fragile security landscape. The interplay between local factions, regional powers like Turkey, and external influences from the US continues to shape the dynamics of this conflict.

As developments unfold, the responses from both Syrian authorities and neighboring countries will be critical in determining the future stability of the region.