By Bosphorus News Geopolitics Desk
Israel's ambassador to the United States says intelligence received before the Aug. 18 strike on Syria's Abu al-Duhur airbase indicated that Türkiye was preparing a significant expansion of its military presence, a move Israel believed would breach an earlier understanding with Damascus.
Yechiel Leiter, in an interview published by The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 20, described the arrangement as a freeze on changes to the military balance inside Syria. Under his account, Türkiye was not expected to move farther south, while Israel would neither advance beyond its existing positions nor be forced out of the security zone it holds in southwestern Syria.
Israel decided to act, Leiter said, after receiving intelligence that a substantial Turkish military expansion was imminent.
Damascus disputes that premise and says no permanent Turkish base or troop deployment was planned at Abu al-Duhur.
Leiter traces the understanding to earlier talks
Leiter said the arrangement emerged during the final period of the Biden administration and was reaffirmed during talks in Paris in January 2026.
He said those discussions included Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, U.S. Syria envoy Tom Barrack, senior Israeli officials and Roman Gofman, who later became head of Mossad.
No signed text setting out the terms described by Leiter has been made public, and his interview did not establish that Türkiye was itself a party to the understanding.
Israel's case is therefore that a planned Turkish military move would have breached an Israel-Syria understanding, not a publicly documented agreement between Ankara and Israel.
Damascus says no permanent Turkish deployment was planned
Shaibani said Syria had made clear before the strike that there was no plan to establish a permanent Turkish base at Abu al-Duhur or station Turkish forces there.
Turkish officers had visited the base several days earlier, he said, but described the visit as part of military training and expertise-sharing between Ankara and Damascus.
Reuters said Shaibani and Mossad chief Gofman spoke by telephone on Aug. 14, four days before the attack, with Türkiye's military presence, arms supplies and drone support among the subjects discussed.
The call put Türkiye's military role on the agenda at senior level four days before the strike.
Türkiye rejects Israeli justification
The Turkish Ministry of National Defense said on Aug. 20 that no Turkish military delegation was present at Abu al-Duhur immediately before or during the attack.
That does not necessarily conflict with Shaibani's account, which referred to a visit several days earlier.
Ankara says its defense cooperation with the Syrian government will continue. The Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned the strike as a violation of Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ankara also rejected Netanyahu's warning against an expanded Turkish military role in Syria.
Israel maintains that a permanent Turkish presence farther south could threaten its security and restrict its freedom of action.
Washington has not confirmed Leiter's account
U.S. officials have acknowledged the risk surrounding the episode but have not publicly confirmed the freeze described by Leiter.
Barrack said Israel acted on a perception that Türkiye might increase its presence at Abu al-Duhur, adding that the assessment could have been accurate or misplaced. He also said Ankara had not received advance warning of the strike.
Washington has since moved toward a more structured Türkiye-Israel-Syria deconfliction mechanism.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on Aug. 20 that Israel believed Turkish military activity was moving farther south than expected, but played down the prospect of an immediate Türkiye-Israel confrontation.
Neither U.S. official publicly confirmed the existence or exact terms of the arrangement described by Leiter.
What was agreed remains unclear
Leiter's account gives Israel's clearest explanation yet of what it believed was at stake before the Abu al-Duhur strike.
What remains absent is a public text showing the precise terms of the understanding, who accepted them and how they were meant to apply to Turkish activity.
No public document has emerged showing that Ankara accepted obligations under the arrangement described by Leiter.
His account therefore sharpens Israel's justification for the strike, but leaves the status and scope of the alleged freeze unresolved.
Sources: The Jerusalem Post; Reuters; Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Turkish Ministry of National Defense; Bosphorus News reporting and review.