By Bosphorus News Geopolitics Desk
Türkiye and Israel continue to maintain a military communication channel intended to prevent unintended clashes in Syria, despite the sharp deterioration in their political relationship and increasingly hostile public statements.
The mechanism emerged from talks mediated by Azerbaijan in 2025. It gives the two militaries a direct route for handling overlapping operations and disputed deployments.
Its continued operation, described by Israeli experts in July 2026, also exposes a division inside Israel. Some ministers and commentators present Türkiye as the country's next major enemy. Security specialists and former diplomats regard Ankara as a powerful regional competitor but reject the claim that it has replaced Iran as an existential threat.
Baku talks opened a military channel
On April 9, 2025, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan disclosed that technical contacts were under way to prevent Turkish and Israeli forces from misreading each other during operations in Syria.
"There are technical contacts to prevent combat elements from misunderstanding each other," Fidan said, adding that the teams communicated when necessary. He described the talks as limited military coordination rather than an attempt to restore political relations.
An Israeli security source confirmed the contacts to Channel 12 hours later.
"A mechanism will be established, similar to the one built between Israel and Russia," the source said.
Israel and Russia had previously used direct communication to reduce the danger of accidental encounters in Syrian airspace. The comparison showed that the Türkiye-Israel talks were focused on military coordination.
The Israeli Prime Minister's Office confirmed on April 10 that delegations from Türkiye and Israel had met in Azerbaijan to discuss the prevention of unwanted incidents in Syria. Israeli reports also said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told ministers that Israel was not seeking a confrontation with Türkiye there.
By May 2025, sources familiar with the process said the sides had reached an agreement in principle and established a hotline between their forces.
T4 and Palmyra remain the main point of friction
The talks did not resolve the dispute over a possible Turkish military presence in central Syria.
An Israeli official said after the first Baku meeting that Turkish bases around Palmyra, also known as Tadmor, would cross an Israeli red line. The warning followed Israeli strikes on Syrian military facilities that Turkish teams had reportedly assessed for a possible future deployment.
Later accounts narrowed Israel's concern to the possible deployment of radars and air defense systems capable of monitoring Israeli air activity.
The discussions focused on what a source familiar with the talks called the "Palmyra line." Bases around T4 and Palmyra were described as a gray area, while Israel could be more receptive to Turkish deployments north of that zone.
Available reporting does not show that Türkiye and Israel reached a final agreement over specific bases, weapons or air defense systems. It does show that deployments in central Syria remained the main operational dispute between them.
Israeli hardliners cast Türkiye as the next enemy
Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli has described Türkiye as an "enemy state," language Bosphorus News previously examined as part of a wider effort to recast Ankara from a difficult counterpart into an adversarial power.
Chikli later argued that the danger posed by Türkiye could exceed the threat from Iran.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has identified Syria as the most likely point of friction between the two countries. He said Israel was monitoring possible Turkish attempts to deepen its military presence, establish bases or restrict Israeli operations.
Katz also said those developments did not yet constitute a realistic operational threat.
Some Israeli publications have combined Türkiye's military expansion, its influence in Syria and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's rhetoric into a narrative of approaching conflict.
Israeli analysts reject the Iran comparison
Michael Milshtein, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Moshe Dayan Center, wrote that Türkiye was becoming Israel's "newest demon."
He described Ankara as a serious strategic challenge but rejected claims that it had adopted an Iranian-style state strategy directed at Israel's destruction.
"Despite the sweeping declarations heard in Israel, confrontation with Ankara is not inevitable," Milshtein wrote.
The Institute for National Security Studies addressed the argument directly in a November 2025 paper titled "Turkey Is Not Iran, but It Is a Threat."
The institute cited Türkiye's military presence in Syria, expanding defense capabilities, involvement in the Palestinian issue and possible friction in the Eastern Mediterranean as grounds for Israeli concern. It nevertheless described the "new Iran" comparison as problematic, pointing to Türkiye's NATO membership and the distinct nature of the Iranian threat.
Michael Harari, a former Israeli diplomat writing for the Mitvim Institute, argued that Israel and Türkiye needed to state their limits clearly in Syria.
"Discussions aimed at reaching a mutual understanding are vital to preventing miscalculation from either side," Harari wrote.
Israeli Türkiye specialist Gallia Lindenstrauss said Ankara was acting cautiously in Syria because of the danger of friction with Israel and "continues to maintain a security hotline" to prevent uncontrolled escalation.
The harder political camp depicts Ankara as a future enemy whose military reach must be stopped. The competing assessment sees Türkiye as a conventional state pursuing regional influence while remaining constrained by the costs of direct conflict, its NATO membership and its ties with Washington.
The channel remains in place to prevent their military operations in Syria from producing an unintended clash.
Sources: The Times of Israel, ynet, Institute for National Security Studies, Mitvim Institute, Middle East Eye, Reuters, Bosphorus News review and reporting.