US envoy says Israel struck Syrian base without adequate warning
Tom Barrack, the United States ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, has accused Israel of carrying out strikes on Syria's Abu Duhur military base this week without giving Washington adequate warning. He described the attack as an unnecessary escalation and said it may have been intended to bait Turkiye, which has substantial influence in the region. Israeli officials rejected that account and said they had shared intelligence information with authorised parties in the United States before the Tuesday strike.
Sponsored
The dispute has sharpened an already tense regional picture involving Israel, Turkiye and Syria. Barrack said in a Friday interview that Israel gave no warning before the strikes, while Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that the intelligence had been passed on in advance. Katz also criticised Barrack's comments as inaccurate and said they contradicted the position of US President Donald Trump on Israel's military occupation of the Golan Heights.
The exchange matters because Syria remains a contested arena for outside powers and military activity there can quickly affect wider regional calculations. Israel has stepped up threats against Turkiye in recent months, portraying it as a potential rival seeking to expand its influence. Turkiye, for its part, has condemned the Israeli strikes as reckless, underscoring how the incident has become part of a broader diplomatic and security dispute rather than a single isolated attack.
The supplied material says Israel has routinely launched strikes in Syria and occupied parts of the country's south since the ousting of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. It also says the United States has tried to broker talks between Israel and Syria to reduce tensions. Syria's interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has said his government is not seeking conflict with Israel, even as the country remains a site of competing military and political interests.
Sponsored
The current row also touches on the status of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and which is considered occupied under international law. Barrack has acknowledged the territory as occupied, while the first Trump administration recognised Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights in 2019. That background helps explain why comments about intelligence sharing, warning procedures and military intent have taken on wider significance in the latest dispute.
What remains unclear is whether the strike was preceded by any direct warning to Turkiye, and whether the intelligence cited by Israel was shared in a way that satisfied US officials. It is also not clear whether the incident will affect the deconfliction efforts the United States has been trying to support. For now, the focus is on whether the competing accounts can be reconciled or whether the disagreement will deepen tensions between Israel and Turkiye.
Israeli fighter jets struck Abu al-Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria on Tuesday, prompting condemnation from the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Nations and several regional countries. The attack has added to already strained tensions involving Israel, Turkiye and Syria, with the airbase becoming the latest flashpoint in a wider regional dispute. The incident was described as part of a broader shift in the regional balance, with the strike drawing immediate diplomatic attention.
According to the supplied report, Israel said it had intelligence indicating Turkish military movement to the site before the attack. Tom Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy for Syria, later said Washington had received that intelligence from Israel six days earlier. He said US intelligence carried out its own due diligence and found no basis for the claim, undercutting the justification offered by Israel.
Sponsored
Barrack also said Israel did not warn Turkiye before the strike. The lack of warning is significant because the report says there is normally a deconfliction mechanism between Turkiye and Israel. Such arrangements are intended to reduce the risk of accidental escalation when military activity overlaps in the same theatre.
In this case, the report says Ankara treated the strike as a provocation but chose not to escalate, instead seeking to create an off-ramp from the crisis. That response suggests both sides were aware of the risk of a wider confrontation. The strike matters because it comes at a time when Syria remains a contested arena for regional powers and outside actors.
Abu al-Duhur airbase is in northwestern Syria, an area where military movements can quickly acquire broader geopolitical meaning. The report frames the attack as more than a bilateral dispute, describing it as a challenge to what it calls a regional and international consensus. It also places the incident within a wider pattern of tension involving Israel and Turkiye.
The report says the attack drew criticism not only from Western institutions but also from regional countries. That breadth of condemnation indicates concern that the strike could complicate already fragile efforts to manage military incidents in Syria. It also suggests that the issue is being viewed through a wider diplomatic lens, rather than as a single isolated airstrike.
The involvement of the United States is especially notable because Washington is presented as having reviewed the Israeli claim and found no supporting evidence. The supplied material also links the incident to a broader strategic context. It says the attack reflects a shift in the dynamics between Turkiye and Israel and signals a regional reordering in which Israel is no longer at the centre.
The report further argues that the strike may have been intended to escalate tensions, although that is presented as an interpretation rather than a confirmed fact. What is confirmed is that the attack took place, that it drew condemnation, and that the US said it found no basis for the intelligence claim cited by Israel. The report identifies a deconfliction mechanism as a key tool for preventing direct military friction, but says it only works if the parties involved want it to.
It also says the US envoy called for such a mechanism, implying that diplomatic channels remain active despite the strike. The role of the United States appears central because it is positioned between Israel and Turkiye and is also described as having reviewed the intelligence independently. That places Washington in a potentially mediating role if tensions continue.
Sponsored
