Stability in Syria could help ease tensions between Israel and Turkey — two countries with competing interests in the region — and the U.S. has a key role to play in shaping the security agreements needed to get there, experts from the Middle East Institute said Thursday during a panel titled “Can Turkey and Israel Find Common Ground in Syria?”

“A lot depends on what the United States decides to do, how they treat the Kurdish question in the northeast of Syria, and what they ask the Israelis and the Kurds to do,” said Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at MEI who focuses primarily on Israel. 

“It’s not that [President Donald] Trump can decide what happens, because these interests, certainly for the Israelis but also for the Turks, are seen as vital domestic interests. It’s not just the question of the peace process in Turkey. For Israelis, it’s seen as vital threats on the Israeli border. But nonetheless, there is enormous room, I think, for [U.S.] diplomacy here with some chance of success.” 

The webinar, moderated by MEI’s vice president for policy, Ken Pollack, also featured Gonul Tol, a senior fellow at MEI who focuses primarily on Turkish politics. It comes against the backdrop of the collapse of the Assad regime last December and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s assumption of power in January. Al-Sharaa addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, the first time a Syrian president has done so in almost 60 years, presenting a vision of a “new Syria” after decades of civil war and dictatorship under the Assad family. 

But questions remain about Syria’s future and the influence of its two most powerful neighbors — Israel and Turkey. Sachs and Tol addressed how Syria has become a focal point for Turkish-Israeli rivalry, what role the U.S. could play in softening the hostilities between its two allies and how the situation impacts stability in the region. 

The Assad family “has been a long foe of Israel, but it was a known foe. It was a devil that they knew,” said Sachs, expressing concern that al-Sharaa, who was once a leader in Al-Qaida, could be a “pragmatist, but not someone who’s changed fundamentally.” 

Tol said that “it’s always been Syria that kept the two countries together, historically, from Turkey’s point of view, overlapping interests with Israel in Syria and on some level Iran too.”

“That was the glue that kept the relationship, no matter what was happening on the Palestine question, right? So now we are at a moment where that glue is not there,” Tol continued. “Syria and clashing interests are driving these two countries apart. What is worse is what kept that relationship in the golden years of the 1990s was the fact that Israel really needed Turkey, and it was the main factor behind this bilateral partnership. But in the last several years, Israel has taken many steps that makes Israel a lot less dependent on Turkey. I mean partnership with Ankara granted Israel this legitimacy.”

“So we’ve got a point where there is a dominant Israel that is militarily very powerful … Israel does not need Turkey anymore, and Turkey does not have leverage,” she continued. 

Tol called the Kurdish angle “important” to the situation. “Kurds now want autonomy,” she said. “They are somewhat emboldened by the Israeli presence there [in northern Syria] and as long as Syria remains unstable they won’t be able to send back those refugees.”

She went on to say that the presence of U.S. troops in the country complicates the situation of stabilizing Syria. A potential solution, Tol suggested, is “maybe both sides should just accept different spheres of influence,” similar to Israel and Turkey’s understanding in Azerbaijan. 

“The parties helped there in order to establish a non-conflict mechanism. So you control Turkey’s tens of thousands of troops in northern Syria. So the understanding was going to be, okay, you remain there. We are here. We do our business. So we don’t conflict with each other. Can that be done? I think that would be an ideal scenario for [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, because Erdogan wants Israel out of Syria. But he understands that it’s not realistic,” she said, adding that the two countries would like good relations. “Erdogan is not interested in military conflict with Israel. That is, I know that’s a negative that some have been pushing, but I just don’t think so. And I don’t think Israel has any interest in confronting Turkey’s military either. Turkey is a NATO country at the end of the day, and the stakes are just too high.”

Asked whether Israel can accept a Turkey-Syria agreement, and under what conditions, Tol pointed to recent reports from Israeli media that said one of the asks from the Israeli side in an agreement with Damascus is that it stops cooperating with Ankara on defense.

“We know that Turkey wants to have access to spaces in Syria and Israelis were saying they weren’t going to accept this … but Damascus is slow on that and in a difficult spot, too. So I think the defense angle, if Israelis are pushing that, forcing Damascus to stop having that defense partnership with Ankrara, that would be difficult to follow,” Tol said. 

Sachs said a red line for Israel in a Turkey-Syria agreement would be “Turkish access to [air] bases, and in particular flexibility for aerial defense.”  

“The Israeli assumption here is that Turkey’s influence is almost a given,” said Sachs. “The question is more the confines of that limit, not whether [the countries] come to an accommodation. From the Israeli perspective, the current trend is extremely worrying, with the rise of a regime it is very skeptical of — and with good reason.”