Since Erdogan is not responding Militarily to Israel, will Al-Sharaa respond to Israels growing uncontrolled attack on Syrian cities?

 Will Al-Sharaa Retaliate? Syria Faces a Difficult Choice After Israel’s Latest Attack

By MANNURMEDIA  August 20, 2026

The latest Israeli airstrike on Syrian territory has once again raised a difficult question in the Middle East: How long can Syria absorb Israeli military action without responding militarily?

For President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the question is more complicated than simply deciding whether to retaliate. Syria is emerging from years of devastating conflict, its military is being rebuilt, and Damascus has been pursuing negotiations aimed at establishing a security arrangement with Israel. At the same time, Israeli military operations inside Syria continue to challenge the country's sovereignty.

The latest escalation came on August 18, when Israel carried out multiple airstrikes against the Abu al-Duhur airbase in Idlib, northwestern Syria. Syrian authorities condemned the attack as a violation of national sovereignty. Israel said the strike was connected to concerns over a possible Turkish military deployment at the base, while Turkey and Syria rejected the characterization of the site as a planned Turkish military base.

The United States has also criticized the escalation. U.S. envoy Tom Barrack described the Israeli strike as an "unnecessary escalation" and has been working on a mechanism involving Syria, Israel and Turkey to prevent further confrontation.

But behind the diplomatic language lies a much bigger strategic problem for Damascus.

Syria Has Been Trying to Avoid Another War

Al-Sharaa's government has not been behaving like a government preparing for an immediate confrontation with Israel.

Instead, Damascus has been pursuing negotiations.

In July, al-Sharaa said Syria was working toward a security agreement with Israel with the involvement of several countries. He indicated that such an agreement could potentially become a pathway toward broader peace, while maintaining Syria's position on the Golan Heights.

That strategy reflects Syria's current reality.

The country has spent years fighting an internal war. Its infrastructure has been badly damaged, millions of Syrians have been displaced, and the new government is attempting to consolidate authority and rebuild state institutions.

Opening a full-scale military confrontation with Israel could undermine those objectives.

For Damascus, therefore, restraint may not necessarily mean weakness. It may be a calculation that Syria needs time to rebuild before it can confront a much stronger military power.

But Israeli Strikes Create a Serious Problem for Al-Sharaa.

There is another side to the calculation.

Every Israeli strike puts pressure on al-Sharaa domestically.

A government that repeatedly promises to restore Syrian sovereignty cannot indefinitely watch foreign aircraft attack Syrian territory without facing questions about its ability to defend the country.

The latest strike is particularly significant because it targeted a Syrian military facility.

Reuters reported that Israel's action followed concerns over possible Turkish deployments in Syria. Israel argued that the move threatened the security arrangement it says Syria was close to breaching. Syria, however, said there were no plans for a permanent Turkish military presence at the airbase.

That leaves Damascus facing a difficult dilemma.

If it retaliates militarily, it risks triggering a much wider conflict.

If it does nothing, Israel may conclude that it can continue conducting military operations inside Syria without facing meaningful consequences.

What Would a Syrian Retaliation Look Like?

If al-Sharaa eventually decides that military retaliation is unavoidable, the first response would not necessarily be an attempt to launch a major war against Israel.

A more limited response could theoretically involve attacks designed to demonstrate that Syrian territory cannot be struck without consequences.

But such a decision would carry enormous risks.

Israel possesses a powerful air force and sophisticated intelligence capabilities. Syria's military, meanwhile, is still undergoing reconstruction after years of war.

A direct exchange could therefore quickly become asymmetric.

Israel could respond with additional strikes against Syrian military infrastructure, while Damascus could find itself facing pressure from several directions at once.

This is probably one of the main reasons al-Sharaa has so far preferred diplomacy.

Turkey Changes the Equation.

The latest incident is also no longer simply a Syria-Israel dispute.

Turkey has become increasingly important to Syria's post-Assad political and security environment.

Israel has expressed concern about growing Turkish influence and potential Turkish military activity in Syria. Turkey, however, has rejected Israeli claims that it was preparing to establish a military base at Abu al-Duhur.

That creates a potentially dangerous triangle:

Israel → Syria → Turkeye

If Israel continues striking locations associated with Turkish-Syrian military cooperation, Ankara could become increasingly involved.

That would transform the strategic calculation for everyone.

Syria would no longer be dealing with Israel alone. Israel would have to consider the possibility of confrontation with Turkeye, a NATO member with a much larger military capability than Syria.

This may explain why Washington is pushing for a deconfliction mechanism.

The United States Has an Important Role.

Washington could become the most important actor in preventing the situation from becoming a war.

The Trump administration has been involved in efforts to establish a security arrangement between Israel and Syria. The latest airstrike threatens to undermine that process.

U.S. officials have already expressed concern about the escalation, while American diplomacy is attempting to create mechanisms for Israel, Syria and Turkeye to communicate and prevent misunderstandings from turning into military confrontation.

Though. The US might have more plans for Turkeye to punish Akara for it's role in The support for Assad and the attack on Takfiri militias during the Syrian war. All Turkeys role in the gulf region for not speaking well about Israel on Ghaza, Lebanon and Iran. All this are possibilities the Americans can see to use Israel to punish Turkiye but Ankara is not Tehran. Israel will find no breathing space in Ankaras airspace neither would Israel bomb destroy infrastructure inside Ankara as it does in Tehran.

This is also going to be a test for Nato. Would Nato support Ankara against Israel or stay out of the fight as Pakistan step out on Saudi Arabia?

Instead of responding to an Israeli strike with another strike, Damascus can attempt to use Washington to impose diplomatic costs on Israel.

But there is a limit to how long that strategy can work.

If Israeli operations continue despite negotiations, Syrian leaders may eventually conclude that diplomacy alone is not protecting Syrian sovereignty.

Could Al-Sharaa Eventually Fight Israel?

Yes but that does not appear to be the immediate objective because Damascus doesn't have the millitary power to counter a forbidden force like Israel. 

The more likely short-term strategy is diplomatic pressure, international condemnation and continued negotiations.

Al-Sharaa has publicly supported the pursuit of a security agreement with Israel, demonstrating that Damascus currently sees diplomacy as preferable to war.

However, the situation could change if Israel's military operations become more frequent or begin causing significant Syrian casualties.

There is a major difference between accepting an isolated strike while negotiations continue and allowing repeated attacks to become the normal condition of Syrian-Israeli relations.

The latter could eventually become politically impossible for Damascus.

The Real Question Is Not Whether Syria Is Angry.

Syria is clearly angry about Israeli military operations.

The more important question is whether anger will eventually overcome strategic restraint.

Al-Sharaa has inherited a country that wants stability, reconstruction and international recognition. Israel is a threat to all three.

But sovereignty is also central to the legitimacy of the new Syrian government.

If Damascus cannot protect its territory or persuade Israel and its international partners to stop violating Syrian sovereignty pressure for a stronger response could grow.

That creates a dangerous cycle.

Israel says its actions are necessary for security.

Syria says those actions violate its sovereignty.

Turkey says Israel is escalating tensions.

Washington says escalation must be avoided.

And every new military incident makes a diplomatic settlement more difficult.

What Could Trigger Retaliation?

Several developments could potentially push Damascus toward a military response.

The most serious would be a major attack on Syrian government forces, significant civilian casualties, an attack on Damascus, or a sustained Israeli military campaign deep inside Syrian territory.

Another possibility would be the collapse of the Syria-Israel diplomatic process.

If al-Sharaa concludes that negotiations are being used to buy time while Israeli military operations continue, the political argument for restraint would become harder to maintain.

At that point, Damascus could seek stronger military and security cooperation with countries such as Turkey and potentially other regional partners.

That would make the Middle East's already complicated security environment even more unstable.

Syria's Choice Is Bigger Than Retaliation

The question facing al-Sharaa is therefore not simply:

"Will Syria retaliate against Israel?"

The deeper question is:

"How does Syria restore its sovereignty without destroying the fragile peace it is trying to build?"

That is an extraordinarily difficult balance.

For now, the evidence suggests that al-Sharaa is still choosing diplomacy over direct confrontation. Syria's foreign minister has described the Israeli bombing as unjustified while simultaneously indicating that negotiations over de-escalation remain possible.

But patience has limits.

If Israeli attacks continue, the pressure on Damascus to demonstrate that Syria is no longer a state that can simply be attacked without consequence will increase.

The danger is that one more strike, one major casualty event or one failed diplomatic meeting could change the calculation.

Al-Sharaa may not want a war with Israel. But that does not mean Syria will accept unlimited Israeli military action forever.

The coming months could determine whether the new Syria becomes a state that resolves its disputes through diplomacy or whether the unresolved conflict with Israel eventually pulls Damascus into another regional confrontation.

For now, the Syrian response remains restraint. The question is how long that restraint can survive.

The situation remains fluid. Claims made by Israel and Syria about military deployments and security arrangements are disputed, while U.S.-mediated efforts to prevent escalation are continuing.