Recent Statements Suggest Washington Was Fully Aware of the Intelligence and the Possibility of the Attack in Türkiye

Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Ankara and special representative for Syria and Iraq, has criticized Israel's strike on a Syrian airport over claims Turkey planned to establish a military base there, while President Donald Trump remains silent. Recent statements suggest Washington was fully aware of the intelligence and the possibility of the attack. Israel bombed Abu al-Zuhur Airport in northwestern Syria on August 18, sparking debate.

Turkish public opinion holds that Washington was uncomfortable with the strike on the airport, located roughly 80 kilometers from Turkey's border. In a weekend column, Hürriyet's Washington correspondent Yunus Paksoy argued that Barrack's criticism of Israel reflects Trump's views. Paksoy claimed Barrack "stands with Turkey" and interpreted Trump's silence on the attack as a refusal to "indulge Netanyahu's insolence.

Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, responding to Barrack on Saturday, stressed that Israel had previously provided the U.S. with intelligence indicating Turkey was increasing its military capacity in Syria." Barrack said Washington considered the intelligence "wrong, but this does not explain why Turkey was not notified. According to Israel's public broadcaster KAN, the intelligence suggested Turkey planned to install an air defense system at al-Zuhur." Israel told Washington such a system would disrupt its air superiority and shift the balance of power in the region. An Israeli official told Fox News the attack followed a sensitive intelligence exchange with "top-level officials" in the U.S. administration.

Israel's Channel 12 reported the day after the incident that the Trump administration increasingly trusted Israeli intelligence showing Turkey's military support for Syria was real. Barrack, who views the al-Zuhur strike as Netanyahu's attempt to gain an electoral advantage, told PBS NewsHour and podcast host Mario Nawfal that Turkish forces detected the Israeli aircraft and that launching Turkish jets was considered during the incident. According to Barrack, Ankara did not know the "purpose, direction, and intent" of the Israeli planes.

He welcomed the decision not to scramble Turkish jets, saying, "Thank God cooler heads prevailed at that critical moment. Barrack outlined two theories about the strike: "One theory is they were just provoking Turkey, and it was a very aggressive but perhaps well-received pre-election move. The other theory is there was a breakdown in communication between the Israeli Army, Mossad, and the Prime Minister's Office.

"The Turkish Army is very good. They are very strong, and so is their intelligence. They have entered a new and powerful era that makes everyone uneasy, Barrack said, describing the solution as "lowering the temperature, increasing dialogue, and avoiding sudden kinetic actions.

Israeli media close to the Tel Aviv government supports the strike, saying "Turkey's approach to our border is unacceptable. However, Israel's best-selling newspaper Yediot Aharonot argues the attack brought danger closer rather than pushing it away. In an analysis titled "Netanyahu's survival policy risks turning Syria and Turkey into Israel's next crisis, columnist Sima Kadmon criticized the government harshly, noting that Tel Aviv's claims that Iran was "set back decades" in the last war do not reflect reality.

She wrote: "Once again, we demand an explanation. We are asked to accept this dangerous security move without a convincing explanation of why the attack was necessary. Kadmon reminded readers that trust is difficult when Netanyahu is involved, noting Turkey's military presence in Syria is not new. She questioned whether the strike truly created "a strategic transformation, asking: What was the risk-benefit calculation to justify this attack with potentially enormous consequences, and why was the danger considered urgent enough to require military intervention?