Istanbul, Turkiye – Simply hours after Israel launched strikes final week in opposition to Qatar – a United States-designated “main non-NATO ally” and one in all Washington’s closest Gulf companions – pro-Israel commentators rapidly shifted their consideration to Turkiye.
In Washington, Michael Rubin, a senior fellow on the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, urged that Turkiye could possibly be Israel’s subsequent goal and warned that it mustn’t depend on its NATO membership for cover.
Advisable Tales
checklist of three gadgetsfinish of checklist
On social media, Israeli tutorial and political determine Meir Masri posted, “Right this moment Qatar, tomorrow Turkey.” Ankara responded sharply. In unusually harsh language, a senior adviser to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wrote: “To the canine of Zionist Israel … quickly the world will discover peace along with your erasure from the map.”
For months, pro-Israel media retailers have steadily escalated their rhetoric in opposition to Turkiye, portraying it as “Israel’s most harmful enemy”.
Israeli commentators have additionally framed Turkiye’s presence within the jap Mediterranean as a “risk” and its function in rebuilding post-war Syria as a “new rising hazard”.
With Israel’s regional aggression escalating and its struggle on Gaza displaying no signal of ending, Turkish Overseas Minister Hakan Fidan retaliated in August by suspending financial and commerce ties with Israel.
“In Ankara, this [anti-Turkish] rhetoric is taken critically, with Israel seen as searching for regional hegemony,” Omer Ozkizilcik, non-resident fellow on the Atlantic Council, instructed Al Jazeera.
“Turkiye more and more feels that Israeli aggression has no limits and enjoys American help,” added Ozkizilcik.
The strikes on Qatar additionally seemingly underscored Ankara’s doubts about US safety ensures as a NATO ally. Regardless of Doha’s particular ally standing with Washington, Israel confronted no seen pushback from the US, resulting in questions over whether or not the US would actually see any assault on Turkiye as an assault on itself, because the NATO constitution dictates.
In contrast to many Arab states, nonetheless, “Turkiye has way back understood that it can not depend on the US or NATO for its personal nationwide safety pursuits,” mentioned Ozkizilcik.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself now more and more boasts of his nation’s regional expansionist objectives. In August, when requested whether or not he believed within the thought of a “Better Israel”, he replied: “Completely.”
For Ankara, such rhetoric isn’t just symbolic – it alerts an Israeli imaginative and prescient of dominance that stretches throughout the Center East, probably clashing head-on with Turkiye’s personal regional outlook.
On Sunday, Fidan instructed Al Jazeera that Israel’s “Better Israel” imaginative and prescient – which some spiritual Zionists consider extends into modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan – goals to “preserve the international locations within the area weak, ineffective, and particularly to depart Israel’s neighbouring states divided”.
Over the previous couple of weeks alone, Israel – along with persevering with its genocidal onslaught in Gaza and nearly-daily raids within the occupied West Financial institution – additionally attacked Yemen and Syria, and is accused of hitting the Gaza assist flotilla in Tunisia.
Towards this backdrop, Turkiye and Israel are already in a “geopolitical rivalry”, famous Ozkizilcik, including that Israel’s actions clashed with what the analyst views because the “Turkish agenda to have sturdy [centralised] states” fairly than decentralised states the place a number of forces can maintain energy.
Regional hegemon
The sense that Israel is making an attempt to turn into the area’s sole dominant energy appeared to be confirmed in July when Tom Barrack, US ambassador to Turkiye and particular envoy to Syria, made a startling admission: that Israel would favor a fragmented and divided Syria.
“Robust nation-states are a risk – particularly Arab states, [which] are considered as a risk to Israel,” he mentioned.
The subtext for Ankara was clear: Israel believes it must be the hegemon within the area to really feel safe.
Israel’s actions bear this out. It has bombed Syria dozens of occasions since December 8 – when former President Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow – and grabbed Syrian territory within the quick chaos.
It decapitated a lot of Hezbollah’s management in 2024 and nonetheless occupies components of Lebanon regardless of a ceasefire, lengthy searching for to weaken or destroy the group.
In June, Israel attacked Iran, sparking a 12-day struggle that struck Iranian army and nuclear amenities, killing senior commanders and nuclear scientists, and dragged within the US.
The assaults aimed not solely to weaken Tehran’s defence and nuclear capabilities but additionally to push Washington in the direction of regime change, concentrating on one in all Israel’s strongest rivals within the area.
Israel might now view Turkiye as the following potential problem to its regional hegemony, explaining its adamant stance that Ankara won’t be allowed to ascertain new bases in Syria that “might threaten Israel” – as Netanyahu has beforehand mentioned.
“The primary manifestation of Turkish-Israeli friction will probably seem within the Syrian entrance within the land and air,” warns Cem Gurdeniz, a retired Turkish admiral and architect of the Blue Homeland doctrine, a maritime technique that requires Turkiye to claim its sovereignty and safeguard its pursuits throughout the encompassing seas – the Aegean, Japanese Mediterranean and Black Sea.
“In parallel, Israel’s deepening army and intelligence footprint in Cyprus, tightly woven with Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration below American auspices, is perceived in Ankara as a deliberate try and fracture and include the Blue Homeland,” Gurdeniz instructed Al Jazeera.
“To Ankara, this isn’t a defensive posture by Israel however an offensive encirclement technique that would threaten each Turkish maritime freedom and the safety of the Turkish Cypriot individuals,” he added, referring to Turkiye’s ties to the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is just Turkiye recognises, fairly than the remainder of Cyprus, which is dominated by Greek Cypriots.
The division of Cyprus is a significant supply of discontent between Turkiye, Greece and Cyprus.
Studies that Cyprus acquired Israeli air-defence methods final week are prone to increase alarm in Ankara.
In tandem in Syria, Israel has made no secret that what it considers to be a secure Syria “can solely be a federal” one with “completely different autonomies”, Israeli Overseas Minister Gideon Sa’ar instructed European leaders at a gathering in Brussels in February.
Turkiye, however, backs the brand new Syrian administration, which insists on a centralised and unitary state.
For now, tensions between Israel and Turkiye will be described as “managed”, says Gokhan Cinkara, director of Necmettin Erbakan College’s World and Regional Research Centre in Turkiye.
“At current, the riskiest situation for Turkiye could be an uncontrolled outbreak of intergroup battle in Syria. For that reason, Ankara is probably going advising the brand new Syrian administration to behave with a level of rational pragmatism,” Cinkara instructed Al Jazeera.
“The immaturity of Syria’s safety equipment makes any potential intergroup clashes more durable to include, and dangers turning it into protracted ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Within the brief time period, due to this fact, adopting a unitary mannequin appears tough,” he added.
Pink traces and dangers
Netanyahu, for his half, is pushing for a “Balkanised” Syria, divided alongside ethnic and non secular traces, demanding the demilitarisation of a lot of southern Syria, principally populated by the nation’s Druze inhabitants.
That may be a transfer that, if applied, might gentle the touchpaper and ignite calls for from members of different teams within the nation, together with the Kurds and Alawite, for their very own tailor-made variations of de facto autonomy.
“Turkiye, nonetheless, has clear pink traces in Syria,” says Murat Yesiltas, director of international coverage analysis at SETA, a suppose tank in Ankara with shut ties to the federal government.
“The US and Israel’s try and reshape the regional order carries varied risks and dangers, deepening fragmentation within the Center East,” Yesiltas instructed Al Jazeera.
In March, Israel’s most influential safety suppose tank, the Institute for Nationwide Safety Research (INSS), revealed a bit that warned in opposition to the nascent peace course of between Turkiye and the Kurdistan Employees’ Social gathering (PKK), which is searching for to shut a chapter on a four-decade armed marketing campaign in opposition to the Turkish state in a battle that has killed greater than 40,000 individuals.
The INSS warned that this might “weaken the flexibility of the Kurds in Syria to proceed to function autonomously” and contribute to Ankara “increasing its affect in southern Syria, in a manner that would improve the risk to Israeli freedom of motion”.
Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz made clear that swaths of newly occupied territory in southern Syria will likely be held for an “limitless period of time”.
As Turkiye scoped out potential army bases in Syria’s Homs province and the primary airport in Hama province in coordination with the newly established Damascus authorities, Israel bombed the websites.
“If Tel Aviv persists on this path, a battle between Ankara and Tel Aviv will turn into inevitable. Turkiye can not settle for insurance policies that perpetuate instability on its southern border,” mentioned Yesiltas.
However full-blown rivalry is “not inevitable” as either side recognise the prices of confrontation, significantly given financial interdependence, Andreas Krieg, affiliate professor of safety research at King’s Faculty London, instructed Al Jazeera.
“Israel’s risk to Turkiye will not be typical army aggression however fairly the concentrating on of Turkish pursuits through oblique means,” mentioned Krieg, talking about Ankara’s pursuits in Syria, the Japanese Mediterranean and the South Caucasus.
Given Washington’s full and seemingly unconditional help for Netanyahu’s bid to “reshape the area”, Krieg says Ankara’s prescription is to “strengthen strategic deterrence, particularly by means of expanded air-defence, missile methods and intelligence capabilities” and to pursue regional coalitions with Qatar, Jordan and Iraq whereas sustaining open channels with Washington to “keep away from full strategic isolation”.
“Ankara should recognise that future flashpoints usually tend to emerge within the gray zone – covert operations, air strikes, and proxy competitors – than in formal declarations or diplomacy,” he added.
