Türkiye has entered Israel’s threat narrative. What’s next?
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett recently made a bold statement regarding Türkiye and its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, effectively labeling Ankara a new strategic threat to Israeli security. Bennett accused Türkiye of supporting not only Iran but also several groups in the Middle East that Israel classifies as terrorist organizations.
In an interview, Bennett described Erdogan as a “sophisticated and dangerous adversary who wants to encircle Israel.” He urged Israel and its allies not to “turn a blind eye” to Ankara’s actions and develop a comprehensive policy of containment. He emphasized that the strategy should address not just Tehran; systemic measures must also be taken in regard to Türkiye. While Bennett did not specify particular pressure tactics, his rhetoric implied that Israel needs to formally recognize Türkiye as a hostile nation.
Bennett’s assertion about the emergence of what he termed a “monstrous axis” of Islamic political forces deserves special attention. He claimed that Qatar and Türkiye, acting in Syria and Gaza, are bolstering networks linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. He also hinted at Doha’s financial and political influence over certain Israeli officials, adding an additional domestic political layer to his statements.
Bennett had earlier articulated the notion of a “new Turkish threat” at a conference of American Jewish organizations in Jerusalem. He mentioned a scenario where Ankara could align with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in a potential military-political pact, predicting this would create a new center of power with regional ambitions.
Point of no return
The deterioration of relations between Türkiye and Israel has been gradual rather than abrupt. Since Erdogan’s rise to power and the strengthening of his Justice and Development Party, Ankara’s foreign policy has become increasingly ideologized. The concept of political Islam that underpins the party’s ideology calls for a strong support of the Palestinian cause and views Israel as an oppressor of the Palestinian people. This shift has naturally impacted bilateral relations.
For a long time, Türkiye attempted to balance among various power centers. On the one hand, as a NATO member and regional neighbor, Ankara aimed to maintain strategic ties with Israel, while on the other, it sought to assert its leadership in the Muslim world. This dual approach drew criticism from both sides: Islamic nations accused Türkiye of not taking a firm enough stance against Israel, while the West criticized it for excessive politicization and an anti-Israel rhetoric that fell short of the expectations of its NATO allies.
One of the most significant and symbolically transformative episodes in Turkish-Israeli relations was the Mavi Marmara incident in May 2010. This largely set the course for the subsequent deterioration of bilateral ties between the two countries. The MV Mavi Marmara ship was part of the so-called Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which aimed to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza by delivering humanitarian aid. The mission of the Freedom Flotilla was to break through the naval blockade imposed by Israel after Hamas came to power. Israel viewed this as a breach of security and a potential threat, asserting that the cargo could be used for military purposes.
During the interception operation, Israeli soldiers boarded the vessel in international waters. The situation escalated into a violent confrontation and resulted in the deaths of several Turkish citizens. This prompted a fierce reaction from Ankara, with Turkish officials condemning Israel’s actions as a violation of international law and demanding official apologies, compensation for the victims’ families, and the lifting of the blockade on Gaza.
The Mavi Marmara incident became more than just a diplomatic crisis; it marked a turning point in Türkiye’s relations with Israel. Türkiye recalled its ambassador, downgraded bilateral relations, and effectively dismantled military cooperation, which had been a cornerstone of cooperation between the two countries. The Turkish public came to view Israel as a state that used force against Turkish citizens engaged in a humanitarian mission. Conversely, in Israel, the incident reinforced the view of Türkiye as a supporter of political factions hostile to Israeli policy in Gaza.
Despite subsequent attempts at partial normalization of relations, including apologies and discussions over compensation, trust was never fully restored. Moreover, the Mavi Marmara incident represented a point of no return: while prior to 2010, tensions were primarily rhetorical and ideological, afterwards they became more permanent and official.
From diplomatic strain to strategic distrust
Since then, every escalation of the Israel-Palestine conflict has automatically impacted relations between Ankara and West Jerusalem. The events of 2023 only exacerbated the existing mistrust: the tragic events of October 7, 2023, followed by Israeli military actions in Gaza led to a further deterioration of relations. Ankara’s response was highly critical – the Turkish authorities publicly called the actions of the IDF disproportionate and condemned mass civilian casualties in Gaza. From that moment on, bilateral relations became ‘frozen’ and were characterized by a confrontational rhetoric and strategic distrust that was close to a ‘cold war’.
Within the Israeli political landscape, some advocate for a more rigid stance towards Türkiye, while others favor a more pragmatic approach; however, the general stance regarding Türkiye is similar. Naftali Bennett has long been known for his staunch anti-Turkish position, viewing Ankara as a potential strategic adversary that could emerge as Israel’s next significant threat after Iran.
In contrast, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite his personal animosity towards Erdogan and occasional sharp remarks, typically adopts a more pragmatic approach. His rhetoric often leaves room for possible normalization, grounded in the idea that Türkiye and Israel do not have a direct territorial conflict and that there is potential for economic and energy cooperation.
Another point of contention for Israeli leadership is Türkiye’s growing ties with Islamabad. Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Muslim world with a firm anti-Israeli stance, and Israel views the deepening military-political relationship between Türkiye and Pakistan as the emergence of an alternative power center. Netanyahu had indicated that, following Iran, Pakistan may come under scrutiny as a potential strategic threat to Israel. Meanwhile, Bennett appears to shift the focus more squarely onto Ankara.
Interestingly, similar assessments are being echoed beyond Israel’s borders. American journalist Tucker Carlson recently remarked that Türkiye poses a unique challenge for Israel precisely because its foreign policy is difficult to control and does not fit into rigid alliance structures.
The politics of persistent threat
From Israel’s perspective, it is clear that regional security extends beyond just Iran. Even if the Iranian factor was neutralized or considerably weakened, West Jerusalem would need to redefine the source of the next long-term challenge to its security. Israel traditionally conceptualizes threats in multilayered terms, where removing one pressure point often brings another to the forefront. Netanyahu is navigating a complex situation. Israel is shaken by political disputes, societal divisions, pressure exerted by the security forces, and the ongoing war. In this context, Netanyahu is trying to persuade the Israeli people that national security remains a top priority and that threats persist.
In Israel, the theme of external danger generally unites society. When faced with a serious threat, political disagreements tend to recede into the background. Therefore, discussions about who might pose the next challenge after Iran are not merely strategic or foreign policy considerations; they also have significant implications for domestic politics. The government must demonstrate that it has control over the situation and is prepared to confront any potential adversaries.
The narrative surrounding the so-called “axis of resistance,” which traditionally encompasses Iran and its proxies, is gradually expanding within the rhetoric of certain Israeli politicians. Now, in addition to Tehran, Ankara and Islamabad are also mentioned as potential power centers capable of limiting Israel’s maneuverability in the mid-term.
Türkiye is seen as a nation with ambitions for regional leadership, an independent defense industry, and an ideologically driven foreign policy. Pakistan, on the other hand, is viewed as a nuclear power with a deep-seated anti-Israel stance and growing ties to Ankara. From Israel’s strategic perspective, this configuration is perceived as a potential new element of pressure.
Not a new war – yet
Israel has consistently maintained that it views Iran, Türkiye, and Pakistan as rivals that are different in nature, but comparable in scale. The only question is which nation will become Israel’s next priority.
Considering likely scenarios, Türkiye may emerge as the more probable adversary. However, Israel will approach the matter with extreme caution. Firstly, Türkiye is a NATO member, which complicates any direct confrontation. Secondly, personal relations between Trump and Erdogan prevent a radical stance towards Türkiye in US foreign policy, thereby limiting space for direct Israeli pressure.
Nonetheless, Israel is known for its long-term strategy – a systemic approach that gradually creates a favorable international environment through collaboration with allies, sanctions, information campaigns, and regional alliances. This logic does not imply suddenly entering into a new confrontation but rather gradually building a deterrence infrastructure.
For now, Iran remains Israel’s primary adversary. However, Israel will continue to regard both Türkiye and Pakistan as potential competitors. For Ankara, this means that current disputes must also be viewed within the context of Israel’s long-term logic. The situation in the Middle East remains unstable, power dynamics can shift, but distrust among nations is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.
