Franco-Israeli relations have been quite remarkable and equally interesting in recent years. The relationship between France’s quest for influence in the Levant, the Caucasus, and the Eastern Mediterranean and Israel’s regional security doctrine, at first glance, appears to be a “strategic alliance”, but in reality, it is based on fragile compromises and deep asymmetries. The steps taken by Paris along the axis of Damascus, Beirut, Yerevan, Athens, and Nicosia provide direct and indirect contributions to Israel’s encirclement strategy, while the ultimate regional visions of the two actors frequently clash. However, France’s Israel-centered policies have the potential to create a destructive boomerang effect for Paris over time due to the region’s multilayered dynamics.
As I mentioned in my analysis titled “Macron’s Geopolitical Gamble: French Ambition from the Levant to the Caucasus and Possible Consequences”, the changing global priorities of the U.S. factor, Azerbaijan’s high-precision subtle diplomacy between the Caucasus and the Middle East, and England’s assertive role as a game-changing actor in the region are causing a complete reshuffling of the current cards. The strategic collaborations deepened by England with Ankara and the “fine diplomacy” pursued by Baku between Tel Aviv and Ankara carry a potential to weaken France’s encirclement lines in the Eastern Mediterranean. These multidimensional global and regional pressures, while deepening the structural cracks along the Paris-Tel Aviv line, also keep the possibility of a groundbreaking, context-transcending, and entirely different regional reconciliation process in the long term in the Türkiye-Israel context at the forefront, as rational grounds are being strained.
France’s policies in the aforementioned regions show a strategic parallelism with Israel’s goals of breaking regional security and isolation. France’s traditional protectorate role over Beirut and its efforts to intervene in economic crises aim to prevent the complete takeover of Lebanon’s state structure by Hezbollah and consequently Iran. This situation emerges as a factor that restrains Israel’s greatest threat on its northern border. On the Syrian front, Paris’s line of avoiding legitimizing the Damascus regime and opposing Iran’s presence on the ground is completely in line with Israel’s strategy of striking Iranian positions in Syria.
In the South Caucasus, France’s military and diplomatic support for Armenia aims to protect Armenia, which is disturbed by the Baku-Tel Aviv military partnership. However, there is a paradoxical situation here; while Israel is one of Azerbaijan’s largest arms suppliers, France is arming Armenia. Paris’s moves, while indirectly complicating Israel’s operational space in the Caucasus, are being closely monitored by Tel Aviv because they have the potential to reduce Armenia’s dependence on Iran.
In the energy and defense dimension, France’s military alliances with Athens and Nicosia provide an indirect protective shield for Israel’s energy corridor security in the struggle for maritime jurisdiction areas in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Therefore, the relationship between France and Israel, although it may initially seem like a paradox, actually presents itself as a “relationship of necessity” based on strategic interests. The issue that needs to be questioned here is where and for how long this open-ended process can be sustained.
Structural Partnerships and Boundaries Between Paris and Tel Aviv
The shared interests between France and Israel have a deep-rooted history, but this partnership does not always mean unconditional support. There is a high-level intelligence flow between the two countries, extending from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Middle East, even in the fight against extremist terrorist organizations. Technologically, there is a commercial link between France’s aerospace industry and Israel’s cybersecurity-focused military technologies. However, structural divergences are also evident. France’s traditional foreign policy school positions itself as a bridge between the Arab world and the West. In this context, Paris’s insistence on a two-state solution and its periodic diplomatic initiatives for the recognition of the State of Palestine create a vision conflict with the right-wing conservative administrations in Tel Aviv.
Possible Conflicts of Interest and Fault Lines in the Relationship
Israel’s extensive military operations in Lebanon have provoked serious reactions in Paris, as they sabotage France’s cultural and political legacy in the country. While France is losing influence in “Francophone Africa”, Israel is taking advantage of this vacuum by making security agreements with Chad, Niger, and other African countries governed by military juntas. This situation may be perceived as a competitive field by Paris. Additionally, while France occasionally shows a tendency to keep diplomatic channels open with Iran and revive nuclear negotiations, Israel imposes only a military and economic pressure strategy on Tehran.
The “Last Bastion” War in Lebanon: Macron-Netanyahu Frictions
France’s significant loss of power and prestige in Africa has led Paris to see Lebanon, its historical sphere of influence in the Middle East, as an “existential last bastion”. While Paris tries to protect this fortress, it is harshly clashing with the military reality imposed by Tel Aviv. The periodic crises experienced between Macron and Netanyahu over rationality, sovereignty rights, and international law are the most concrete indicators of this geopolitical impasse.
Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, targeting historical heritage sites like the Citadel of Beaufort and its tendency to expand its occupation, are strongly condemned by France as violations of sovereignty. Macron’s calls to halt arms supplies to Israel and his statements that “Israel’s security cannot be ensured by seizing neighboring countries’ territories” have been met with strong diplomatic responses from Netanyahu’s side. Similarly, Macron’s historical reminders linking the legitimacy of Israel’s establishment to UN resolutions have completely strained the ties between the two leaders.
The most shocking bill for these tensions is being paid at the diplomatic table. Israel and the US have deliberately sidelined France in the ceasefire and border security negotiations with Lebanon, effectively bypassing Paris. Not wanting to lose its role as the “compassionate mother” of the region, France is trying to maintain its position by providing financial/military support to the Lebanese army and calling for emergency meetings of the UN Security Council, even if it is excluded from the table. France’s struggle reveals the limits of its diplomatic power in the face of its ally Israel’s unilateral military vision.
London’s Move: The Geometry of the Strategic Partnership Framework Document
While France is trying to establish unilateral mini-alliances in the Mediterranean, the “Strategic Partnership Framework Document” signed by the United Kingdom with Ankara fundamentally shakes this geopolitical architecture. This new strategic partnership, which has become institutionalized between London and Ankara, encompasses a vast area of cooperation ranging from the defense industry, Eurofighter Typhoon procurement processes, and cybersecurity to the protection of energy routes.
This move by England directly nullifies France’s efforts to exclude Türkiye thru Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration in the Eastern Mediterranean and to build a security line centered around Israel. London, by declaring Türkiye as an “indispensable partner” in post-Brexit European-Atlantic security, has implicitly but very clearly countered Paris’s hegemonic claims in the Mediterranean. By deciding to coordinate with Türkiye on the security of energy corridors and stability in the Middle East, England has expanded the equation by rendering the France-Israel axis’s strategy of surrounding Türkiye ineffective.
Baku-Tel Aviv-Ankara Line: Azerbaijan’s Quiet and Subtle Diplomacy
The second major balancing power extending from the Caucasus to the Levant is Azerbaijan. France is rapidly arming Armenia, trying to both disrupt Türkiye’s integration with the Turkic World in the South Caucasus and break Israel’s influence over Azerbaijan in its favor. However, Baku is responding to this move with an extremely sophisticated balance diplomacy.
Azerbaijan is blending its deep military-strategic partnership with Israel with its unshakable brotherly and allied relationship with Türkiye (Shusha Declaration), and Ankara always seems to be one step ahead in Baku’s balance policy. He has recently proven this with the resistance he showed against Israel’s “so-called genocide” card attempts.
Therefore, Baku never allows the periodic political tensions between Tel Aviv and Ankara to completely sever the tacit geopolitical interests between the two capitals, and strives to pursue a “crisis-preventive” diplomacy for this purpose. In this context, Azerbaijan, which serves as a unifying bridge in energy transfer lines and regional intelligence networks, is forcing Israel to seek tacit areas of compromise instead of directly confronting Türkiye. Baku’s delicate geometry serves as a vital valve that blocks the Middle East-Caucasus line orchestrated by France thru Armenia, while connecting Türkiye and Israel in the background, at least preventing the crises from deepening further for now.
The US-Europe/EU’s Approach to the Paris-Tel Aviv Line
France’s effort to conduct its relations with Israel and regional policy as an autonomous actor is resonating differently within the Western alliance. Washington is pleased with France taking responsibility in the Eastern Mediterranean and Lebanon and lightening Israel’s burden. However, Paris’s attempt to dictate a Middle East policy independent of the United States under the guise of Europe’s strategic autonomy is always sought to be constrained by the White House.
London, on the other hand, as partially mentioned above (for a more detailed assessment, see my analysis titled “Macron’s Geopolitical Gamble: French Ambition from the Levant to the Caucasus and Possible Consequences”), has focused on establishing a financial and military line thru Gulf countries in the Middle East post-Brexit. In this context, the UK finds France’s aggressive military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean risky, but is monitoring the situation from a distance within the framework of intelligence partnership. Within the EU, there is no homogeneous policy toward Israel or the Middle East. France’s efforts to develop relations with Israel while trying to rally the Union as a bloc thru Greece and Cyprus are caught between Germany’s more balanced stance and the pro-Palestinian hardline positions of countries like Spain and Ireland.
The Role of Türkiye in the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant Equation
France’s multifaceted policy and its intersection with Israel’s regional interests are taking on a character that directly targets Türkiye or limits Ankara’s sphere of influence. France’s attempt to arm Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, thereby confining Türkiye to the Gulf of Antalya regarding maritime borders, has transformed into an “anti-Türkiye” front with Israel’s alignment with this bloc for energy security reasons. Türkiye responded to this move by signing the Maritime Jurisdiction Areas Agreement with Libya and the “Blue Homeland Doctrine”, thereby geopolitically disrupting the Eastern Mediterranean energy equation that the Paris-Tel Aviv axis sought to establish.
In Syria, Türkiye’s presence both nullifies France’s support for terrorist organizations in the region and counters Israel’s scenarios for the fragmentation of Syria. In the Caucasus, France’s attempt to establish influence thru Armenia is balanced by Türkiye’s signing of the Shusha Declaration with Azerbaijan. Israel, on the other hand, appears to be in tacit agreement with Ankara to protect its own interests in Azerbaijan rather than directly confronting Türkiye.
In conclusion, it can be stated that France’s policy in Syria, Lebanon, Armenia, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot Administration serves as a lever in the short and medium term for Israel’s regional security, the encirclement of Iran, and the limitation of Türkiye. However, this situation is more of a conjunctural clash of interests rather than a flawless ideological partnership between Paris and Tel Aviv. France’s unilateral and unbalanced actions could turn into a devastating boomerang effect for Paris in the near future. Indeed, the shifts in the U.S. global strategies, Azerbaijan’s high-precision delicate diplomacy between the Caucasus and the Middle East, and England’s pursuit of deep strategic partnerships prioritizing stability and commercial interests in the region have the potential to fundamentally alter the balances in the Eastern Mediterranean. These cracks within the Western alliance and the pressure of rational interests, contrary to the current tensions, may force Türkiye and Israel to come back to the negotiating table due to geopolitical necessities in the long term. Therefore, while Paris tries to position itself as the new ruler of the “Central Belt”, the silent chess game being played behind the scenes by Washington, Baku, and London could open the doors to an unexpected and entirely different regional reconciliation process in the context of Türkiye-Israel.
