The security architecture of the Middle East is experiencing one of the most fluid and unpredictable periods in its history. The regional lines of tension that began with Gaza and spread to the Lebanese and Syrian fronts are undergoing a structural transformation, challenging the equations of global power. In this process, one of the most striking dynamics is the effort of the Tel Aviv administration, through direct or indirect moves, to turn Türkiye into a constitutive actor of a regional conflict. Israel’s strategy is not merely a conventional military threat; it is an asymmetric and multilayered geopolitical construct aimed at bringing Türkiye into confrontation with the Western bloc.
The approximately 3.5 trillion cubic meters of hydrocarbon reserves discovered in the Eastern Mediterranean have transformed the region into an all-out energy battleground between the Israel-Greece-France bloc and Türkiye’s “Blue Homeland” doctrine. At the same time, the 60,000–70,000-strong PKK/YPG proxy force fortified along the Syrian border constitutes the field component of Israel’s strategy of encircling Türkiye both by land and by sea. Israel’s encirclement effort, declared with the “One Minute Crisis” of 2009, is a regional manifestation of the growing pains of global systemic transformation aimed at narrowing Türkiye’s autonomous spheres of influence extending from Africa to Central Asia.
In order to conceal its revisionist ambitions, Tel Aviv is activating every form of intelligence and hybrid disinformation mechanism on a global scale to portray Türkiye as the perpetrator of an unjustified escalation. This global disinformation strategy seeks to mask the doctrinal rupture between the American-centered Greater Middle East Project (BOP) and the Greater Israel Project (BİP), Tel Aviv’s religious-expansionist agenda. Ankara, meanwhile, is strengthening its position as a rational balancing actor defending global justice on international diplomatic platforms by exposing this asymmetric illusion.
Two Israels—One Reality
An analysis of the actors behind Israel’s increasingly harsh rhetoric and covert operational moves toward Türkiye reveals a two-tiered structure. This dual-layered structure, while classifying Türkiye’s indigenous defense industry initiatives as a direct threat in institutional intelligence reports, also leads the political mechanism to completely obstruct rational channels of diplomacy and to turn aggression into a state policy.
Within this structure, while the “Israeli state strategic mind and security elite” act within a structural consensus aimed at preserving regional hegemony, the “Netanyahu Doctrine” creates a tactical rupture through the logic of political survival and the construct of an “endless war.” In this context, within institutions such as the Israeli security bureaucracy, military intelligence (AMAN), and MOSSAD, the growth of Türkiye’s military-industrial capacity and its autonomous foreign policy are coded as a long-term “strategic risk,” while the existence of a structural consensus within the state strategic establishment is also difficult to overlook.
On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to keep the perception of an external threat constantly alive in order to suppress domestic judicial proceedings and social opposition. In this context, for Netanyahu, a rational peace would mean “political death.” Therefore, portraying a regional power such as Türkiye as a target reinforces the consolidation of the “existential threat” narrative domestically.
The Role and Inaction of the Jewish-Zionist Lobby in the United States
Powerful lobbying organizations such as AIPAC and similar groups in Washington, rather than preventing Netanyahu’s irrational and aggressive policies, effectively provide him with logistical and diplomatic protection. The main reasons for this are as follows:
- Fear of Losing Its Reason for Existence: The lobbies hold American politics hostage through the myth of Israel’s victimhood and “encirclement.” The argument that “if Israel ceases to exist, the raison d’être of the U.S. presence in the Middle East disappears” is the lobby’s greatest bargaining leverage in Washington.
- Alliance with Christian Zionism: The voting power of the Evangelical base in U.S. domestic politics makes preventing Netanyahu an irrational political option for the lobby. Trump or subsequent administrations’ attempts to break through this circle of pressure are obstructed by the structural mechanisms established by the lobby.
Consequently, this institutional inaction results in the lobbies making American foreign policy complicit in their own ideological blindness, driving Washington toward an irreversible crisis threshold with its ally Türkiye and thereby completely paralyzing its global strategic vision.
The Syrian Attacks and Multi-Address Geopolitical Messages
In this context, Israel’s periodic and extensive airstrikes on Syrian territory do not target only the Damascus regime or Iranian elements. These attacks contain a multilayered network of messages. First and foremost, a message is being conveyed to Ankara and Damascus, constituting a direct intervention in Türkiye’s efforts to pursue normalization with Syria and establish a border security corridor. This military escalation aims to sabotage rational coalitions defending territorial integrity in the region; by perpetuating Damascus’s lack of authority, it produces a chronic zone of instability that poses a profound threat to Ankara’s southern security. Consequently, Israel regards keeping Syria unstable as a prerequisite for its own security.
The emerging “Mecca Pact” (or similar multilateral defense visions) between Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, which has the potential to redefine the security axis of the Islamic world, represents Tel Aviv’s greatest nightmare. In this context, a “stay away” message concerning the “Mecca Pact” is being conveyed to Syria and Iraq.
Furthermore, regional instability and the intimidation delivered through Syria are also compelling actors with economic and political vulnerabilities, such as Egypt, to remain at a distance from such pacts. Indeed, Cairo prefers to remain on the periphery of this strategic axis because it cannot afford to risk damaging its relations with the United States and Israel. Therefore, these attacks may also be interpreted as a message to Egypt: “continue to remain on the periphery.”
Provocation Instruments and Proxy Wars
Israel seeks to provoke Türkiye and assume the position of “self-defense” in order to find a pretext for its isolation in the world, the war crimes it has committed in Gaza, and its isolation under international law. Forcing Ankara into an aggressive move would revive the perception in Western public opinion of a “radical alliance against Christian-Jewish civilization.”
Map of Proxy Forces and Ethno-Religious Fault Lines
Israel’s instruments of proxy power rest on three fundamental pillars. First, terrorist structures such as the PKK/YPG are actively supported on the ground with the aim of establishing a regional corridor in Syria and Iraq. Second, the ethnic and religious fault lines among Druze, Alawite, and Kurdish communities are exploited in order to weaken the central authorities of regional states. The third strategic instrument is the manipulation of the Shiite card along the Türkiye-Iran axis in order to intensify geopolitical competition. Within this framework, Israel’s relationship with and objectives concerning these instruments can be outlined as follows:
- The PKK/YPG Card in Syria and Iraq: Israel’s most strategic instrument in the region is the separatist Kurdish corridor in northern Syria. Logistical, intelligence, and military support is provided to this structure in order to weaken Türkiye.
- The Druze and Alawites: Vulnerabilities between Druze spheres of influence in Syria and Lebanon (particularly around Suwayda and the Golan) and Alawite elites are being manipulated in order to weaken the central government in Damascus.
- Exploitation of Türkiye-Iran Rivalry: Tel Aviv pursues a strategy of intensifying the historical and regional rivalry between Ankara and Tehran (the struggles for influence in Syria and Iraq), either by directing the Shiite militia wave toward Türkiye or by provoking the two major regional powers into fighting one another.
This multi-actor architecture of terrorism and manipulation aims to disrupt the demographic structure along the border zones, keeping Türkiye continuously occupied with asymmetric threats; it seeks to confine the country’s energy to internal security concerns and, in this context, to derail the “Terror-Free Türkiye/Terror-Free Region” process.
The Eastern Mediterranean Energy War and the Positioning of Proxy Forces
Regional alliances have directly transformed energy and proxy forces deployed on the ground into weapons. Through initiatives such as the “EastMed Project” (although the United States did not support it and it appears to have been shelved), the “East Mediterranean Gas Forum,” and the “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC),” Israel aims to completely bypass Türkiye and exclude it from maritime zones. To reinforce this objective militarily, it uses the Druze/Alawite fault lines and the PKK/YPG along the border areas to force Ankara into an asymmetric war of attrition. In this context, the military partnerships established with the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (GCASC) and Greece, combined with France’s naval power and India’s geopolitical ambitions vis-à-vis Pakistan, have been transformed into an “Anti-Türkiye Axis.”
The GCASC has been turned into a base for Israeli intelligence gathering, special forces training, and providing logistical depth in the event of a potential regional war. This hybrid terrorism corridor is being pursued in full synchronization with the struggle for maritime sovereignty in the Mediterranean. Thus, while Türkiye is prevented from establishing stable relations of good-neighborliness along its southern borders, its legitimate rights in the Blue Homeland are also sought to be usurped through a multinational encirclement.
Global Catastrophe Scenario: A Türkiye-West War, the BOP-BIP Conflict, and the “Quagmire” Risk
A potential Türkiye-Israel conflict would never remain a localized war between the two countries. Netanyahu and the Zionist strategic establishment behind him would inevitably seek to transform this conflict into a “Türkiye-U.S.” and “Türkiye-West” war, turning it into a global confrontation. Netanyahu’s theologically based war scenarios and his delusion regarding the Promised Land have the potential to bring Türkiye, which possesses NATO’s second-largest army, into confrontation with the Western world. In such a scenario, Türkiye’s strategic decision to close the Straits and the East-West energy and logistics corridors would drive the already fragile global economy into deep stagflation.
Within this framework, the Greater Middle East Project (BOP), the institutional project of the United States, and the Greater Israel Project (BİP), Tel Aviv’s religious-expansionist agenda, are heading toward a sharp confrontation. Having shifted its global strategic focus toward the Asia-Pacific and begun gradually disengaging from the Middle East, the United States does not wish to confront such a costly structural choice. When Washington acts according to rational statecraft, it will regard losing further time in the region and turning the 1.8-billion-strong Islamic world entirely against itself for the sake of the “Greater Israel Project,” a colonialist utopia, as tantamount to political suicide. The United States being drawn into a conflict of this magnitude would permanently bury Washington in the Middle Eastern quagmire, from which it would be unable to emerge again.
Beyond this, the Western security umbrella would completely collapse across this vast geography, and a boundless war with the Islamic world lasting for generations would begin. This global chaos would open the way fully for revisionist axes such as the TRC (Türkiye-Russia-China) or TRCI (Türkiye-Russia-China-Iran). Moscow would establish absolute dominance in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea while bringing the course of the war in Ukraine to an end in its favor; China would fill the strategic vacuum left by the United States in Taiwan and the Pacific. This scenario would irreversibly shift the global balance of power from West to East. Through the asymmetric multiplier effect of the war, Mediterranean ports would become completely paralyzed, and global supply chains would be crippled from Suez to Gibraltar. Frozen conflicts in the Balkans and the Caucasus would be reignited, nuclear deterrence balances would be destabilized, and American global hegemony would enter an unprecedented phase of military and economic erosion, ultimately experiencing its collapse.
Ankara’s Cool-Headed Rationality and the “Sabotaged” Turkish-American Strategy
On the other hand, in response to all these provocations, the Republic of Türkiye, at least for the time being, is acting with profound strategic acumen. Ankara’s rational stance enables the state apparatus, even in times of crisis, to make decisions not emotionally but entirely on the basis of geopolitics and international law, thereby disrupting Tel Aviv’s game plan. In this context, Türkiye’s “distinction between Judaism and Zionism” is quite noteworthy. Indeed, Ankara categorically rejects anti-Jewish sentiment (antisemitism), basing its criticisms entirely on the ideology of Zionism and the irrational aggressiveness of the Netanyahu government. This stance renders ineffective the “civilizational war” narrative of Netanyahu and certain circles in the Western world. Ankara’s determination to maintain strong relations with Trump and the United States also emerges here as another strategically disruptive stance. Regardless of which administration is in power in Washington (especially during and after the Trump era, which is open to rational commercial and military agreements), Ankara seeks to maintain strong institutional and leader-based relations. The objective is to preserve the strategic partnership between the two allies.
The Reintroduction of the Obama-Era Scenario
Ankara’s balanced and rational stance further intensifies the aggressiveness of the Zionist network and the Netanyahu clique. Because a reconciliation between the American state establishment and Türkiye would mean the end of Israel’s regional tyranny. Just as the Turkish-American strategic cooperation (“Model Partnership”) that was attempted to be built during the Barack Obama era was sabotaged through the Syrian crisis, a very similar game is being played today. Empty conceptualizations such as “Neo-Ottomanism” and “Axis Shift,” which were used during that period, are being brought back into circulation today, with the aim of once again dynamiting U.S.-Türkiye relations through the Syrian and Eastern Mediterranean fronts. This madness has reached such a level that figures such as Tom Barrack, who advocate a basis for rational dialogue with Türkiye, and even Donald Trump himself at times, are being targeted by the lobby’s media and financial power and are being pushed into the position of an “unwanted person” or a “leader betraying Israel’s interests.”
Conclusion and Projection:
srael’s policy of provoking Türkiye and, in this context, its latest attack carried out on Syrian territory at a point very close to the Turkish border constitute a global security threat extending beyond the borders of the Middle East. Against Netanyahu’s strategy of setting the world on fire for the sake of his own political survival, the urgent intervention of regional and global actors is a structural necessity. Washington, London, and Brussels must free themselves from the constraints of the Zionist lobby, adopt realistic, deterrent, and preventive measures toward Israel, and clearly delineate the boundaries of international law for Tel Aviv. For there will be no winner for the Western bloc in any direct or indirect confrontation with Türkiye on behalf of Israel and for the sake of its interests.
At this point, Türkiye, while maintaining at the highest level the autonomy and deterrence of its defense industry, strengthened through its national technology initiative, should deepen its normalization processes with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf countries. The struggles for maritime dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean, the protection of the Blue Homeland, and the operations conducted against hybrid terrorist fortifications along the borders will determine the future of the global order and regional energy routes in the period ahead. Ankara has the capacity to disrupt this global trap by continuing its multi-vector foreign policy based on international law and its strategic patience through asymmetric statecraft.
Analyses by global intelligence networks and think tanks indicate that energy and conventional military deterrence will be the most dominant geopolitical currencies over the next decade. Unless the Western-centered order restrains Israel’s aggressive expansionism, it will completely exhaust the basis of its own legitimacy.
Ankara should continue to build an unbreakable bridge position between the “Global South” and the “Global North” by transforming crises into multidimensional diplomatic opportunities in response to such Israeli attempts at provocation and strategic maneuvering. Within this framework, in the multipolar world of the future, Ankara’s cool-headed strategic mind should continue to pursue the goal of becoming the most reliable reference point in the Middle East and Mediterranean basin. Ultimately, the changing and transforming regional and global geopolitics makes it inevitable for Washington to subject its alliance relationship with Tel Aviv to a fundamental revision. This profound awakening will make it necessary for global centers of power to eliminate asymmetric forms of coercion and build rational, fair, and lasting partnerships with Ankara.
