Rising Tensions Between Israel and Türkiye: From Strategic Partnership to Manufactured Rivalry

The ongoing conflict in Gaza is reshaping the moral and geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Israel’s rhetoric toward Türkiye now signals more than a diplomatic rupture; it reveals a pattern of strategic antagonism in which war has become the primary mode of diplomacy.

From Uneasy Partnership to Open Antagonism

In May 2024, Türkiye halted all trade with Israel, stating that the decision would remain in effect until a permanent ceasefire and humanitarian access in Gaza were achieved. In response, Israel abolished its free trade agreement with Türkiye and imposed a 100% tariff on Turkish imports. Trade, which previously served as a diplomatic buffer, has now become a tool of confrontation.

Additionally, Turkish prosecutors have indicted 35 senior Israeli officials in connection with the interception of the humanitarian Sumud flotilla.

According to Ankara, Israel is “burning all bridges” in the region. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has publicly stated that Israel “cannot live without an enemy” and may be attempting to position Türkiye as its next adversary after Iran. Thus, the diplomatic dispute has evolved into a narrative contest over perceived threats.

Türkiye as the “New Iran”: The Politics of Enemy-Making

The current Israeli posture is characterized not only by hostility toward Ankara but also by a tendency to frame every regional disagreement as an existential conflict. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett described Türkiye as “the new Iran” in remarks widely reported in February and March 2026. This indicates that Israeli right-wing leaders are treating Türkiye not as a conventional neighbor with compartmentalized disputes, but as a strategic challenge to be identified, amplified, and contained.

This development is significant as it reflects the political culture surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Aaron Gell’s recent analysis in The Guardian of Omer Bartov’s book, Israel: What Went Wrong?, offers a broader perspective. Bartov contends that a liberal, security-conscious Zionism has evolved into an ethno-nationalist project characterized by violence, ongoing mobilization, and reliance on American support. Regardless of the language used, the underlying argument is that a state increasingly defined by siege psychology will eventually construct new blockades through narrative strategies. Türkiye is now being incorporated into this framework.

Gaza, the Flotilla, and the Erosion of Diplomatic Restraint

The escalation is closely linked to the moral and legal consequences of the Gaza conflict. Turkish outrage has intensified not only due to the war, but also because Ankara has positioned itself as a center for legal accountability, a development that Israel did not anticipate. The indictment related to the humanitarian Sumud flotilla, which Turkish prosecutors have associated with crimes against humanity, exemplifies a broader shift from rhetorical condemnation to legal and diplomatic confrontation with Israeli leaders. In response, Netanyahu accused Erdoğan of hosting terrorists while targeting only the Kurds.

Erdoğan has repeatedly characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, compared Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler, and accused him of orchestrating an unprovoked attack on Iran, implicating Donald Trump in the process.

Israel’s regional actions have reinforced these perceptions. According to Reuters, Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon remains intense, with strikes since March 2 reportedly resulting in nearly 2,300 deaths and Israeli forces maintaining control over a 5–10 km strip of Lebanese territory as a buffer zone.

These developments form the context in which Türkiye perceives Israeli threats. When a government normalizes conflict on multiple fronts, its rhetoric toward Türkiye appears less defensive and increasingly expansive.

The Mediterranean Chessboard: Greece, Cyprus, Italy, and Emerging Alignments

The Israel–Türkiye relationship must be understood within the broader context of the Eastern Mediterranean. Viktor Mikhin, writing in the New Eastern Outlook, explains that Greece, Israel, and Cyprus have agreed to increase joint air and naval exercises, deepen defense cooperation, and expand maritime security and energy interconnection projects. Türkiye is closely monitoring this cooperation, perceiving the emergence of a security triangle on its western flank. According to Mikhin, this alliance represents not only a strategic initiative but also an act of desperation by Israel, which is increasingly reliant on the United States as its sole ally.

This dynamic reflects the underlying realities shaping the region: energy routes, airspace, islands, ports, and missile systems are now integrated into a broader contest for influence in the Mediterranean.

However, regional developments are not unidirectional. According to Barin Kayaoglu’s analysis in Al-Monitor, Italy’s anticipated purchase of Turkey’s Bayraktar TB3 drone signifies more than a procurement agreement; it indicates that Ankara is emerging as a significant defense partner within Europe’s broader security architecture. This challenges the assumption, prevalent in Israeli strategic thinking, that Türkiye can be easily isolated.

Kayaoglu observes that the deal reflects a broader recalibration in Europe: “What is changing now is the strategic self-awareness on both sides: Turkey is consolidating its position as an indispensable defense partner for European states that cannot wait for EU-level solutions.” Similarly, Francesco Schiavi argues that Italy’s shift toward Turkish systems is driven by industrial co-production and a transforming defense market, rather than a temporary interest.

A Direct Conflict Remains Unlikely, but Regional Fragility Increases

A direct military conflict between Türkiye and Israel remains unlikely. Both governments recognize the significant costs involved and seek to avoid an uncontrolled escalation that could affect the Mediterranean, Syria, or the broader energy market.

Türkiye has also engaged in de-escalation efforts elsewhere. Erdoğan stated that Ankara is working to extend the Iran ceasefire and sustain diplomatic talks, while cautioning that Israel’s actions in Lebanon undermine regional peace. This approach reflects Ankara’s caution rather than naivety.

However, the lack of imminent war should not be equated with regional stability. Israel’s current leadership is normalizing a regional order characterized by punitive strikes, legal defiance, and persistent suspicion. Bartov’s critique, as summarized by Aaron Gell, is pertinent: if Israel equates militarized dominance with security, then all neighboring states may eventually become targets of hostility.

Türkiye is the most recent state to be drawn into this Israeli strategic logic. The underlying issue is not merely the identification of a new adversary, but the continual creation of such adversaries. Consequently, the primary danger lies not in the prospect of a single war but in the emergence of a political system in which war becomes the predominant mode of engagement.

Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook