Turkey Emerges as Israel’s Next Challenge

With international diplomacy largely consumed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the future of its regional influence, a growing number of Israeli strategists argue that Turkey deserves equal attention. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ankara has pursued a more assertive foreign policy that combines military activism, diplomatic outreach, economic engagement, and ideological influence across the Middle East. Whether viewed as a pragmatic regional power or an increasingly revisionist actor, Turkey’s expanding role is reshaping strategic calculations from Jerusalem to Washington, raising difficult questions about the future balance of power in a region already defined by shifting alliances and persistent instability.

While diplomatic attention remains fixed on Iran and the future of its nuclear program, another geopolitical shift is quietly reshaping the Middle East. For many Israeli security analysts, Turkey—not Iran alone—is becoming an increasingly important variable in the region’s strategic equation.

For decades, Turkey occupied a unique position in Israel’s foreign policy. It was the first Muslim-majority nation to recognize the Jewish state and, for much of the Cold War and its aftermath, maintained robust diplomatic, military, and commercial ties with Jerusalem. That partnership reflected shared strategic interests and demonstrated that cooperation between Israel and a major Muslim nation was possible despite broader regional tensions.

That era has largely ended. Since Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2003, relations have steadily deteriorated. Diplomatic crises, divergent regional priorities, and increasingly hostile political rhetoric have transformed what was once a strategic partnership into an uneasy rivalry.

For critics of Erdoğan’s government, this shift reflects more than foreign-policy disagreements. They argue that Ankara has embraced an ideological vision rooted in political Islam, one that seeks to expand Turkish influence across territories once governed by the Ottoman Empire while positioning Turkey as the leading voice of the Sunni Muslim world.

This strategy, they contend, relies on more than military power. Turkey has invested heavily in humanitarian organizations, educational institutions, religious foundations, cultural programs, media networks, and economic partnerships throughout the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, and parts of Europe. Supporters view these initiatives as legitimate instruments of soft power. Critics argue they also serve broader geopolitical objectives by expanding Ankara’s political influence and cultivating long-term networks of support.

Nowhere has this debate become more pronounced than in Jerusalem. Turkish-backed organizations have increased their presence through charitable activities, cultural preservation projects, educational initiatives, and community engagement. Israeli security officials have periodically expressed concern that these activities extend beyond cultural diplomacy and are intended to strengthen Turkey’s political influence in one of the world’s most contested cities. Ankara, by contrast, maintains that its activities reflect its historical, religious, and humanitarian responsibilities toward Palestinians.

The deterioration in bilateral relations accelerated after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. Erdoğan emerged as one of Israel’s most outspoken international critics, accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government of committing grave violations during the Gaza conflict and intensifying Ankara’s diplomatic support for the Palestinian cause. Israeli officials have interpreted this rhetoric as evidence that Turkey increasingly views itself as a political counterweight to Israel across the region.

Some Israeli analysts believe these developments should be viewed within a broader strategic framework. As Iran’s regional influence has come under pressure, they argue, Turkey has sought to fill portions of the resulting vacuum by strengthening ties with Qatar, Syria’s new leadership, Pakistan, Somalia, and other regional partners. While these relationships vary considerably in scope and purpose, together they suggest Ankara is pursuing a more expansive regional role than at any point in recent decades.

Whether Turkey is attempting to construct a coherent geopolitical bloc remains contested. Nevertheless, its expanding military footprint—from northern Syria and Iraq to the Eastern Mediterranean, Libya, and the Horn of Africa—illustrates a willingness to project power well beyond its borders. Combined with an increasingly independent foreign policy, these developments have prompted growing debate among Western policymakers about Turkey’s long-term strategic trajectory.

The question carries particular significance in Washington. Turkey remains one of NATO’s largest military powers and occupies a strategically indispensable position between Europe, the Middle East, and the Black Sea. Yet Ankara’s purchase of Russian defense systems, periodic disputes with NATO allies, and increasingly autonomous regional policies have complicated its relationship with the United States. Any future expansion of defense cooperation or transfers of advanced military technology are therefore likely to face heightened scrutiny from those who question whether Turkey’s strategic priorities remain fully aligned with those of its Western partners.

For Israel, the implications extend beyond bilateral relations. Security planners increasingly argue that future regional competition will be shaped not only by conventional military threats but also by influence operations, economic diplomacy, ideological networks, technological competition, and control over strategic infrastructure. In that environment, Turkey’s growing regional presence represents a challenge that differs fundamentally from Iran’s but may prove equally consequential over the long term.

This does not imply that confrontation is inevitable. Turkey and Israel continue to share important economic ties, and both retain incentives to avoid direct conflict. Nevertheless, the relationship has entered a period of sustained strategic competition in which cooperation is increasingly selective and mutual distrust has become the defining characteristic.

For policymakers in Jerusalem, Washington, and European capitals, the challenge is therefore less about responding to a single crisis than adapting to a changing regional order. As power becomes more diffuse and traditional alliances evolve, managing Turkey’s rise—while preserving regional stability and maintaining NATO cohesion—may become one of the defining foreign-policy tests of the coming decade.