The Inevitable Clash: Turkey, Israel, and the Battle for a Post-Western Middle East
Published
- 3 min read
The Geopolitical Chessboard: Unpacking the Core Conflict
The intricate tapestry of the modern Middle East is being violently rewoven, with the escalating confrontation between Turkey and Israel serving as the primary shuttle. This is not a simple bilateral spat; it is a structural, multi-dimensional conflict born from the collapse of old orders and the desperate scramble to define a new regional architecture. At its heart lies a fundamental collision of national interests, historical trauma, and competing visions for the future. The article meticulously outlines how Turkey’s foreign policy, articulated through the lens of the neo-Ottoman doctrine, seeks to delineate a sphere of influence in the wake of the Syrian conflict’s chaos. This ambition directly challenges Israel’s perceived existential need for regional preeminence, setting the stage for a prolonged and dangerous rivalry.
The Syrian war acted as a catalyst, shattering the traditional state-centric framework and unleashing non-state actors, forcing Ankara into a painful recalibration of its strategic objectives. While Turkey attempted a delicate balancing act, its intricate dealings with Israel have proven counterproductive. The core of the friction, however, extends beyond political influence into the vital realm of energy geopolitics. The discovery of colossal natural gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean has become a central battleground. Israel, in concert with Greece and Cyprus, is pushing the EastMed pipeline project—a strategic initiative explicitly designed to bypass Turkey and deliver gas directly to Europe. Ankara rightly cries foul, asserting that the proposed route illegally traverses its contested maritime jurisdiction. This energy competition is not an isolated issue but a fundamental driver intensifying the geopolitical clash, turning the Eastern Mediterranean into a tinderbox of economic and strategic interests.
The Structural Restraints and the Pragmatic Pivot
In navigating this soft confrontation, Turkey leverages its NATO membership as a structural deterrent. The alliance serves as a critical restraint, confining the conflict to a ‘gray zone’ of proxy operations and limited strikes, such as those seen in Syria, thus averting a full-scale war. Yet, this very restraint reveals a profound paradox and a strategic dilemma for Ankara. The article astutely observes that despite NATO’s theoretical protection, the alliance’s de facto alignment with US policy—which guarantees Israel’s security—creates a diplomatic red line for Turkey. This reality is compounded by the historical burden of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a colonial artifact that carved up the Ottoman Empire and left a lasting legacy of suspicion towards Western-sponsored regional designs.
This untenable position has forced a pragmatic, albeit ideologically uncomfortable, strategic adaptation: a move towards security cooperation with Iran. The 12-day war between Israel and Iran served as a critical juncture. Israeli actions, including a missile strike on a Hamas meeting in Doha—a key Turkish ally—were interpreted as a direct and chilling signal to Ankara. Faced with this heightened threat and the limitations of its Western alliance, Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan began to visibly support Iran and engage in unprecedented overt and covert cooperation. This is not an alliance of choice but one of necessity, a classic case of realpolitik where ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ The emerging transactional security architecture, involving not just Turkey and Iran but also Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, is a direct response to the perceived common threat posed by Israel’s growing, US-backed power.
A Necessary Defiance: The Global South’s Struggle Against Hegemonic Imposition
From the perspective of the Global South, and particularly for those of us who champion a multipolar world free from neo-colonial domination, this Turkish-Iranian convergence is a predictable and necessary development. The entire situation is a damning indictment of the so-called ‘rules-based international order,’ which in practice is a system meticulously crafted to perpetuate Western, and specifically American, hegemony. The EastMed pipeline is a textbook example of economic imperialism, an attempt to economically isolate a major regional power and control the energy lifelines to Europe. It is a move designed to ensure that the resource wealth of the Mediterranean benefits a select few—Israel and its Western partners—while marginalizing Turkey, a nation asserting its sovereign rights.
Israel’s role, as the article correctly identifies, is that of the primary regional actor driving this change. It operates with a sense of impunity granted by its superpower patron, the United States. This unwavering support allows Israel to pursue profoundly aggressive territorial and political changes in Syria and beyond, targeting the assets of rivals with surgical precision, even within the territories of other US allies like Qatar. Such actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for national sovereignty that would be universally condemned if undertaken by any nation in the Global South. This is the hypocritical application of international law in its purest form: a tool for the powerful to discipline the less powerful.
Turkey’s turn towards Iran must therefore be understood not as an endorsement of Tehran’s ideology, but as a rational act of self-preservation in an anarchic system largely engineered by Washington. In a region where the West has sowed chaos from the Sykes-Picot agreement to the illegal invasion of Iraq, nations are forced to make difficult, pragmatic choices. The ‘ideological conflicts’ that once divided Turkey and Iran are being subordinated to the pressing geopolitical imperative of creating a balance of power against a common adversary. This is the essence of strategic autonomy—the ability to define one’s national interests independently of external pressure.
The complex role of Saudi Arabia, simultaneously engaging with both Tehran and Ankara while seeking to avoid a formal consolidated bloc, further illustrates the fluid and transactional nature of this new Middle East. The old binaries are breaking down. Nations are no longer aligning solely based on Western-defined categories of ‘moderate’ versus ‘radical,’ but on cold, hard calculations of power and security. This is a healthy, albeit dangerous, development. It signifies the decline of a unipolar moment and the messy, contested birth of a multipolar order where regional powers will no longer accept a subordinate status.
Ultimately, the Turkey-Israel rivalry is a microcosm of a larger global struggle. It is a fight against the imposition of a hegemonic will, a resistance to being sidelined in the economic and security architecture of one’s own neighborhood. If the United States and Israel continue on their current path of aggressive containment, they will only accelerate the very outcome they seek to prevent: the consolidation of a powerful, independent axis of resistance in West Asia. Turkey’s defiance, however pragmatic and incremental, is a beacon for all nations of the Global South struggling to break free from the shackles of neo-colonialism and chart their own destiny. The message is clear: in the face of imperial pressure, sovereign nations will find a way to unite, collaborate, and survive, rewriting the rules of the game in the process.