In the past two decades, the Israeli policy of ensuring regional security rested on one fundamental idea, that Iran constituted the primary source of instability in the Middle East. However, as geopolitical factors started to change, a new story began taking shape, not only in Israeli politics but also in its military strategy and media. According to this story, Turkey, which had always been seen as an uncooperative country, has evolved into a more serious threat to Israeli interests because of its increasing presence in Syria, defense sector, and sympathy for Palestinians. The problem for Israel is that this narrative has failed to gain meaningful international traction. In fact, recent developments suggest it may have backfired.
The reason is not difficult to identify. Strategic narratives depend on credibility, and credibility has become one of Israel’s most scarce diplomatic resources. While Israeli officials were warning the world about Türkiye’s ambitions, Israel itself was becoming embroiled in multiple regional conflicts, facing mounting criticism over Gaza, conducting military operations in Lebanon and Syria, and confronting growing international scrutiny. The result is a striking paradox: the country attempting to define the next source of instability is increasingly being viewed by many as a major contributor to the instability already engulfing the region.
The emergence of Turkey as an important actor in the region is by no means a recent development. Within the last decade, Turkey has increased its involvement in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and the Eastern Mediterranean on the diplomatic, economic, and military fronts. Defense exports by Turkey reached over $2.8 billion in first four months of 2026, marking 28% increase, while the country’s diplomatic outreach has made it a major global player. However, more significantly, Turkey has developed a unique capability of being able to conduct dialogue with entities that do not talk to each other.
It is important to consider the difference here. While Iran continues to be isolated due to sanctions and stays outside any Western security system, Türkiye retains its membership in NATO and enjoys strong economic relations with Europe, as well as a long-standing partnership with the United States. Although Ankara often disagrees with its Western allies, it is still connected to the entire system of transatlantic security architecture. This makes a direct comparison of Türkiye and Iran implausible.
Through its contact with Syria, its diplomacy with the Gulf countries, its communication with Tehran, and even its efforts at regional de-escalation, Turkey managed to talk to all parties at once. This was reminiscent of its efforts earlier to mediate between Russia and Ukraine by enabling prisoner swaps and helping negotiations on Black Sea grain sales.
For Israel, things turned out to be different. The Gaza War changed the entire international perspective on the issue. Several humanitarian organizations, U.N. bodies, and various states voiced their concerns regarding the high number of civilian deaths and civilian infrastructure damage. It also increased the scope of international law. European, American, and Southern public opinion changed dramatically.
This broader context makes Israel’s campaign against Türkiye considerably harder to sustain. International audiences inevitably evaluate warnings about future threats through the lens of current realities. It is difficult to persuade governments that Türkiye represents the principal danger to regional stability while Israeli military operations continue across multiple theatres.
The case of Syria is a very illustrative one in this regard. On more than one occasion, Israel has warned about Turkey’s influence in the region, seeing it as a threat to its security. Nevertheless, it seems that Western states are realizing the need for Turkey’s involvement in any sustainable arrangement within Syria. Geopolitical realities make Türkiye an indispensable player by themselves. Türkiye borders Syria, shelters thousands of Syrian refugees, enjoys military power in the region, and possesses relationships with key political actors inside the country.
In practical terms, this means that Türkiye is viewed as part of potential solutions, whereas Israel is seen as part of the problem.
This irony is hard to miss. In their efforts to project Türkiye as the next great regional threat, Israeli policymakers might be unwittingly emphasizing the growing relevance of Ankara. Each time they talk about the importance of Turkish influence, it becomes even more evident that Turkish influence actually does matter.
Concurrently, the very conduct of Israel itself within the region has undermined its effectiveness. The persistence of military activities in Gaza, occasional attacks in Syria, continued friction in Lebanon, and increasingly belligerent rhetoric have all led to an impression that Israel is wayward state seeking prolong conflicts. That perception now shapes how many governments interpret Israeli claims.
The crucial issue, then, is not whether there is anything wrong with Türkiye. Rather, it is whether the state of Israel has managed to convince the world that Türkiye represents the next big destabilizing force in the Middle East region. The evidence suggests the answer is no.
The greater challenge facing Israel, however, is that the international community is starting to ask a completely new set of questions. No longer concentrating on potential future problems caused by Ankara, the international community is increasingly becoming concerned with Israel’s own behavior. The international discussion regarding security in the region began with Gaza, grew through Lebanon, and consolidated by Syria.
What may perhaps be considered the biggest irony here is that Israel’s rhetoric against Türkiye has taken place at the same time that Turkey has emerged as a highly valued intermediary power. The harder that Israel tried to position itself as an adversary of Türkiye, the more other nations regarded it as an intermediary. Perception is a very powerful tool within international politics, and the reality today is that Türkiye is viewed by many as a country that can talk to everyone, whereas Israel is seen as having to justify its involvement in regional conflicts.