The stabilization of the Iran-Israel confrontation could well be the calm before the storm, only this time the storm would be between Israel and Türkiye. In this context, the question arises: how would such a conflict affect NATO?

Reasons for Escalation

Relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv are rapidly deteriorating amid the war in the Gaza Strip. Türkiye has taken a firm pro-Arab stance, insisting on the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and offering its own troops as security guarantors.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has openly supported Hamas, calling the actions of the IDF “genocide” and comparing Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler. Ankara recalled its ambassador, imposed trade sanctions, and led efforts to have the Israeli prime minister placed on an international wanted list.

Israel, in turn, accused Türkiye of supporting Hamas and international terrorism. The culmination of the diplomatic rupture came with Israel’s unexpected recognition of the Armenian genocide in June 2026. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and the rise to power of a pro-Turkish leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, Tel Aviv began to view Sunni Türkiye as a more serious existential threat than Shi’a Iran.

Geopolitical Ambitions and “Neo-Ottomanism”

Israel is watching the advance of the ideologies of Neo-Ottomanism and Neo-Panturanism with alarm. Within the framework of the first concept, Türkiye views the territories of the former Ottoman Empire (including modern-day Israel) as a zone of its interests. The second is aimed at turning Anatolia into a key transit hub for resources from the Caspian Basin and Central Asia. In Tel Aviv, there are fears that an economically strengthened Türkiye will begin to dictate its terms to the entire Eurasian continent, where Israel would be relegated to the role of a subordinate player.

The Syrian Front and the Battle for Corridors

In the Syrian theatre of operations, Israel has shifted to a strategy of containment, seeking to prevent the deployment of Turkish air force and air defense bases near its borders. The IDF has reinforced its positions in the Golan Heights, is carrying out targetted strikes against facilities in Syria, and is supporting local Druze and Kurdish groups, creating pockets of resistance to Turkish influence.

An additional factor of tension has been the struggle over logistics routes. Israel is seeking to intercept control over transit corridors from Asia to Europe, attempting to redirect flows from India and the Persian Gulf states through its own ports. This directly contradicts Ankara’s plans to make Türkiye the sole [gateway-ed] to Europe.

In the South Caucasus, Israel is banking on cooperation with the United States and influential business circles to establish control over the Zangezur Corridor, which has unofficially been called the “Trump Road” (TRIPP). Notably, the US State Department has appointed a representative of the Jewish diaspora, K. Sokolov, as the head of TRIPP Development Company. In the context of historical and contemporary contradictions, Israel views Armenia and a number of other countries bordering Türkiye (Greece, Cyprus, Iraq, Iran, Bulgaria) as potential participants in a broad anti-Turkish alliance. Thus, at the core of the escalation in Israeli-Turkish relations lie issues of geopolitical and geoeconomic dominance in the Middle East and their impact on global markets.

Israel-Türkiye Geopolitical Confrontation: Factors and Prospects

The question of the possibility of a direct military clash between Israel and Türkiye remains open. Despite lacking clarity, Israel’s aggressive rhetoric and President Erdogan’s intransigence are moving such forecasts into the realm of real scenarios. Both sides are conducting a thorough analysis of the enemy’s military potential, assessing their own advantages and vulnerabilities.

Comparative Analysis of Capacity

A glance at previous Middle Eastern conflicts confirms the high combat readiness and technological sophistication of the Israel Defense Forces. The effective operation of intelligence agencies (Mossad, Aman, Unit 8200), combined with the power of the Israeli Air Force, makes them one of the most effective strike forces in the region.

Türkiye, which possesses the second-largest army in NATO, is also betting on the development of its own defense industry. Ankara is actively modernizing its armoured forces, artillery, air defense systems, and navy, while also ramping up UAV production. Turkish intelligence services (MIT and the General Staff’s Intelligence Directorate) demonstrate high effectiveness in conducting covert operations, as confirmed by experience in Karabakh, Syria, and Kurdish regions. However, in the aviation sector, Türkiye lags behind Israel: the lack of fifth-generation fighters, caused by the US blocking F-35 deliveries, significantly limits the capabilities of the Turkish Air Force.

The US and NATO Factors

The Israeli-American tandem’s Iranian campaign has become a signal for the countries of the Middle East: Israel remains the United States’ main ally in the region. In Ankara, they are aware that in the event of a conflict, Washington would provide direct military support to Tel Aviv, using its network of bases, including those located on Turkish territory itself. In such a scenario, Türkiye could find itself isolated. Even membership in the “Islamic NATO” does not guarantee Ankara real assistance from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, which are unlikely to enter into an open conflict with the United States and Israel.

Could Article 5 of the NATO Charter become a deterrent factor for Israel? Practice shows that NATO does not always present a united front. The alliance did not support Donald Trump’s call for a joint operation against Iran. Türkiye’s calculations for support from the United Kingdom also appear questionable, given the influence of the Jewish lobby and Zionist structures capable of neutralizing British participation. The positions of France and Greece on this matter are most likely to be in solidarity with Israel, while Germany remembers the consequences of the Holocaust and is unlikely to tempt fate again by condemning Deutsche Bank to bankruptcy. As for protests from Spain, they will not make much of a difference for the Turks.

Geopolitical Rift: Türkiye, NATO, and Possible New Alliances

Ultimately, NATO remains a structure whose agenda is largely determined by the interests of the Pentagon. Official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova correctly noted in an interview with RT that NATO’s actions are dictated by the United States of America. The United States has repeatedly stated – and under Trump it became an obsession – that the degree of alliance between the US and Israel is absolutely extraordinary… This is a special type of alliance; it is literally an absolute unity of the two countries, especially in the areas of security and international policy.

Against this backdrop, some experts are entertaining a radical scenario: in order to support Israel, the United States might go as far as dismantling NATO. In particular, former director of the US National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent suggested on social media platform X that Washington is prepared to withdraw from the alliance if necessary to support Israel in a direct conflict with Türkiye in Syria. An indirect confirmation of these tensions is the recalling of the US ambassador from Ankara and the special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack.

However, a step as radical as the US withdrawal from NATO appears excessive. Washington has sufficient leverage to block any assistance to Ankara from the alliance in the event of a clash with Israel. It is more likely that Türkiye’s isolation within the bloc will lead either to its voluntary withdrawal or to its forced expulsion – especially in the event of a military defeat for Ankara.

This is precisely why there are increasing calls in Turkish political circles to withdraw from NATO and seek new strategic partners, including Russia, China, and Iran. Recep Tayyip Erdogan should seriously assess these risks: without a change in foreign policy course, Türkiye’s security in the event of a large-scale conflict would be under threat.

Also, are Russia, Iran, or China ready to enter into a conflict with Israel for the sake of Ankara? The question remains open. Türkiye has repeatedly demonstrated pragmatism that ran counter to the interests of these countries: it de facto nullified the Astana format on Syria, contributed to the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Karabakh, and also took an ambiguous position on the Ukrainian crisis. Given this experience, the most likely scenario for Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing will remain a policy of balanced diplomacy, rather than direct involvement in the geopolitical adventures of others.

Alexander SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, and expert on Middle Eastern countries. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2026/09/10/can-the-conflict-between-t%c3%bcrkiye-and-israel-lead-to-the-fall-of-nato/