When former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that Turkey, with the support of Qatar, was replacing Iran as Israel’s major strategic threat, his words were not just another warning about another enemy. Instead, his remarks reflected a broader anxiety: Israel could be entering a period of renewed conflict with a powerful and prosperous adversary—a situation that also carries historical significance.

For decades, Israel’s security concerns have been dictated by Iran and its Shi’a axis, including Iran’s plans for a nuclear program, Hezbollah’s missiles, and the undeclared wars in Syria and Lebanon. But Bennett’s words speak of a new axis: Turkey, a member of NATO with a thriving economy and global ambitions, is building a Sunni axis that might be even more powerful than Iran’s Shi’a axis. “Erdoğan is a sophisticated actor who understands how to turn ideology into leverage,” says Meliha Altunışık, a Turkish expert on international politics. “Unlike Iran, Turkey combines pragmatism with ideology, making it both credible and unpredictable.”

The mechanics of the new axis

The threat, as Israeli strategists see it, is not Turkey itself but Turkey and Qatar. The latter pair are accused of “nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster,” spreading an ideological threat similar to Iran’s support for Shi’a fundamentalists. Their influence is spreading in Syria and Gaza, and there are even rumors about attempts to win over Saudi Arabia from its rapprochement with Israel. The worst-case scenario: a new enemy axis consisting of Turkey and Qatar and their ally, Pakistan, with its nuclear capability.

As Steven Cook, a Council on Foreign Relations expert, writes, “Israel has long calibrated its defense strategy according to Iran’s capabilities. But if Turkey succeeds in swinging Saudi Arabia or solidifying its relationship with Pakistan, the strategic map changes overnight. It’s not just about the missiles emanating from Iran anymore—it’s about a Sunni world with nuclear capability.”

Trump’s war: A conflict of survival, not strategy

Economic warfare: Boycott as a weapon

The conflict between Israel and Turkey is not merely ideological or military but also economic. In May 2024, Turkey imposed a complete embargo

on trade with Israel, including imports and exports, and suspended all trade transactions. This came after an earlier restriction on trade for 54 product groups, including cement, aluminum, and fertilizers. Israel’s Foreign Minister Israel Katz said that Erdoğan “is sacrificing his country’s economic interests for his support for Hamas.”

The threat, as Israeli strategists see it, is not Turkey itself but Turkey and Qatar. The latter pair are accused of “nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster,” spreading an ideological threat similar to Iran’s support for Shi’a fundamentalists.

For Israel, this boycott is not just a trade restriction but a reminder that Turkey is not afraid to wield economic power and that Israel must not underestimate the economic power of Turkey, a G20 country with economic influence over countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. “This is the first time Turkey has imposed comprehensive sanctions against another country for purely political reasons.” This statement by trade analyst Sunny Mann underscores the economic significance of the boycott and Turkey’s economic power.

Historical resonance: The legacy of the Ottomans

The rivalry also has historical connotations. Ottoman rule prevailed in Palestine until 1917. There is thus both familiarity and obligation. In his speeches, Erdoğan often uses Ottoman symbolism. He portrays Turkey as the protector of Muslim lands. “There is a historical memory at play here,” says Dr Assa Ophir of Ariel University. “For many in Turkey, the Palestinian issue is not only one of solidarity; it is also one of legacy.”

This historical resonance adds to Israeli fears. Unlike Iran, which is rooted in Shi’a ideology and is alien to most Arabs, Turkey can lay claim to cultural and historical legitimacy in the region. Its Ottoman heritage lends credibility to Erdoğan’s rhetoric, which lacks the revolutionary slogans of Iran.

The new calculus in the Gulf: How Beijing and Moscow have altered the Iran equation

Warning or provocation?

The question, therefore, is whether this Israeli warning is a genuine assessment or a provocation. While some Israeli scholars see it as a call to prepare for a new phase of hostility, which could be used to take preemptive action against Turkish expansionism, others argue that to inflate the threat of Turkish expansionism is to drive it into an adversarial alliance. “Viewing Turkey as the ‘new Iran’ risks strategic miscalculation,” Altunışık writes. “It may accelerate confrontation rather than contain it.”

Writing for the Moshe Dayan Center, Jonathan Ghariani argues that the relationship between Israel and Turkey is always one of oscillating cooperation and confrontation. “The post-October 7 era has sharpened tensions, but it is not unprecedented. The 1990s saw military cooperation; today, economic warfare. The pendulum swings, but the stakes are higher now.”

“There is a historical memory at play here,” says Dr Assa Ophir of Ariel University. “For many in Turkey, the Palestinian issue is not only one of solidarity; it is also one of legacy.”

“There is a historical memory at play here,” says Dr Assa Ophir of Ariel University. “For many in Turkey, the Palestinian issue is not only one of solidarity; it is also one of legacy.”

The fear of a credible rival

Ultimately, what is behind the idea of Turkey as Israel’s “next Iran” is not simply the fear of encirclement, but the fear of a rival that is not only credible, but also prosperous, and carries a rich history. Iran is a dangerous foe, but also isolated. Turkey, on the other hand, is dangerous but also integrated. Iran is a foe that is revolutionary, but also sanctioned. Turkey, on the other hand, is a pragmatic foe and a trade hub.

Regardless of whether Bennett’s rhetoric is a warning or a provocation, it speaks to a larger truth. That is, Israel is no longer simply fearful of the hostility of its enemies, but also of their credibility. It is a reality that will test whether policymakers in Jerusalem can distinguish between rhetoric and reality before leaping too hastily into policy. It is a reality that could keep the Middle East stuck once again in a cycle of confrontation, this time with Turkey as the fulcrum.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor