The coming Turkish-Israeli struggle for supremacy

Engelsberg Ideas | Sumantra Maitra

Israel's strategic neutralization of Iranian proxy networks has accelerated a major regional power shift toward a direct Turkish-Israeli conflict for Middle Eastern hegemony. As Tehran's regional influence collapses, Ankara is rapidly filling the vacuum through an expanding military footprint stretching from Syria to the Red Sea. Turkey possesses major structural advantages over Iran, including NATO's second-largest standing army, battle-tested uncrewed aerial systems, and long-standing diplomatic alignment across Sunni-majority states.

Hard power creates new realities. Furthermore, an emerging Saudi-Pakistani security partnership threatens to integrate nuclear deterrence into Ankara's broader sphere of strategic influence. This transformation forces both European capitals and Washington to accommodate an increasingly assertive Turkish posture that actively challenges traditional Anglo-American maritime power projection models. Ultimately, any direct military confrontation between Israeli forces and Turkish assets risks shattering the NATO alliance, altering the balance of power across the entire Eurasian landmass.

Comment

Ankara’s willingness to enforce the 1936 Montreux Convention during the Black Sea naval blockade demonstrated how Turkish sovereign discretion can override broader NATO operational preferences. In a direct military friction with Israel, Turkey’s dual role as a treaty-bound NATO ally and an autonomous Eurasian actor creates an unprecedented legal dilemma for the North Atlantic Council. Should Israeli strikes target Turkish military infrastructure in northern Syria, Washington would face conflicting obligations between its non-NATO bilateral security ties with Jerusalem and statutory commitments under Article 5.

This structural friction extends directly into the Eastern Mediterranean maritime domain, where British military installations like RAF Akrotiri risk immediate operational entanglement. Any Turkish-Israeli naval or air standoff near Cyprus would compel Mediterranean NATO members, specifically Greece and France, to enforce bilateral maritime defence pacts outside the alliance command structure. Consequently, regional confrontation would split NATO’s southern flank into competing sub-coalitions centered around the Aegean Sea.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If a Turkish-Israeli military clash occurs in northern Syria or the Eastern Mediterranean, how does the North Atlantic Council reconcile statutory Article 5 commitments with bilateral European defence pacts in the Aegean Sea?

The strategic pattern suggests the North Atlantic Council would seek to narrow any crisis to a localized bilateral dispute, avoiding a formal invocation of Article 5. However, competing maritime commitments between France, Greece, and Turkey around the Aegean Sea would likely fragment NATO's southern command structure. My assessment is that European members would prioritize sovereign Mediterranean naval balances over collective alliance cohesion.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here