The Turkish public asks: After Israel's attack on Iran, are we next?
A day before Israel attacked Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at the Knesset, welcoming Argentinian President Javier Milei with open arms.
"Argentina became a safe haven for thousands of Jews," Milei told Israeli politicians.
"They sought refuge from economic hardship and antisemitic persecution. Not only in Eastern Europe, but also in the Ottoman Empire.
"An empire that I don't think will be renewed anytime soon, even though there are those who disagree with me."
The remarks, which were clearly directed at Turkey and its long-serving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, were not lost on officials in Ankara.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
A burgeoning regional power, Turkey has played an outsized role in the Middle East since the so-called Arab Spring uprisings of the 2010s.
Amid the new power dynamic that has taken shape in the region, Ankara has seen its stock increase in major western capitals.
Such has been its rise that on Thursday, Turkey was among a small group of US allies notified in advance that Israel would be launching its attack on Iran.
Hours later, early on Friday, Israel began its assault on Iran's military and nuclear facilities, and started assassinating high-profile security, intelligence and military commanders, along with nuclear scientists.
The attacks, which also targeted residential areas and civilian infrastructure, have so far killed more than 500 people and wounded at least 1,300, many of them civilians.
In response, Iran has fired barrages of missiles towards Haifa, Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities.
Turkey has lamented the escalation, describing Israel's assault as unprovoked, especially at a time when US intelligence suggested Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.
While the escalation has been characterised as sudden, and one that has caught many regional states by surprise, Ankara was long bracing for an Israeli attack on Iran.
In September, when Israel killed Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, Turkish officials studied possible scenarios in the event of a severe Israeli attack and a potential wider regional conflict.
They prepared contingency plans, including measures against possible waves of refugees.
In October, Ankara also initiated negotiations with the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, to prevent the group from being used as a proxy by either Iran or Israel.
Israel-Turkey relations
Turkey has historically maintained good ties with Israel, despite ups and downs due to Israel's wars with the region's countries.
Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognise Israel, in 1949, and gradually became an ally of Tel Aviv in the 1990s, when the Turkish security apparatus needed its help to counter the PKK during a period of domestic instability.
Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took power in 2003, the relationship has gradually deteriorated from a strategic partnership to that of neighbours who frequently confront each other over the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere.
'This isn't Turkey's war. Yet it shows that we should… take relevant steps to prepare us for any possible future risk and options'
- Ankara insider
Relations soured after Israel raided the Mavi Marmara ferry in 2010, killing 10 Turkish activists in international waters, but they later improved.
But tensions heightened again in late 2023 when Ankara decided to walk back from the rapprochement due to the war on Gaza, which Turkish officials believe constitutes a genocide.
Since Israel's campaigns to degrade Hezbollah last year and the fall of the Assad dynasty in Syria, the region has been transformed by Netanyahu's actions.
Where Iran once dominated, Israel is now increasingly the key regional power.
Israeli officials have publicly begun to state that the only other player with significant resources they face is Turkey.
How Turkey and Qatar are playing an outsized role in Trump's new Middle East Read More »
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has reiterated several times since December that the region should not be dominated by any single power, including Turkey itself.
The first significant challenge between Turkey and Israel was Syria, as Netanyahu's government made sure to oppose any Turkish bases with radar and air defence installations in southern Syria.
American officials, worried about possible incidents, encouraged both countries to hold talks, resulting in the establishment of a hotline between Turkey and Israel in April.
Talks progressed to the point where Turkish officials included Syrian representatives in discussions with the Israelis, in the hope of finding a middle ground to stop Israeli attacks on Syrian territory.
The main issue was control of Syrian airspace. Ankara delayed its plans to quickly take control of the bases until the deconfliction talks with Israel were completed, effectively later giving Israel a window of opportunity to attack Iran.
For the Turks, this did not involve Turkish airspace. Turkish officials advised Israel to address its concerns over the airspace issues directly with Syria rather than Ankara.
Missile programme accelerating
For decades, Turkey has viewed Iran as a destabilising force and opposed Tehran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon.
However, Israel's unilateral attack on Iran, which has failed to provide convincing evidence that Tehran is close to developing one, was seen by the Turkish public as a sign that Israel could one day target Turkey, a Nato ally deeply integrated into the western security architecture.
This sense of threat was echoed by the head of Turkey's Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, a key ally of Erdogan.
On Tuesday, Bahçeli warned that Israel's military campaign against Iran is part of a broader strategy to encircle Turkey and undermine its regional ambitions.
"The political and strategic goal of Israel is clear," he said. "To surround Anatolia and sabotage Turkey's path toward a terrorism-free future on behalf of its masters."
To reassure the Turkish public, officials began leaking certain details to the media.
By allowing Israel to bomb Iran, Trump is pushing Tehran to go nuclear Read More »
One Turkish columnist claimed that on the night of the initial attack, Turkish radars detected Israeli F-35s, prompting Turkey to scramble F-16s and AWACS early-warning aircraft to track the Israeli operation.
Another columnist claimed that some of the Israeli jets that took off for the attack unintentionally violated Turkish airspace on the same night, and left rapidly after Turkey scrambled F-16s and warned them by radio.
"This isn't Turkey's war," said one Ankara insider close to the government.
"Yet it shows that we should study this attack in depth and take relevant steps to prepare us for any possible future risk and options."
High-ranking Turkish officials held two rounds of security meetings to discuss further contingency plans. The Turkish military has also closely studied the war tactics employed by Israel.
Erdogan himself responded to the attack by calling regional leaders, and US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. He also made specific calls to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani, both of whom lead Turkey's land neighbours.
Turkish readouts suggest Erdogan specifically advised them not to get involved in the recent escalation between Israel and Iran.
On Monday, Erdogan said that Turkey was accelerating its medium- and long-range ballistic missile programme and deepening its deterrence to make Turkey a country no one would dare to defy.
He vowed on Wednesday that Turkey would make its defence industry completely independent.
He later shared his speech on X, featuring the Ottoman Imperial seal, as Netanyahu referenced last week.
"The victorious army of the Ottoman Empire had a principle," Erdogan said.
"If you want independence, if you want freedom, if you want to live on this land with your honour, dignity, and integrity, if you want economic prosperity, if you want abundance, wealth, and harmony, if you want peace, you must always be ready for war."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
an hour ago
- Khaleej Times
What are the nuclear contamination risks from Israel's attacks on Iran?
E[Editor's Note: Follow the KT live blog for live updates on the Israel-Iran conflict. ] Israel says it is determined to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities in its military campaign, but that it also wants to avoid any nuclear disaster in a region that is home to tens of millions of people and produces much of the world's oil. Fears of catastrophe rippled through the Gulf on Thursday when the Israeli military said it had struck a site in Bushehr on the Gulf coast — home to Iran's only nuclear power station — only to later say the announcement was a mistake. Below are details on the damage caused so far by Israel's attacks, and what experts are saying about the risks of contamination and other disasters. What has Israel hit so far? Israel has announced attacks on nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and Tehran itself. Israel says it aims to stop Iran building an atom bomb. Iran denies ever seeking one. The international nuclear watchdog IAEA has reported damage to the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, to the nuclear complex at Isfahan, including the Uranium Conversion Facility, and to centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor, a type that can easily produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. The IAEA said it had information that the Khondab heavy water research reactor had been hit, but that it was not operational and reported no radiological effects. What fallout risks do these strikes pose? Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool in England who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, said he is not too concerned about fallout risks from the strikes so far. He noted that the Arak site was not operational while the Natanz facility was underground and no release of radiation was reported. "The issue is controlling what has happened inside that facility, but nuclear facilities are designed for that," he said. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," he said. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, said attacks on facilities at the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle - the stages where uranium is prepared for use in a reactor - pose primarily chemical, not radiological risks. At enrichment facilities, UF6, or uranium hexafluoride, is the concern. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," she said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." The risk of dispersal is lower for underground facilities. What about nuclear reactors? The major concern would be a strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Richard Wakeford, Honorary Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Manchester, said that while contamination from attacks on enrichment facilities would be "mainly a chemical problem" for the surrounding areas, extensive damage to large power reactors "is a different story". Radioactive elements would be released either through a plume of volatile materials or into the sea, he added. James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said an attack on Bushehr "could cause an absolute radiological catastrophe", but that attacks on enrichment facilities were "unlikely to cause significant off-site consequences". Before uranium goes into a nuclear reactor it is barely radioactive, he said. "The chemical form uranium hexafluoride is toxic ... but it actually doesn't tend to travel large distances and it's barely radioactive. So far the radiological consequences of Israel's attacks have been virtually nil," he added, while stating his opposition to Israel's campaign. Why are Gulf states especially worried? For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80% of drinking water, while Bahrain became fully reliant on desalinated water in 2016, with 100% of groundwater reserved for contingency plans, according to authorities. Qatar is 100% dependent on desalinated water. In Saudi Arabia, a much larger nation with a greater reserve of natural groundwater, about 50% of the water supply came from desalinated water as of 2023, according to the General Authority for Statistics. While some Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE have access to more than one sea to draw water from, countries like Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are crowded along the shoreline of the Gulf with no other coastline. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, Professor of Engineering and Director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump resumes visa applications for international students, but with increased vetting
The State Department announced on Wednesday that it is ending the pause on visa applications for foreign students. However, the process, which has been suspended since May, will include intensive online vetting, including requiring applicants to set all of their social media privacy settings to 'public'. The State Department said it needed to 'ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests'. The announcement also asserted that applicants needed to prove that they would 'engage in activities consistent with the terms for their admission', which is being seen as an attempt to deter students from participating in pro-Palestine activism on university campuses in the US. On 25 March, the Trump administration arrested Tufts graduate Rumeysa Ozturk after her profile was posted on a pro-Israel doxxing website. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Ozturk had been targeted for writing an opinion article in a student newspaper the year before, criticising Tufts University's response to a pro-divestment vote from the student senate. Ozturk was released from detention in May, but her detention set a precedent for a larger crackdown by the Trump administration on foreign students. In April, the visas of thousands of international students were revoked seemingly indiscriminately. Several students went into hiding or self-deported over fears that they would be arrested. The Trump administration abruptly backtracked on the decision to revoke visas weeks later. Wednesday's move to review the social media accounts of foreign students is also not the first time the Trump administration has used social media vetting to monitor international students. On 9 April, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be screening the social media accounts of international students at universities affiliated with 'antisemitic activity'. The State Department also reportedly told consulates to prioritise applicants hoping to attend a college where less than 15 percent of the student body were international students. On 28 May, US President Donald Trump asserted that Harvard University should cap international enrollment at 15 percent. Chinese international students Chinese international students have come under particular scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months. The 270,000 Chinese international students studying in the US make up around a quarter of the 1.1 million international students in the country. On 28 May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the DHS would be working closely with the State Department to 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students'. Rubio's statement singled out students 'with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields'. It reflects accusations from the Trump administration that Chinese international students pose a national security risk. On 11 June, Trump backtracked on the plan to revoke visas for Chinese students. He posted that the presence of Chinese international students 'has always been good with me'.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Bombing hospitals is a red line - unless Israel is doing it
On Thursday morning, Iranian missiles struck Soroka hospital in Beersheba, triggering expressions of outrage from Israeli officials. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir likened the Iranian regime to 'Nazis who fire missiles at hospitals, the elderly and children'. President Isaac Herzog evoked imagery of a baby in intensive care and a doctor rushing between beds. Culture Minister Miki Zohar declared on social media that 'only the scum of the earth fires missiles at hospitalized children and elderly people in their sick beds'. The chair of Israel's medical association, Zion Hagay, decried the strike as a war crime and urged the international medical community to condemn it. This swift and unified condemnation by Israeli political and medical leadership underscores a striking contradiction: these same actors not only ignored but openly justified the destruction of Gaza's hospitals over the past two years. Since 7 October 2023, Israeli air strikes and ground invasions have decimated Gaza's healthcare infrastructure. The World Health Organisation has recorded around 700 attacks on healthcare facilities. Major hospitals - al-Shifa, Nasser and the Indonesian hospital, among others - have been besieged, bombed and dismantled. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Israeli officials frame these hospitals as military targets and Hamas 'shields'. Shifa, the largest hospital in Gaza, was placed under siege and then invaded, with the attack hailed by Israeli media as a victory. Meanwhile, the Israeli Medical Association remained silent. In one of its rare statements after a year and a half of Israel's repeated and targeted attacks on hospitals and civilian infrastructure, the association echoed the state's narrative, stating that health facilities and personnel must not be targeted 'unless these are being used as a base for terrorist activities'. Selective moral outrage What is especially striking about this moment is the selective moral outrage from Israeli officials. The same ministers who justified the systematic dismantling of Gaza's healthcare system now describe an attack on an Israeli hospital as a red line, a war crime. Herzog's sentimental imagery of doctors rushing between beds evokes the stark reality in Gaza, where health workers have been shot and shelled in operating rooms, imprisoned, or forced to abandon their patients under fire. International medical voices have played along. While many doctors and health workers have spoken out, many others have remained silent, with no real actions taken to hold Israel accountable. Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war It would be a mistake to treat these official statements as being detached from the public mood in Israel. Most Israelis have defended the destruction of Gaza's healthcare infrastructure. Public discourse has normalised the idea that Palestinian hospitals are legitimate military targets, even celebrating their destruction in some cases. This normalisation is not incidental. It is part of a broader dehumanisation of Palestinians, where even a child under anaesthesia in a Gaza operating room is not seen as a victim, but as collateral damage or a 'shield'. The outrage over Soroka thus reveals a deeper truth: in the eyes of many institutions and audiences, some lives are inherently more valuable than others. When Israeli hospitals are struck, the world responds with empathy and urgency. When Palestinian hospitals are dismantled - patients killed in their beds, doctors arrested mid-surgery - the world hesitates, rationalises or remains silent. How can Palestinian medics 'cooperate' with Israeli health bodies during a genocide? Read More » This is not simply a double standard; it reflects an entrenched hierarchy of whose suffering matters. Israeli leaders speak today of moral lines, of civilians and children, of hospitals as sanctuaries. Yet for nearly two years, those very values have been systematically violated in Gaza, with hardly a whisper of regret. This situation reveals not only hypocrisy but also the cynical confidence that comes with impunity. It reflects how the boundaries of Israeli grief and outrage are drawn narrowly around Jewish Israeli lives, grounded in the certainty that Israel will face no consequences. This moment puts the international system to the test. While some medical and humanitarian groups have expressed concern, most international stakeholders have remained silent in the face of the destruction of Gaza's entire health system. Will medical journals, international associations and UN bodies respond to the attack on an Israeli hospital with the kind of swift condemnation and concrete actions they failed to take when hospitals in Gaza were bombed? The world should have acted when the first operating room was hit in Gaza. It should not take an Israeli facility being targeted for them to remember that hospitals are meant to be protected spaces. If an attack on a hospital is a red line, this must be true for all hospitals, not just those serving Israelis. If international law is to mean anything, it must protect everyone, with the same standards applied to every violation. Anything less is not only hypocrisy; it is complicity. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
