TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Corvus]

According to the latest available data, Israel’s crude oil suppliers and their approximate shares are as follows:

• Azerbaijan: 46.4%
• Russia: 28%
• Kazakhstan: approximately 10–15%
• Nigeria: approximately 5–10%

Azerbaijan delivers the oil via BTC pipeline while Russia&Kazakhstan deliver it with tankers that pass through Turkish Straits.
We basically have the capability to cut around %90 of Israel's oil imports with a single decision.

 

[what]

Wait until the elections are over in Israel. Current calm reaction is the best one we can give

 

[Şok Tedavisi]

According to the latest available data, Israel’s crude oil suppliers and their approximate shares are as follows:

• Azerbaijan: 46.4%
• Russia: 28%
• Kazakhstan: approximately 10–15%
• Nigeria: approximately 5–10%

Azerbaijan delivers the oil via BTC pipeline while Russia&Kazakhstan deliver it with tankers that pass through Turkish Straits.
We basically have the capability to cut around %90 of Israel's oil imports with a single decision.

They will hit Ankara the second you do that.

 

[TurkWolf]

They will hit Ankara the second you do that.

And we'd do nothing.

Just a strongly worded letter. And ask Tom Barrack to de-escalate

I also have a feeling we'd do nothing even if our defense programmes were all matured too. Like even if we had 100s of KAANs I don't see it meaning anything under AKP against Israel.

 

[Barry]

You are a real catastrophist arent you?
Buddy,you need to understand that your country is not even noticed in this agreement.
The world is changing,either you change with it or be left behind.
Nobody wants or needs to attack your country,you are just small a neighbour.

They really think we give as much of a ahit about them as they do with us. Their entire social, political and cultural foundation is built on being scared of turks and wanting to murder them all. Diet-israeli mentality. Shame to see, a rational Greece would be a friend to all and prosper with its neighbours

 

[Newuserrr]

Φέρτε πίσω τώρα τους Patriot από τη Σαουδική Αραβία, κύριε Μητσοτάκη!

Ενώ ο Μπιν Σαλμάν υπέγραψε αμυντική συμφωνία με την Αγκυρα, η Αθήνα στέλνει και ελικόπτερα Apache στα ΗΑΕ

www.dimokratia.gr

Bring back the Patriots from Saudi Arabia now, Mr. Mitsotakis!
While Bin Salman signed a defense agreement with Ankara, Athens also sends Apache helicopters to the UAE
From… Mecca to Athens, the resounding slap in the face of the foreign policy of the dangerous Mitsotakis government was heard. The “friend and ally” Saudi Arabia, for whose protection Greece sent one of the most sought-after and hard-to-find war systems on the planet, a Patriot array with corresponding personnel and hundreds of missiles, signed a defense alliance agreement with Turkey and Pakistan.
Therefore, "bring back the Patriots" is no longer just an exhortation to the government, but an imperative request for national security, as a country that belongs to a multilateral scheme with Turkey and Pakistan, two countries that expressly seek to torpedo our national interests - such as IMEC -, cannot be protected by Greece.
And not only that, at the time this agreement is being signed, Athens is also sending Apache helicopters to the United Arab Emirates. A move that further involves our country in the war-torn Middle East. The aim is to "hunt" drones and they will be deployed to a base where other international forces are stationed.
As for the Patriots, their stay shows that Athens is determined to continue the role not of an ally, but of an extra. One could speak of a grand - if not royal - evacuation of Athens by Riyadh, but the reality is even worse, as developments in the Middle East region are rapid and to the detriment of our homeland's interests in both the short and long term.
Because it is not only that Ankara is essentially - with the blessings of the US - turning into a security provider for Saudi Arabia, but also that the Greek policy of recent years is being thrown into the trash. The Mecca agreement, the first step towards the creation of the famous "Islamic NATO", was not a secret, on the contrary, it was a declared goal of Ankara.
And in the face of Turkish insistence, Greece once again chose the role of a... willing and given ally, not against the US but against Saudi Arabia, which showed how much... it appreciated our offer from the signatures it put together with those who not only threaten Greece and militarily occupy half of Cyprus but also support the... Houthis.

Naivety.

Only those possessed of pacifist naivety can believe Ankara when it declares that a “defense” agreement with other countries aims to “preserve peace and stability.” Especially when this agreement reveals in the most eloquent way the fact that Turkey has achieved what it wanted to achieve, namely to plant its boot even more firmly in the volatile region of the Middle East.
Moreover, the signing was preceded by months of negotiations and the statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan that Ankara supports the creation of a broader regional security platform to promote cooperation and stability.
"The Mecca agreement, which does not target any specific country, will strengthen the common security and collective deterrence of the three countries, significantly contributing to the defense of peace and stability in our region," said yesterday in a statement published on the X platform, the Turkish presidency's communications director, Burhanettin Duran.
The three countries have long been expressing their “common concerns” about the chaotic situation in the Middle East. However, none of them speaks about the legitimate concerns that they leave unclear the commitments that each of them has made to the other two within the framework of their alliance. And most importantly, they also hide how the Sunni defense “college” will affect the broader crisis in the Middle East.
The facts, however, are clear, reminiscent of a lit torch in a powder keg, since the ever-provocative Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, Saudi Arabia is the most powerful country in the Gulf and is one of the largest oil exporters in the world, while Pakistan is the only Muslim nuclear power. So, will they work to defend peace and stability in the Middle East?

Why blaming Saudi Arabia? Aren't you Greece und Turkey both in the same military alliance that called NATO!?

 

[BalkanTurk90]

They will hit Ankara the second you do that.

Even if war happens tomorrow and we dont have airforce supremacy over them , we can easy make ukraine v2 all over israeli border from lebanon to jordan with 1+ million soldiers will be trench war , small wire dron war and artillary war just like ukraine but since israel is so small they will surrender or die . Jordan will be diffucult to enter the war but if they dont they will face civil war or coup

 

[Ryder]

What im sick? Is Muslims being blamed for the Arabs incompetence.

Why should Turks, Iranians, Indonesians, Algerians or Moroccans or even Bosniaks be blamed for Israel getting established?

Arab incompetence is what led to Israel in the first place.

Ottomans were not perfect but how stupid can one be to trust the British and the French to give you independance?

Israel wouldnt be a problem due to numerous factors.

Bayezid II instead of encouraging Turks getting rich preferred bring to Jews over to our lands. There is a reason why Europe was kicking them out.

Centuries has past this all snowballed to what it is. Israel really does think Turkiye is easy game like the Palestinians.

 

[Fatman17]

Netanyahu turns on Türkiye as election pressure mounts, experts say

Experts say Netanyahu is increasingly portraying President Erdoğan and Türkiye as external threats as he seeks to consolidate his political base ahead of...

share.google

Israel’s recent strikes on a military base in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province and the use of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s image in an election poster by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party bearing the slogan “They want Netanyahu to lose” are seen by experts as signs of the growing political and strategic pressure Netanyahu is facing.

 

[Lool]

Israel has begun laying the groundwork for a possible conflict with Turkey
According to unverified rumors, Marian Adelson's PR companies will reportedly handle the spread of such belief to NATO members, US congress, and Western public

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2090422769343184960

 

[Şok Tedavisi]

Even if war happens tomorrow and we dont have airforce supremacy over them , we can easy make ukraine v2 all over israeli border from lebanon to jordan with 1+ million soldiers will be trench war , small wire dron war and artillary war just like ukraine but since israel is so small they will surrender or die . Jordan will be diffucult to enter the war but if they dont they will face civil war or coup

How? You can't push Infantry without air support.

 

[TurkWolf]

What im sick? Is Muslims being blamed for the Arabs incompetence.

Why should Turks, Iranians, Indonesians, Algerians or Moroccans or even Bosniaks be blamed for Israel getting established?

Arab incompetence is what led to Israel in the first place.

Ottomans were not perfect but how stupid can one be to trust the British and the French to give you independance?

Israel wouldnt be a problem due to numerous factors.

Bayezid II instead of encouraging Turks getting rich preferred bring to Jews over to our lands. There is a reason why Europe was kicking them out.

Centuries has past this all snowballed to what it is. Israel really does think Turkiye is easy game like the Palestinians.

Arabs see all non-Arabs as slaves.

Same as their Jew cousins that believe all the world people will end up as slaves to Jews too.

Nothing is ever their fault.

Ottomans did a lot of stupid crap , and thats why they're not around anymore, and living in foreign countries.. one even became a cab driver.

And Israel will think we're weak like Palestinians because our leaders won't escalate.. but against Libya, Armenia or a war-torn weak Assad Syria.. we're brave lions.

Do a few missile near Israel border. and I bet this ends all the issues.. but no. we will never do such a thing.

 

[AlperTunga]

It appears Israel is determined not to allow Türkiye to get entrenched in Syria. They are bombing potential bases even before the slightest preparations begin. This is bad for us but has nothing to do with AKP or Erdogan being scared. We are just being rational as we cannot afford a war with Israil now. We should however never give up the idea of settling militarily in Syria. We need to somehow accomplish this. Either inch by inch or over the course of a night. Maybe we can deploy sufficient number of them to a location very fast together with several Gürz systems. If we cannot succeed in military entrenchment in Syria we will lose strategically.

 

[Şok Tedavisi]

It appears Israel is determined not to allow Türkiye to get entrenched in Syria. They are bombing potential bases even before the slightest preparations begin. This is bad for us but has nothing to do with AKP or Erdogan being scared. We are just being rational as we cannot afford a war with Israil now. We should however never give up the idea of settling militarily in Syria. We need to somehow accomplish this. Either inch by inch or over the course of a night. Maybe we can deploy sufficient number of them to a location very fast together with several Gürz systems. If we cannot succeed in military entrenchment in Syria we will lose strategically.

We dont have enough AD to cover those places even If we do they have the capacity to strike those bases via F35s, We need cap missions doubled with the AD.

 

[AlperTunga]

I am talking about a grand strategy of slowly encircling and suffocating Israel. Currently we don’t have enough AD sytems for ourselves. We need to produce more of them and better versions with the time. In the meantime we will have to be patient. The military entrenchment in Syria will be slow initially. Maybe initially we should focus more on economic cooperation, training in Türkiye, and cultural integration. As our might increases we will encircle Israel from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and maybe even Lebanon. I think the road to perdition for Israel has begun. And they have started it themselves by declaring us as their enemy.

 

[Ryder]

I am talking about a grand strategy of slowly encircling and suffocating Israel. Currently we don’t have enough AD sytems for ourselves. We need to produce more of them and better versions with the time. In the meantime we will have to be patient. The military entrenchment in Syria will be slow initially. Maybe initially we should focus more on economic cooperation, training in Türkiye, and cultural integration. As our might increases we will encircle Israel from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and maybe even Lebanon. I think the road to perdition for Israel has begun. And they have started it themselves by declaring us as their enemy.

Lebanon is even worse by the way. Lebanon got invaded and parts of Southern Lebanon are occupied by Israel.

Lebanon is too divided for Turkish interests to work there. None of the people there would support Turkiye.

Maybe you can get support among Sunnis thats about it. Even with that they are not reliable enough. Lebanon barely has a Turkish/Turkmen population compared to Iraq and Syria.

Seljuks and the Ottomans did not settle there in big numbers compared to Turkiye, Syria and Iraq.

 

[dBSPL]

Although the probability of it happening is very low, I want to say a few things about this possible war scenario. The issue has recently begun to be discussed within the context of NATO, and Israeli-based think tanks have started discussing possible scenarios through Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. However, this still reflects a very superficial aspect of the issue.

In essence, the crucial element is not the mistake of activating Article 5, which would create the opportunity Türkiye needs, but Article 8. Article 8 would allow Turkiye to create conditions that would paralyze NATO member countries, on which Israel's military logistics are vitally dependent, for a certain period, leaving the two countries to confront each other head-on, should a war become inevitable. When a NATO member is subjected to an armed attack from outside, NATO members cannot side with the aggressor, provide military/intelligence support, or directly violate the NATO treaty and effectively sever ties with the alliance.

Article 5 allows member states to determine the nature of support 'as they see fit,' even if it's just a condemnation. Therefore, Turkiye has never, under any circumstances or during any crisis, expected active and strong NATO support.

However, if the NATO council cannot reach a consensus and Article 5 does not 'naturally' translate into a military operation, the allies will adopt a position of effective inaction or diplomatic neutrality.

If legitimate conditions arise for Turkiye to exercise its sovereign rights and its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, NATO members cannot use military/intelligence force against Türkiye. However, diplomatic and economic pressure tools will be employed to deter Türkiye and limit the crisis.

Therefore, there is no need to attach so much importance to Article 5. The key phrase here is 'if deemed necessary'. The US and Germany can and will say, "We accept Article 5, but we do not deem military intervention necessary..." But the situation Israel will face will escalate in a very different and unpredictable way than attacking Iran and hiding under the skirt of the US.

It is certain that Israel cannot directly attack Turkish territory in a way that would force NATO into an Article 5 crisis, even if reluctantly. However, a potential Israeli attack on Turkish territory is not the only reason that would trigger Türkiye to invoke Article 5, or Article 4 as in the Russia crisis.

Every manned combat aircraft and naval vessel is under the sovereignty of the state. NATO Article 6 makes this point unequivocally clear: "Attacks on Alliance ships or aircraft in the North Atlantic that result in casualties or loss of personnel are entirely within the scope of Article 5."

If a cargo plane belonging to the air force or a patrol boat sailing in the open sea is subjected to a military attack, this immediately triggers Article 5.

Therefore, conclusion 2: Israel cannot attack not only Turkish territory, but also a military ship or aircraft in "international" maritime or airspace. Unmanned systems are not included in this scope, as casualties or attempted murder are the primary criterion.

The issue of Turkish military assets being targeted in third countries is a scenario I've seen a lot about on social media, particularly regarding Northern Cyprus. While the north of the island isn't considered Turkish territory under international law, it has official rights under the 1960 Guarantee Agreement. The Turkish state could declare an attack on the island as an attack on its guarantee rights and national security, and convene an extraordinary NATO meeting under Article 4. Such a crisis would again open a window of opportunity for Türkiye to retaliate with great force.

Conclusion 3: An Israeli attack on Northern Cyprus would open a window of opportunity for Türkiye to retaliate disproportionately. What's important for Turkiye isn't Article 5 and the conditions for joint armed struggle, but rather Articles 4 and 8.

Apart from actual military attacks, cyberattacks are also considered security threats under NATO treaties. In recent years, NATO has included cyberattacks, depending on their nature, in the category of military attacks that can trigger Article 5 under certain conditions.

Conclusion 4: Israel launching a large-scale cyberattack through Turkiye would also trigger NATO Article 4 and trigger a crisis between Israel and NATO.

In short, the biggest mistakes that would completely paralyze Israel within NATO are targeting a Turkish aircraft or warship. However, violating the Turkish border, attacking the military presence in the TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), and launching large-scale cyberattacks and targeting national infrastructure would also be serious mistakes that could activate NATO mechanisms in favor of Turkiye.

In short, the NATO side of the issue is: If Israeli aggression drags Türkiye into an inevitable war, the Turkish side would readily accept a scenario where, for example, under a NATO crisis, Israel loses its protective shield for a few weeks, or political protection is paralyzed to a certain extent. Looking at the past, Israel needs to carefully analyze how it has already solved the problems of the Turkish state in this way.

And there's another issue: Azerbaijani oil. If any of the above conditions arise and national security threats emerge, the picture here would suddenly reverse.

The Turkish state has undertaken international strict liability under the IGA and HGA agreements in the event of legal incompetence over the destination points and interference with the flow of oil. Therefore, it cannot unilaterally suspend the agreements by citing Israel's controlled aggression as force majeure. Currently, the only way out that could protect the Turkish state from major sanctions in the event of interference with the flow is an official energy embargo from the UN Security Council, which is impossible.

The World Trade Organization has Article 21 of the GATT Security Exception, which allows states to suspend trade agreements in times of war or threat of war, but this does not save Türkiye. This article provides legal protection for Türkiye to stop the sale of its 'own goods,' but transit goods of a third country are an exception and would be considered a restriction on the freedom of transit in arbitration.

In this case, it should be Azerbaijan that shuts off the valve. And the binding threshold is defined in the Shusha Declaration.

According to the joint security protocol signed in 2021: "In the event of a threat or attack by a third state against the independence, territorial integrity, or national sovereignty of one of the signatory countries, the parties undertake to provide each other with the necessary military and strategic assistance."

Therefore, if Israel commits a mistake that would trigger NATO Article 4, the Shusha Security Declaration's joint defense procedure would also come into effect.

If Israel risks a conflict with Turkiye, the Ceyhan Port and Turkish territorial waters would become a war zone. In international law, war is considered the most severe force majeure. Turkiye and Azerbaijan would jointly halt the shipment, thus preventing international arbitration from compensation penalty to either Türkiye or Azerbaijan.

Conclusion 5: If Israel risks a war with Turkiye, the second wave of the domino effect will be an energy crisis.

And, the unseen part of the iceberg: The most devastating aspect of this domino effect is the consequences this war will trigger on Muslim populations, but I won't go into that for now.

Another issue is geographical proximity and a shared maritime border. With air support from the mainland, Turkiye could easily turn the situation into a naval blockade. Despite the damage it would suffer, Turkiye could confine Israel within its borders. In other words, provoking or forcing the Turks to risk everything would largely turn into a doomsday scenario for Israel. Once the arrow has left the bow, the Turks don't care about embargoes or economic pressure; they strike as hard as they can and focus on quickly creating a fait accompli.

Long story short: Turkiye is a regional factor far beyond Israel's capacity; playing with fire is the madness of a genocidal maniac who has been spoiled lately and is now about to lose power, who will not hesitate to set the country ablaze.

There are also very wise people in Israel, and let's hope things get back on track after the elections. We have a grand strategy for the common prosperity and unity of the region; we do not have an Israel-centric destructive perspective. Therefore, the most appropriate policy for Israel is to try to adapt to this, not to dig its own grave by continuing to destabilize the region and this time placing Türkiye at the center.

 

[Ryder]

Russia bombed Turkish soldiers thats what Israel wants to do.

Nato Article 5 does not cover that either.

Turkiye should start jamming ans locking their planes. Also send some fpvs to Palestinians so they can send those zionists to hell.

These w*nkers wont stop until they achieve their greater israel dreams and them being the top dog of the middle east.

This cant happen.

 

[Angry Turk !!!]

Although the probability of it happening is very low, I want to say a few things about this possible war scenario. The issue has recently begun to be discussed within the context of NATO, and Israeli-based think tanks have started discussing possible scenarios through Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. However, this still reflects a very superficial aspect of the issue.

In essence, the crucial element is not the mistake of activating Article 5, which would create the opportunity Türkiye needs, but Article 8. Article 8 would allow Turkiye to create conditions that would paralyze NATO member countries, on which Israel's military logistics are vitally dependent, for a certain period, leaving the two countries to confront each other head-on, should a war become inevitable. When a NATO member is subjected to an armed attack from outside, NATO members cannot side with the aggressor, provide military/intelligence support, or directly violate the NATO treaty and effectively sever ties with the alliance.

Article 5 allows member states to determine the nature of support 'as they see fit,' even if it's just a condemnation. Therefore, Turkiye has never, under any circumstances or during any crisis, expected active and strong NATO support.

However, if the NATO council cannot reach a consensus and Article 5 does not 'naturally' translate into a military operation, the allies will adopt a position of effective inaction or diplomatic neutrality.

If legitimate conditions arise for Turkiye to exercise its sovereign rights and its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, NATO members cannot use military/intelligence force against Türkiye. However, diplomatic and economic pressure tools will be employed to deter Türkiye and limit the crisis.

Therefore, there is no need to attach so much importance to Article 5. The key phrase here is 'if deemed necessary'. The US and Germany can and will say, "We accept Article 5, but we do not deem military intervention necessary..." But the situation Israel will face will escalate in a very different and unpredictable way than attacking Iran and hiding under the skirt of the US.

It is certain that Israel cannot directly attack Turkish territory in a way that would force NATO into an Article 5 crisis, even if reluctantly. However, a potential Israeli attack on Turkish territory is not the only reason that would trigger Türkiye to invoke Article 5, or Article 4 as in the Russia crisis.

Every manned combat aircraft and naval vessel is under the sovereignty of the state. NATO Article 6 makes this point unequivocally clear: "Attacks on Alliance ships or aircraft in the North Atlantic that result in casualties or loss of personnel are entirely within the scope of Article 5."

If a cargo plane belonging to the air force or a patrol boat sailing in the open sea is subjected to a military attack, this immediately triggers Article 5.

Therefore, conclusion 2: Israel cannot attack not only Turkish territory, but also a military ship or aircraft in "international" maritime or airspace. Unmanned systems are not included in this scope, as casualties or attempted murder are the primary criterion.

The issue of Turkish military assets being targeted in third countries is a scenario I've seen a lot about on social media, particularly regarding Northern Cyprus. While the north of the island isn't considered Turkish territory under international law, it has official rights under the 1960 Guarantee Agreement. The Turkish state could declare an attack on the island as an attack on its guarantee rights and national security, and convene an extraordinary NATO meeting under Article 4. Such a crisis would again open a window of opportunity for Türkiye to retaliate with great force.

Conclusion 3: An Israeli attack on Northern Cyprus would open a window of opportunity for Türkiye to retaliate disproportionately. What's important for Turkiye isn't Article 5 and the conditions for joint armed struggle, but rather Articles 4 and 8.

Apart from actual military attacks, cyberattacks are also considered security threats under NATO treaties. In recent years, NATO has included cyberattacks, depending on their nature, in the category of military attacks that can trigger Article 5 under certain conditions.

Conclusion 4: Israel launching a large-scale cyberattack through Turkiye would also trigger NATO Article 4 and trigger a crisis between Israel and NATO.

In short, the biggest mistakes that would completely paralyze Israel within NATO are targeting a Turkish aircraft or warship. However, violating the Turkish border, attacking the military presence in the TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), and launching large-scale cyberattacks and targeting national infrastructure would also be serious mistakes that could activate NATO mechanisms in favor of Turkiye.

In short, the NATO side of the issue is: If Israeli aggression drags Türkiye into an inevitable war, the Turkish side would readily accept a scenario where, for example, under a NATO crisis, Israel loses its protective shield for a few weeks, or political protection is paralyzed to a certain extent. Looking at the past, Israel needs to carefully analyze how it has already solved the problems of the Turkish state in this way.

And there's another issue: Azerbaijani oil. If any of the above conditions arise and national security threats emerge, the picture here would suddenly reverse.

The Turkish state has undertaken international strict liability under the IGA and HGA agreements in the event of legal incompetence over the destination points and interference with the flow of oil. Therefore, it cannot unilaterally suspend the agreements by citing Israel's controlled aggression as force majeure. Currently, the only way out that could protect the Turkish state from major sanctions in the event of interference with the flow is an official energy embargo from the UN Security Council, which is impossible.

The World Trade Organization has Article 21 of the GATT Security Exception, which allows states to suspend trade agreements in times of war or threat of war, but this does not save Türkiye. This article provides legal protection for Türkiye to stop the sale of its 'own goods,' but transit goods of a third country are an exception and would be considered a restriction on the freedom of transit in arbitration.

In this case, it should be Azerbaijan that shuts off the valve. And the binding threshold is defined in the Shusha Declaration.

According to the joint security protocol signed in 2021: "In the event of a threat or attack by a third state against the independence, territorial integrity, or national sovereignty of one of the signatory countries, the parties undertake to provide each other with the necessary military and strategic assistance."

Therefore, if Israel commits a mistake that would trigger NATO Article 4, the Shusha Security Declaration's joint defense procedure would also come into effect.

If Israel risks a conflict with Turkiye, the Ceyhan Port and Turkish territorial waters would become a war zone. In international law, war is considered the most severe force majeure. Turkiye and Azerbaijan would jointly halt the shipment, thus preventing international arbitration from compensation penalty to either Türkiye or Azerbaijan.

Conclusion 5: If Israel risks a war with Turkiye, the second wave of the domino effect will be an energy crisis.

And, the unseen part of the iceberg: The most devastating aspect of this domino effect is the consequences this war will trigger on Muslim populations, but I won't go into that for now.

Another issue is geographical proximity and a shared maritime border. With air support from the mainland, Turkiye could easily turn the situation into a naval blockade. Despite the damage it would suffer, Turkiye could confine Israel within its borders. In other words, provoking or forcing the Turks to risk everything would largely turn into a doomsday scenario for Israel. Once the arrow has left the bow, the Turks don't care about embargoes or economic pressure; they strike as hard as they can and focus on quickly creating a fait accompli.

Long story short: Turkiye is a regional factor far beyond Israel's capacity; playing with fire is the madness of a genocidal maniac who has been spoiled lately and is now about to lose power, who will not hesitate to set the country ablaze.

There are also very wise people in Israel, and let's hope things get back on track after the elections. We have a grand strategy for the common prosperity and unity of the region; we do not have an Israel-centric destructive perspective. Therefore, the most appropriate policy for Israel is to try to adapt to this, not to dig its own grave by continuing to destabilize the region and this time placing Türkiye at the center.

Don't expect anything positive from NATO, Türkiye can only rely on itself.

Türkiye must be strong enough to deter anyone, act as if NATO doesn't exists because in reality it doesn't anyway.

 

[dBSPL]

Don't expect anything positive from NATO, Türkiye can only rely on itself.

Türkiye must be strong enough to deter anyone, act as if NATO doesn't exists because in reality it doesn't anyway.

We don't expect anything from NATO. And I didn't say anything like that anywhere in the post. Neither in 1963-74 nor in 2013-2025 did the Turkish state achieve results with NATO; it achieved results despite NATO.

What I tried to frame in the post is that the vital support that allows Israel to survive militarily, economically, and politically is part of the NATO alliance. The critical point here is that if Israel were to attack a NATO country, thereby creating conditions that would, to a certain extent, comply with Article 51 of the UN Charter, the risk of the NATO countries that sustain Israel being paralyzed for a certain period is tantamount to a doomsday scenario.

NATO Article 8 clearly states: "Member states undertake not to enter into any other international agreements or commitments inconsistent with the NATO Treaty and to abstain from existing conflicting obligations."

This fundamental framework implies that if Israeli aggression crosses red lines, certain mechanisms that could prevent it might be paralyzed for a period of time in response to a 'deemable' Turkish response, creating a phase where Israel will face the cost of its own policies without an international shield of protection and support. This cost would be too heavy for Israel to bear because, as we know from past examples, the Turkish state has never forgotten anything done during the period of patience and preparation.

We are not the aggressor, and we hope that conditions for legitimate intervention will not arise. But if someone imposes war, we will set the terms and timing. That's the situation.