By Halil Karaveli

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and Israel’s demonstration of its crushing military superiority, has added renewed urgency to the Turkish efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Kurds. More than anything else, Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance with Israel. Co-opting the Kurds is both a national security imperative and a necessary condition for the perpetuation of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s regime. The end of the PKK and of the conflict that has plagued Turkey for four decades may well revive Erdoğan’s political fortunes. But the question remains if societal reconciliation can be achieved when reforms for the Kurds are coupled with oppressive measures against the main opposition party. And the Kurds have reason to ask how much they can trust a democratization that is granted from above by a state that could renege on it when it no longer suits its interests.

                                       Image courtesy of Flickr

BACKGROUND: On June 17, Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the far right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the key partner of Erdoğan, claimed that “Israel’s political and strategic ambition is to encircle Anatolia and to prevent, on behalf of its patron, the realization of the goal of a Turkey without terrorism.” The latter is a reference to the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that Bahçeli initiated in 2024 while the “patron” of Israel refers, presumably, to the United States.

On October 22, 2024, Bahçeli stunned the country by suggesting that Abdullah Öcalan – the leader of the outlawed PKK which Öcalan founded in 1978 and that has waged an insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984 – should be granted parole if he renounces violence and disbands the organization. On February 27, Öcalan called on the PKK to dissolve and lay down its arms. On May 22, the PKK announced its dissolution. The organization is expected to begin handing over its weapons in early July.

The 12-day war between Israel and Iran, and Israel’s demonstration of its crushing military superiority, has added renewed urgency to the Turkish efforts to achieve reconciliation with the Kurds. Ankara has become increasingly worried that regional turmoil could stoke domestic instability. Above all, Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance with Israel. Last November Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar described the Kurdish people as victims of Turkish and Iranian oppression and Israel’s “natural ally” and said that Israel should strengthen its ties with them. Some Kurds are indeed fantasizing about Israeli-Kurdish hegemony in the Middle East.

In October 2024, the pro-PKK newspaper Yeni Özgür Politika republished a section of Öcalan’s Manifesto for Democratic Civilization, written more than a decade ago, in which he suggested that the PKK could align with the United States and Israel against Turkey. That prescription was at odds with the traditionally anti-Israel and anti-American thinking that informs the leftist tradition in Turkey from which the PKK sprang; however, U.S. military-political and Israeli political support for the PKK’s offshoots in Syria during the last decade has changed Kurdish perceptions. Today Öcalan advocates for an alliance with Turkey, but it’s by no means clear that the PKK is fully on the same page as its founding leader. On June 17, Selahattin Demirtaş, the imprisoned former co-chair of Peoples’ Democracy party (HDP) – the DEM Party’s predecessor – was compelled to warn fellow Kurds, as it would seem, against the temptation of “imperialist schemes” and said that such “moves will end with disaster.” Demirtaş pledged that “We are going to stand united as the society of Turkey and if need be sacrifice our lives in the defense of our common fatherland.”

In April, Öcalan reportedly told a visiting delegation from the pro-Kurdish, left-wing Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party that “Netanyahu and Trump want to make Israel the hegemonic power in the Middle East. After Gaza, Lebanon, Syria it’s going to be the turn of Iran and Turkey. The Kurds are absolutely crucial for the realization of this scheme. Whoever succeeds in attaching the strategic position of the Kurds to itself will acquire the superiority in the Middle East.”

Erdoğan and Bahçeli subscribe to the same view; they believe that Israel, as the new hegemonic power in the Middle East represents a threat to Turkish interests and that it will – as Israeli official statements indeed suggest –exploit Turkey’s ethnic divisions. Three weeks ahead of his appeal to Öcalan in October 2024, Bahçeli explained, “When we call for peace in the world, we must also secure peace in our own country.” In an address to parliament the same month, Erdoğan emphasized the need to “fortify the home front” in the face of “Israeli aggression.”

IMPLICATIONS: As Bahçeli’s statement on June 17 about Israel seeking to “encircle Anatolia” makes clear, the Turkish leadership fears an Israeli alliance with the Kurds in Syria – and with the Kurds in Iran, the only group that responded positively to the Israeli exhortation to the Iranian people during the 12-day war to rise up and overthrow the Islamic republic.

In the weeks after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria last year, senior Turkish officials repeatedly emphasized their wish to see the PKK’s offshoot, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) disbanded. In December, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the elimination of the group as Ankara’s “strategic objective,” calling on Syria’s new leaders to dismantle the YPG, expel its commanders and restore central control of all Syrian territory. None of this has happened. The PKK’s affiliates remain in control over northern and northeastern Syria; with an estimated 80 to 100 000 armed militants and backed by the United States, the Syrian offshoot of the PKK retains a position of unmatched military strength and has not committed to disband and disarm.

Statements last year by Fidan suggested that Turkey would undertake an invasion of Rojava, the autonomous Kurdish region of Syria, if the new regime in Damascus failed to take action on its own. Ankara’s best hope today is to be able to co-opt the Syrian Kurds, allowing it to contain Israel’s influence. That in turn requires that Turkey first reaches an accommodation with its own Kurdish citizens, releases Kurdish political prisoners like Demirtaş and commits to respecting the democratic rights of the Kurds.

Turkey has a history of turning toward democracy in the face of perceived threats to its national security. In the 1940s, the authoritarian president İsmet İnönü recognized that Turkey, threatened by the Soviet Union, needed to be fully accepted by the West for its own protection. İnönü agreed to hold a free election in 1950 and duly resigned when he lost. At the turn of this century, a push for membership in the European Union prompted successive Turkish governments to implement liberal reforms required for its entry. It’s a very different story now.

On March 19, Ekrem İmamoğlu – the mayor of Istanbul and Erdoğan’s main rival – was detained by police in a dawn raid; he was later formally charged with corruption and suspended from his post as mayor. İmamoğlu’s arrest sparked the biggest demonstrations in Turkey in more than a decade. Yet, notwithstanding the outpouring of public support, İmamoğlu has – to all intents and purposes – been removed from the presidential equation.

Özgür Özel, the leader of the main opposition, center-left Republican People’s Party (CHP) whose members have endorsed İmamoğlu as the party’s presidential candidate, quipped that “the home front isn’t fortified by treating the opposition as the enemy.” The imprisoned Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş called on the government to put an end to political harassments, pointing out that such practices “don’t contribute to fortifying the home front.” Öcalan is reported to have said that the peace process won’t succeed without the CHP. The pro-Kurdish DEM Party has stood by the CHP, condemning the arrest of İmamoğlu as an assault on democracy.

However, a progressive alliance of the CHP and the DEM Party remains elusive. The DEM Party is optimistic that its aspirations – notably enshrining Kurdish cultural and language rights in the constitution – are eventually going to be accommodated, in return for which the pro-Kurdish party may decide to assist Erdoğan’s reelection. That would require amending the Turkish constitution – which does not allow for a third presidential term – or calling a snap election.

The ruling coalition of Erdoğan’s Islamic conservative Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Bahçeli’s MHP lacks the necessary parliamentary majority for both alternatives, making a grand bargain with the DEM Party its likely objective.

CONCLUSION: Co-opting the Kurds is both a national security imperative and a necessary condition for the perpetuation of the right-wing authoritarian Erdoğan-Bahçeli regime. The peace process enjoys broad popular support and the dissolution and disarmament of the PKK is likely going to boost Erdoğan’s standing. The end of the PKK and of the conflict that has plagued Turkey for four decades may well revive Erdoğan’s political fortunes.

But the question remains if societal reconciliation can be achieved when reforms for the Kurds are coupled with oppressive measures against the main opposition party. And the Kurds have reason to ask how much they can trust a democratization that is granted from above by a state that could renege on it when it no longer suits its interests.

Halil Karaveli is a Senior Fellow with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center and the Editor of the Turkey Analyst. He is the author of Why Turkey is Authoritarian: From Atatürk to Erdoğan (Pluto Press)

By Barçın Yinanç

Competing visions for the future of post-Assad Syria has further deteriorated the already strained Turkish-Israeli relations. While Turkey’s clout in Syria stands in the way of Israel’s efforts to fragment Syria and undermine its territorial integrity, Israel’s actions disrupt Turkey’s strategy of a unified Syria. As a result both perceive each other as posing a threat to their respective national interests. Ankara will seek Washington’s support for crisis management and President Recep Tayip Erdoğan will use his good rapport with President Donald Trump to keep the tension from spiraling into a direct military confrontation with Israel. The fragile detente between Turkey and Israel will have to be monitored closely by the United States.

BACKGROUND: The fall of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024, has opened a new confrontation line between Turkey and Israel, pitting Syria’s two neighbors against each other. On April 9, 2025, Azerbaijan hosted Turkish and Israeli officials for talks to ease the tension in Syria. Turkish Defense Ministry officials informed that the first technical talks were held in Baku to set up a de-confliction mechanism to avoid potential clashes or misunderstandings over military operations in Syria. 

The end of the decades-long Assad regime was an unintended consequence of Israel’s military strategy following Hamas’ deadly attack on October 7, 2023. The Israeli army dealt a serious blow to Iran’s proxies in Syria, which unexpectedly led to the takeover of Damascus by opposition forces. The Islamist Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) spearheaded the offensive of the rebel forces, whose leader, Ahmet al-Sharaa, eventually became the country’s new, transitional leader. Al-Sharaa’s jihadist past and his affinity to Turkey, confirmed by the visit of the Turkish Intelligence Chief İbranim Kalın to Damascus only four days after the takeover, rang alarm bells in Israel. As early as January 10, 2025, an Israeli government commission released a warning that Syria could become the stage for a direct conflict between Turkey and Israel.A Turkey-oriented Syria ruled by Sunni Islamists could pose a greater threat to Israel than a Syria allied with Iran, the report of the so-called Nagel Commission, chaired by a former Israeli National Security Council head, concluded. The day Bashar al-Assad fled to Russia, the Israeli army moved units into several locations in a buffer zone that separates the Israeli side of the Golan Heights from the Syrian side of the border. Meanwhile, the Israeli air force has launched several offensives, striking hundreds of military targets to destroy the Syrian military assets, hitting strategic weapon stockpiles to stop “them from falling into the hands of the extremists.”Turkey maintained a rather restrained rhetoric even at that stage, avoiding harsh accusations against the Israeli government. “Israel has developed a precautionary package based on the worst possible scenario in Syria. As Israel is not sure about where the new administration (in Syria) will stand, it has endorsed a strategy; one which is very dangerous,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said in mid-December, adding that Ankara asked Israel, via intermediaries, to stop bombing.Al-Sharaa’s assurances early on that Damascus does not want any conflict with Israel and that the new regime will not let Syria be used as a launch-pad for attacks fell on deaf ears in Israel. Official statements that Israel will support Kurdish groups in northern Syria and the Druze minority in the south created an additional irritant at a time when Ankara threatened military action against the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northern Syria.The Democratic Union Party (PYD), as well as the YPG, which makes up the backbone of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), are seen by Turkey as offshoots of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), but talks between the SDF and Damascus under U.S. mediation forced Turkey to refrain from military action in northeast Syria. As Turkey has embarked on a new peace process to solve the decades-long Kurdish problem, Ankara is waiting to see how the talks between Damascus and the SDG will proceed.The risk of confrontation between Turkey and Israel heightened following news about Turkish-Syrian military cooperation. While Turkish defense ministry officials insisted that the cooperation aimed at training the Syrian army, some media outlets known to have good connections to the Turkish government reported about plans to deploy forces in bases in Syria. One media outlet claimed that Turkey “has begun efforts to take control of Tiyas air base, also known as T4, and is preparing to deploy air defense systems there.”Within a few days following these reports, Israel bombed the sites and destroyed the T4 airport. The Israeli press reported that the strikes were meant to be a message to Turkey to stop its military expansion in Syria. Since Assad’s fall there have been more than 750 Israeli air and artillery strikes and more than 230 ground incursions. The day Israel carried out the air operation against the T 4 airport, Turkish foreign minister Fidan told an international outlet Turkey did not want a confrontation with Israel in Syria. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on April 7 and watched the U.S. president shower Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with praise in front of the cameras. Trump said he could help mediate between the two leaders, while he asked Netanyahu to be “reasonable.” When it was revealed two days later that the two countries' officials met for de-conflicting talks, Washington was said to have encouraged the two capitals to de-escalate.

IMPLICATIONS: Had Hamas’ deadly October 7 attack not taken place, Ankara was preparing to host Netanyahu. Having missed the chance of mending fences with the previous Israeli government, which included more moderate forces, Erdoğan had decided to go ahead with normalization even though Netanyahu’s new cabinet included hawkish, ultra-right wing parties.  But following October 7, the envoys were called back; Ankara even terminated officially all trade with Israel, although the Turkish opposition claims that the economic relations continue to be pursued indirectly.

Turkey sees Israel’s post-October 7 strategy as both inhuman in terms of the suffering and death in Gaza and as extremely dangerous for the region. Yet while President Trump’s plans to depopulate Gaza were met with harsh criticism by Foreign Minister Fidan, it is worth noting that some pro-government pundits voiced the possibility of migration for Gazans under the Islamic terminology ‘hijrah.” And ironically, Israel’s attacks against Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Syria in the latter case played into the hands of Turkey, since it led to the unintended consequence of the collapse of the regime in Damascus.

Assad’s fall potentially opened the door for the return of more than three million Syrian refugees in Turkey and Ankara looks forward to reaping the economic benefits of the reconstruction of Syria. And more importantly, the YPG, which controlled north eastern Syria, faced the risk of losing its territorial and economic gains. Yet Israel’s stance on Syria disrupts all of Turkey’s plans. The two countries stand diametrically opposed on both the Palestinian problem and Syria’s future.  However, the stakes in Syria are higher for Turkey compared to the Palestinian question. In fact, many in Turkey would question whether the Palestinian problem is a national cause. Developments in Syria, on the other hand, directly affect Turkey’s national interests.

With a 911 km land border, Syria’s stability is extremely critical for Turkey, and the solution of the Kurdish problem will depend on the talks between Syria’s new rulers and the Kurdish factions in the country. Ankara is firmly opposed to the federal solution that the Syrian Kurds favor; it fears that it would encourage similar aspirations among Turkey’s Kurds, and holds that regional stability will benefit from a unified Syria. Israel sees it differently; it’s no secret that Israel wants a weak and fragmented Syria. Israel’s policy is based on its calculation that a divided Syria is the best guarantee for its security while a united Syria could eventually pose a threat.

CONCLUSIONS: Competing visions for the future of post-Assad Syria has further deteriorated the already strained Turkish-Israeli relations. While Turkey’s clout in Syria stands in the way of Israel’s efforts to fragment Syria and undermine its territorial integrity, Israel’s actions disrupt Turkey’s strategy of a unified Syria. As a result both perceive each other as posing a threat to their respective national interests.

While a full-scale war between Turkey and Israel is highly unlikely, a misunderstanding or an accident spiraling into a military clash cannot be excluded. Turkish officials have repeatedly indicated that Turkey won’t remain idle if Israel continues its military incursions and have warned that Israel’s interferences in the sectarian conflicts in Syria – notably Israel’s siding with the Druze minority against the government in Damascus – risk exacerbating the internal turmoil. In addition, a potential Israeli involvement in the dialogue between Damascus and the SDF would be viewed as provocative by Ankara.

Convinced that Syria’s new rulers are under Turkey’s influence, President Trump appears to have no problem with Turkey’s clout in the country. Trump has met al-Sharaa during his visit to the Gulf and announced his decision to lift US sanctions on Syria. By contrast, Netanyahu will try to use his leverage over Washington to keep Syria weak and block any step that will help Syria’s new rulers consolidate their power. Ankara will seek Washington’s support for crisis management and Erdoğan will use his good rapport with Trump to keep the tension from spiraling into a direct military confrontation with Israel.

The fragile detente between Turkey and Israel will have to be monitored closely by the United States.

AUTHOR BIO: Barçın Yinanç is a foreign policy commentator at the Turkish news site t24

 By Barçın Yinanç

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s claim that Israel poses a threat and might even attack Turkey lacks credibility. On the contrary, Turkish and Israeli strategic interests converge. Turkey and Iran have long been at odds in Syria, Iraq as well as in the south Caucasus and Turkey may welcome the degradation of Iranian power in the Middle East. Yet Ankara must also reckon with the risks of an all-out war between Israel and Iran for Turkish interests. Its military presence in Syria and Iraq exposes Turkey to the risk of being directly affected by the conflagration. Ultimately, the unknown consequences of a wider regional war and its spillover effects could outweigh the benefit for Turkey that a weakened Iran would represent. 

BACKGROUND:  Addressing the opening session of the Turkish parliament on October 1, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is acting out his dream of a "promised land" for Israel and that the Jewish state harbors designs on Turkish territory. "After Lebanon, the next place on which Israel will set its eyes will be our homeland," Erdoğan asserted. The opposition asked for information that sustains the claim: “If there is a threat from Israel, we would like to know about it,” said Özgür Özel, the leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). On October 8, the Turkish parliament held a closed session during which the foreign and defense ministers briefed the lawmakers on the security risks that the wars in Gaza and Lebanon represent. Speaking after the closed session, opposition leader Özgür Özel commented that he had not been convinced about the existence of a purported Israeli threat against Turkey. “We did not hear anything that we did not already know,” he said. The conflagration in the Middle East provides Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) with an opportunity to consolidate its constituency and mobilize the public. Conjuring an alleged Israeli threat and calling a closed session of the parliament serves to instill a sense of emergency and insecurity among the population. Yet what ultimately amounts to an attempt to divert attention from the dire state of the economy backfired: the announcement of the government – directly after the closed session of the parliament – that new taxes were going to be imposed to boost the national defense industry caused a public backlash and the proposal had to be withdrawn. Nonetheless, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has continued to raise alarm, warning about the risk not only of a wider regional war but also of a Third World War. Although national security issues and the specter of war are clearly exploited for domestic political purposes, with the government hoping to divert public attention from more immediate economic worries, Ankara nevertheless also remains seriously concerned about the fallouts of the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

IMPLICATIONS: Turkey was the first Muslim country to recognize the Jewish state, and even though the Palestinian problem historically has been a strain on bilateral relations, Turkish and Israeli national security interests in fact converge. It was only after the peace process between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the early 1990s that Turkish-Israeli bilateral ties were significantly developed but public appearances can be misleading: While Turkey is less vocal about Iran – a neighbor with which its geopolitical rivalry dates to the sixteenth century – than it is about Israel, which it pretends is an enemy but with which it shares strategic interests, Turkey and Iran have clashing interests across the Middle East and beyond. Israel appears determined to inflict huge damage to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and by extension to its patron Iran. This strategy may very well be seen as serving Ankara’s interests, at least in the short term. Turkey and Iran have long been at odds in Syria, Iraq as well as in the south Caucasus. In this light, the degradation of Iranian power in the Middle East is in Turkey’s interest. Indeed, when the Islamist uprising started in Syria 2011, the Turkish AKP government sought to topple Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad, whose regime survived only thanks to the active support of Russia and Iran. Today, Turkish military units as well as Turkish-backed Islamist groups stand pitted against Iran-backed militias in northwestern Syria. Under normal circumstances, Israel’s airstrikes against Hezbollah positions in Syria, as well as its attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus last April would hardly have displeased Ankara. Yet Ankara must also reckon with the risks that an all-out war between Israel and Iran inevitably would pose for Turkish interests. Ultimately, the unknown consequences of such a war and its spillover effects could outweigh the benefit for Turkey that a weakened Iran would represent.  But domestic political considerations are no less pressing. Erdoğan and his ruling AKP must contend with the widespread popular discontent with the nearly four million Syrian refugees in Turkey; this discontent, which has already cost the AKP votes in recent elections, compels Erdoğan to mend fences with Al-Assad who, however, has been less than willing to accommodate Turkey. The quadrilateral talks between Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria have been inconclusive as Damascus’ precondition – the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Syrian territory – is a nonstarter for Ankara. Ultimately though, Al-Assad may become more open to reconciliation with Erdoğan as Israel’s onslaught demolishes Hezbollah and degrades the Iranian power that he has relied on. Israel’s next step in its clash with Iran could also have implications in Iraq, where Tehran has acquired considerable political clout after the 2003 U.S. invasion empowered the Shiite majority. Turkey views Iran as a destabilizing actor in Iraq and tries to counterbalance its influence. Iran backs one of the Kurdish rival factions, the Kurdistan Patriotic Union (PUK) which retains close ties with the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) that has waged a now four decades long insurgency against Ankara. As the PKK’s freedom of movement has increased in the area under the PUK control, tensions have intensified between Turkey and Iran. Meanwhile, the relationship between Tehran and Baghdad is far from being a simple agent-proxy arrangement. Last August, Iraq signed a memorandum of understanding on military, security and counter-terrorism cooperation with Turkey, raising Iranian concerns about Ankara’s increasing military influence in Iraq. Turkey has established military bases and posts in northern Iraq, and the rapprochement between Turkey and Iraq attests to Baghdad’s effort to consolidate its relative stability as well as its independence from Tehran. Also economic schemes like the Development Road Project, a proposed trade network that will link Iraq to Turkey serves this purpose. For its part, Ankara wants to use the project as an incentive to secure Baghdad’s cooperation against the PKK while the Iranian-backed PUK has expressed its opposition to the Development Road Project, questioning its benefits for the Kurdish region of Iraq. But as Iran is preoccupied with Israel’s offensive, its ability to maneuver in Iraq may become constrained, increasing the capability of the central government in Baghdad to exert power over its territory. In such a scenario, the Iranian-backed Kurdish PUK might be compelled to sever its ties with the PKK. Yet while the degradation of Iranian power would thus translate into gains for Turkey in Iraq, the security situation in Iraq is also of growing concern for Ankara. Although the Iraqi front has remained relatively quiet since October 7, 2023, there are signs that this might be about to change. Iran-backed Iraqi militias have now claimed responsibility for nearly 170 attacks on Israeli targets this past year, of which more than 70 percent took place in September 2024 alone. The escalation may bring about the targeting of U.S. forces that are based mainly in areas under the control of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). U.S. assets in both Syria and Iraq have already been targeted. The spillover to Iraq threatens to disrupt the relative yet fragile stability of the country to the detriment of Turkish interests.

CONCLUSIONS:  President Erdoğan’s claim that Israel poses a threat and might even attack Turkey lacks credibility. It is a transparent attempt by the AKP government to divert public attention from the country’s dire economic situation. In fact, Turkish and Israeli strategic interests converge. Turkey and Iran have long been at odds in Syria, Iraq as well as in the south Caucasus and Turkey may thus welcome the degradation of Iranian power in the Middle East.  Yet Ankara must also reckon with the risks that an all-out war between Israel and Iran would inevitably pose for Turkish interests. With its military presence in Syria and Iraq Turkey is at risk of being affected and possibly even drawn into the conflagration in the Middle East. Ultimately, the unknown consequences of a wider regional war and its spillover effects could outweigh the benefit for Turkey that a weakened Iran would represent. 

Barçın Yinanç is a foreign policy commentator at the Turkish news site t24 

By Reuben Silverman

January 12, 2024

On the eve of Turkey’s centennial anniversary celebrations, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held a mass rally in support of Palestine. He reminded his audience that, only a century earlier, Gaza had been part of the Ottoman Empire. He condemned Israel’s government and criticized the West for remaining silent in the face of Israel’s retaliatory killing of civilians, wondering if it wanted to encourage conflict between “crescent and cross.” Yet, while this heated rhetoric positions Turkey as the ultimate opponent of Israeli expansionism and protector of Palestinians, it obscures on-going Turkish-Israeli relations and the strategic interests that may limit Erdoğan’s actual diplomatic options.

By Ozan Serdaroğlu

September 14, 2016

The new round of Cyprus peace talks kicked off with high expectations. Both the Turkish and Greek leaderships are aware that a lot could be at stake if the process fails to yield an agreement. But the prospects for achieving the reunification of Cyprus, forty-two years after it was divided, have never been better. As energy games intensify in the region, Turkey is arguably more interested by concrete gains in this field, rather than insisting on prolonging a stalemate that has lasted for more than four decades. The Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaderships have overcome a significant psychological threshold, engaging in a permanent dialogue. However, they need to build more trust in matters concerning Turkey.