Israel's 'kill first' strategy is now aimed at Turkey. Will the region respond?

Israel's 'kill first' strategy is now aimed at Turkey. Will the region respond? Submitted by David Hearst on Tue, 06/30/2026 - 18:10 Hard power is needed to halt Tel Aviv's reckless quest to redraw the borders of the Middle East A protester holds a placard outside the Israeli embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, during a demonstration against a previous Israeli war on Gaza in July 2014 (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP) Off The US administration has signed two mutually contradictory deals to end its war on Iran . The power Israel lost to dictate the terms of peace on Iran , it has sought to regain in Lebanon . It was helped, enormously, by the Lebanese government, which signed away both sovereignty over its land and its duty to seek legal redress for the war crimes Israel has committed . Under the deal that US President Donald Trump signed with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Washington accepted an explicit link between Iran and Lebanon by agreeing to an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”. That commitment, if implemented, makes the second deal signed in Washington on Friday between representatives of the Lebanese, Israeli and US governments obsolete. This “framework” gives Israeli forces, occupying large swathes of southern Lebanon, indefinite leave to remain. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In the first deal, the US promised to respect Iranian sovereignty, including over the Strait of Hormuz. In the second, its ally, Israel, has no obligation to respect Lebanese sovereignty, which is further weakened by the creation of a “military coordination group ” run in Washington. The agreement obliges the Lebanese army, kept deliberately weak by the veto Washington and Israel exercise on the weapons it can deploy , to disarm a battle-hardened armed group, seen by many in Lebanon as the only credible deterrent against Israeli attack and settlement. The framework deal further obliges the government of Lebanon to grant immunity to Israeli troops and generals over the war crimes they have committed in the invasion. Article 13 signs away the right of the Lebanese government to pursue legal complaints against Israel in international courts, according to legal experts. Threat of Lebanese civil war More than one million people have been forcibly displaced in Lebanon since October 2023, and at least 8,000 have been killed . Many of Israel’s strikes have targeted civilians , including journalists and healthcare workers. According to Halima Kaakour, a Lebanese MP and international law expert, “the clause reflects a political decision by the Lebanese authorities not to pursue action before international forums in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal - which is itself a right and should not have to be traded for anything else”. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); There was fury on the streets of Beirut, so much so that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was reportedly obliged to thank Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament, for calming things down, as Berri vowed to block the deal’s passage to avert a potential civil war. Considering Lebanon’s history, this warning should not be taken lightly. The morning after the Lebanon 'agreement' Read More » “Those who prepared this agreement want to ignite a fitna [civil strife], but I don’t want it, and I am pressing to prevent the explosion,” Berri said. “Even Hezbollah is working on internal calming, but they persist in pushing forward with an agreement that is worse than the May 17 Agreement … they want a fitna.” Berri said the region could pay the price for what he called a “tug of war” inside the US administration. As Lebanon’s chief predator, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was delighted by the Washington deal, dismissing the two areas around the Litani River from which Israeli forces promised to withdraw as insignificant. Netanyahu also called the deal a “major blow” to Iran, saying: “Iran is trying to force us into a withdrawal from southern Lebanon by force. In effect, Israel, Lebanon and the United States are telling them: this is none of your business.” The two deals are so different because they have two competing authors in the US administration engaged in the “tug of war” to which Berri alluded. Trump’s deal with Iran reflects the thinking of Vice President JD Vance, who must have felt vindicated by the total failure of US-Israeli air strikes to achieve regime change. Vance made little secret of his opposition to the joint strikes, and he was conspicuous by his absence from the situation room in February, when Trump made the decision to launch the war on Iran after being briefed by Netanyahu and David Barnea , then the Mossad director. 'Sunni axis' rhetoric The Washington framework deal for Israel and Lebanon was the work of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He continues to be signed up to the goal of regime change in Iran, as he was in Venezuela and is in Cuba. Rubio thinks that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition of peace, as opposed to a consequence of a negotiated political settlement, and that Israel should remain the undisputed regional hegemon. Vance clearly sees too many downsides to continuing the bombing campaign in Iran, not least of which is the hammering that 20 US military sites in the region took from Iranian missiles and drones, among them a major naval base in Bahrain , alongside the time it will take to replenish its stockpile of Tomahawk missiles. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Rubio, on the other hand, persists in the myth that Hezbollah is foreign to Lebanon and is merely a tool of Iran. Turkey has become Israel's latest existential enemy. As if in unison, a chorus of Israeli politicians have raised the alarm about a new 'Sunni axis' opening up The Iran war was a clear setback to Israel’s regional plans. But in an obvious sign that the war would have continued even if the US and Israel had achieved regime change in Tehran, the political establishment in Tel Aviv has now turned its attention to Turkey . As day follows night, Turkey has become Israel’s latest existential enemy. As if in unison, a chorus of Israeli politicians has raised the alarm about a new “ Sunni axis ” opening up, composed of Turkey, Syria and Qatar . This has not gone down well with Trump, who had little hesitation in laughing off the notion that his best regional friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was “an antisemitic dictator” who has been “committing genocide against the Kurds”, as Netanyahu now claims . “Erdogan is a great leader, a very strong person…Everything I’ve ever asked from him, he’s done,” Trump said . When Netanyahu said Israel’s “new” security doctrine was to “kill them first”, Vance was blunter still. Addressing two far-right ministers of Netanyahu’s cabinet, but in reality speaking to the prime minister himself, Vance said: “You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem.” Laying the groundwork But Israel is as serious about setting on Turkey as it was about Iran. Firstly, the rhetoric against Turkey is bipartisan. It is the leitmotif of the man tipped to replace Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett, who has said that a new Turkish threat is emerging: “I want to be very clear. Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region, and from here I warn - Turkey is the new Iran.” The theme was picked up by Amichai Chikli , the diaspora affairs minister, who said the era of the “Shia empire of Iran” was over. In its shoes, he added, walks a new axis: “the Muslim Brotherhood axis of Erdogan’s Turkey, Syria and Qatar. And it’s better to open your eyes now.” Secondly, the groundwork for Israel’s latest campaign was laid as far back as November 2024, when a month before the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Israel should reach out to its natural allies - the Kurds and the Druze. When Assad fell, Israel obliterated the Syrian navy and air force, and invaded an area of southern Syria larger than Gaza. Tel Aviv has openly pushed for a federal Syria, fragmented into confessional cantons. Netanyahu now calls the land his forces occupy in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza “ security belts ”, from which he has no intention of withdrawing. Through these means, Israel has aimed to limit the authority of the national government in Damascus formed by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, and to challenge Turkey’s relationship with a post-Assad Syria. Israel has also consciously tried to reanimate tensions between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, including by supplying Cyprus with Barak MX air defence missiles. Israel is being given privileged status at an air base in Paphos, while Cyprus is reportedly exploring the purchase of Indian supersonic missiles and drones. All of these moves have one common goal: to challenge Turkey’s rising naval power. A recent Maariv article argues that Turkey is increasingly being seen in Israeli strategic circles as a more significant long-term challenge than Iran. It’s not just the aircraft carriers being built or the strength of its drones, radar and advanced electronic warfare capabilities, the analysis notes, but also Ankara’s expanding diplomatic and military footprint across the Eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Another Israeli minister, Gila Gamliel, has said that Israel was preparing to confront “the Ottoman Empire”. Shifting mood Turkey’s reaction to Israel’s moves has been cautious, some would say too much so. Put Erdogan’s rhetoric to one side, and consider what Turkey actually did when Israel invaded Syria and bombed its air force and navy. Turkey and Israel held talks on a deconfliction line after Israel attacked military sites in Syria, including the Hama and Tiyas air bases, where Turkey had been planning to deploy. Throughout the assault on Gaza , Turkey kept oil from Azerbaijan flowing to Israel via its port of Ceyhan - most likely one of the “things” Trump asked Erdogan to do. Activists with the Stop Fuelling Genocide campaign released evidence suggesting that the “Seavigour” tanker had shipped crude oil from Turkey’s Ceyhan Port to a pipeline near Ashkelon in Israel at least eight times in 2024 after Turkey announced a trade embargo. Turkish officials have also downplayed the rhetoric coming from Netanyahu as being for domestic purposes only. They have emphasised the hotlines that the Turkish military set up with the Israeli army, the fact that Turkish generals opposed any confrontation with Israel in Syria, and the communications between Turkish and Israeli security agencies. Why Turkey must challenge Israeli moves in Syria Read More » Even after Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party was hammered over Turkey’s lack of action on Gaza in local elections in 2024, the series of measures Ankara subsequently took were mostly diplomatic and predicated on getting Trump and his ambassador, Tom Barrack , on side over Syria. Today, the mood music in Ankara has changed, and there is an acceptance that Israel means what it says about the coming confrontation. Turkey is focused on building up its deterrence, be it naval, air force or drones. Trump is now giving Turkey the engines it needs to build its new-generation Kaan stealth fighter, while Ankara is accelerating construction of a 60,000-tonne aircraft carrier and building 30 other warships . It also recently carried out a joint exercise with the Egyptian navy . Even so, Turkey is playing for time. Turkish defence analysts think it will take three to five years for the country’s air defence systems to reach operational capacity against Israel’s air force. Turkey’s main response to Gaza was to focus on the creation of a defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan , the same regional powers that helped to mediate the US-Iran deal. That is what Israel fears and is now fighting to dismantle. Whatever happens now in the Gulf, the main battle line between Israel and the region will be drawn in Lebanon and Syria. The lesson from all of this is that Israel means what it says when its prime minister vows to alter the borders of the Middle East. Hard power is needed to stop this. The more Arab nations in the region delay their response or simply fall back weakly on their relations with Washington, the bigger the shock they will get when Israel “kills first”. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. War on Iran Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0