By Prof. Dr. İsmail Şahin
Tensions are rising again in the Eastern Mediterranean. The geopolitical equation woven with energy reserves, military bases and diplomatic moves is exacerbating the power struggle in the region with each passing day. This raises important questions that are waiting to be answered. Is the deepening rivalry between Turkey and Israel over Cyprus and Syria dragging the region to the brink of a new crisis? Is Israel’s cooperation with the SCGA part of a search for a new regional balance that excludes Turkey? How will these strategic moves transform the already fragile geopolitical structure of the Eastern Mediterranean?
The ongoing pains of the post-Cold War transition from unipolarity to multipolarity have led to a constant shift in the balance of power and an increase in cyclical cooperation in international relations instead of permanent alliances. Inevitably, this makes the predictability of international and regional politics more foggy. Indeed, the interconnectedness of multiple conflicts, ranging from the Ukraine War to the Gaza crisis, from Taiwan tensions to coups in Africa, increases the overall tone of uncertainty in the international system. At the same time, international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) fail to prevent or resolve crises, while great powers bend international law to suit their interests. The weakening of the binding force of international norms and commitments, on the one hand, makes it difficult to predict the behavior of states, and on the other hand, greatly increases the determining role of states in the international system.
This reality is particularly evident in Israel’s policies on Syria and Cyprus. Israel defines regional stability within the framework of its own understanding of security and acts in line with its strategic priorities rather than norms based on international law. Military operations in Syria, anti-Iranian moves and efforts to protect its interests in Cyprus regarding Eastern Mediterranean energy resources reveal that Israel adopts a power-based approach rather than norms in an international order where the legal framework has weakened.
A Geopolitical Lever: Cyprus
Egypt, Syria and Cyprus represent a geopolitically and geostrategically critical triangle at the intersection of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa. These three landmasses offer a strategic unity that complements each other in terms of energy routes, maritime trade routes, military projection opportunities and regional power struggles. Egypt controls the sea routes that carry around 12 percent of world trade through the Suez Canal and is also one of the cultural and political centers of the Arab world. Syria is the most strategic gateway country of the Levant region, located at the intersection of land, energy and influence corridors in the region with its location in the Mediterranean, the Shiite corridor from Iran to Lebanon, its borders with Turkey and Iraq, and its proximity to Israel. Cyprus, on the other hand, plays a key role in the region in terms of both air-sea control and intelligence gathering thanks to its location close to the energy reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean, its capacity to control the Levant line, its relations with the EU and the UK, and the advanced military bases that can be deployed on it.
The strategic connections between these three countries, which form the cornerstones of a strategic triangle in terms of energy security, military balance, diplomatic influence and regional alliances, attract the attention of extra-regional actors such as the US, Russia, China and the EU, as well as the close interest of Israel, which seeks to turn the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean in its favor. Due to its location at the center of the Eastern Mediterranean, the island of Cyprus has been the scene of regional powers’ struggle for influence throughout history. Therefore, crises, wars and shifts in the balance of power in the Middle East directly or indirectly affect Cyprus. In addition, developments such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Syrian Civil War, the instability in Lebanon, Turkey’s policies towards the region and the military presence of the US and Russia in the Middle East increase the regional role of Cyprus.
Cyprus is a critical geostrategic springboard for any power seeking to expand from the Middle East to the Mediterranean. Due to its proximity to the center of the Eastern Mediterranean, the island serves as a natural outpost for actors wishing to reach the region by sea and build naval power. Therefore, any power that wants to extend its influence in the Middle East to the Mediterranean has to establish a direct or indirect relationship with Cyprus. This can take the form of military bases, diplomatic relations, energy projects or regional alliances. Cooperation with Cyprus offers these actors both maritime dominance and a bridge between Europe and the Middle East.
Israel seeks to utilize the strategic opportunities of the island of Cyprus in order to expand its position in the Middle East through the Eastern Mediterranean and increase its regional influence. In this framework, Israel is trying to develop cooperation with the Greek Cypriot administration in military, diplomatic and energy fields. In particular, Israel’s goal of transferring the natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean to Europe has made its relations with the island of Cyprus even more sensitive. Moreover, Israel’s positioning of Southern Cyprus as a logistics and military support base within the scope of its security policies has increased defense and security cooperation between the two countries. In line with this strategic expansion, Israel aims to consolidate its regional influence by creating a security belt encompassing Egypt, Syria and Southern Cyprus. In this framework, Israel sees Turkey, which stands out with its diplomatic and military capacity, as a strategic rival. For Israel, Cyprus is not only a neighbor, but also a key partner supporting its geopolitical interests in the Mediterranean and an effective geopolitical lever in shaping the regional balance of power.
Turkey and Israel’s Conflicting Cyprus Policies
Turkey’s political influence and military presence in Cyprus is considered by Israel as a serious factor limiting the geostrategic balances in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Tel Aviv administration defines Turkey’s influence on Cyprus not only as a power projection towards the island, but also as a potential threat to Israel’s energy and security architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean. For this reason, Israel implicitly, if not directly, supports the “zero troops, zero guarantees” discourse, which has long been advocated by the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (GASC) and the European Union, and has been deepening its political and military cooperation with the Greek Cypriot side in this direction.
Israel’s policy coincides with international demands for the end of Turkey’s guarantor role and the withdrawal of Turkish military presence from the island, thus aiming to narrow Turkey’s room for maneuver in the Eastern Mediterranean. This strategic approach is directly linked to Israel’s desire to both reinforce its own security and maximize its control over the Eastern Mediterranean. Reducing Turkey’s influence in Cyprus is not only an island-related issue for Israel, but also a long-term geopolitical move to shape the broader regional equation in the Eastern Mediterranean. In this context, it is noteworthy that in December 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stated that “we are disturbed by Iran’s use of Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus for terrorist purposes as well as an operational and transit zone” and that “Israel is helping to prevent an Iranian attack on Israelis and Jews on the island”.
Netanyahu’s statement was an indication of Israel’s intention to expand its fight against Iran not only within its own borders but also at the regional level. The Iranian threat revealed that Israel aims to build not only energy and diplomatic cooperation in Cyprus, but also a security-based sphere of influence. In this framework, it is understood that Israel planned to involve Cyprus in the power struggles in the Middle East, making the Greek Cypriot side a natural ally against the terrorist threat. It can be said that the Tel Aviv administration, which plans to establish joint defense and intelligence mechanisms with the Greek Cypriot Administration through the Iran-centered threat discourse, is trying to reinforce its political legitimacy before the European Union and institutionalize its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.
On the other hand, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) has been indirectly linked to terrorism by Israel in an attempt to discredit it internationally. The rhetoric that the TRNC condones the activities of Iran-linked elements or provides space to these elements aims both to portray the structure as an unreliable actor and to question Turkey’s legitimate presence in Cyprus. Thus, on the one hand, Israel aims to weaken Turkey’s ability to maneuver in the diplomatic arena, and on the other hand, it seeks to expand its strategic space by increasing its own regional influence through the security threat discourse. Israel’s Cyprus policy is based on the aim of strengthening its strategic cooperation with the GASC and limiting Turkey’s influence on the island. Israel sees the GASC as an important partner, especially in terms of energy security, defense cooperation and the fight against Turkey.
On the other hand, the TRNC is perceived as a strategic threat by Israel as it is under Turkey’s guarantorship and has strong military and diplomatic ties with Ankara. Israel perceives Turkey’s military presence in Cyprus and its right of guarantorship as a factor limiting regional security balances. Israel is therefore inclined to encourage the international community and Turkey to distance themselves from the TRNC. This is because an economically, socially and politically weak TRNC has the potential to offer significant opportunities for Israel in terms of regional strategies. Moreover, Israel intends to increase its influence in the region by taking advantage of the vacuum created by the TRNC’s lack of international recognition and isolation. Indeed, in recent years, Israeli companies and citizens have shown increasing interest in the TRNC, especially in the fields of real estate and investment, and have developed various collaborations. These economic and commercial interactions allow Israel to consolidate its influence on both sides of the island while increasing its influence over the TRNC.
Naturally, these developments have the potential to weaken Turkey’s influence in the region in the long run. Moreover, considering that the British bases in the south of the island provide logistical and intelligence support to Tel Aviv, it can be said that Israel is putting all options in Cyprus into play in order to further strengthen its strategic position in the Eastern Mediterranean. Indeed, the strategic and military partnerships between the SCGA and Israel have almost reached the level of alliance, paving the way for deepening security cooperation in the region and making Israel a more effective actor in the regional security architecture.
A Strategic Gateway: Syria
In light of the statements made by Israeli officials, it is understood that Tel Aviv is not in favor of an influential Turkey in Syria and Cyprus. Turkey’s strong presence in these regions contradicts Israel’s regional interests. Moreover, Turkey’s replacement of Iran in Syria is interpreted by Israel only as the replacement of one threat with another actor. According to Israel, Turkey’s increasing military and political presence in Syria may create new uncertainties and risks for Israel’s border security, intelligence balance and strategic maneuverability in the region. Therefore, Israel is strongly opposed to Turkey filling the power vacuum created by the breakdown of Iran’s influence.
The Netanyahu government strategically prefers a Syria divided into autonomies on ethnic and sectarian grounds, where the central authority is weakened. In this framework, the PYD-controlled areas are considered as a strategic force that can balance Turkey’s influence in the region. On the other hand, the Druze community has been the subject of Israel’s careful monitoring due to both their position as a minority and their strategic settlements around the Golan Heights. Israel considers this community as a potential tool that can be used as an element of pressure against the Damascus regime when necessary. This approach is a good example of Israel’s “alliance of minorities” policy, which is frequently used in its regional security strategy. Within the framework of this policy, Israel seeks to tip the regional balance in its favor by establishing alliance relations with groups with ethnic, sectarian or religious differences against the Arab majorities in its neighborhood. In contrast to Israel’s policy that prioritizes a weak Syria, Turkey strives for a Syria where sovereignty and territorial integrity are protected, lasting peace and security are established, and regional cooperation and integration are strengthened.
Israel supports the dynamics fueling Sunni-Shiite conflict in the region as much as the minorities in Syria, and considers the continuation of this conflict as a means to serve its own security through regional instability. For instance, Israeli governments’ constant calls for Sunni Arab states to act together against the Shiite Iranian threat is a discursive reflection of Israel’s strategy to exploit sectarian fault lines. Similarly, the escalation of Turkish-Kurdish-Arab tensions also contributes to Israel’s strategy of balancing rival actors in the region. In this framework, Israel’s tacit relations with the Kurdish Regional Government of Iraq (KRG) became particularly evident during the independence referendum process in 2017. Israel was the only actor to openly support the referendum, which drew the reaction of both Turkey and Iran and further sensitized the Turkish-Kurdish-Arab balance in the region.
This strategy aims to prevent the emergence of the state as a monolithic power and to create spheres of control and influence through internal ethnic or sectarian divisions. From a geopolitical perspective, Israel utilizes the power vacuums in the surrounding states as strategic opportunities and seeks to increase its regional depth. In general terms, Israel’s minority policy is mainly based on a realist and security-oriented foreign policy approach. This approach envisages creating spheres of influence through minority groups, balancing regional rivals, keeping instability at a manageable level and containing potential threats by preventing the formation of strong centralized structures.
Israel intends to maintain its regional hegemony, especially through checks and balances on Syria. For this reason, Israel sees Turkey’s growing influence in Syria and the Middle East in general, and in particular the strengthening of relations between Turkey and Arab countries and its efforts to maintain a sectarian balance in the region, as a threat to the sustainability and security of its diplomatic relations with the Arab world. Accordingly, due to the new conjuncture, the normalization process that Israel has developed with Arab countries in recent years under the Abraham Accords may be disrupted.
Turkey’s Syria policy is based on the preservation of a unitary state structure based on the country’s territorial integrity and national unity. Instead of a Syria divided on ethnic and sectarian grounds, this approach envisages supporting an integrated structure in which the central authority is strengthened. This policy, as mentioned above, contradicts Israel’s approach that supports a federation model in Syria based on ethnic and sectarian grounds. In this context, the PKK’s disarmament and dissolution and the PYD’s integration into Syria’s national unity weaken the effectiveness of Israel’s “divide and rule” strategy. Moreover, the fact that the Tel Aviv administration has not received the expected strategic response from the Druze communities, which it has been trying to penetrate for a long time, further limits this policy’s response on the ground. These developments point to the potential disruption of Israel’s strategy of ethnic-based power distribution in Syria and emphasize Turkey’s integrative vision.
Conclusion
Turkey’s deepening relations with Egypt and increasing its influence in Syria and Cyprus are perceived as a policy of containment within the framework of Israel’s security doctrine. However, this perception is not based on concrete data. Moreover, Turkey’s regional initiatives are not part of a strategic encirclement plan directly targeting Israel, but are independent steps in pursuit of its own national interests and regional balance. Therefore, Israel’s security concerns in this regard are based on a hypothetical threat perception based on power rivalry in the region rather than a realistic basis.
Nevertheless, Israel, by standing close to the Greek Cypriot side on the Cyprus issue, both strengthens its relations with the European Union and tries to narrow Turkey’s room for maneuver in the Eastern Mediterranean by preserving the TRNC’s isolated position from the outside world. This strategy is also a reflection of a policy aimed at limiting Turkish influence in Cyprus and deepening the ethnic and political division of the island in order to gain security and influence advantages through this structure. In this framework, the international isolation of the TRNC is read as a situation that works in Israel’s favor. A weak, unrecognized and closed TRNC is characterized as an actor that poses less risk to Israel’s interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and can be more easily manipulated in terms of balance policies.
As a natural manifestation of this approach, the Tel Aviv administration is opposed in principle to a two-state solution in Cyprus and does not want this model to be recognized internationally. One of the main reasons for this is the concern that a two-state solution in Cyprus could set a precedent for the Palestinian issue. Israel believes that if the sovereignty of the TRNC is recognized, a similar approach could be taken in the Palestinian territories, which would complicate its security and territorial policies. Therefore, although Israel seems to support the federal solution model in Cyprus, it actually favors the continuation of the status quo and wishes the two-state formula to fail. This attitude is both a part of the balance policies in the Eastern Mediterranean and a reflection of Israel’s holistic control strategy on the Palestinian issue.
Israel has long seen Syria’s fragmentation as a strategic advantage for its own security interests. The weakening of Syria’s central authority and the fragmentation of the country along ethnic, sectarian and regional lines are important in terms of keeping the threat on Israel’s northern border dispersed and controllable. Indeed, since Syria’s regaining a strong state structure as a whole could jeopardize Israeli control over the Golan Heights, the Tel Aviv administration finds it politically and militarily beneficial for Syria to remain weak and fragmented.
Israel is a state with limited resources in terms of population and geographical size. This reality limits its capacity to establish a regional hegemony in the long term. To date, the weak, unstable and internally conflicted states in its neighborhood have provided Israel with a relative strategic advantage, and policies based on “divide and rule” and deepening crises have become a cornerstone of Tel Aviv’s security architecture. However, this attitude is insufficient to build a sustainable security and stability environment and further reinforces regional hostilities. The most rational and sustainable strategy for Israel should be to first find a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian conflict, and then contribute to building regional stability by establishing peaceful relations with states in the region. As is well known, real security can only be achieved through a justice-based peace, which is the only way to strengthen Israel’s international legitimacy and regional acceptance.
