Erdogan's Ottoman Dream Is Bringing Turkey And Israel Closer To War

For years, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's declarations about Jerusalem could be dismissed as political theater--the inflammatory rhetoric of an Islamist leader seeking applause at home and influence across the Muslim world.

That explanation is becoming increasingly difficult to accept.

Turkey is no longer merely talking about restoring its influence across lands once controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The collapse of Bashar al-Assad's government has given Ankara an extraordinary opportunity to expand its political and military presence in Syria, bringing Turkish power closer to Israel at precisely the same time Turkish leaders are becoming more explicit about their ambitions concerning Jerusalem.

Israel appears to have noticed the danger. And increasingly, it appears prepared to use military force to stop it.

What is developing in Syria could therefore become much bigger than another disagreement between two Middle Eastern governments. Two of the region's strongest military powers are beginning to establish competing red lines in the same territory, while Erdogan's neo-Ottoman vision provides an ideological backdrop that makes the confrontation even more troubling.

For decades, Israel's primary concern in Syria was Iran.

Tehran used the Assad regime to move weapons, personnel and resources throughout the region, particularly to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel responded with an extensive campaign of airstrikes designed to prevent Iran from transforming Syria into another military front against the Jewish state.

But Assad is gone, Iran's position has been dramatically weakened, and someone is moving into the vacuum.

Turkey.

Erdogan played an important role in supporting the forces that ultimately brought down Assad, and Ankara now enjoys considerable influence with Syria's new Islamist leadership. Turkish forces already control significant territory in northern Syria, while Ankara has reportedly explored expanding its presence at Syrian military facilities previously associated with Assad's Iranian and Russian allies.

For Israel, that presents an entirely new strategic problem.

Turkey is not Iran. It is a NATO member with one of the largest militaries in the region, a sophisticated defense industry, advanced aircraft, drones and missiles, and a geographic position that allows it to project significant power into Syria.

Israel spent years making certain Iran could not establish a permanent military infrastructure on its northern frontier. There is little reason to believe Jerusalem would suddenly accept Turkey doing something similar.

Recent events suggest it won't.

On August 18, Israel carried out eight airstrikes against the Abu al-Duhur airbase near Idlib, targeting its runway and storage facilities.

What makes the attack particularly significant is what reportedly happened immediately beforehand.

A Turkish delegation had visited the facility and was apparently assessing whether the base could be used by Turkish forces. Hours later, Israeli aircraft struck it.

The message was difficult to miss.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently said the purpose of the attack was to prevent Turkish military forces from deploying there, arguing that Syria was approaching a breach of previously established security understandings.

Israel therefore appears to be establishing a very clear principle: Assad may be gone, but Syria will not simply become somebody else's military platform against Israel.

For years that warning was directed primarily at Tehran.

Increasingly, it may be directed at Ankara.

That creates a potentially dangerous situation because neither Israel nor Turkey necessarily needs to desire a war for one eventually to occur. If Turkey continues expanding its military footprint while Israel continues attacking facilities intended to accommodate Turkish forces, eventually Israeli bombs could kill Turkish personnel.

At that point, a confrontation between Israel and Turkey would become considerably more difficult to contain.

This military competition cannot be separated entirely from Erdogan's larger vision for Turkey.

Erdogan has spent years cultivating nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire and presenting Turkey as a natural leader of the Muslim world. Under his leadership, Ankara has become increasingly assertive across territories that were once governed from Istanbul.

Syria fits perfectly into that worldview.

So does Jerusalem.

Erdogan has previously declared that "Jerusalem is ours," while repeatedly portraying Turkey as a defender of the Palestinian cause and maintaining close relations with Hamas. His anti-Israel rhetoric has intensified dramatically during periods of conflict.

But perhaps even more revealing are recent statements from other Turkish officials.

Turkish Interior Minister Mustafa Çiftçi reportedly spoke of eventually witnessing the "liberation" of Jerusalem and returning it to Turkish hands. In doing so, he reportedly connected Jerusalem with Damascus, Aleppo and other territories where Turkey believes its influence has been restored.

That is what makes the current situation so significant.

The rhetoric is beginning to intersect with geography.

Turkey already possesses enormous influence in northern Syria. Assad has fallen. A Turkey-friendly Islamist government controls Damascus. Ankara is exploring additional military facilities deeper inside the country.

And Israel is bombing some of those facilities to prevent Turkey from moving in.

From Damascus to Jerusalem, the geopolitical map is shifting.

It would also be a mistake to assume neo-Ottoman thinking disappears whenever Erdogan eventually leaves office.

Even some Turkish political figures who have opposed Erdogan have spoken about expanding Turkey's presence throughout the former Ottoman sphere. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a major opposition figure who previously challenged Erdogan for the presidency, has spoken of Turkey developing its identity throughout former Ottoman territories and has even invoked the prospect of eventually praying in Jerusalem.

That suggests something deeper is happening within Turkish political culture.

Turkey is rediscovering the idea of itself not merely as another nation-state, but as the historical center of a much larger region.

The problem is that another nation now occupies the city that represented one of the Ottoman Empire's most important possessions for four centuries.

Israel.

And Israel has absolutely no intention of surrendering Jerusalem.

For students of Bible prophecy, this is where developments become particularly noteworthy.

Scripture repeatedly places Jerusalem at the center of future international conflict.

Zechariah describes a time when Jerusalem becomes "a burdensome stone for all people." Other prophetic passages similarly describe nations becoming consumed with the fate of Israel and Jerusalem.

Thousands of years after those words were written, Jerusalem remains one of the most contested pieces of territory on earth.

Iranian leaders have dreamed of Israel's destruction. Hamas identifies Jerusalem as central to its struggle. Islamist movements throughout the region invoke Jerusalem constantly.

And now leaders of Turkey--a powerful nation that ruled Jerusalem for approximately four centuries--are increasingly speaking about the city in terms of historical possession, religious destiny and eventual liberation.

That does not mean Turkey is preparing to invade Israel tomorrow.

But neither should these declarations simply be laughed away.

History repeatedly demonstrates that political rhetoric becomes considerably more important when leaders acquire the military and geographical means to pursue it.

That is what has changed in Syria.

Erdogan's Ottoman ambitions once sounded distant from Israel's borders. The fall of Assad has suddenly brought Turkish influence much farther south, while Israel has demonstrated that there are limits to how far it intends to allow that influence to expand.

The question now is what happens when those two visions collide.

Turkey sees an opportunity to reclaim its historic role as the dominant power across much of the former Ottoman world.

Israel sees an increasingly hostile Islamist power attempting to establish itself in territory directly connected to its northern security environment.

And looming behind both visions is the same city that has repeatedly stood at the center of history.

Jerusalem.

The Ottoman Empire disappeared more than a century ago. But the dream of Turkish power over its former territories clearly did not disappear with it.

And Israel may now be standing directly in the path of its return.