Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
The Trump-Netanyahu summit in Washington in the final days of 2025 was not merely a courtesy visit for the region but the announcement of a new geopolitical design. While thanking Netanyahu for the “Israel Peace Prize”he received, Trump signaled that he was preparing the region for a new equation—a period of controlled chaos. Referring specifically to Israel, he stated that they discussed the issue of settlements in the West Bank, indicating that while not entirely satisfactory, an agreement on his terms would be possible. He also advised Israel to maintain good relations with Syria. Furthermore, during the discussion of Iran, he harshly criticized Iran for not accepting the options presented to it with a willingness to compromise. However, hidden between the lines of this vision is both a promise of “friendship” and a risk of strategic encirclement for Ankara.
“Bibi, do not clash with Erdoğan!”
The most striking moment of the meeting was when Trump referred to President Erdoğan as “a very good friend of mine” and, turning to Netanyahu, said, “There will be no problems between them.” Netanyahu’s response of a “small smile” was actually like a diplomatic warning being recorded: Bibi, don’t get into a direct crisis with Erdoğan, but play your own game in the background. This is precisely where the “controlled chaos” strategy begins. The Trump administration aims to keep the major powers in the region (Türkiye and Israel) preoccupied with each other but to keep this tension “under control” at a level that will not harm US interests. This is Washington’s plan to shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region while leaving the Middle East to balance (or destabilize) within its own dynamics.
Mavi Vatan (Blue Homeland): A Bulwark Against Controlled Chaos
At this point, the issue is transforming into a power struggle between two powers—Türkiye and Israel—that have been quieted in the post-Syria era. Ankara’s response to this design is shaped by the Blue Homeland doctrine. No longer merely a technical maritime map, the Blue Homeland represents Türkiye’s will to be a creator, not a victim, of this controlled chaos. Its claim to 462,000 square kilometers of maritime jurisdiction is the biggest barrier against the “energy shield” being formed along the Israel-Greece-Cyprus axis, aiming to confine Türkiye to the Gulf of Antalya. The US’s “conditional generosity” regarding F-35 fighter jets is a bribe aimed at making Türkiye relinquish its air superiority in these maritime areas. For Ankara, compromising on the Blue Homeland would mean controlled chaos spiraling out of control to Türkiye’s detriment. Türkiye’s geopolitical ambitions are no longer confined to the Mediterranean. The recent maritime and defense agreements with Somaliland represent Ankara’s counter-move to the “controlled chaos” in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. By securing a naval presence in Somaliland, Türkiye is effectively bypassing the encirclement in the Eastern Mediterranean, ensuring its “Blue Homeland” doctrine extends into the world’s most critical maritime trade arteries. This “Horn of Africa” foothold serves as a strategic checkmate against any axis—be it Israeli, Emirati, or Egyptian—that seeks to limit Türkiye’s influence to its immediate shores.
Syria: Shifts Along Fault Lines
Given that American power is now shifting towards the Asia-Pacific region due to Japan’s rearmament, it’s debatable how beneficial it is for American interests to leave two competing powers in the Middle East. However, considering that the US defense document published for 2025 outlines work in three key areas, it seems certain that the Middle East and the new Syria will not be left alone. The three regions highlighted in the document are the Eastern Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea. For Türkiye, the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly highlighted by its Blue Homeland doctrine, is of considerable importance. This strategically significant area, crucial for the security of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and access to energy pipelines, also attracts the attention of Israel. The “New Syria,” celebrating its first anniversary in December 2025, serves as a laboratory for this strategy of creating chaos. While Ankara attempts to maintain stability by defending Syria’s territorial integrity, the uprising of the Alawite population in Latakia demanding autonomy and the unrest in areas near the Israeli border in the south are deepening this controlled chaos. Israel’s desire to create a “buffer autonomous zone” on its own border and the recent $130 million in aid from the US to the SDF indicate an intention to permanently establish a structure in northern Syria that encircles Türkiye. Ankara is struggling to keep the al-Shara government afloat while simultaneously grappling with these seemingly “controlled” but directly threatening local uprisings. In fact, it could be argued that it was Türkiye that guaranteed and sustained al-Shara through the Astana and Sochi talks. However, the fact that the Damascus government has yet to reach an agreement with the SDF a year after the end of the war is causing concern in Ankara.
Conclusion: Time to Cut Your Own Cord
It would not be wrong to say that relations between Israel and Türkiye are expected to be quite heated in 2026. Israel’s efforts to strengthen its position along the Greece-Cyprus axis seem likely to further escalate tensions. Furthermore, the US’s somewhat “conditionally generous” approach to Türkiye regarding F-35 fighter jets is another noteworthy point. At this point, it is absolutely crucial for Ankara to demonstrate that the era of geopolitical patience has ended. With Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean frequently heating up due to Israeli maneuvers, it is necessary to state that the time has come for Ankara to draw its red lines. As we enter 2026, the period of “geopolitical patience” has run its course for Ankara. In this period, with Russia preoccupied with the Ukraine quagmire and Iran nearing its end due to economic and natural resource crises (water scarcity), Türkiye cannot be a passive observer of a “controlled chaos” scenario. This new order to be created in the Middle East by Israel and its local proxy forces can only be balanced by Ankara actively and firmly drawing its own red lines on the ground, from its Blue Homeland to the Syrian border. Trump’s “friendship” may be a diplomatic instrument; however, on the ground, it is now time for Ankara to cut its own umbilical cord and manage this chaos to its own advantage.
