Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a ceremony for the handover of new vehicles to the gendarmerie and police forces in Istanbul, Turkey, Nov. 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Murad Sezer

On June 10, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told AKP lawmakers that Israel’s strikes on Lebanon and Syria had “brought the issue to a point where it also threatens Turkey,” comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler and calling Israeli operations the bloodiest genocide in human history.

The statement was treated in most coverage as another entry in the running Erdogan-Netanyahu feud, a recurring feature of the regional news cycle that rarely produces consequences. But it should not be treated that way.

When asked about Erdogan’s remarks in the Oval Office, Trump responded, “He’s a very good friend of mine and we’ve worked very well together. I like him a lot,” and declined to comment on the threats at all. That response, not Erdogan’s, is the most consequential development of the day.

Erdogan’s claim that Israel threatens Turkey is not a security assessment. Turkish territory has not been touched by Israeli strikes. and Syria and Lebanon are not Turkish sovereign territory, regardless of how deeply Ankara has embedded itself in both.

Turkey controls military bases in Libya, maintains forces across northern Syria, and holds deep influence over the Sharaa government in Damascus, but none of this makes Turkish territory a theater of Israeli operations. The statement is a political instrument, not a strategic warning.

Erdogan’s purpose is threefold. First, it provides legal-political cover for Turkey’s military presence in Syria and Lebanon by framing it as defensive necessity rather than expansionist footprint. If Israel threatens Turkey, Turkish forces in Lebanon and Syria become a buffer, not an occupation.

Second, it is a lever for extracting concessions from Washington ahead of the Ankara NATO summit scheduled for July 7 and 8, where Trump has already confirmed attendance. Turkey has spent years trying to re-enter the F-35 program after its 2019 removal for purchasing the Russian S-400 system, and Trump’s demonstrably warm relationship with Erdogan has created the most favorable conditions for that goal in years. Threatening Israel costs Erdogan nothing with Trump, and generates enormous domestic capital.

Third, the Hitler comparisons position Erdogan as the Sunni world’s primary champion against Israel, a role that pays regional dividends, whether or not it ever translates into action.

Since Octo. 7, 2023, NATO member Turkey has been one of the fiercest critics of Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, halted all trade with Israel, and called for measures against it at international courts. None of this has cost Erdogan his NATO standing, his relationship with Trump, or any meaningful pressure from Washington.

Turkey remains in NATO. Ankara is hosting the alliance’s most important summit of the year. Trump calls Erdogan his friend and declines to comment on his threats against a fellow democracy.

There is a structural reason that Erdogan operates this way. He has correctly identified that the American relationship with Turkey is organized around Turkish institutional capacity, not Turkish behavior. Turkey controls the Bosphorus, fields one of the few armies in NATO with real combat experience, provides base access at Incirlik, and borders three theaters of American strategic interest simultaneously.

Because of this, every US administration calculates that the cost of confronting Erdogan exceeds the benefit. Erdogan knows it. He has governed accordingly for two decades.

Israel, with its rancorous relationship with Turkey spiraling downward, is lobbying furiously against the F-35 move. A Turkey armed with F-35s while simultaneously hosting Hamas leadership, comparing the Israeli prime minister to Hitler, and claiming that Israeli strikes threaten Turkish territory is not a partner in regional stability. It is a NATO member using alliance privileges as diplomatic cover for Islamist expansionism.

What changes the calculation is not a stronger denunciation from Netanyahu, which Erdogan welcomes as domestic political material. What changes it is a credible threat to the things Erdogan actually wants from Washington.

The F-35 pathway, sanctions relief on the S-400 acquisition, expanded defense contracts, and the prestige of a successful Ankara summit are all tools Washington could deploy without ending the NATO relationship. Washington should condition every one of them on a formal end to hosting Hamas leaders on Turkish soil, a cessation of genocidal rhetoric directed at a democratic partner, and a clear Turkish statement that Israeli military operations in Lebanon and Syria do not constitute a threat to Turkey’s territory. None of these asks are unreasonable. All of them would cost Erdogan something he currently extracts for free.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx.