What's behind Fidan's attack on the Greece-Cyprus-Israel trilateral: Ankara's regional rivalry with Tel Aviv and the Trump factor

With Recep Tayyip Erdoğan escalating his rhetoric against Benjamin Netanyahu, and Turkish media promoting scenarios in which Donald Trump could eventually turn against Turkey under Israeli influence, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has now drawn Greece and Cyprus into the dispute. He claimed that the Greece–Cyprus–Israel alignment aims to “encircle” Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean, accusing Athens of pursuing “dangerous policies” that increase instability rather than security.

Fidan reiterated Turkey’s position that this trilateral cooperation constitutes a threat, despite its backing from the U.S. and its largely defensive character. He also suggested that Ankara has worked to prevent other countries from joining this framework, though without offering specifics. Notably, the U.S. has already engaged with the scheme, including participation in the “3+1” format at the energy minister level.

Athens responded immediately. The Greek Foreign Ministry stressed that Greece conducts an independent foreign policy and “does not accept instructions.” It rejected Ankara’s claims, emphasizing that its partnerships aim to promote stability, peace, and good neighborly relations. It also underlined that the trilateral cooperation with Cyprus and Israel is not directed against any third country.

Importantly, both Greece and Cyprus, despite their close ties with Israel, do not fully align with Israeli policies. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has recently expressed disagreement with Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon and has advocated for a diplomatic resolution regarding Iran.

Turkey’s concern is also fueled by deepening defense cooperation between Israel, Greece, and Cyprus. Recent agreements include Greece’s acquisition of advanced systems such as PULS, while Cyprus has strengthened its defenses with Israeli BARAK missiles. At the same time, the U.S. has expanded its own defense ties with Cyprus—lifting arms restrictions, conducting joint exercises, and increasing its regional presence—while also enhancing its strategic relationship with Greece, including energy and military cooperation.

Ankara views these developments as a challenge to its broader regional ambitions, including its self-declared role as a leader in the Muslim world and a geopolitical mediator. With Israel likely to emerge stronger from the Iran conflict—and maintaining close ties with Washington—Turkey fears a shift in the regional balance of power.

In this context, Turkish rhetoric has intensified, often portraying Israel’s actions as part of a broader expansionist agenda. However, beyond strong statements, Ankara has limited room for direct action without risking a major confrontation between two U.S. allies.

Some Turkish analysts interpret Trump’s tensions with NATO allies as a possible attempt to distance the U.S. from a potential Turkey–Israel conflict, which could otherwise trigger alliance obligations. Meanwhile, Ankara’s sharp criticism of Israel is also aimed at influencing opinion in Washington, particularly among those who believe Netanyahu pushed the U.S. into confrontation with Iran.

Ultimately, with tensions around Iran still unresolved, the emerging security architecture in the Middle East remains fluid. A central factor shaping its future will be the increasingly open strategic competition between Turkey and Israel.