"Israel’s" recent strike on Qatar, a major non-NATO ally of the United States, has fueled speculation over whether Turkey, itself a NATO member, could be next on its list of targets, according to a Responsible Statecraft piece written by Sajjad Safaei.

While parallels exist between Qatar and Turkey that make such a scenario conceivable, Ankara’s military strength, economic leverage, and political role in Palestine and Syria present strong deterrents against an "Israeli" strike.

The September 9 attack on Hamas leaders in Doha marked a dramatic escalation in "Israel’s" regional campaign, which has already extended into Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Tunisia, and now Qatar.

Safaei states that the strike deepened fears over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and highlighted "Israel’s" willingness to target actors previously considered off-limits.

Read more: 'Israel’s' Qatar strike backfires, fueling diplomatic fallout

Parallels between Qatar and Turkey in 'Israel’s' calculus

Qatar and Turkey share notable similarities. Both maintain ties with Hamas, both have hosted the group’s leaders, and both have positioned themselves as influential players in the Palestinian cause. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly described Hamas as a “liberation group,” and his government continues to engage with its leadership.

Safaei states that these dynamics have made Turkey and Qatar appear, in the eyes of Israeli strategists, as “strategic threats.” Indeed, a commission under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recommended allocating resources to prepare for potential conflict scenarios involving Turkey, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean and over Ankara’s role in Syria and Gaza.

A common argument against the possibility of an Israeli strike on Turkey is its NATO membership. Safaei theorizes that an attack on Ankara would trigger Article 5, requiring allies to respond. However, NATO’s collective defense clause is open to interpretation. Members can choose “such action as it deems necessary,” which can range from military intervention to symbolic political support.

Turkey itself has seen these limitations before. In 2012, when Syria downed a Turkish aircraft, Ankara sought NATO’s backing but ultimately had to settle for consultations under Article 4, with limited military support. The lesson: NATO membership does not guarantee robust defense in every scenario.

Read more: Turkey pushes Trump for local production in F-35 and F-16 deals

Safaei states that Qatar’s experience also underscores this point. Despite being a major non-NATO ally of the US and hosting 11,000 American troops, Doha’s alliance with Washington did not prevent the September 9 strike.

Erdogan’s support for Palestine and regional shifts

Erdogan’s outspoken support for Palestine and ties to Hamas remain central to Ankara’s dispute with "Israel". Since the fall of Former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the rise of a Damascus government closer to Ankara and Doha, "Israel" has increasingly viewed Turkey’s growing influence in Syria and Gaza as a strategic challenge.

Should tensions escalate, Safaei says Turkey could use its presence in Syria to complicate "Israel’s" security environment, for example, he says that Ankara can tolerate arms transfers through Syrian territory to Hezbollah, undoing years of "Israeli" efforts to weaken its Lebanese rival.

Safaei writes that, unlike Qatar, Turkey possesses overwhelming military capabilities, from indigenous drones to US-made fighter jets. While "Israel’s" nuclear arsenal casts a shadow over any confrontation, Turkey’s conventional military power ensures it could impose significant costs on an aggressor.

Economically, Ankara holds another powerful lever. Safaei highlights that "Israel" relies heavily on crude oil transported from Azerbaijan through Turkey’s Ceyhan port. In the event of conflict, Erdogan could disrupt this supply line, threatening "Israel’s" energy security without firing a shot.

Why an Israeli strike on Turkey remains risky

Turkey’s combination of military strength, economic leverage, and political influence in Palestine and Syria makes an Israeli strike on its territory a highly risky gamble. While NATO membership offers uncertain guarantees, Ankara’s independent deterrents are substantial.

Still, under Netanyahu’s leadership, Safaei states "Israel" has demonstrated a willingness to take reckless and escalatory steps, from war with Iran to the unprecedented strike on Qatar. For now, deterrence may hold, but both Ankara and Tel Aviv are acutely aware that the margin for miscalculation in the region is narrowing.