The loophole in the NATO constitution: The Israeli trap driving Turkey's top military brass crazy

Retired Turkish Admiral Cihat Yayci, a writer and one of the architects of the strategic maritime doctrine "Blue Homeland" (Mavi Vatan), commented extensively on the growing tension between Turkey and Israel. He claimed that the attack on the Abu al-Duhur base in northern Syria marked a transition to a more dangerous phase in relations between the countries. He made these remarks in an interview with GZT News.

According to Yayci, the location of the Abu al-Duhur base — only about 70 km from the Turkish border — makes the attack a matter that directly concerns Ankara. "When they say 70 km, don't think it's far. By plane, it's three minutes. Another three minutes and it's already inside Turkey," he said. According to him, the fact that Israel justified the attack by the possibility that Turkey would use the base is a direct message to Ankara, not just an action against Syrian infrastructure.

Yayci addressed the statement attributed to the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to which Israel will not allow a Turkish foothold at the base because it views it as a change to the security status quo. According to him, the very Israeli demand to determine where Turkey is allowed to operate in Syria is, from Ankara's perspective, crossing a line: "Who are you to say that you don't allow it?" he said. He argued that Israel is not interested in Syria rebuilding an equipped army, bases, and defense systems that could limit its freedom of action.

"Syria is left with almost no army"

Yayci further expanded his criticism, claiming that since the fall of the Assad regime, Israel has been acting systematically to prevent the restoration of Syrian military capabilities. He mentioned the attacks on the T4 base and in Palmyra, as well as the damage to maritime infrastructure in the Tartus and Latakia region, and claimed that the result is a Syrian army left with almost no heavy capabilities.

He argued that in the current situation, Kurdish forces in Syria possess more significant capabilities than the central government, and presented this as part of a broader picture that, according to him, serves Israeli and American interests. Yayci also referred to the contacts between Israel and Syria before the attack. According to him, on August 14, Syrian Foreign Minister Assad al-Shaibani and Mossad chief Roman Gofman met, and the issue of Abu al-Duhur was also raised during those contacts. Four days later, the base was attacked. Yayci said the proximity of the dates is "very interesting" and requires, in his view, an examination of the relationship between the parties.

When asked what would happen if a future Israeli attack hit an area where Turkish soldiers are located, Yayci warned against direct escalation. "Patience, patience, patience. Turkey is a very large country, but there is a limit to this. There is also national pride and honor," he said.

He also criticized the United States, claiming that Washington did not act sufficiently to warn Ankara about the attack. According to him, if the American administration knew about the operation in advance, it should have passed the information to Turkey through the US Embassy in Ankara. He presented Washington's response, which described the attack as an unnecessary escalation, as a weak response that does not reflect real opposition to the Israeli action.

According to Yayci, developments in Syria could eventually place Turkey before a dilemma: if it does not establish a presence and influence in the country, its security could be harmed; if it does so, it could enter into a confrontation with Israel.

"Be on very high alert in Northern Cyprus"

Another significant part of his remarks was devoted to Northern Cyprus. Yayci pointed to reports in Israel that the Turkish military presence in the north of the island might not be automatically covered by Article 5 of NATO, since the article applies to the recognized territory of member states. According to him, claims that an Israeli action against a Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus would not necessarily lead to the activation of the alliance's collective defense mechanism should be taken with special seriousness.

He linked this to the tension in Syria and claimed that it is part of the same Israeli perception that a Turkish presence near areas where Israel operates could be considered a threat.

Yayci also mentioned Cyprus's security cooperation with Israel, Greece, France, and the United States, and argued that the totality of developments should be examined together. According to him, recent developments strengthen the argument in favor of activating the S-400 air defense systems that Ankara purchased from Russia. "The knife has already reached the bone," he said. "If it were up to me, I would deploy the S-400 now and activate them. I would present the Israeli threat as a justification and say: Israel is openly pointing at me as a target, so from now on I must use the S-400."

In concluding his remarks, Yayci returned to the warning against what he claims could be an attempt to undermine Northern Cyprus from within. He warned that protests, civil disobedience, and anti-Turkish rhetoric could be used in the future to present a picture that the Turkish-Cypriot public is rising up against Ankara. "I say this again," Yayci concluded, "one must be on very high alert regarding everything related to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."