Loading summary
A
This is a bonus episode of history as it happens. It's March 11, 2026. A regional war so many feared is now engulfing the greater Middle East. In an act of aggression, the US And Israel attacked Iran. Iran retaliated by firing missiles not only into Israel, but also at a bunch of other countries, including Turkey, where NATO air defenses intercepted incoming ballistic missiles on two occasions. Turkey, a powerful country of some 90 million people, has interests in the outcome of the ongoing war. It fears the potential chaos and instability that would result from Iranian state collapse. Meantime, Turkey's relationship with Israel is deteriorating. In mid February, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett had this to say.
B
A new Turkish threat is emerging. I want to be very clear. Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region. And from here, I warn Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel. And while some senior Israelis were on Qatar's payroll, Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster that is growing and eventually might become as dangerous as the one created by Iran. Turkey and Qatar are gaining influence not only in Syria, but also in Gaza through the front door and everywhere, and trying to create a new choke ring. Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us and establish a hostile Sunni axis with nuclear Pakistan.
A
So is a war possible between Turkey and Israel? If not today, maybe sometime in the future. Turkey is a NATO ally. Would the US Defend it if attacked by Israel? These are crazy questions, but no longer outside the realm of possibility. To sort this out, we're joined by historian Howard Eisenstadt, a leading expert in the field at St. Lawrence University and the Stockholm University Institute of Turkish Studies. Howard Eisenstadt, welcome back. It's been a bit.
C
Thanks so much, Martin. Good to see you.
A
Recently, the former Israeli Prime Minister, right wing politician by the name of Naftali Bennett, said something like, turkey will be the next Iran. Now, if you take a look at Iran today with bombs falling on it and people dying and, you know, burning oil, filling the sky with black clouds, that can't sound very comforting from the vantage of Ankara. What was your take on that?
C
It's something that I've been tracking both in Israeli discourse and in some, some parts of American discourse about Turkey as the emerging rival to Iran in the region. I think that both countries been sort of squaring off a little bit, seeing each other as a potential rival. Not necessarily in the near term, but in the long term, there's a real danger that they can talk themselves into confrontations that they don't actually need to have.
A
And that goes for Turkey and Iran. Turkey and Israel too.
C
Turkey and Israel, yeah. Obviously the conflict between Israel and Iran is hot right now. You know, your guess is as good as mine as to what the immediate fallout of that is going to be. Many in Israel. Some people in the United States have started to talk about Turkey as an emerging, as an emerging rival, as an emerging enemy. Turkey, for its part, has started to see Israel in much the same terms. This goes sort of beyond ideology and ideological differences to strategic concerns. They certainly have areas of tension, but I think that they're talking themselves into something.
A
Yeah, we'll get into that now. I mean, we can't rule out anything based on what's happened in the past year or so or more than that, the idea of say, Turkey and Israel coming to blows. So despite rhetoric condemning Israel's attacks on Iranian proxies in recent years, the weakening of those proxies, such as Hezbollah, can serve Turkey's broader strategic objectives, such as its influence in Syria. It helps Turkish influence in Syria if say, Hezbollah is weakened, but at the same time, Ankara does not appro of a direct attack on the Iranian state that crosses a red line. Right. Can you explain why there's a difference there?
C
So a slight correction. Turkey was delighted to see the fall of the Assad regime, but at a fundamental level it divided its its frustration with the Assad regime. It also continued to have ties with Iran. It continued to have ties with Hezbollah. It actually condemned the Israeli war on Hezbollah.
A
To listen to this entire 25 minute episode, tap subscribe now in the show notes you'll get all of our bonus content early access and ad free. Listening again. Tap subscribe now in the show notes or go to history as it happens.com and subscribe.
Host: Martin Di Caro
Guest: Howard Eisenstadt, historian at St. Lawrence University and the Stockholm University Institute of Turkish Studies
Date: March 11, 2026
This bonus episode of "History As It Happens" plunges into the rapidly evolving crisis in the greater Middle East. With the outbreak of a regional war following a U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran—and Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes that included attacks on Turkey—the podcast explores Turkey’s precarious position, its tense relationship with both Iran and Israel, and the shifting dynamics driving the potential for broader conflict. Historian Howard Eisenstadt brings historical context and expert insight into these developments and the rhetoric fueling further confrontation.
Naftali Bennett:
“Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel… Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster…” ([00:45])
Howard Eisenstadt:
“Both countries [Turkey & Israel]…are at risk of talking themselves into confrontations that they don't actually need to have.” ([02:44])
“Turkey has continued to have ties with Iran. It continued to have ties with Hezbollah. It actually condemned the Israeli war on Hezbollah.” ([04:56])
This episode offers an authoritative, context-rich look at the fast-changing relationships among Turkey, Iran, and Israel. It scrutinizes the echoes of history in today’s hostilities, the dangers of conflating rivalries with enmities, and the fragile web of alliances in a region on the precipice of greater conflict. Eisenstadt’s analysis stresses the need for restraint, cautioning against misreading adversaries’ aims or locking into confrontational postures that serve no one’s interests.
For the full expert discussion, listeners are encouraged to subscribe for access to bonus and extended content.