Media coverage suggesting Turkey could become a target of US foreign policy has drawn scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, with commentators debating whether Ankara poses a genuine threat to American interests in the Middle East.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is expected to run in Israel's elections this fall, told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on February 17 that "Turkey is the new Iran." Bennett described Ankara as "dangerous" and a "threat," drawing applause from attendees. The remarks came amid heightened tensions between Turkey and Israel over Turkey's stance on the Gaza conflict since October 7, 2023.
The comments received limited coverage in mainstream Western outlets at the time. The BBC published a briefing on March 2 focusing primarily on Turkish media's reaction to Bennett's remarks. However, the narrative gained momentum when The Wall Street Journal Opinion published a piece titled "An Urgent Need to Contain Turkey" on March 4.
The article was written by Bradley Martin, Executive Director at the Near East Center for Strategic Studies. Martin argued that while addressing the regional threat posed by Iran, "the U.S. and Israel must ensure that Turkey doesn't take its place." He framed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a threat who "criticized" US-Israeli attacks on Iran and previously cracked down on Iranian dissent within Turkey.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative commentators have largely embraced the framing presented in the WSJ and NY Post opinion pieces. Conservative commentator James Lindsay shared Martin's piece, writing, "This is correct. Turkey has big ambitions, and they're not all good." Ellie Cohanim, a former Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism in Trump's first administration and host of the "America Unfiltered" podcast run by Saudi Arabian state media organization Al Arabiya, called Martin's analysis "astute."
The argument put forward by Martin and Schanzer centers on Erdoğan's self-perception as a "modern-day Ottoman sultan" and Turkey's history as "a bad partner for NATO when it comes to Iran." They contend that US foreign policy should not overlook Ankara's opposition to American interests in the region.
Some conservative voices have also emphasized the strategic implications of a potential power vacuum in Iran, arguing that Turkey could fill that void if Tehran is neutralized as a regional power.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics have questioned the framing of Turkey as a threat, noting that Ankara's criticisms of US policy toward Iran reflect positions shared by many Americans and global observers. Some on the left have raised concerns about the influence of pro-Zionist voices in shaping US foreign policy discourse, arguing that the rhetoric mirrors previous justifications for military intervention.
Commentators at libertarian magazine Reason and left-leaning Slate have described the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Schanzer serves as Executive Director, as a "neoconservative" and "pro-Israel" organization. These critics argue that the recent opinion pieces represent an attempt to manufacture consent for expanded military involvement in the Middle East.
Progressive voices have also pointed to Turkey's NATO membership as a reason for skepticism toward containment rhetoric, arguing that alienating a strategic partner could undermine US interests in the region.
What the Numbers Show
The chain of events spans approximately three weeks, beginning with Bennett's February 17 comments and followed by the WSJ Opinion piece on March 4 and NY Post Opinion piece on March 5. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who sits on the House Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees, pushed back against the narrative, posting on social media that "Turkey is NOT the 'New Iran' and WE (the U.S.) will continue to foster our relationship with them."
An AllSides Editorial Review of WSJ Opinion from November 2025 noted a "strong pro-Zionist" bias at the outlet. Martin had previously published opinions in The Washington Times and The Washington Examiner advocating for hawkish positions on Iran and Palestinian statehood recognition.
Turkey remains a formal NATO member, though its relationship with the alliance has been strained over various issues in recent years. The country has maintained diplomatic relations with both Israel and Iran, though its public positions on the Gaza conflict have drawn criticism from Jerusalem.
The Bottom Line
The debate over Turkey's role in the Middle East reflects broader divisions over US foreign policy priorities in the region. Proponents of a harder line toward Ankara argue that Turkey's independent foreign policy poses risks to American interests, while critics contend that the rhetoric mirrors previous efforts to justify military intervention.
What remains clear is that Turkey's position as a NATO ally with increasingly independent regional ambitions presents a complex challenge for US policymakers. The coming months will likely see continued debate over whether engagement or containment best serves American interests in the region, particularly as the situation regarding Iran continues to develop.
The White House has not issued official statements responding to Bennett's comments or the subsequent opinion pieces. The State Department did not respond to requests for comment on whether US-Turkey relations are under review.