Ankara is concerned about the Israel-Lebanon agreement: Shahan Gantaharyan
03-07-2026 14:31 A comment
Ankara is concerned about the Israel-Lebanon agreement. "Noyan Tapan" spoke with political analyst Shahin Gantaharyan.
– In recent days, the Lebanon-Israel regional agreement and Turkey's response have been discussed. What is the reason for Ankara's concern?
– Analytical publications indicate that Turkey is worried about the increased role of Israel in Lebanon and its expanding influence. Ankara views this not only as a change in the balance of regional powers but also as a matter related to its national security.
– How has this position been expressed at the level of Turkey's leadership?
– President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly stated that Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon are important components of Turkey's security system. According to him, any development in those areas that could harm Turkey's interests is viewed by Ankara as a direct threat, and it is prepared to respond accordingly.
– What is the interest in the planned visit of the Lebanese Prime Minister?
– There are indications that the Prime Minister's visit to Ankara aims to discuss these issues. At the same time, analysts also emphasize the developments in Syria-Israel relations, as they may hint at the direction in which regional processes are evolving.
– Can it be said that the Turkey-Israel competition is also moving to Lebanon?
– Such a trend is already noticeable. First, the interests of the two countries clashed in Syria, where Turkey supported the forces of Damascus, while Israel supported the Druze forces. Now, the elements of the same competition are beginning to appear in Lebanon, where Ankara, according to unofficial publications, openly rejects the regional agreement.
– Does this rejection have only foreign policy significance?
– No. It also has an internal political addressee. Turkey is sending a message to the Sunni community in Lebanon, which it has influenced for many years, urging them not to accept this agreement. However, the message does not stop there.
– What is the significance of the information that Syria's foreign minister has handed a document to Beirut regarding the arms monopoly?
– If this information is accurate, it can be viewed within the framework of a broader process. It recalls Donald Trump's statement that the resolution of the issue of Resistance weapons could be achieved through Syria, especially under conditions where Israel has not been able to achieve its goals solely through military means.
– Can all this be viewed as a systematic program?
– If we connect the entire picture, it creates such an impression. A systematic approach between the US and Turkey is emerging, within which Turkey is activating its role in Lebanon. On one hand, it is presented as an attempt to counterbalance Israel, and on the other hand, as a willingness to fill the vacuum created after the weakening of Iran's influence.
– What is the main strategic goal in this context?
– It cannot be ruled out that the long-term goal remains the disarmament of the Resistance. The difference is that now this issue is being attempted to be resolved not through military, but through political and diplomatic mechanisms, with the mediation of Damascus, where Turkey is taking on a more active role, also considering Washington's strategic expectations.
– Does Turkey have sufficient grounds to assume such a role?
– Turkey has shaped its influence in Lebanon for many years through cultural, educational, demographic, and especially economic programs. Its main stronghold is the northern regions of the country. Today, Ankara is trying to transform that influence into a political and security factor as well.
– Who are Turkey's current messages directed at?
– Simultaneously to several addressees. To Israel, not to cross Turkey's "red lines," to Iran, to show that it opposes the framework agreement, to the Sunni community in Lebanon, urging them to reject it, and to the United States, signaling that it is ready to promote the agenda of the arms monopoly through Damascus, non-militarily.
– If these developments continue, what regional picture may emerge?
– In that case, Turkey will become a more influential actor in Lebanon and in the Middle East in general. However, this does not mean the complete neutralization of Israel's influence. On the contrary, it is highly likely that Washington will continue to use Turkey and Israel as mutually counterbalancing and simultaneously complementary forces. Strengthening Turkey's influence in northern Lebanon and Israel's presence in the south could become components of that strategy.
– Does this situation somewhat resemble the current picture in Syria?
– Yes. The zones of influence of Russia and Iran in Syria have largely been replaced by the influence of Turkey and Israel, as well as their direct military and security presence. Elements of such processes are already being observed in Lebanon today.
– Should the recent mutual accusations of genocide between Israel and Turkey also be viewed in this context?
– Probably yes. These phenomena are not only in the realm of historical memory or moral-political assessments. They are also tools of regional competition and geopolitical opposition, reflecting the deepening contradictions between the two countries.
* This text was automatically translated by Artificial Intelligence (AI).
