During the President’s celebration of the Gaza ceasefire agreement in Sharm el-Sheikh, he specifically commended Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, attributing the successful ceasefire to Erdogan’s leadership.
Trump remarked, “He’s been a friend of mine for a long time. I’m not sure why I prefer resilient individuals over those who are soft and uncomplicated.” He continued, stating, “This individual from Turkey is among the globe’s most influential leaders… He’s a formidable personality — yet he is my ally.”
Throughout the conflict, Erdogan had denounced Israeli military operations in Gaza and advocated for Hamas, contrary to U.S. policy, without taking a prominent diplomatic role in resolving the hostilities.
A former senior Israeli intelligence official questioned to Digital, “One must ponder what developments have occurred. What motivated his reentry into the political sphere after two years? The defining moment was his presence beside Trump at the U.N. — that’s where the groundwork was laid. Why did Trump abruptly position him close by? It’s probable he was informed, ‘He possesses the influence to connect us with Hamas.'”
Trump’s commendation publicly highlighted an elevated degree of confidence between Washington and Ankara. However, Turkish media sources indicate that Erdogan declined to land his aircraft in Egypt upon discovering that Netanyahu, who had received a personal invitation from Trump, could be in attendance. The Turkish president only consented to disembark once it was verified that the Israeli premier would not be there.
Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow and director of the Turkey Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, characterized the incident as “typical Erdogan dramatics.” He suggested that Erdogan probably anticipated Netanyahu’s presence, particularly with the U.S. president there. Ciddi added that “his refusal to land until Netanyahu’s departure garners him domestic political advantages and enhances his standing throughout sections of the Muslim world.”
Ciddi additionally recounted a significant instance concerning Erdogan’s public stance. He mentioned a statement where Erdogan declared, “I do not perceive Hamas as a terrorist entity, but rather as a resistance movement,” noting that this comment was made on American cable television, within the United States, “without incurring any consequences.”
Ciddi indicated that Turkey’s aspirations now significantly exceed mere diplomacy. “He seeks Turkish construction firms to rebuild Gaza, Turkish soldiers to join any enforcement operation, and Turkey to act as a guarantor for the Palestinians,” Ciddi noted. “This arrangement would afford Ankara considerable economic and political sway — through contracts for its enterprises, military presence on the ground, and a position at every discussion table concerning Gaza’s future.”
However, Ciddi further clarified that Turkey’s aspirations for Gaza are integrated into a broader strategic assessment. He mentioned, “Trump’s requests to Erdogan concerning the F-35 were not exclusively tied to Gaza.” Ciddi elaborated, “These involved reducing Turkey’s reliance on Russian energy, resolving the S-400 missile controversy, and contributing positively to Gaza’s stability.”
He noted that Erdogan has, to date, been resistant to certain elements of that proposal, adding, “Yet, by assisting Trump in securing a ceasefire, Erdogan endeavors to restore confidence with Washington — and demonstrate that Turkey can resume its role as a valuable NATO ally.”
Avner Golov, vice president of the Mind Israel think tank, conveyed to Digital that “From Israel’s viewpoint, an Iranian land corridor extending westward from Tehran through Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Israel is unacceptable. Iran continues to pose the most significant threat,” Golov stated. “Nevertheless, into that void, we now observe the Muslim Brotherhood faction spearheaded by Turkey and Qatar. Qatar provides financial resources; Turkey contributes regional power and influence.”
Golov, formerly a senior director at Israel’s National Security Council, further remarked that Washington’s initial strategy of building the post-conflict structure around Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates has diminished. “Within the present agreement, the significant beneficiaries are not the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which would have advanced Israel’s objectives, but rather and Qatar,” he asserted. “Prior to this accord, Erdogan was already a key figure, and recently he exercised a veto — Trump extended an invitation, and Erdogan rejected it. Those who opposed Erdogan’s presence on the Syrian Golan Heights will now contend with him in Gaza.”
He suggested that Israel and the U.S. ought to counteract Ankara’s increasing influence by revitalizing collaboration with Gulf nations. Golov stated, “Israel possesses advantages that Qatar and Turkey lack — specifically, technology and credibility.” He added, “Should Israel combine its technological advancements with Gulf energy and resources, it can establish a regional center that fortifies the pro-American alliance and diminishes both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran.”
A former Israeli official advised that Washington should regard Turkey and Qatar as interested parties rather than impartial facilitators. “They pledged to dismantle Hamas alongside Egypt,” he remarked. “They function not as mediators but as primary actors. They are obligated to fulfill their commitments.”
Ciddi maintains his doubt regarding Israel’s acceptance of any uniformed Turkish presence. He asserted, “From Israel’s perspective, the deployment of Turkish troops in Gaza would pave the way for re-legitimizing Hamas.” He concluded, “That represents a firm stance.”
With the ceasefire now in effect, Erdogan’s notable airborne delay has already secured his primary objective — a prominent position. Future developments will reveal whether Turkey can convert this display into substantial influence, or if Israel and Washington will devise a strategy to curtail his ambitions.
Digital sought a statement from the Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., however, no response was given.