Would Erdogan actually go to war with Israel?

Would Erdogan actually go to war with Israel?

RT

In a recent interview, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in response to a question about the aggressive attitude of Israeli politicians towards Türkiye, stated that Ankara will not shy away from war if attacked. While these words cannot be considered a direct declaration of war against Israel, they certainly served as a stern warning. 

The Turkish leader clearly stated Ankara’s position: Türkiye does not seek to enter into an armed conflict, but any aggression against it will be met with a decisive response. Erdogan, however, did not express any intention to strike first; he merely indicated that the diplomatic means of deterring Israel are gradually being exhausted.

Erdogan’s words are directly related to the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement signed on August 7 by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Its core principle is reminiscent of Article 5 of NATO, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. The defense pact provides for military coordination, joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and the development of defense-industrial cooperation. Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are creating their own mechanism of deterrence. And while it is not yet a full-fledged ‘Islamic NATO’, it is much more than a mere declaration of friendship.

US President Donald Trump’s reaction to this pact was notable. He welcomed the agreement, calling it a “big step” that demonstrates the unity of Middle Eastern countries. At first glance, it sounds contradictory that Washington is approving a mechanism that reduces the dependence of regional allies on American security guarantees. However, the Mecca Agreement is not a military alliance against the US, but rather an agreement against the American monopoly on determining regional security rules. There is a difference between these two concepts, although the distinction may narrow over time.

Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan all have their own grievances against Washington. 

Türkiye is dissatisfied with US support for Kurdistan Workers’ Party-affiliated militias in Syria, its exclusion from the F-35 program, and America’s continued support for Israel. Saudi Arabia feels bitter about America’s muted response to the attack on its oil infrastructure during the US aggression against Iran and is no longer confident that American guarantees will shield it at a critical moment. Pakistan considers its relations with Washington rather situational. After decades of cooperation, Islamabad faced sanctions and a decline in American interest following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, while Washington’s ties with India strengthened.

The conclusion made by all three countries is quite simple: while cooperating with the US is possible, completely outsourcing security to the Washington is no longer plausible

What Türkiye contributes to the alliance is a large military force and a developed defense industry; meanwhile, Pakistan contributes military experience and its nuclear status; and Saudi Arabia brings with it financial resources and political clout.

But is Erdogan truly prepared to fight Israel? While retaliatory actions are quite possible, a pre-planned major war is not likely. Türkiye is not interested in a direct confrontation. War would hit its already battered economy, inevitably trigger a crisis within NATO, complicate relations with the US, and could quickly escalate beyond a bilateral conflict. Israel also understands that war with Türkiye carries an incomparably greater risk than operations against non-state actors or strikes against weaker neighbors.

Nevertheless, such a scenario is no longer entirely out of the question. The main zone of risk is Syria, where the interests of the two countries frequently clash. Ankara seeks to consolidate its influence in Damascus, strengthen Syrian statehood while maintaining pro-Turkish sentiments, and prevent the emergence of hostile forces on the Turkish border. Israel is trying to limit Türkiye’s rise and maintain freedom of military action. The two sides maintain technical channels to prevent accidental clashes, but a strike on a target housing Turkish military personnel or the death of Turkish citizens could be enough to trigger a chain reaction.

More....

Study: Fossil fuel emissions act as fertilizer, driving global plant growth surge

Study: Fossil fuel emissions act as fertilizer, driving global plant growth surge

Cassie B.

• CO2 fertilization, confirmed by NASA, is the dominant driver of a global increase in leaf area equivalent to two times the size of the continental United States.
• Nitrogen deposited from burning fossil fuels has been identified as the second most important driver of planetary vegetation growth, surpassing climate and land use changes.
• A 2026 study in Ecography found that areas with higher nitrogen deposition experienced significantly faster rates of greening across nearly all climate zones and biome types.
• Historical warm periods like the Medieval Warm Era coincided with agricultural abundance and human prosperity, while cold spells like the Little Ice Age caused widespread crop failure.
• Rising CO2 levels boost crop yields substantially, with wheat increasing 20-30 percent, rice 15-32 percent, and soybeans up to 46 percent under elevated conditions.

A new global analysis published in the journal Ecography has identified an unexpected driver of the planet's expanding vegetation: nitrogen deposited from burning fossil fuels. The 2026 study examined changes in plant greenness across major ecosystems and found that nitrogen deposition showed one of the strongest statistical links to increased vegetative cover, surpassing even changes in climate and land use.

The findings challenge the dominant narrative that fossil fuel combustion serves only as an environmental threat. Researchers analyzed satellite data from 2001 to 2024 and found that areas with higher nitrogen deposition experienced significantly faster rates of greening. The effect held true across nearly all climate zones and biome types, from tropical forests to temperate grasslands.

More...

NATO’s Proxy War Turned Russia Into An Air Defense Superpower

Blowback: NATO’s Proxy War Turned Russia Into An Air Defense Superpower

Sputnik

From heavy Bayraktar drones and small, cheap FPV UAVs to ballistic, cruise and MLRS threats, NATO’s incremental delivery of ever-deadlier and more complex strike means to Ukraine was supposed to break Russia. Instead, it forged objectively the best air defense system in the world, Bureau of Military-Political Analysis head Alexander Mikhailov says.

Russia’s battle-tested, multi-layered approach consists of:

1.

Radars that detect aerial threats near the front and transmit coordinates to command posts, which set tasks depending on the nature of the threat at hand.

2.

Decoys and small explosive drones engaged by FPV and interceptor UAVs – which are cheapest to build, most widely available, and don’t need expensive or large, specialized equipment to operate.

3.

Deadlier, aircraft-type drones intercepted by mobile fire groups and attacked using MANPADS, in coordination with older mobile systems like Tunguska, Shilka, Sosna and Strela, suitable for slow, low-flying targets, and newer TOR and Pantsir units against faster, larger threats.

4.

Enemy ballistic and cruise threats like Neptune, Flamingo and ATACMS missiles targeted by medium- and long-range systems, including Buk, S-300 and, if necessary, S-400, which can hit targets flying in the lower stratosphere.

5.

The key to success is prioritization of threats – because the enemy seeks to overwhelm and deplete defenses using large numbers of drones concentrated in a particular area, trying to force defenders to expend expensive and unwieldy interceptors against small, cheap targets.

“It’s an objective reality” that today “the work of Russian air defense crews and our equipment are truly the best in the world,” Mikhailov says.

That doesn’t mean the system is “perfect,” as it’s impossible “to guarantee that the enemy will not use some new type of munition” or tactic. What it does mean is that the scale of combat, “and number of targets shot down over the past four-and-a-half years by our gunners can’t be compared to any other combat experience on the planet in the last decade.”

“In the next ten years, Russia will need to develop laser weapons, electromagnetic systems, and new kinetic interception systems,” and continue to improve camouflage and soft-intercept capabilities like netting, the observer summed up.

The Most Powerful Earthquakes of 2026 Captured on Camera

The Most Powerful Earthquakes of 2026 Captured on Camera

video

Israel confirms Syria strike: 'We repeatedly warned Syria' over Turkish troop deployment

Israel confirms Syria strike: 'We repeatedly warned Syria' over Turkish troop deployment

Shirit Avitan Cohen

For the first time, Israel has officially acknowledged carrying out the strike on the Abu al-Duhur air base in Syria's Idlib province, near the Turkish border. The Prime Minister's Office issued an English-language statement on X late Tuesday night saying the Syrian government had been on the verge of violating a security status quo agreed with Israel.

"Israel and Syria agreed to a status quo in security matters, which Syria was on the verge of breaching by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo," the statement said. "Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel's security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings. Israel will not tolerate threats to its security, and would welcome a return to the status quo."

The statement amounted to an official claim of responsibility after hours of ambiguity on the Israeli side and amid US displeasure over the operation. By publishing it in English, the Prime Minister's Office sought to sharpen Israel's message against a Turkish military presence in Syria. US envoy Tom Barrack had earlier described the strikes as an "unnecessary escalation that does not advance regional stability."

Shortly before the Israeli statement was published, Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, told Reuters just how close the incident may have come to triggering an Israeli-Turkish confrontation. Israel's strikes on the Syrian air base "reflected a perception, whether accurate or misplaced, that Turkey might in the near future increase its presence at that base," Barrack said.

Turkey had not been warned about the Israeli strikes, he added, "and consequently observed the aircraft heading north toward its territory and therefore could have reasonably prepared its own response." Barrack said the episode proved the need for "a deconfliction mechanism involving Israel, Syria and Turkey," which Washington was actively working to establish.

"Thankfully, calm heads were able to prevent the situation from deteriorating further," he told Reuters.

Just two days earlier, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country did not want war, stressing that Turkey favored peace, while maintaining that it would defend itself if attacked. In an interview published Monday, Erdogan said, "We are definitely not in favor of war. We are in favor of peace."