Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent shift in stance regarding the conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip has raised eyebrows and caused speculation about the reasons behind this change. In just a few weeks, Erdogan went from offering diplomatic assistance to condemning Israel and aligning himself with Hamas. To understand this evolution, one must consider the domestic and international pressures facing Turkey’s leader.

Erdogan needs to appease his political base, which consists of Islamists with strong pro-Palestinian sympathies. At the same time, he must maintain Turkey’s significant geopolitical and economic ties with Israel. Erdogan also sees an opportunity to position himself as a key player in Middle East politics and potentially mediate the current crisis. To comprehend his intentions, one must look beyond his rhetoric and examine his actions.

Erdogan’s reaction to the conflict reflects his attempt to balance domestic politics and realpolitik on the international stage. Initially, his response drew criticism from Islamists in Turkey who urged him to align with his base and take a stronger anti-Israeli stance. Additionally, growing anti-Israeli sentiment worldwide encouraged Erdogan to adopt a pro-Hamas position. However, he must be careful not to sever ties completely with Israel, as it is an important partner for Turkey, both economically and geopolitically.

Furthermore, recent regional dynamics have brought Israel and Turkey closer together. Both countries supported Azerbaijan in its conflict with Nagorno-Karabakh and have cooperated in their fight against Kurdish separatists. These shared interests contribute to Erdogan’s balancing act.

Another factor in Erdogan’s evolving stance is his desire to position himself as a mediator. He has held talks with regional leaders and signaled an intention to broker peace. However, his harsh rhetoric and accusations against Israel may have already damaged relations, making it difficult for him to fulfill this role effectively. Initial attempts at mediation were reportedly turned down by Hamas, suggesting that Erdogan may have gone too far in his pro-Hamas stance.

Despite his strong words, Erdogan has taken steps to prevent a complete deterioration of relations with the West and Israel. He signed Sweden’s NATO accession protocol, indicating a desire to improve ties with NATO allies. Turkish law enforcement also arrested ISIS members, potentially to preempt Western criticism of Erdogan’s support for radical Islamist networks. Additionally, Turkey has not interfered with the shipment of oil from Azerbaijan to Israel and continues to allow the U.S. to use its Incirlik Air Base.

So far, the reaction from the U.S. and Israel to Erdogan’s statements has been relatively muted. The U.S. sanctioned a few Turkish entities for trade links with Hamas but still emphasizes the value of Turkey as an ally. Israel recalled its diplomatic mission as a response to Erdogan’s remarks, but there are reports suggesting that this was done more as a precautionary measure.

Despite the ongoing tensions, Ankara has maintained communication channels with both Israel and Hamas throughout the crisis. Erdogan’s strategy seems to be working to some extent, but he must carefully balance domestic support for Hamas with Turkey’s reliance on Israel. His recent statements suggest that he may be teetering on the edge of losing that balance.

In summary, Erdogan’s shifting stance on the conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip can be attributed to the pressures he faces both domestically and internationally. Balancing the preferences of his political base, maintaining ties with Israel, and positioning himself as a mediator require careful maneuvering on Erdogan’s part. The outcome of this delicate balancing act remains to be seen.