Iran and Turkey moved to de-escalate tensions between them in the immediate aftermath of the downing of an Iranian missile over Turkey on Wednesday, but the development signals dangerous potential if the conflict heats up between them, experts said.

NATO air defense systems shot down an Iranian ballistic missile heading for Turkish airspace on Wednesday. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan spoke with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, warning Araghchi not to allow the conflict to spread across the region. Turkey summoned the Iranian ambassador to Ankara for a reprimand.

“All necessary steps to defend our territory and airspace will be taken resolutely and without hesitation,” including consulting with NATO allies to protect the country, Turkey’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Officials told The Wall Street Journal the missile was targeting the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, which hosts American troops. At the same time, a Turkish official told Agence France-Presse that the missile was likely aimed at Cyprus, where Iran has struck British military assets.

Zvi Yehezkeli, an Arab affairs expert for i24 News, interpreted the missile over Turkey as mostly symbolic, meant as an Iranian message to Ankara to stay out of the war. 

Though Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was saddened by the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the war, his response “was viewed in Tehran as hypocrisy,” and they see Erdogan as “playing a double game,” according to Yehezkeli.

“Ankara knows that this symbolic shot was mostly meant for domestic needs in Tehran,” Yehezkeli stated. “For Turkey, silence and containment are the most comfortable way at the moment.”

Gallia Lindenstrauss, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University specializing in Turkish foreign relations, told Jewish Insider that there were “efforts on both sides to minimize the significance of the event.”

In Ankara, she said, “some said [the missile] was meant for Cyprus, some said it was shot by independent groups and not under orders from Tehran. The Iranians said there was no attempt to harm Turkey.”

Lindenstrauss said that while Iran’s intentions are hard to confirm, they may have aimed at the Ceyhan port, through which Azerbaijan ships oil to Israel, especially in light of Iran’s strike on Azerbaijan the following day.

“The attempt to strike Turkey is part of an Iranian policy of trying to get everyone involved in the conflict. They are shooting in all directions. I don’t think [targeting Turkey] is a one-time thing,” she said.

Lindenstruass said she sees several possible negative consequences for Turkey from the war.

“Turkish commentators who understand the severity [of the missile attack] say that Iran is suicidal,” she said. 

In addition, Ankara is very concerned about the “spillover of destabilization,” including the possibility of the Kurds getting involved in the conflict, of European navies sending ships to the region to defend Cyprus, and a wave of refugees attempting to enter Turkey from Iran.

Turkey has long had a wall on its border with Iran, and hundreds of Iranians have successfully crossed the border since the start of the war on Saturday, according to Reuters.

“For Israelis, what is most concerning is a growing view [in Turkey] of Israel as a threat that has grown too strong,” Lindenstrauss said. “They have the idea that Israel is behind the events. They don’t blame the U.S.; they blame Israel for a provocation and sabotaging the negotiations.”

At the same time, Turkey is making gains from the conflict in its defense industry, she said.

“Turkey is supplying drones to Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt are interested in the fighter jet that Turkey is building. The Gulf States are not happy with Turkish behavior, but they will not isolate Ankara because of its defense industry. That is seen [in Turkey] as a game-changer,” Lindenstrauss said.

David Wurmser, former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, warned in a message, obtained by JI, that he sent to Israeli and American officials that Turkey may choose to join the war against Iran, expressing a broader concern about the involvement of radical Sunni countries.

After Iranian missiles struck Qatar, the Gulf state’s foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, rejected Iran’s claim that they were aiming for American assets and said Tehran “was seeking to inflict harm on its neighbors and drag them into a war that is not theirs.” 

Pakistan publicly warned that Iran “should keep … in mind” that it signed a mutual defense pact last year with Saudi Arabia, which has been struck repeatedly by Iranian missiles and drones in recent days. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. 

“Any intervention by Turkey, Pakistan or Qatar is extremely dangerous,” Wurmser said. “It adds nothing, but transforms the texture of this war in extreme, dangerous ways. Even to the point that it can complicate or potentially even make [Israel and the U.S.] lose this … If a Sunni shark-feeding frenzy emerges, Iranians will hunker down, and become passive in fear, perhaps passive even against this regime.” 

Intervention by those countries would “transform the narrative of this war,” Wurmser said. “Right now, the war [is] one of the civilized world defending itself and returning Iran to the Iranian people from a lunatic, evil and sadist regime. It cast the Iranian people as our allies and part of our team in battle.”

“The Sunni threat to Iran, however, is seen by Iranians in their gut and bones as a matter of threatening death,” he added.

Wurmser noted that most Sunni states in the region “opposed this war; they tried to sabotage it.” He accused Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar of now “try[ing] to swoop in on the prey.” 

Yehezkeli also wrote about the role of deep-seated divisions between Sunni and Shi’ite states. 

The Shi’ite leadership of Iran “has a clear accounting of who supported [them], who was silent and who is the real enemy,” Yehezkeli wrote. “The background goes deeper than recent events. The hatred between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, which began in Islam’s early days, never disappeared. It was only hidden at times behind political interests and temporary alliances.”

Lindenstrauss, however, said she thinks “the Turkish context is more complex” when it comes to the Sunni-Shi’ite divide.

“The largest minority in Iran is Azeris, and they’re Shi’ite and so is [Turkey ally] Azerbaijan,” she noted. “The Kurds are Sunni and that doesn’t calm the Turks down about them. … I don’t see Sunni cooperation against Iran.” 

Lindenstrauss said she thinks “Turkey’s interest is for the Islamic Republic to stay in charge [of Iran] but weaker, yet not so weak that there will be a wave of refugees and a Kurdish uprising.”

Simmering frustrations among lawmakers with U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack — who also serves as special envoy to Syria and manages a wide remit in America’s Middle East policy — have recently emerged with force, as multiple lawmakers tell Jewish Insider they have concerns about the U.S. envoy’s expansive role.

Barrack’s critics see the envoy pushing U.S. policy in concerning directions, toward an overly close relationship with Turkey despite the country’s overt anti-Israel posture and regional ambitions and, most recently, as a key enabler of the Turkish-backed Syrian government’s offensive against U.S.’ longtime Kurdish allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces.

Over the course of months, the envoy has also made comments that have concerned lawmakers, including questioning Israel’s status as a democracy, downplaying the threat from Hezbollah and supporting a Turkish role in the International Stabilization Force in Gaza, despite Turkey’s long record of hostility to Israel.

A Republican senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told JI last week that Barrack’s role in U.S. policy in the region makes them “nervous.”

“He’s running a Turkish line, and there are very legit[imate] concerns” about his role and influence, the senator said.

A senior Senate Democrat involved in foreign policy issues also said he had concerns about Barrack, suggesting the envoy was pursuing personal business interests through his post.

“Barrack is clearly knowledgeable about the region, he’s clearly energetic and engaged. But that’s the only good I can say. I have real concerns about his motives and the consequences of his actions,” the Democratic senator said. 

“That’s something I really worry about. When the president himself is among the most corrupt in American history, we can’t be surprised when the people he puts in positions of power conduct themselves in the same way, but it’s really dangerous,” the lawmaker added. “We’re losing our reputation as a good partner, a reliable ally and a country committed to supporting anti-corruption efforts.”

Asked about Barrack’s role in the administration, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told JI, “I’m hopeful that the interests of the Kurds will be protected. America needs to stand up to the Turks where necessary and insist that those rights be adequately represented.”

Lawmakers’ concerns have become public at a series of hearings on the Hill in recent weeks.

At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Syria last week, Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK), a leading skeptic among House Republicans of repealing U.S. sanctions on Syria, said he feels that Barrack’s dual role as ambassador to Turkey and Syria special envoy is hampering the U.S.’ ability to take a tougher stance with Syria.

“[Barrack] has to maintain a good relationship with Turkey. Would we not be well-served for someone to be specific to Syria, whether it be an envoy specific to Syria or an ambassador — how would that not help us to make sure that Tom Barrack can maintain a good relationship with Turkey but we’d have somebody to play hardball with Syria?” Brecheen said.

Brecheen said he’s worried that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seeks to reestablish the Ottoman Empire and that Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is deceiving the U.S. and still maintains a jihadist ideology. He said current U.S. policy appears to be facilitating Turkish and Russian interests.

Nadine Maenza, the former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, who testified before the committee, responded that she shares Brecheen’s concerns.

“It’s been very difficult to have him have both hats on, and I think we’ve seen that with the State Department not having a role to play in Syria policy and waiting for Barrack to make decisions,” Maenza said. “I don’t think that serves the president well, if his goal is peace and stability in the Middle East.”

At another House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this month, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) highlighted Barrack’s past comments on Hezbollah, which he said “have often sent the wrong signals.” David Schenker, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy who served in the first Trump administration, also repudiated Barrack’s comments.

Barrack has faced criticism off the Hill in conservative circles as well: a Wall Street Journal editorial last month blasted his “not-so-excellent Syrian adventure,” characterizing the ambassador as overly close with Turkey and pushing an anti-SDF policy in the administration.

Responding to the editorial, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) blasted Barrack for having “betrayed [the Kurds], Christians in Syria and our country for Turkey.” “His behavior is a disgrace. He should be recalled,” Santorum added.

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton — who has since come under fire by President Donald Trump — said last year that Barrack has been “publicly making excuses for al-Sharaa’s reluctance to open full diplomatic relations with Israel. It is not generally a U.S. ambassador’s job to justify another country’s actions. He should be warned about the symptoms he is displaying.”

Conservative commentator Mark Levin similarly criticized Barrack last summer for rebuking Israel’s attacks on Syrian government-aligned forces carrying out massacres of Druze and other minority groups.

His concerns were echoed by right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who said that Barrack’s “delusions that he can play nice with [al-Sharaa], who is literally ISIS, is going to continue to destabilize the Middle East and get more innocent non-Muslims killed,” describing Barrack’s approach to Syria as completely wrong-headed.

“I have heard from different sources that [the Turks] perceive Tom Barrack to be their man, and this is the first time in a long time they feel that they have a U.S. envoy that’s essentially on their side, if you want to use that terminology, and is basically positioning Ankara to really realize a lot of their policy goals, their geostrategic goals,” Sinan Ciddi, the director of the Turkey program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI. 

Barrack, while being “a problematic actor,” is also “deeply influential,” Ciddi said, characterizing him as one of the two most influential figures in the U.S.’ regional policy alongside White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Like Witkoff, Barrack is a longtime friend and business associate of Trump.

“He is making moves, he’s implementing policies as special envoy and as ambassador that I think present deep risks and and could have potentially detrimental consequences, because it’s going to alienate the United States at the least, but at worst, they could really inflame a considerable number of situations that we’re active looking at,” Ciddi said.

He raised concerns about three particular policies that Barrack has appeared to promote: providing Turkey with advanced F-35 fighter jets despite U.S. sanctions, bringing Turkey into the International Stabilization Force in Gaza and pushing for an influential role for Turkey in Syria and a favorable stance toward the new Syrian government.

He said that Barrack and the Trump administration more broadly appear to view Turkey as a partner that they can cooperate with on goals including stabilizing Syria and Gaza. 

Israeli officials, however, view the situation in a very different light, and “feel that through Barrack’s adventurism, what we are seeing are dangerous moves to position Turkey in the Levant and the Middle East as an aggressive actor,” Ciddi said. “They feel that Turkey is, through Barrack, finding a means and opportunity to weaken Israel.”

Ciddi warned that Turkey having any role in the stabilization force in Gaza would be “fundamentally very, very dangerous” given Turkey’s friendliness with Hamas and hostility toward Israel. And he said that providing Turkey with the advanced F-35 jets would be “deeply problematic” given its close relationship with Russia, along with various other issues, a dynamic that has troubled lawmakers and European allies.

Ciddi also said that Barrack’s public comments, or lack thereof, about Turkey’s closeness with Hamas and Iran, about Hezbollah and about Israel’s status as a democracy should be concerning for “all the countries that have signed up to the Abraham Accords, or any country in the region that’s taking a position against jihadist movements and Salafist movements.”

Michael Makovsky, the CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told JI that, “half the things the guy says I can’t understand, and the other half I don’t agree with.” Makovsky said he’s been particularly troubled by Barrack’s influence on Syria policy, seemingly pushing the U.S. toward support for al-Sharaa.

“I think that’s been a big mistake,” Makovsky said, criticizing the “betrayal of the Syrian Kurds, which I found rather obscene” and emphasizing that the Kurds had been a critical ally of the U.S. in the fight against ISIS. He noted that al-Sharaa remains aligned with jihadists who have carried out massacres of Syrian minority groups.

“We’re all in on [al-]Sharaa, and I think that’s partly because Trump met him and likes him, but even before that, it’s because this is what Barrack wants,” Makovsky continued. “He seems to often reflect exactly the Turkish view, and I don’t think the Turkish view on Syria aligns with our own interests at all.”

He said that he was also troubled by Barrack’s claim that Israel is not a democracy, saying that it was a poor message from a U.S. official and suggested that he does not properly understand the region.

Congressional correspondent Emily Jacobs contributed reporting.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey issued a joint declaration on Tuesday pledging to expand cooperation across a wide range of defense, economic and regional security issues, signaling deepening strategic ties between the two countries and cementing a markedly improved relationship between former foes.

As part of the joint statement, the two countries outlined their alignment on several regional issues, including rejecting Israel’s recognition of Somaliland and calling for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Syria, as well as a two-state solution. The two leaders also agreed to push the U.S. toward de-escalation with Iran. 

The parties also agreed to “strengthen their cooperation” in areas including oil and gas and renewable energies, “building on Saudi Arabia’s massive energy investments,” the statement read.

The declaration came during Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Riyadh on Tuesday, his first in more than two years. Erdoğan said during the trip that Ankara was determined to elevate relations with Saudi Arabia to a “higher level.” 

The agreement and accompanying statements highlighted a broader rapprochement between Riyadh and Ankara, whose relationship has steadily warmed in recent years after a prolonged period of tension.

The two countries had been on opposite sides of several issues in the region, including the 2013 coup in Egypt and the Libyan civil war. 

Relations plunged further after Saudi agents killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, an episode that triggered a prolonged diplomatic rupture. Turkey’s decision to pursue the case publicly, including opening a formal investigation and sharing findings with the international community, also inflamed tensions. 

Following the incident, Riyadh imposed a partial economic boycott on Turkish products and trade and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not visit Turkey until 2022, during which the two leaders vowed to start “a new era of cooperation.”

That cooperation has since translated into a recalibrated relationship, with both countries increasingly shifting their tone and building partnerships across different sectors. Riyadh and Ankara have also recently adopted similar stances on key geopolitical issues. Both have criticized Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict and voiced support for Syria’s new government.

Earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that Ankara had expressed interest in joining a Saudi-Pakistan defense pact, though Riyadh later clarified that the arrangement would remain strictly bilateral and would not be expanded to include Turkey.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) warned on Thursday that the U.S. would need to reevaluate its relationship with Saudi Arabia if Riyadh makes a long-term pivot against efforts to normalize relations with Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested this week that Saudi Arabia’s increasing rapprochement with Turkey and Qatar would be a nonstarter for continued normalization efforts. Leading Saudi figures and media have also recently taken a strongly anti-Israel and antisemitic tone, which Netanyahu said provides aid to anti-Israel forces.

“If they’re reversing course on normalization, all bets are off for almost everything, including a defense treaty and other kinds of agreements,” Blumenthal told Jewish Insider. “I would very much regret it, and I think they would too in the long run, because it goes against all of the long-term goals of the kingdom to turn a leaf on terrorism and restore or reimagine their economy with less dependence on oil.”

He added that he “would be very surprised” if Riyadh actually makes such a pivot “and I hope that this indication of a change in course is just a short-term flip.”

Pressed on signals that Riyadh’s long-term vision may be shifting — given Saudi Arabia’s deepening ties to Turkey and Qatar and its recent plans to scale back some of the landmark megaprojects that were part of its Vision 2030 push — Blumenthal said he believes that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s plan remains the same.

“I think there continues to be a long-term strategy in MBS’ mind, but there’s no question we need to be very clear-eyed that there are reactionary forces, and frankly antisemitic elements, in the regime,” Blumenthal said. “And we’re going to see those elements bubble up and potentially resist progress — and hopefully not prevent it. But we need to be very mindful of the mantra ‘trust but verify’ when dealing with Saudi.”

Two Republican senators offered a more optimistic view on the future of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said that “every conversation I’ve had with Saudi Arabia is that they’re interested in normalization,” and that he would have to hear from Riyadh directly before judging the consequences of any potential change in direction.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said that he didn’t have a strong read on Saudi Arabia’s current stance on normalization, but that he continues to believe that it is in the U.S.’ and the world’s interest.

“That brings long-term stability to the region,” Lankford said. “It’s been one of the main dividing points in the region is this absurd belief that Israel’s not even a country should be recognized. We don’t break through that until everybody just acknowledges everybody’s sovereignty.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the composition of the executive board meant to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, his office said on Saturday.

“The announcement regarding the composition of the Gaza Executive Board, which is subordinate to the Board of Peace, was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy,” the Prime Minister’s Office stated. “The Prime Minister has instructed the Foreign Affairs Minister to contact the U.S. Secretary of State on this matter.”

Netanyahu emphasized his objection in a speech to the Knesset on Monday, saying that “there will be no Turkish or Qatari soldiers in Gaza. We are currently in a dispute with the U.S. over the makeup of the advisory council for Gaza.”

Though Netanyahu said the board was not coordinated with Israel, he spoke with President Donald Trump twice in recent days, and Mossad Chief David Barnea met with White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Friday. The calls and meetings were reportedly about Iran.

The White House announced on Friday that several committees to govern Gaza and oversee its reconstruction and administration had been formed, including the Gaza Executive Board.

The Gaza Executive Board is meant to support the office of the high representative for Gaza and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which is made up of Palestinian technocrats. It includes Witkoff, Jared Kushner, former U.K. Prime Minister U.K. Tony Blair, Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, Israeli-Cypriot businessman Yakir Gabay, head of Egyptian intelligence General Hassan Rashad, UAE Minister for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy, U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Sigrid Kaag, and the previous holder of that position, Nickolay Mladenov, who will serve as the high representative for Gaza.

The board also includes Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi. Israeli officials have previously spoken out against Turkish involvement in Gaza’s reconstruction. Qatar has funded Gaza reconstruction in the past, with significant funding and dual-use materials reaching Hamas; the terrorist group’s leaders have also resided in Doha.

A Trump administration source characterized Netanyahu’s statement to Jewish Insider as a minor issue that would likely be smoothed out within days. 

The source noted that Turkish and Qatari representatives were key to negotiating the ceasefire in Gaza, which took effect in October, and that they call Witkoff and Kushner daily, and therefore have an influence on the process regardless of the titles they are given. He also added that Netanyahu has a direct line to Trump.

“It’s all based on whether Hamas demilitarizes or not,” he added. “If Hamas demilitarizes, that is what’s most important [above the composition of the board]. If Hamas doesn’t demilitarize, none of this matters. … The prime minister has a commitment from the president that Hamas will demilitarize.”

Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid said that “Netanyahu is allowing Turkey and Qatar into Gaza. That endangers Israel’s security. That is not what our brave soldiers fought for for two years.

“Instead of releasing panicky statements of protest, Israel should offer a clear alternative, for Egypt to administer Gaza for the next 15 years, for Hamas to be disarmed, and work with American partners to strengthen Israel’s border,” Lapid added.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that he supports Netanyahu’s “important message.”

“Gaza does not need an ‘executive board’ that will supervise its ‘rehabilitation,’ it needs to be cleaned of Hamas terrorists who should be destroyed, along with encouraging massive voluntary emigration, in accordance with President Trump’s original plan,” Ben-Gvir said. “I call on the prime minister to instruct the IDF to prepare to go back to war in Gaza using great force in order to achieve the central goal of the war, the destruction of Hamas.”

The White House also announced the members of the founding executive board of the Trump-chaired Board of Peace, whose purview is not limited to Gaza. Netanyahu told the Knesset on Monday that the board is meant to serve as an alternative to the United Nations, 66 of whose organizations the U.S. left earlier this month. The board is composed of Secretary of State Marc Rubio, Witkoff, Kushner, Blair, Rowan, World Bank President Ajay Banga and Deputy National Security Advisor Robert Gabriel. 

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Argentinian President Javier Milei also accepted invitations from Trump to join the board, while Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had yet to respond. French President Emmanuel Macron declined to join. Netanyahu was invited to join or send an Israeli representative, according to Ynet. Russian President Vladimir Putin was invited, as was President Alyaksandr Lukashenka of Belarus; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky received an invitation on Tuesday, Ukrainian Ambassador to Israel Yevgen Kornichuk told JI. China, Germany, Australia, Albania, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain reportedly received invitations, as well. 

Membership on the Board of Peace is for three years; Trump asked countries to pay $1 billion for a permanent seat, Bloomberg reported.

Trump appointed Aryeh Lightstone and Josh Gruenbaum, members of Witkoff’s team, to be special advisors to the Board of Peace, “leading day-to-day strategy and operations, and translating the Board’s mandate and diplomatic priorities into disciplined execution,” the White House stated.

President Donald Trump’s recent executive order directing a review of Muslim Brotherhood chapters for potential terrorism designations is limited in scope, and leaves out scrutiny of Qatar and Turkey — a strategy that experts say reflects both legal realities and geopolitical constraints.

The order, which was signed on Nov. 24, directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to identify which branches of the Muslim Brotherhood — with a focus on chapters in Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt — should be designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and which should be deemed Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

Rather than apply a terrorist designation to the entire Muslim Brotherhood as a whole, Trump’s executive order first looks at individual branches. This strategy is echoed in a Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), which requires an assessment of every branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to designate the organization for its involvement. 

The House version of the legislation was modified in committee last week and now more closely resembles the Trump executive order.

Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the approach “makes sense,” adding that a “one-size-fits-all” designation would be unproductive. He also noted that it will allow the administration to more effectively pursue chapters of the organization.

“The bottom-up approach will allow the administration to proceed in a more strategic and calculated fashion,” said Jacobson. “Targeting individual chapters and entities could also open up additional avenues for investigation and action. Once individual branches are designated, the Treasury could then use its authorities to sanction those supporting these branches. I believe that this approach is also more likely to gain support from other governments.”

This same sentiment was echoed by Cruz, who called the “bottom-up” approach the “correct and sustainable strategy.”

“That strategy is built into both the president’s executive order, which was a bold and critical breakthrough in advancing American national security, and my bipartisan legislation,” Cruz told Jewish Insider. “It’s the consensus strategy, and it’s the right one.” 

David Adesnik, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that while a single designation done in “one fell swoop” might be appealing, it faces legal and factual challenges. 

“The administration was rightly concerned that a judge could overturn a designation of the entire organization if he or she assessed that it didn’t meet the legal thresholds. This would have serious consequences in several respects,” said Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If a judge ruled against a Muslim Brotherhood ban, it would be interpreted by some as a signal that the MB is not a terrorist organization, end of story — also a message the administration was likely eager to avoid.”

“This is not a single unified organization,” said Adesnik. “There’s no headquarters, no address, no person who is the head. It’s very hard to make a terror designation if you’re not exactly sure who you’re designating.”

Jacobson said the administration also looked to avoid a blanket designation out of concern that any legal challenges that followed could hurt efforts to reign in the Muslim Brotherhood. 

“The administration was rightly concerned that a judge could overturn a designation of the entire organization if he or she assessed that it didn’t meet the legal thresholds. This would have serious consequences in several respects,” said Jacobson. “If a judge ruled against a Muslim Brotherhood ban, it would be interpreted by some as a signal that the MB is not a terrorist organization, end of story — also a message the administration was likely eager to avoid.”

Some critics of the executive order, including far-right influencer Laura Loomer, who is a confidant of the president, have expressed frustration over the administration’s decision not to name Qatar and Turkey in the order.

“The Muslim Brotherhood designation signed by President Trump today doesn’t have any teeth,” Loomer posted on X on Nov. 24. “This designation is probably the weakest designation of the Muslim Brotherhood we could have ever received, as it doesn’t even apply to Qatar and Turkey.”

Both Qatar and Turkey have strengthened ties with the United States during Trump’s second term, however the two countries are also significant supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and have been known to provide sanctuary for their members. 

“Claiming to get tough on the Muslim Brotherhood without a serious strategy to clamp down on the support provided by the movement’s most important state sponsors in Qatar and Turkey is not a serious policy,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Out of consideration for America’s longstanding partnerships with both countries and President Trump’s particular affinity for their leaders, one hopes that there is a plan to bring real pressure to bear on both Doha and Ankara in private to cease and desist their wide-ranging support for MB affiliates across the Middle East and globally.”

But while Qatar and Turkey’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are problematic, experts said they were not included because they do not currently have chapters of the organization in their countries, which the executive order focuses on.

“If we’re targeting chapters of the Brotherhood, there are no Brotherhood chapters in those countries,” said Adesnik. “So the real question is, how do you deal with what are effectively state sponsors of the Brotherhood? And does that state sponsorship cross the line into terrorism or sponsorship of terrorism?”

The Senate bill also does not address how Turkey and Qatar would be targeted as state sponsors of the organization. 

However, experts and legislators remain wary of the threat posed by the two nations and have expressed that plans to root out the Muslim Brotherhood should account for Turkey and Qatar.

“Claiming to get tough on the Muslim Brotherhood without a serious strategy to clamp down on the support provided by the movement’s most important state sponsors in Qatar and Turkey is not a serious policy,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Out of consideration for America’s longstanding partnerships with both countries and President Trump’s particular affinity for their leaders, one hopes that there is a plan to bring real pressure to bear on both Doha and Ankara in private to cease and desist their wide-ranging support for MB affiliates across the Middle East and globally.”

With the current executive order, the White House is seeking to first designate branches in countries that experts said are involved in violence from within the country. This will also likely include entities that finance other Foreign Terrorist Organizations, according to Jacobson. 

In Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, threats connected to the Muslim Brotherhood have become national issues of concern. 

“The Islamic Group [Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Lebanon] clearly built up the ability to carry out attacks against Israel and cooperated very openly with Hezbollah,” said David Adesnik, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Authorities there really aren’t doing anything about it, partly because they lack power and have other issues to address. So it’s a pretty fair point.” 

In April 2025, Jordanian authorities arrested 16 individuals and thwarted a plot that was to involve rocket and drone attacks inside the country. The suspects were linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the government’s largest opposition group. Following the arrests, the Jordanian government banned the group entirely. 

Adesnik said that while Jordan has initiated a “thorough crackdown” to address the problem, it is notable that there was “clearly a branch that had migrated toward planning for terrorism.” 

In Lebanon, he called the Muslim Brotherhood a “persistent issue.”

“The Islamic Group [Muslim Brotherhood chapter in Lebanon] pretty openly built up a capability to carry out attacks against Israel and cooperated very clearly and openly with Hezbollah,” said Adesnik. “Authorities there really aren’t doing anything about it, in part because they don’t have a lot of power and they have a lot of other problems to deal with. So it’s a pretty reasonable case.” 

Adesnik called the administration’s targeting of Egypt the “thorniest case from a definitional perspective.” He noted that while Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi’s regime in Cairo has spent more than a decade cracking down on the Brotherhood “aggressively,” concerns still remain over the presence of branches such as Harakat Sawa’d Misr, also known as Hasm, which was already designated by the U.S. as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity in 2018. 

“The question is just what’s left of the Brotherhood there?” said Adesnik. “Is it doing enough to merit a designation?”

Republican lawmakers are criticizing U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack over his recent comments questioning whether Israel is a democracy while voicing support for Turkey joining the proposed U.S.-led International Stabilization Force to operate in Gaza.

Barrack raised eyebrows with his comments on Sunday at the Doha Forum in Qatar — where the Syria envoy appeared to cast doubt on Israel’s status as a democracy while suggesting that “benevolent” monarchies were typically more successful in the region. Earlier last week, the ambassador drew attention for endorsing Turkey’s inclusion in the ISF because their “criticized relationship” with Hamas would “soften whatever has to be done” to disarm them.

Barrack’s comments in Doha were made in the context of criticizing previous efforts by the U.S. and others to impose democratic governing models in the Middle East. “Almost every decision that the West has imposed on the region, rather than allowing it to evolve on its own, has been a mistake,” Barrack said.

“The first thing that has to happen is that we have to allow them, Syria, to define it themselves without going in with Western expectations and saying, ‘We want a democracy in 12 nights,’” Barrack said on Sunday. “We’ve never had a democracy [in the Middle East]. I don’t see a democracy anywhere. Israel can claim that it’s a democracy, but in this region, really what has worked the best, whether you like it or don’t like it, is a benevolent monarchy.”

At the Milken Institute’s Middle East and Africa Summit in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, on Friday, Barrack said, “If you think about it, having Turkey, who has a relationship and an Islamic foothold, will soften whatever has to be done in this, disarming Hamas. … How are you going to disarm them? Are you really going to militarily disarm them? Are we going to be in the soup again? Do you have caches and say, show up at public storage, and we’ll give you a ticket, and this is going to go into the IDF?”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told JI that Barrack was “very incorrect” with his musing about Israel’s standing as a democracy. “I think Israel is a democracy, and Israel is our only true friend in the Middle East,” Kennedy said.

Asked for his reaction to Barrack’s public support for Turkey joining the ISF, the Louisiana senator replied: “I don’t trust Turkey.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said about Barrack’s comments, “If I had to give you an example of a robust democracy, it would be Israel. If you don’t like the government, stick around a month, they’ll get a new one.”

Daniel Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration and as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East for a year and a half of the Biden administration, told JI that Barrack’s comments about Israel’s democratic bona fides were “a bit chilling.”  

“There’s no cause for calling into question Israel’s status as a democracy,” Shapiro said. “I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that that was simply a misstatement that he probably will think better of.”

“I know it’s better when ambassador’s statements are fully aligned with the policies of their administration,” he continued. “This administration generally may be less coordinated in that regard than others because our president speaks so frequently and extemporaneously, but that actually raises the importance of ambassadors ensuring that they are fully aligned with whatever the president’s policy is.”

The remarks also prompted criticism from foreign policy analysts and experts, who suggested the ambassador to Ankara was acting more in the interests of Turkey than the United States. 

“There’s no question that he often reflects the Turkish view on a number of things,” Michael Makovsky, president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told JI. “That might be his view, or in my opinion, he doesn’t really understand the Middle East or proper U.S. interests in the Middle East. Generally, he often reflects Turkish views of the region.”

“That happens sometimes with ambassadors, they sometimes strongly reflect the views of the countries to which they’re posted, but he’s really been out there on this,” he continued. “Personally, that is concerning to me.”

Makovsky questioned Barrack’s broader approach to the media while criticizing his remarks about whether Israel is a democracy as “a bit incomprehensible.”

“I find that Barrack speaks a lot in public or to journalists, to the media. Frankly, a number of the statements he makes are kind of hard to understand, and certainly this is one of them,” he explained, describing Barrack’s previous statements to the media as “word salads.”

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, similarly voiced concerns about Barrack’s warm stance toward the Turkish government.

“He’s made it no secret that he is essentially very pro-Turkey, and that he sympathizes [with the view that] the key to stability or [achieving] U.S. interests goes through projecting Turkish interests in the region,” Ciddi told JI. “For a long time [he has been] suggesting that if there is going to be lasting peace and essentially a cessation of hostilities inside of Gaza, then Turkey has to play a role, which means putting Turkish troops inside of Gaza as part of the stabilization force.”

“Obviously, Israel has a problem with that,” he added. “Not only Israel, but also significant parts of the U.S. government and a handful of Arab states, because they feel that a Turkish presence there would unsettle the balance there because of Turkey’s ties to Hamas.”

Ciddi noted that the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have all voiced concerns about what type of involvement Ankara would have in the ISF. He added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sees the ISF “as a momentous opportunity to step into Gaza and undermine Israel and really project Turkey’s power.”

The Arab states are “deeply worried that Turkey’s military presence there would be to basically prop up Hamas. They’re not going to be there to essentially disarm and dissolve Hamas, that Turkey is basically going to stand shoulder to shoulder [with Hamas],” Ciddi told JI. “That’s going to just basically heighten tensions between Turkey and Israel and could lead to the potential of an arms conflict between them. Nobody wants that. Nobody understands why Barrack is pushing for that.”

“Either Tom Barrack is ignorant of the facts pertaining to Turkey’s deep enmeshment and involvement with Hamas over the years, particularly since Oct. 7 in terms of the material support it has provided Hamas … or he is choosing to ignore that,” he continued. “I think he’s either coming at it from a perspective of ignorance, or he’s choosing to ignore it. But neither bodes well, and that is the unfortunate circumstance.”

Ciddi also accused Barrack of “essentially running a portfolio where he feels very emboldened as ambassador to Ankara, as well as special envoy to Syria,” citing that he “doesn’t come from a traditional diplomacy or foreign service background. He knows he has the ear of [President Donald] Trump. He knows he’s one of the few people that Trump listens to.”

Barrack faced backlash from Israel on Tuesday for his recent comments, with Walla News reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team view Barrack as too closely aligned with Turkey.

“Barrack is acting like a Turkish ambassador and undermining regional stability,” a senior Israeli official told the outlet, adding that Barrack is “overly influenced by Turkish interests in Syria” and is operating “to a significant extent in line with Syrian interests.”

An Israeli diplomatic source confirmed the Walla report, adding that they were “stunned by [Barrack’s] statements praising benevolent monarchies and belittling Israeli democracy,” and saying that the remarks were unprecedented.

The White House did not respond to JI’s request for comment.

Lahav Harkov contributed to this report.

Following a visit to Turkey on his inaugural international trip last week, Pope Leo XIV lauded Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his peacemaking abilities and said Turkey has “an important role that it could play” in advancing peace in the Middle East and effectuating a two-state solution. 

“I spoke about this with President Erdogan,” Leo said, referring to a two-state solution, which he called the “only” solution to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reaffirming the Holy See’s longstanding position on the issue. 

“Unfortunately we still haven’t seen a solution,” Leo told reporters upon departing from Istanbul. “We know that in this moment, Israel doesn’t accept [a two-state] solution, but we see it as the only one that can offer a solution to the conflict that they are living in.” 

Erdogan “is certainly in agreement with this proposal,” Leo said.

The pope’s comments and decision to share pleasantries with the Turkish leader have struck some in the pro-Israel community as out of touch and are part a pattern of recent remarks from the Vatican that have been critical of Israel, most notably in its handling of the war against Hamas in Gaza.  

In October, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s secretary of state, described Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an “inhuman massacre” — language Leo later endorsed. In November 2024, the late Pope Francis called for an investigation into whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amounted to genocide.

Leo’s remarks came after the pope spent three days in Turkey, meeting with leaders of Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches to commemorate the 1,700th anniversary of a gathering of bishops in A.D. 325 in present-day Iznik, Turkey. He arrived in Beirut on Sunday for the second leg of his trip, and addressed politicians and religious leaders, including Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at the presidential palace.

Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the pontiff’s comments on Turkey “odd,” adding that his intentions were likely to “flatter his hosts but have little connection to reality.”

“At the outset of the war in Gaza, the Turkish government could have used its good offices with Hamas and Israel to play a constructive role helping to bring hostages home and bringing about an end to hostilities.” said Cook. “Erdogan chose an entirely different approach that offered significant political and diplomatic support to Hamas, demonized Israel, and [Turkey] was the first country to impose an economic boycott on Israel over the war.”

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, echoed those sentiments, calling the pope’s comments “flawed” and “fantasy.” However, he noted that popes have a “record of being idealists.” 

“One thing that Leo is probably trying to do is he seems to be much more interested in promoting the potential to pursue any avenue towards establishing peace where he sees conflict,” said Ciddi. “[The pope has] probably been advised that the Turks have sort of demonstrated ability to be a mediator in the Ukraine-Russia conflict … and Turkey is a Muslim country that is able to speak to Hamas and is an ally of the United States … so why not essentially go after that, as opposed to labeling it as a supporter of terrorism.”

The Vatican has long advocated for a two-state framework, formally recognizing a Palestinian state in 2015. But the pope’s renewed push comes as the Israel-Hamas war intensified international pressure on Jerusalem to accept such a model. Earlier this year, several countries — including France, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada — formally recognized a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained his opposition to a Palestinian state, a position that’s shared by a significant majority of the Israeli public in the aftermath of Oct. 7.

The pontiff noted to reporters that the Vatican is “friends with Israel” and seeks to “be a mediating voice that can help bring them closer to a solution with justice for all.” 

Ciddi told Jewish Insider that while Erdogan has been “relentless” in calling upon the pope to condemn Israel, Leo “has ignored that.” 

After his inauguration in May, Leo said that dialogue with the Jewish community is “close to my heart.” 

“Because of the Jewish roots of Christianity, all Christians have a special relationship with Judaism,” the pope said in May. “Theological dialogue between Christians and Jews remains always important and is very close to my heart.”

During his recent trip, Leo indicated a willingness to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s crucifixion in Jerusalem in 2033. 

As the international community looks to advance the ceasefire plan in Gaza, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) emphasized the need for continued pressure from countries like Turkey and Qatar on Hamas to comply with the terms of the ceasefire requiring it to disarm.

But he also warned that there should be limits on the ways in which Turkey and Qatar are involved in the future of Gaza, arguing that they should have no role in certain sensitive areas, even as they remain involved in reconstruction work.

Lankford, in an interview with Jewish Insider this week, said that Hamas’ release of the final remaining deceased hostages will be an inflection point necessitating movement into the next phase of the ceasefire plan presented by the United States.

“The requirement for Hamas to disarm is still there. It has to be there, both for the people that live in Gaza that are Palestinian and for the security of the entire region,” Lankford said.

He said that ensuring that Hamas disarms, something it has thus far refused to do, will require  military, diplomatic and financial pressure, particularly from countries like Turkey and Qatar that have been Hamas patrons. 

“If the Turks want contracts to be able to rebuild in Gaza, which they do, then that’s not going to happen until Hamas is actually disarmed, so Turkey’s got to decide, ‘Do you want those contracts to be able to rebuild or not?’ If they do, then here’s what that requirement is going to be,” Lankford said.

He said that providing a higher level of security and freedom of movement on the Israeli-controlled side of Gaza will also help to increase pressure on Hamas. And he said that any further violations of the ceasefire agreement by Hamas should be met with “immediate, serious consequences.”

Turkey and Qatar’s roles in the future of Gaza should be limited to certain sectors, Lankford added, given the countries’ hostility to Israel and support for Hamas. He said he’s comfortable seeing Ankara assist with reconstruction, but it should not be involved in running hospitals, schools or mosques or in rebuilding the economy.

“We’re going to have to figure out what are roles that they can do and they cannot do,” Lankford said. “There are certain roles they just should not be a part of.”

He said he’s not yet able to name specific countries that he would be comfortable seeing taking on more sensitive tasks — though he noted Indonesia’s interest — and said it’s “going to take a multinational force.”

“It’s going to be a trusted force. It’s not going to be American forces in the middle of that. It needs to be a trusted force from the region as much as possible, but that’s going to have to be somebody that’s tenacious enough to say, ‘No, we’re going to actually bring some stability to this area,’” Lankford said. “And I don’t know who that is yet.”

He said that there are “plenty of Arab countries that don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood and don’t like all of its offshoots” — including Hamas — but the question will be whether they’re “willing to be able to put their sons on the line” to confront the terrorist groups in Gaza.

Asked about efforts to counter the Muslim Brotherhood at home — several of Lankford’s colleagues have introduced legislation to designate the group as a terrorist organization and have pushed for similar action by executive order from the White House — Lankford said that supporters of the effort have more work to do to raise awareness.

“I think the first issue for me is really to keep raising it, to be able to continue to raise awareness of it, because you’re not going to build momentum among 100 senators if it’s the first time they thought about it,” Lankford said. “So we’re going to have to build some of that momentum for a while.”

The Oklahoma senator, a co-chair of the Senate antisemitism task force, has also been outspoken about rising antisemitism on the “New Right” and was critical of the Heritage Foundation’s response to neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes’ recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast.

Asked about Carlson, Lankford said that he “can say whatever he wants to … but we also have a protected right to be able to speak back and to say we disagree on areas.”

“I think the worst case scenario is to just be able to leave it out there,” Lankford continued. He argued that providing counter-narratives to antisemitic talking points is crucial to stemming the tide of antisemitism on both sides of the aisle. 

“If you get loud voices that say it and repeat it, people that just see it and don’t see a counter-narrative just accept it,” Lankford said. “We’ve got to make sure a counter-narrative is out there so that people actually hear a different opinion on it.”

Lankford, a Southern Baptist minister, objected to Carlson’s comments condemning Christian Zionists.

“To say those that support Israel that are Christians are ‘heretics,’ and are ‘the worst’ — I guess worse than Hamas and Hezbollah,” Lankford said. “That’s a bit of a bizarre statement to make, and I think we have a responsibility to be able to speak out and say, ‘Hey, I don’t agree with that.’” 

“It seems that he is defining what Christianity is. And he has a right to be able to say whatever he wants to, but I also have a right to be able to live biblical Christianity as well, and to be able to see the scripture in the full context of what it says,” Lankford continued. “So I want to speak out on that as well.”

Asked about Vice President JD Vance’s exchange last week with a student who asserted that Jews are seeking to persecute Christians — a narrative that Vance did not address or dispute — Lankford said that leaders, including in the White House and the Trump administration, need to speak up “for the most basic issue of religious liberty.”

He said it’s important for people to be able to hold and live their own faiths and to also protect the ability of others to practice different faiths. “What’s interesting on that dialogue is, I’ve literally not met a Jewish person that wasn’t very protective of religious liberty,” Lankford added. “It’s literally the opposite of that question.”

President Donald Trump heaped praise on the leaders of Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Indonesia on Thursday, lauding them and members of his administration as key parties responsible for getting Israel and Hamas to agree to the first phase of his peace plan for the region. 

“I want to express my tremendous gratitude to the leaders of Qatar, Egypt and Turkey for helping us reach this incredible day and for being there. They were there with us all the way. And of course, as you know, Saudi Arabia and Jordan and so many,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. “I will tell you, [Turkish] President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan was personally involved in dealing with Hamas and some of the others. He’s been great. They’ve all been really amazing. Indonesia has been amazing. Indonesia has been fantastic.”

“The whole world has come together for this, people that didn’t get along, people that didn’t like each other, neighboring countries that, frankly, didn’t like each other,” he continued.

The president confirmed in his remarks on Thursday that his team was working on organizing a Mideast trip for him to commemorate the deal, which would include stops in Egypt and Israel, where he has been invited to address the Knesset. 

He said he plans to depart from Washington on Sunday and is considering the timing of the release of the hostages in his plans. “They should be released on Monday or Tuesday. … That’ll be a day of joy. I’m gonna try and make a trip over,” Trump said. “We’re planning on leaving sometime Sunday,” he added later.

Regarding the U.S. officials involved in the deal, Trump credited Vice President JD Vance; White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and former advisor who spearheaded the Abraham Accords in the first Trump administration; and CIA Director John Ratcliffe with helping bring the agreement across the finish line. 

“All Americans should be proud of the role that our country has played in bringing this terrible conflict to an end,” Trump said. 

Israeli and Hamas negotiators signed off on the first phase of the deal in Egypt earlier in the day, which would see the release of all the remaining hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian security prisoners. 

In brief remarks to reporters during the meeting, Rubio similarly attributed the administration’s success to its engagement with Arab and Muslim-majority nations.

“What really took a turn about a month ago, less than a couple weeks ago, is when we were at the United Nations, and [Trump] convened an historic meeting, not simply of Arab countries, but Muslim-majority countries from around the world … Indonesia was there, Pakistan was there, and created this coalition behind this plan. Then on that following Monday, you met with the prime minister of Israel here, and that plan was presented. And then, of course, our great negotiating team followed up on it in the interim,” Rubio said.

Asked about the potential for political turmoil in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition by far-right parties who said today they would oppose the deal in a Cabinet vote, Trump replied that the issue was not a concern and predicted that such an agreement could help Netanyahu.

“Bibi may go a little bit out of whack. Look, that’s politics. … I think he’s very popular right now. He’s much more popular today than he was five days ago, I can tell you that. Right now, maybe people shouldn’t run against him, five days ago it might not have been a bad idea,” Trump said. “This has been a very good thing. I don’t think he did it [agreed to a deal] for that reason [of political survival]. But I think just looking as an analyst would look at this … I think Bibi should be very popular right now.”

Trump said that, beyond bringing an end to the war in Gaza, the new agreement was “really [about achieving] peace in the Middle East.” He then described the war as a “big retribution” in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on the Jewish state.

“Remember, Oct. 7 was terrible, but also, from the Hamas standpoint, they probably lost 70,000 people. That’s big retribution. That’s big retribution. But at some point that whole thing has to stop, and we’re going to see to it,” he said.

Looking forward, Trump was noncommittal about how future phases of his 20-point peace plan  would be implemented or upheld, instead noting that Gaza would be rebuilt, the Abraham Accords would expand to include more countries and the hostages would be returned. He also declined to take a stance on supporting or opposing a two-state solution. 

“Gaza is going to be slowly redone. You have tremendous wealth in that part of the world by certain countries, and just a small part of that, what they make will do wonders for Gaza,” the president explained. “I think you’re going to see some tremendous countries stepping up and putting up a lot of money and taking care of things. There’s this tremendous spirit like I haven’t seen.”

“The first thing we’re doing is getting our hostages back. That’s what people wanted more than anything else. They wanted these hostages back that have lived in hell like nobody has ever even dreamt possible. And after that, we’ll see,” he later added when asked about ensuring all sides adhere to the deal. “But they’ve agreed to things, and I think it’s going to move along pretty well.”

Stability in Syria could help ease tensions between Israel and Turkey — two countries with competing interests in the region — and the U.S. has a key role to play in shaping the security agreements needed to get there, experts from the Middle East Institute said Thursday during a panel titled “Can Turkey and Israel Find Common Ground in Syria?”

“A lot depends on what the United States decides to do, how they treat the Kurdish question in the northeast of Syria, and what they ask the Israelis and the Kurds to do,” said Natan Sachs, a senior fellow at MEI who focuses primarily on Israel. 

“It’s not that [President Donald] Trump can decide what happens, because these interests, certainly for the Israelis but also for the Turks, are seen as vital domestic interests. It’s not just the question of the peace process in Turkey. For Israelis, it’s seen as vital threats on the Israeli border. But nonetheless, there is enormous room, I think, for [U.S.] diplomacy here with some chance of success.” 

The webinar, moderated by MEI’s vice president for policy, Ken Pollack, also featured Gonul Tol, a senior fellow at MEI who focuses primarily on Turkish politics. It comes against the backdrop of the collapse of the Assad regime last December and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s assumption of power in January. Al-Sharaa addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, the first time a Syrian president has done so in almost 60 years, presenting a vision of a “new Syria” after decades of civil war and dictatorship under the Assad family. 

But questions remain about Syria’s future and the influence of its two most powerful neighbors — Israel and Turkey. Sachs and Tol addressed how Syria has become a focal point for Turkish-Israeli rivalry, what role the U.S. could play in softening the hostilities between its two allies and how the situation impacts stability in the region. 

The Assad family “has been a long foe of Israel, but it was a known foe. It was a devil that they knew,” said Sachs, expressing concern that al-Sharaa, who was once a leader in Al-Qaida, could be a “pragmatist, but not someone who’s changed fundamentally.” 

Tol said that “it’s always been Syria that kept the two countries together, historically, from Turkey’s point of view, overlapping interests with Israel in Syria and on some level Iran too.”

“That was the glue that kept the relationship, no matter what was happening on the Palestine question, right? So now we are at a moment where that glue is not there,” Tol continued. “Syria and clashing interests are driving these two countries apart. What is worse is what kept that relationship in the golden years of the 1990s was the fact that Israel really needed Turkey, and it was the main factor behind this bilateral partnership. But in the last several years, Israel has taken many steps that makes Israel a lot less dependent on Turkey. I mean partnership with Ankara granted Israel this legitimacy.”

“So we’ve got a point where there is a dominant Israel that is militarily very powerful … Israel does not need Turkey anymore, and Turkey does not have leverage,” she continued. 

Tol called the Kurdish angle “important” to the situation. “Kurds now want autonomy,” she said. “They are somewhat emboldened by the Israeli presence there [in northern Syria] and as long as Syria remains unstable they won’t be able to send back those refugees.”

She went on to say that the presence of U.S. troops in the country complicates the situation of stabilizing Syria. A potential solution, Tol suggested, is “maybe both sides should just accept different spheres of influence,” similar to Israel and Turkey’s understanding in Azerbaijan. 

“The parties helped there in order to establish a non-conflict mechanism. So you control Turkey’s tens of thousands of troops in northern Syria. So the understanding was going to be, okay, you remain there. We are here. We do our business. So we don’t conflict with each other. Can that be done? I think that would be an ideal scenario for [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, because Erdogan wants Israel out of Syria. But he understands that it’s not realistic,” she said, adding that the two countries would like good relations. “Erdogan is not interested in military conflict with Israel. That is, I know that’s a negative that some have been pushing, but I just don’t think so. And I don’t think Israel has any interest in confronting Turkey’s military either. Turkey is a NATO country at the end of the day, and the stakes are just too high.”

Asked whether Israel can accept a Turkey-Syria agreement, and under what conditions, Tol pointed to recent reports from Israeli media that said one of the asks from the Israeli side in an agreement with Damascus is that it stops cooperating with Ankara on defense.

“We know that Turkey wants to have access to spaces in Syria and Israelis were saying they weren’t going to accept this … but Damascus is slow on that and in a difficult spot, too. So I think the defense angle, if Israelis are pushing that, forcing Damascus to stop having that defense partnership with Ankrara, that would be difficult to follow,” Tol said. 

Sachs said a red line for Israel in a Turkey-Syria agreement would be “Turkish access to [air] bases, and in particular flexibility for aerial defense.”  

“The Israeli assumption here is that Turkey’s influence is almost a given,” said Sachs. “The question is more the confines of that limit, not whether [the countries] come to an accommodation. From the Israeli perspective, the current trend is extremely worrying, with the rise of a regime it is very skeptical of — and with good reason.”

President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that he was likely to permit Turkey to purchase F-35 fighter jets as soon as “the end of the day,” ending a nearly eight year blockade on Ankara’s acquiring the top-of-the-line fighter jet as a result of its 2017 purchase of a Russian S-400 missile system.

Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ahead of a meeting between the two and their respective teams, Trump said without mentioning the F-35’s or the less-advanced F-16 jets by name that he expected the Turkish leader would “be successful with buying the things” he would “like to buy.”

“He needs certain things, and we need certain things, and we’re going to come to a conclusion. You’ll know by the end of the day,” Trump said at the outset of his meeting with Erdogan. 

The White House declined to comment on what the president was referring to or if an announcement regarding resumed F-35 sales to Ankara was imminent. 

Erdogan has focused his visit to the White House, his first such trip in six years, around securing U.S. sanctions relief and approval for new arms deals, including the F-35 jets and other fighter and Boeing aircraft. Trump implemented the sanctions during his first term after Turkey purchased a Russian air defense system that U.S. officials warned could be used by the Russians to harness data on the F-35’s capabilities and compromise the aircraft.

The sanctions, pursued through the Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, are still in place due to Turkey’s refusal to replace the Russian system. The Biden administration approved the sale of F-16 jets to Turkey in early 2023 on the condition of Ankara allowing Sweden to join NATO.

The prospect of Trump changing course on the sale has sparked bipartisan concern from some lawmakers. While some see such a sale as a way to incentivize better behavior from Ankara, others have warned that the embrace could have the opposite effect.

A bipartisan coalition of House lawmakers wrote a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday urging the Trump administration against approving a deal for F-16s or F-35s. 

It was signed by Reps. Chris Pappas (D-NH), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Dina Titus (D-NV), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Don Bacon (R-NE), Jim Costa (D-CA), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rob Menendez (D-NJ), Greg Landsman (D-OH) and Gabe Amo (D-RI). The American Jewish Committee, CUFI Action Fund and FDD Action were among the organizations that endorsed the letter.

“The security risks of Turkey’s acquisition and continued possession of the Russian S-400 system are well known. The S-400 poses a direct threat to U.S. military aircraft, including both the F-16 and F-35, by enabling Russian intelligence to gain insight into sensitive U.S. military technology if operated alongside these platforms,” the lawmakers wrote. 

“Congress has consistently upheld bipartisan restrictions on Turkey’s access to the F-35. Any move to reverse this policy without first securing the statutorily required certification would be a clear violation of U.S. law, undermine Congressional authority, and signal to others that U.S. law and strategic principles can be disregarded,” they added.

A bipartisan group of House members urged the administration to “be very careful” in negotiations with Turkey about its potential re-entry into a program allowing it to acquire and potentially co-produce F-35 fighter jets, ahead of a White House meeting between President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday.

Trump said Friday that he would host Erdogan at the White House for trade and military talks, “including the large-scale purchase of Boeing aircraft, a major F-16 Deal, and a continuation of the F-35 talks, which we expect to conclude positively.” 

Lawmakers have been pressing for months for the administration to be cautious in allowing Turkey to acquire the advanced fighter jets, something it has been banned by law from doing since it purchased a Russian S-400 missile defense system. By law, Turkey must dispense with that system before it can be re-admitted into the F-35 program, but some lawmakers have pushed for additional conditions, given various conflicts with Turkey, including its hostile posture toward Israel.

“The United States must be very careful when engaging in negotiations particularly as it relates to discussions surrounding Turkey’s potential reentry into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Turkey was rightfully removed from the program in 2019 following its acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system—a clear violation of U.S. law under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA),” Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Chris Pappas (D-NH), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) and Dina Titus (D-NV), who chair the Congressional Hellenic Caucus, said in a joint statement on Monday.

They emphasized that the Turkish-Russian cooperation, in spite of Turkey’s NATO status, “directly undermines the security of U.S. defense technology and poses a threat to the strategic integrity of allied defense cooperation,” as well as “risks exposing sensitive U.S. military capabilities to Russian intelligence, eroding allied trust, and jeopardizing the development of next-generation military platforms.”

In addition to the formal legal obstacles that should ban F-35 acquisition under current conditions, the four lawmakers added that Erdogan has “consistently demonstrated a disregard for international norms and democratic principles.”

They said that upholding the sanctions law is critical both to protect U.S. defense technology as well as to demonstrate the U.S.’s commitment to the rule of law.

“Rewarding Erdogan’s government without meaningful changes in behavior would set a dangerous precedent and weaken the credibility of U.S. foreign policy,” the lawmakers wrote. “The United States must stand firm in defending its laws, its alliances, and the international order.”

Bipartisan groups of House lawmakers are aiming to crack down on Turkey in the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, introducing a series of amendments seeking to place further restrictions on U.S. aid to the NATO ally in response to its support for Hamas and hostility toward Israel.

Turkey recently announced its plans to close its airspace to Israeli aircraft and cut off remaining commercial ties with Israel. It has long hosted Hamas leaders, and its leadership has been increasingly hostile toward Israel since Oct. 7, 2023, including threatening to invade the Jewish state. The NDAA, Congress’ annual defense and foreign policy legislation package, is set to come up for debate on the House floor next week.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ) introduced an NDAA amendment that would ban any arms sales or transfers to Turkey until the administration outlines how it is ensuring that Turkey is no longer threatening or violating the sovereignty of U.S. allies, providing support to terrorist groups or purchasing any defense systems from U.S. adversaries.

Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) introduced a separate amendment to add new preconditions to the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, including requiring that Ankara cease cooperation with U.S. adversaries, end its military threats to Israel, cease providing support for Hamas, Hamas affiliates and terrorist groups in Syria and stop targeting Kurdish civilian infrastructure.

Bilirakis and Schneider introduced another amendment imposing similar conditions on the sale of F-16 fighter jets or F-16 upgrade kits, also a controversial issue on the Hill, to Turkey.

Currently, the sale of F-35s is banned under U.S. law in response to Turkey’s purchase and continued possession of an S-400 missile defense system from Russia, but Ankara and Washington have been in negotiations for months about potential pathways to lift that restriction and resume the sale process. The State Department recently denied plans to change U.S. policy on the issue.

An amendment by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) would require the U.S., in considering military sales to Ankara, to protect Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge over Turkey.

Bilirakis and Schneider introduced other amendments requiring reports to Congress on Turkey’s targeting of civilian populations in Syria and elsewhere, its support for terrorism and cooperation between Turkey and Iran to evade U.S. sanctions.

Goldman, Malliotakis, Gottheimer, Kean, Bilirakis and Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) introduced  another amendment requiring a report on Turkey’s relationship with Hamas and the support Ankara is providing to the terrorist group.

And Goldman, Malliotakis, Gottheimer, Bilirakis and Kean proposed an amendment requesting a report on the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and whether any members of Iran-backed terrorist groups are present or active in Cyprus.

It remains to be seen which, if any, of these amendments will receive consideration or be incorporated into the House’s final draft version of the NDAA.

CUFI Action Fund, the advocacy arm of the Christian pro-Israel group, issued a memo on Wednesday backing the Bilirakis-Schneider amendment on F-35 sales and the Titus amendment on Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge.

“Congress should expand the current F-35 ban beyond the narrow question of Turkey’s possession of Russian missile systems,” Boris Zilberman, CUFI Action Fund’s senior director for public policy and strategy, said in a statement. “The broader issue is Ankara’s sustained pattern of behavior: regional aggression, diplomatic sabotage, and support for terrorism. U.S. defense technology should never be placed in the hands of governments that threaten American allies and enable terrorist activity. That standard should be non-negotiable.” 

Zilberman argued that Turkey is “not misunderstood” but instead “is making deliberate strategic choices — choices that undermine American security, compromise our alliances and erode regional stability,” calling Ankara a “revisionist anti-Western power.”

“It is time to stop pretending that [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s Turkey is still the ally we want it to be — and start treating it as the adversarial actor it has become,” he continued.

Asked about Turkey’s latest anti-Israel moves, including closing its airspace, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) told Jewish Insider this week, “Israel is fighting an existential war against a terrorist organization and I would ask all nations to understand just how serious a threat Hamas poses to Israel.”

He said that the U.S. has a “key role” in working with Turkey to ensure that it can work with our other allies, including Israel.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) added that it’s “always of concern when two of our allies are not getting along,” but declined to comment further.

A bipartisan group of 40 House members is urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio to maintain the U.S. ban on exporting advanced F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, amid ongoing reports that the U.S. and Turkey are negotiating to allow the sale of the jets.

“We strongly urge the Administration to review the facts and reject Turkey’s attempt to rewrite the history of its violation of U.S. law and national security policy,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Rubio on Thursday.

The group highlighted that President Donald Trump, during his first term, signed the law that bans the sale of the F-35s to Turkey in light of its purchase of an S-400 missile defense system from Russia.

“Nearly a decade later, Turkey still possesses S-400 systems and has shown no willingness to comply with U.S. law. This behavior cannot be rewarded,” the letter reads. “Lifting sanctions or allowing Turkey back into the F-35 program without first removing its S-400s would jeopardize the integrity of F-35 systems; expose U.S. military secrets to Russian intelligence; undermine our defense industrial base and allied confidence in purchasing future U.S. platforms; and disrupt development of the next-generation fighter jet recently announced by the Administration.”

The lawmakers emphasized that U.S. policy on the issue has been consistent across administrations and parties.

They said that the U.S. must “uphold U.S. law, maintain CAATSA sanctions, and protect American defense and intelligence assets” and “continue to hold allies and adversaries alike accountable when their actions threaten U.S. interests.”

The letter was led by Reps. Chris Pappas (D-NH), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Dina Titus (D-NV) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), who lead the Congressional Hellenic Caucus.

The letter is supported by the American Jewish Committee, Christians United for Israel Action Fund and FDD Action as well as the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, the American Hellenic Institute, American Friends of Kurdistan, Armenian National Committee of America, Coordinated Effort of Hellenes, the Hellenic American Leadership Council, Middle East Forum and the International Coordinating Committee Justice for Cyprus.

A bipartisan group of House members introduced legislation this week to redesignate Turkey at the State Department as a Middle Eastern country, rather than a European country, describing the move as a message to Turkey about its turn away from its relationships with Europe and the United States and shift toward U.S. adversaries.

The bill is designed “to send a clear message to Ankara: The United States recognizes Turkey’s turn to the Middle East and no longer sees Turkey prioritizing its relationship with Europe,” according to a statement from the bill’s lead sponsors, Reps. Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL).

The statement says that the designation change is consistent with Turkey’s growing ties with Russia, China and Iran, its backing of Hamas and its hostile military actions toward Greece and Cyprus, which “are fundamentally at odds with Western security interests”; its “increasingly anti-Western posture, turning away from its European aspirations”; and its “growing authoritarianism and continued hostility toward NATO allies.”

They noted that the redesignation would leave Turkey in the same category as Iran, Syria and Libya.

“Turkey is at a crossroads, but Erdoğan has made his choice,” Schneider said in a statement, referring to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. “His government harbors Hamas operatives, props up [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war machine, and obstructs NATO unity — while still demanding the privileges of a Western ally. It’s time for American diplomacy to stop pretending that Turkey is still part of Europe.”

The bill is being introduced under the auspices of the Congressional Hellenic Israel Alliance.

“Turkey has consistently demonstrated a complete disregard for following international law,” Bilirakis said in a statement. “Erdoğan repeatedly acts contrary to American interests, with his dangerous behavior contributing to the instability of the region. The time has come for official U.S. foreign policy to more accurately reflect the realities of this hostile regime’s conduct and for Erdoğan to be held accountable.”

The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Chris Pappas (D-NH) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), and comes days after a congressional hearing where lawmakers voiced concerns about Turkey’s role in the U.S. alliance system.

The bill also requires the State Department to report to Congress on the impacts of Turkey’s move away from Europe.