To understand why Turkey does not fear Israel despite its alleged nuclear arsenal, proponents of this view argue that one must look beyond media narratives and examine the broader balance of power.
They contend that while Israel may possess nuclear weapons, real power is not measured solely by the number of warheads a country owns. Instead, it depends on a state’s ability to defend itself, retaliate effectively, and turn an adversary’s strategic assets into liabilities rather than sources of deterrence.
Steel Dome Versus Iron Dome
Supporters of this argument point to Turkey’s military modernisation as a key reason for Ankara’s confidence.
While Israel relies on the Iron Dome to intercept short range rockets, Turkey has announced the development of its Steel Dome air defence system.
The system is described as a multi-layered network that combines artificial intelligence with an integrated radar architecture. Turkey allocated a significant budget to the project in 2025, aiming to create a 360-degree defensive shield.
KAAN and the Pursuit of Air Superiority
The comparison extends to air power.
Israel operates the fifth generation F 35 stealth fighter, while Turkey is developing its indigenous fifth generation fighter, KAAN.
The aircraft completed its maiden flight in February 2024 and is designed to achieve air superiority.
Advocates argue that KAAN will eventually match or even surpass the F 35 because it has been designed specifically around Turkey’s operational requirements.
Intelligence and Strategic Partnerships
The argument also highlights Turkey’s intelligence capabilities.
Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation is portrayed as a powerful agency that works closely with Pakistan’s intelligence services.
According to this perspective, such cooperation means that information about sensitive Israeli military and nuclear sites is no longer inaccessible and that strategic locations are well understood by regional intelligence networks.
Technological Independence
Another factor cited is Turkey’s investment in domestic semiconductor production.
Supporters argue that local chip manufacturing has granted Ankara a rare degree of technological independence.
They claim Turkey is now capable of reproducing and upgrading aircraft acquired from Western countries by replacing foreign electronic components with domestically produced alternatives.
This, they argue, gives Turkey complete control over its systems without concerns about restrictions or hidden limitations imposed by original manufacturers.
The Yildirim Khan Missile
Proponents also point to Turkey’s long range missile capabilities.
They cite the Yildirim Khan missile, described as an intercontinental system with a range of up to 6,000 kilometres.
Although the missile is not said to carry nuclear warheads, supporters argue that its conventional destructive power approaches that of weapons of mass destruction.
They claim it can carry a conventional warhead weighing up to three tonnes and travel at speeds capable of striking fortified underground targets.
Its technological sophistication and domestically controlled electronics are presented as major advantages over other missile systems in the region.
Questions About Nuclear Cooperation With Pakistan
Turkey has never officially announced that it possesses nuclear weapons.
However, advocates of this view argue that Ankara’s extensive military relationship with Pakistan, which is estimated to possess around 170 nuclear warheads, means Turkey could potentially gain access to such capabilities if it chose to do so.
They argue that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was developed to create strategic balance and mutually beneficial partnerships rather than confrontation.
From this perspective, it is difficult to imagine that such capabilities would remain entirely disconnected from Turkey, one of Pakistan’s closest strategic partners.
Israel’s Geography as a Strategic Constraint
A central element of this argument is Israel’s geography.
Israel’s territory covers roughly 22,000 square kilometres, making it geographically small compared with neighbouring regional powers.
Supporters argue that this limited space creates strategic vulnerabilities.
They claim that any nuclear incident, whether caused by military action or technical failure, could have devastating consequences across the entire country due to its size.
For this reason, they argue, Israel’s nuclear arsenal may act not only as a deterrent but also as a potential liability.
The Risk of Escalation
Some proponents go further, arguing that in the event of a major war, countries such as Turkey and Egypt, through their intelligence capabilities and advanced military technologies, could theoretically target sensitive Israeli military or nuclear facilities.
They contend that the risks associated with such escalation make the use of nuclear weapons an unattractive option for all sides.
According to this perspective, the destructive consequences of a nuclear exchange would be so severe that deterrence ultimately works in multiple directions rather than favouring one side alone.
The International Environment
Supporters of this view also point to changing global dynamics.
They argue that the United States currently needs Turkey as a strategic partner amid tensions with China and developments surrounding Taiwan.
As a result, Washington would be reluctant to jeopardise its relationship with Ankara over an Israeli military confrontation.
Europe, meanwhile, remains heavily occupied by the war in Ukraine and faces little appetite for opening another major crisis in the Middle East.
From this perspective, Israel is more diplomatically isolated than in previous years, and any threat involving nuclear weapons would carry severe international political consequences.
The Logic Behind Turkish Confidence
In summary, advocates of this position argue that Turkey does not fear Israel because it believes it possesses multiple sources of strength.
They cite advanced air defences, the development of the KAAN fighter jet, long range missile programmes, intelligence cooperation with Pakistan, growing technological independence, and close strategic ties with nuclear armed allies.
Combined with Israel’s geographical limitations, they argue that these factors create a balance in which nuclear weapons become less useful as instruments of coercion.
According to this view, Israel may possess nuclear capabilities, but using them would carry enormous risks and consequences.
This, supporters argue, is the real reason Turkey remains confident rather than fearful.
