The Updated Sykes-Picot: US, “Israel”, and Turkey Mapping The Region

Mohammed Noureddine

The reasons behind the sudden and brief meeting between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are beginning to emerge, revealing a focus on coordinating positions around two pressing issues: the resumption of negotiations with Iran and the growing Turkish-Israeli competition in Syria. Trump used the meeting to announce the launch of "direct negotiations" with Iran—an announcement confirmed by Iranian officials, who clarified to the Washington Post that talks would be "indirect" and held in Oman. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the talks as "a serious attempt to clarify positions and open new diplomatic horizons," but warned that any agreement must begin with an understanding that "a military option is off the table, and Trump knows that."

While Netanyahu refrained from publicly opposing the negotiations, “Israel” remains exceptionally wary. It views diplomacy as a weak approach and continues to advocate for the "Libyan model", which involved the complete dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program under direct US military supervision. Netanyahu reportedly told Trump that if Iran "keeps stalling the negotiations (...) the alternatives will be military," emphasizing that these points were "discussed in depth."

“Israel's” priority is to prevent a deal that would allow Iran to retain or develop its nuclear capabilities, as in the 2015 agreement. It also wants the talks to address Iran's regional influence. The goal is to maintain maximum pressure on Iran, coordinate with the US to block any "weak deal," and avoid signaling internal disagreement that could benefit Tehran. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz told the Wall Street Journal, "Any deal must prohibit the production of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles and include inspections of all military facilities"—a condition Tehran firmly rejects.

Trump's strategy hinges on aggressive military threats, including the suggestion of Israeli-led strikes supported by the US, which aims to force Iran to choose between concessions and escalation. Trump, however, has avoided explicitly committing to direct US military action, preferring to present “Israel” as the primary actor.

To eliminate any appearance of divergence, Trump summoned Netanyahu to ensure "total alignment" between the two governments. The aim was to secure Israeli approval for Washington’s chosen path while maintaining a unified front as a pressure tool on Iran.

Parallel to the Iran file, the Trump-Netanyahu meeting shifted focus to Turkey. Netanyahu stated, "We discussed the situation in Syria. Our relations with Turkey have worsened. We do not want Syria to become a base for attacks against us, particularly not by Turkey." Trump responded by praising Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan: "He's a tough and smart man. I love him, and he loves me”, adding, "If Israel has problems with Turkey, I think I can solve them."

The exchange raised concerns in Israeli circles as Turkey expressed intentions to establish military bases in central Syria—a move “Israel” views not merely as provocation but as a “serious challenge” to its own expansionist and strategic agendas. Aware of these sensitivities, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that his country "does not seek confrontation with Israel," and reassured Tel Aviv by saying, "if Damascus wishes to reach an agreement with Tel Aviv, that is its own affair." These remarks, alongside Netanyahu’s concerns and Trump’s mediation offer, are interpreted as groundwork for delineating spheres of influence between the two regional powers. Fidan’s statements suggest Turkey is seeking to avoid escalation. As such, a direct Turkish-Israeli clash now appears unlikely.

The conversation also echoed reports that the US, “Israel”, Russia, and Turkey are informally coordinating a de facto division of Syria into four zones of influence. “Israel” in the south, the US in the east, Russia in the west, and Turkey in the north—leaving only central Syria under the new transitional Syrian administration’s control. Trump’s tone and relationships suggest US support for this arrangement, especially given his skepticism of transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa, whom the White House views as having a questionable past linked to al-Qaeda.

Although Turkey's defense ministry denied coordinating with “Israel” on a deconfliction mechanism, US encouragement may push them toward such an arrangement. Trump reportedly told Netanyahu to "solve his problems with Erdogan," indicating that Turkey must respect Israeli control in southern Syria. Erdogan, in turn, is reportedly willing to pay the political price for firmer US backing, including suppressing internal Turkish opposition and preparing for constitutional changes that would allow him to run for president again in 2028.

Erdogan's growing coordination with Trump has raised concerns among the Turkish population. Former diplomat Namik Tan said Netanyahu’s soft tone on Turkey reflects a desire "not to agitate Trump." Columnist Ismail Kucukkaya warned that Trump’s reference to the pastor Andrew Brunson case "was a threat to Erdogan" and that "no one really knows what Trump wants from Turkey." Still, many believe Trump's praise may facilitate better coordination between Turkey and “Israel”, turning current tensions into cooperation built on shared interests.