The April 7 terrorist attack outside Israel’s consulate in Istanbul should end any lingering illusions about the consequences of Turkey’s political climate under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkish authorities were quick to respond, engaging the assailants in a firefight. One of the three attackers was killed, and the other two were wounded. Ankara condemned the attack. Outwardly, the Turkish state did what any responsible government should do.
But the deeper question is not how Turkish police reacted. It is why such an attack took place in Turkey.
Early indications suggest at least one of the attackers had links to networks associated with Islamic State. If confirmed, that would place the assault within a familiar pattern: jihadi actors targeting Israeli, Western, or Jewish-linked sites amid regional turmoil. Turkey has seen this before, including the 2016 Islamic State bombing in Istanbul that killed Israeli tourists. In that narrow sense, the April 7 attack is not unprecedented.
ICE ARRESTS ISLAMIC GROUP PRESIDENT OVER ALLEGATIONS AND SUSPICIONS OF FUNDING TERRORISTS
What is different, however, is the political environment in which such violence now occurs.
For years, Erdogan has positioned himself as one of the world’s most strident critics of Israel. His rhetoric has gone well beyond policy disagreement, frequently casting Israel in civilizational or moralistic terms that resonate far beyond traditional diplomatic discourse.
This matters. Words do not directly cause terrorism, but they shape an ecosystem in which it thrives. Rhetoric frames perceptions, and perceptions can influence actions.
Turkey has already experienced the consequences of this dynamic. In 2014, amid heightened tensions between Israel and Hamas, protests outside Israeli diplomatic missions in Istanbul and Ankara escalated into mob attacks. Demonstrators hurled stones at the consulate and attempted to breach diplomatic compounds. At the time, Israeli officials accused Erdogan of incitement. Whether or not one accepts that charge in full, the pattern was clear: Heated rhetoric contributed to an atmosphere in which violence against Israeli targets became thinkable, even justifiable in the eyes of some.
The April 7 attack appears to represent a more dangerous evolution of that trajectory, from mob violence to armed assault.
To be clear, Erdogan did not order the attack. Terrorist violence is typically driven by a mix of ideology, opportunity, and operational networks. In this case, the involvement of individuals tied to extremist entities suggests a familiar jihadi pathway rather than a centrally directed political campaign.
But focusing on direct causation misses the broader point.
Political leaders bear responsibility not only for what they command, but for what they normalize. When a head of state consistently frames a foreign country as a moral enemy, elevates actors aligned with that adversary, and tolerates or amplifies narratives that dehumanize it, the threshold for violence lowers. Individuals already predisposed to extremism require less persuasion to act. The line between rhetoric and action becomes dangerously thin.
Since 2008, Erdogan has strived to delegitimize and undermine Israel. In large part, he has succeeded. Since Hamas carried out the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks, in addition to calling the Muslim world to revolt against Israel, Erdogan has poisoned the minds of ordinary Turks by referring to Israel as a “terrorist state,” committing “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” He has frequently compared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Adolf Hitler.
Turkey’s approach to groups like Hamas illustrates a wider problem. Ankara has long refused to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, instead referring to it as a “resistance movement.” Turkish officials have hosted and championed Hamas figures and maintained open channels of communication. Whatever the strategic rationale, this posture sends a signal, intended or not, that militancy against Israel occupies a gray zone rather than a red line.
Against this backdrop, the Istanbul attack is not an aberration. It is a warning.
Counterterrorism is not only about thwarting attacks; it is also about strategic clarity. A government cannot effectively combat extremist violence while simultaneously fostering a political climate that legitimizes its underlying narratives.
MICHIGAN SYNAGOGUE ATTACK THAT LEFT GUNMAN DEAD INSPIRED BY HEZBOLLAH, OFFICIALS SAY
Washington should take note. Engagement with Ankara cannot be limited to defense cooperation and crisis management. It must also address the ideological environment that Turkey’s leadership is helping to shape. That includes pressing for greater clarity in Turkey’s stance toward groups like Hamas and greater restraint in rhetoric that risks inflaming already volatile dynamics.
Erdogan’s words did not pull the trigger in Istanbul. But they may have helped create a world in which someone else was willing to.
Sinan Ciddi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he directs the Turkey program.