Turkish Intelligence Academy published a report on the US/Israeli war against Iran, which actually sets a new defense logic for Ankara.
Turkish Intelligence Academylinked to Ankara’s state intelligence apparatus, published a report “Military and geopolitical perspective of the US/Israel war against Iran and Türkiye”. Formally, this is an open analytical publication, not a secret document. But in terms of content, it looks like a programmatic text of the Turkish state about how Ankara sees the war of the future and what Türkiye should prepare for.
The report was published May 20, 2026 and is dedicated to the war between USA, Israel And Iranwhich began February 28, 2026 and lasted for about 40 days. In message Turkish Intelligence Academy (MIA) it is said that the conflict is seen as an event that has changed modern ideas about war, regional security and Turkey’s strategic priorities.
The main conclusion of the report is simple and unpleasant for all of Turkey’s neighbors: the future war is no longer measured only by the number of planes, tanks and missiles. The winner is not the one who has several expensive platforms, and the one who processes data faster, maintains more stable networks, produces more ammunition, protects infrastructure and is able to continue the war under prolonged pressure.
In retelling Anadolu Ajansı it is emphasized that the US/Israeli war against Iran showed a transition from a platform-centric approach to a model where the decisive ones are data, networks, production capacity And operational sustainability. According to AAwith special emphasis on artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, critical infrastructure protection, energy security, cognitive warfare, and diplomatic balance.
Technology without production no longer saves
One of the key points of the Turkish report is that high technology in itself is no longer sufficient. The state must not only have smart weapons systems, but also be able to mass produce, repair and replace them faster than they are consumed on the battlefield.
This is where Türkiye sees its strategic direction: connect defense technologies, unmanned systems, missiles, communications, artificial intelligence and industrial scalability. Not just to create a demonstration sample for an exhibition, but to build a production facility that can withstand a protracted conflict. In this sense, Ankara draws conclusions not from press releases, but from war, where expensive systems quickly become expendable.
For Greece this conclusion is especially important. Athens traditionally relies on the purchase of expensive platforms and allied guarantees. But if the war of the future requires not only technology, but also industrial depth, reserves, repairs, backup networks and constant production, then the question becomes much broader than the usual comparison of “who has more aircraft.” Greece, unfortunately, too often buys security as a finished product, while Türkiye tries to produce it as a system.
Air defense is no longer an impenetrable dome
The Turkish report separately emphasizes: no modern air defense system is completely impenetrable. The massive use of drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, electronic warfare and cyber attacks can overwhelm even multi-layered defenses.
In publication Anadolu Ajansı it is said that low-cost kamikaze drones and massive Iranian missile attacks were able to overcome multi-layered air defense systems to a certain extent. From this, Turkish analysts conclude: modern air defense should include not only anti-aircraft systems, but also early warning, electronic warfare, cyber defense and offensive capabilities.
This is an important signal for Greek plans to create their own air defense “dome”. The very idea of multi-layered protection is necessary, but it should not turn into magical thinking. The dome is not a celestial lid from a saucepan that was placed – and that’s it, the danger has disappeared. If the enemy is capable of attacking in waves of drones, missiles and cyber operations, defenses must be distributed, survivable, fast and deep.
The Turkish logic here is clear: in the war of the future, the winner is the one who sees faster, processes data faster, makes decisions faster and hits the target faster. Artificial intelligence in this model becomes not a fashionable toy for presentations, but an element of the combat cycle.
A blow to the infrastructure and digital footprint of the elites
The report warns that future wars will not only target army bases. The goals will be data centersenergy hubs, telecommunications networks, logistics, radar, satellite communications and all the infrastructure that allows the state to control war and society.
A separate block concerns the safety of decision makers. Turkish analysts point out that physical security is no longer sufficient if commanders, politicians and key technocrats leave a digital trail that can be analyzed through open sources, geolocation, facial recognition and artificial intelligence.
In other words, an official or military man can travel in an armored car with security, but at the same time reveal his route, social circle and habits through the digital environment. A wonderful absurdity of the 21st century: the bodyguard is standing nearby, and the smartphone has already told the enemy everything. The Turkish Academy draws a practical conclusion from this: security must include digital invisibility, communications protection and counterintelligence measures.
What does this mean for Greece and the Aegean?
The report itself does not name Greece as the main focus of analysis. However, the logic of the document obviously affects Aegean Sea, Cyprus And Eastern Mediterranean. If Ankara moves to a model of integrated air defense, AI, drones, electronic warfare, infrastructure protection and control of transport corridors, then this will directly affect the balance of deterrence between Turkey and Greece.
It is especially important that Türkiye considers not only military force, but also geo-economics as part of national security. Logistics routes, energy flows, ports, land corridors and digital networks become elements of power. Therefore projects like “Middle Corridor” through the Caspian and “Roads of Development” Iraq-Türkiye are viewed by Ankara not just as transport projects, but as strategic channels of influence.
For Greece, this means that competition in the Eastern Mediterranean is not limited to frigates, fighter jets and diplomatic statements. We are talking about a broader architecture: who controls the routes, who is more resilient in a crisis, who restores infrastructure faster, who is less dependent on external supplies and who is able to withstand prolonged pressure.
Israel: an adversary, but not a reason to break ties
In the geopolitical part of the report Israel is seen as an important strategic competitor to Turkey. According to Turkish analysts, after the war with Iran, Tel Aviv may try to expand its operational and political influence in Syria, Lebanon And Eastern Mediterraneanwhich objectively collides with the interests of Ankara.
However, the recommendation from the Turkish side looks extremely pragmatic: even with fierce rivalry, a complete diplomatic break cannot be allowed. Ankara’s formula is dialogue without concessions and containment without diplomatic isolation.
This is an important detail. Türkiye may harshly criticize Israel publicly, but strategically understands the cost of closed communication channels. In a region where one mistake can set off a chain reaction, diplomatic lines are needed even between adversaries. Sometimes states behave more intelligently than their television studios. True, this does not happen every day.
Where are Athens, Nicosia and Tel Aviv?
For Greece, it is especially sensitive that in recent years it has become one of Israel’s important partners in the Eastern Mediterranean. Axis Athens – Nicosia – Tel Aviv is considered by Ankara as one of the factors limiting its influence in the region. Therefore, the Turkish reassessment of military doctrine inevitably affects Greek interests.
If Türkiye strengthens electronic warfare, drone capabilities, air defense, missile systems, infrastructure protection and logistics corridors, Greece cannot respond only with diplomatic formulas and purchases of individual expensive systems. It needs its own concept of resilience, from protecting island infrastructure and ports to digital command security and the defense industrial base.
This is where the report of the Turkish Intelligence Academy should be read carefully in Athens. Not because it contains a “secret plan of attack.” But because it shows how the Turkish state thinks about the next war. And this thinking, whether someone likes it or not, is becoming more and more systemic.
Editorial comment
Turkish report is dangerous not by its “secrecy” – it was published openly. He is dangerous to others: Ankara understands more and more clearly that the war of the future is not only about planes, ships and parades. These are manufacturing, data, communications, energy, logistics, cyberspace, artificial intelligence, social resilience and the ability of the state to continue to function under attack.
For Greece, this is an unpleasant mirror. Athens loves to talk about containment, alliances and new weapons. All this is needed. But if behind the expensive equipment there is no industrial depth, reserves, sustainable infrastructure, secure networks, digital discipline and clear doctrine, then defense turns into a showcase. A beautiful display case, of course, also pleases the eye until the first stone lands on it.
The main conclusion for Greece is simple: Turkish strategy cannot be read only as propaganda. There is rhetoric, there is ambition, there is the usual Ankara self-confidence. But there is also a real program of adaptation to a new war. If Athens does not want to one day discover that the enemy was preparing for a 21st century conflict, and they were preparing for a press conference on procurement, conclusions need to be drawn now.
More Stories
In Greece, a €10,000 fine was issued for a parked car: who came up with such a punishment?
Mitsotakis between three rivals: who is taking away votes from New Democracy
Who owns Ancient Greece: how the USA and Iran turned history into a political weapon