Turkey, Pakistan could become Israel's new enemy, analyst says
Analysis Summary
This article is an opinion piece that claims a recent war has destroyed Iran's military and economy, arguing that Israel will now need a new enemy, likely Turkey or Pakistan. It uses alarming language and presents this shift as inevitable, while offering no evidence for the claimed war or Iran's collapse. The piece pressures readers to accept ongoing regional conflict andIsraeli military readiness as unavoidable.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
""Predictions on who is set to be next in line to become Israel's arch nemesis have start rolling in, with whispers lulling in Pakistan or Turkey as Iran's successors for that role.""
The article opens with a speculative and sensational narrative about a 'new arch nemesis,' creating a sense of unfolding geopolitical drama. The phrasing 'whispers lulling in' introduces an air of mystery and exclusivity, amplifying novelty to capture attention.
""Under Ali Khamenei, Iran has made great efforts over three decades to faithfully fulfill this role," the piece reads, claiming that the latest war on Iran alongside its economic meltdown has rendered its military capabilities 'wiped out'."
The framing of Iran as having 'faithfully fulfill[ed]' the role of Israel's enemy frames decades of complex hostility as a quasi-theatrical performance, adding a sensational, almost caricatured narrative. The claim that Iran’s military is 'wiped out' is presented as a definitive turning point, implying a major shift in regional power — a strong novelty spike.
Authority signals
"In an opinion piece by Israeli analyst Boaz Golani published in the daily Maariv, he indicates 'shifting sands' in the Middle East, as discussions on the end of the war on Iran swirl."
The article introduces Boaz Golani as an 'Israeli analyst' whose opinion is presented as insight into strategic shifts. While he is cited as a source of expertise, the piece does not elevate his credentials excessively or use institutional affiliation to bolster credibility, keeping authority manipulation moderate.
Tribe signals
""Israel must prepare for a scenario in which one of these two countries confronts it immediately after the fighting against Iran subsides.""
The narrative constructs a continuous confrontational identity for Israel — first Iran, now either Turkey or Pakistan — positioning these states not just as geopolitical rivals but existential threats. This reinforces a perpetual 'us vs. them' worldview, framing international relations as an endless cycle of enmity.
""two with a solid Sunni majority, both with an authoritarian regime that relies on the bayonets of the military, both with large armies and, strangely enough, both with good relations with the United States, Israel's main ally.""
The description bundles Pakistan and Turkey using identity-based markers (Sunni majority, authoritarianism) to imply shared threat characteristics, implicitly constructing a tribal 'other' defined by religion and political structure. The phrasing 'strangely enough' adds judgment, subtly framing these ties with the U.S. as suspicious or ironic from Israel’s perspective.
Emotion signals
""The choice between them is not in our hands, and both options are almost equally bad.""
This quote evokes a sense of helplessness and impending danger, amplifying emotional stakes. The claim that both potential adversaries are 'almost equally bad' frames future conflict as inevitable and undesirable, manufacturing fear of what comes next.
"In a now deleted post on X last week, Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Asif called Israel 'evil' and a 'curse for humanity'."
Including the inflammatory quote from Pakistan’s minister without contextual neutrality serves to trigger moral outrage. The choice to highlight this deleted post — likely for its emotional charge — amplifies hostility and frames Pakistan as ideologically opposed to Israel in extreme terms.
""Israel must prepare for a scenario in which one of these two countries confronts it immediately after the fighting against Iran subsides.""
The use of 'must prepare' and 'immediately after' creates a forward-looking threat scenario that demands urgency, pushing readers to perceive looming danger and the need for proactive (potentially militarized) response.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to induce the belief that Iran is no longer a viable military threat to Israel due to a recent war that has 'wiped out' its military capabilities, and that a new regional adversary—either Turkey or Pakistan—will inevitably rise to fill Iran's former role as Israel's primary enemy. This frames geopolitical shifts as predetermined by military defeat and systemic realignments, positioning Israel as perpetually in need of defining an 'enemy'.
The article shifts context by normalizing the idea of an ongoing, indefinite cycle of conflict in which Israel must always have a 'great enemy.' This frames continuous military preparedness and adversarial foreign policy as natural and inevitable, rather than contingent on specific threats. It also treats war against Iran as an accomplished historical event rather than a future possibility, retroactively affirming its outcomes without verification.
The article omits any verification or context regarding the alleged 'war on Iran' and its claimed destruction of Iranian military capabilities. There is no mention of sources, scale, duration, or international recognition of such a war, nor evidence of Iran's 'economic meltdown' or military degradation. The absence of verifiable context about the claimed war allows the narrative of Iran’s defeat to go unchallenged and accepted as fact within the article's logic.
The reader is nudged toward accepting the inevitability of future conflict with either Turkey or Pakistan, and toward viewing continued Israeli militarization and alignment with the U.S. as necessary and rational. It also implicitly grants permission for viewing regional powers through the lens of 'next threat,' priming public support for future adversarial postures or military actions.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
""Predictions on who is set to be next in line to become Israel's arch nemesis have start rolling in..." — normalizes the idea of perpetual enemy designation as routine and socially accepted."
""wiped out" its military capabilities — a dramatic, unverified claim that minimizes the likelihood of Iran's continued resilience or strategic capacity without evidence."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"Boaz Golani's analysis uses highly stylized, strategic language ('shifting sands,' 'forced to vacate the role,' 'competition has settled') consistent with coordinated messaging rather than independent analysis. The framing aligns with a pre-established narrative of threat transition, suggesting controlled narrative deployment."
""both with a solid Sunni majority, both with an authoritarian regime that relies on the bayonets of the military" — groups Turkey and Pakistan using identity markers (sectarian, political) to define them as natural successors to Iran, implying that such identities predispose nations to adversary status with Israel."
Techniques Found(6)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"Israel must prepare for a scenario in which one of these two countries confronts it immediately after the fighting against Iran subsides"
Uses fear of an imminent new adversary to justify strategic preparedness, suggesting inevitable future conflict without evidence that such a confrontation is imminent or unavoidable.
"massacring his own Kurdish citizens"
Uses emotionally charged language ('massacring') to describe actions by Turkey's government, implying large-scale deliberate violence without citing a specific verified event or report, thus framing Erdogan negatively.
"evil"
"war on Iran has rendered its military capabilities 'wiped out'"
The phrase 'wiped out' exaggerates the extent of damage to Iran's military as described in an opinion piece, suggesting total annihilation of capability without evidence of such a catastrophic defeat.
"The choice between them is not in our hands, and both options are almost equally bad"
Presents only two possible adversaries—Turkey or Pakistan—as inevitable and equally negative outcomes, ignoring other potential geopolitical scenarios or diplomatic alternatives.
"Predictions on who is set to be next in line to become Israel's arch nemesis have start rolling in, with whispers lulling in Pakistan or Turkey as Iran's successors for that role"
Implies consensus or trend by referencing vague 'whispers' and 'predictions' without naming sources, using perceived popular opinion to normalize the idea of a new 'arch nemesis'.