Well, maybe it will cause the jihadists to think twice before attacking Israel. And maybe it won't. After all, don't they view Israel as a new version of a Crusader outpost on sacred soil ?

Mostly, though, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea for NATO, or the United States. But I could be convinced.

The Turks and Israelis, sharing several strategic interests, had been remarkably close allies, until the islamists came to power in Turkey. That relationship has cooled significantly, but I suspect that it will improve if and when a secular party assumes power once again.

> Might this same deterrent effect also work for Israel and the middle east?

Yes, it would work for Israel, which is why it would never happen, since it would mean that the multiculti fools in Eurabia would have to pick between two mutually exclusive ideas.... mutual defense or anti-semitism.

The euros have all but forgotten their complacency as contributory to the Holocaust, and they thusly don't care if their complacency is contributory to a second, nuclear one.

Articles V and VI of the North Atlantic Charter pretty much constrain the "collective defense" to North America and Europe, and make allowances for overseas territorial possessions.

Article V: The Parties agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Article VI: For the purpose of Article V, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

It's a tempting scenario, if only to piss off certain parts of the world that pray five times a day, but it doesn't really add anything to the strategic puzzle that wasn't already there.

Good idea, but the fallacy of this is that NATO means something.
Since the Cold War is over I doubt many menbers of NATO really care.