Türkiye lessons from the Iran and Israel war policy

During his meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomed the ceasefire between Iran and “Israel” by American mediation, expressing his hope that he would turn into a permanent agreement.

These statements concluded a Turkish position on the military confrontation between the two sides, whose most prominent advantage was to look at the point of influencing Ankara itself.

The development of the situation

Türkiye looked at the “Israeli” aggression on Iran as a last stage of the escalation of “Israel” in the region, and therefore its official positions focused on the idea of ​​threatening “Israel” for regional security and stability. Turkey also increased the feeling of self -threat, that is, its feeling that the deterioration of the situation in the region and the escalation of “Israeli” attacks will also harm it in indirect forms and possibly directly later.

This is the feeling that started with the aggression against Lebanon and warning Turkey from its extension to Syria and then to it, when Erdogan said that “the Israeli forces are two hours from our borders”, then he suggested that his country could intervene (after maximizing its power) in Palestine as it did in Libya and Nagurani Qara Bagh, a statement that the occupying state responded to threatening him with “the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

Ankara denounced the attacks on Tehran and warned of its continuation and the consequences of “support for international parties”, and Erdogan called it “terrorist attacks”, expressing his country’s solidarity with Iran as an aggressive party, stressing the importance of returning to the diplomatic path, and his country’s willingness to do what it can in this regard.

In front of the delegations participating in the eleventh session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said that there is no problem in the region called Palestine, Lebanon, Syria or Iran, and “there is a problem called Israel.”

While Erdogan repeated his country’s solidarity with its neighbor, Iran in the face of the attacks, stressing his optimism that “victory will be its ally”, warning of “a conspiracy coinciding with the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement”, stressing that Türkiye “will not pass it.”

This was consistent with the traditional official position of Ankara rejecting military solutions and escalation, and the preference for political and diplomatic paths, especially since every threat to the stability of the region can negatively wear the Turkish economy. Also, targeting Iran may bounce negatively on Türkiye from several angles that start with economics, trade and tourism, and do not end with possible asylum waves towards Turkish territory.

The most important thing is that Ankara looked at the “Israeli” aggression and the speech of changing the Iranian regime as a possible path to changing balances and equations in the region in favor of “Israel” permanently, which is definitely not in the interest of Turkey, which has expressed since the beginning of the aggression on Gaza in October 2023 a position against it.

Some voices in Türkiye warned that it was the next stop for targeting after Iran, in light of “Israeli” statements that hinted at this, and perhaps this is one of the most important motives of Erdogan’s expression of “optimism about Iran’s victory.”

Nevertheless, Ankara’s position did not exceed this to a direct practical level, because she felt that she was not fortified in front of a similar aggression, which Erdogan expressed by his conversation before the parliamentary bloc of his Justice and Development party about the achievements of his country in the field of defense industries and the need to continue to achieve full protection for it.

The ambiguity of the American position at the beginning, then bombing nuclear establishments helping to control Türkiye’s position, which does not want negative effects on bilateral relations with Washington, including the file of arms and the Syrian issue and the support of SDF. Therefore, Ankara did not condemn the operation, but was satisfied with expressing “its concern that it will contribute to increasing tension in the region.”

Mediation

In total, I set the Turkish official position according to three tracks; Maintaining positive neutrality, not direct engagement in the existing confrontation, especially after American intervention, playing a role in calming the situation and preventing the development of escalation through the role of mediation, and maximizing the self -capabilities of Turkey in the field of military industries, especially with regard to air defense systems in the long run.

Last Friday, in an interview with a Turkish television channel, the Turkish Foreign Minister confirmed that he had received a phone call on the night of the “Israeli” attack on Iran from his American counterpart Marco Rubio, that the United States will not be a party to any possible attack on Iran, and therefore does not expect an Iranian response to it, otherwise its response was harsh, and that it is concerned about its presence in the region, which was transferred by Fidan -Kosan -to the Iranian side.

He also mentioned that he spoke with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araqji, after the American strike, during the latter’s participation in the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, and that Tehran’s estimate was that the United States made a limited blow to Iranian facilities and not in a comprehensive war with Tehran, and therefore Iran- according to its strategy- will respond to a limited and disciplined response as well, and not in its role in a comprehensive war with Washington, which was reported by the minister Turkish for the United States.

The Turkish minister concludes that this revealed that the two parties were not concerned with expanding the confrontation and raising the level of escalation between them, and therefore there was a kind of “prior compatibility” on the ceilings of strikes, which was considered by the minister a rare case in the history of wars.

This part related to direct mediation and the transmission of messages between the American and Iranian sides, on the one hand, has achieved Turkey’s desire to contain the escalation and its lack of conversion to a comprehensive and destructive war between the two sides, as it does not eliminate its desire to play the role of the mediator as well in any future negotiations between the two sides, taking advantage of its experience in mediation and hosting negotiations, as well as from the good relations that link it with the two parties, and third from the outcomes of the role that it played through The war itself, which it sees, has benefited and prevents the incidents of the unbearable of its consequences.

However, the path of negotiations exists during the past years between the United States and Iran according to a ready and repeated mechanism hosted by the State of Oman in the form of negotiating rounds, and there is no fundamental reason that calls for a quick change of the place in any future negotiations, which the Turkish Foreign Minister indicated in the aforementioned dialogue.

However, this does not absolutely negate the possibility of Ankara playing a role in bringing the views and possibly encouraging Tehran to accept the return of negotiations on the one hand, and does not also prevent Türkiye’s dialogue and perhaps a round of negotiations between them in the future.

In conclusion, the official Turkish position during the “Israeli” aggression against Iran, on basic pillars, the most important of which is denouncing the aggression, avoiding involvement directly in the conflict, playing the role of the mediator and the transmission of messages between Washington and Tehran, while emphasizing the need to strengthen self -strength papers and protect Turkey from any direct or indirect repercussions of the confrontation that took place.

This was confirmed attic Fidan that the various institutions have worked on this from the first moments of the “Israeli” aggression began on Iran, which made Turkish officials “not sleep that night and nights that followed” as he put it.

In conclusion, Ankara relies that there is an opportunity for Iran and the United States to reach an agreement on the nuclear file, which could contribute to calming the situation in the region.

However, this does not prohibit the possibility of a new conflict between Iran and “Israel” specifically, because “whoever wants the war will find an excuse for it,” Fidan said himself to refer to “Israel”, and he may summarize the Turkish concern about the return of the military confrontation between the two sides in the near or far future.