The United States’ large-scale military buildup in the region keeps the option of military intervention against Iran on the table for President Donald Trump. In fact, if Iran fails to fully meet U.S. demands, it appears almost certain that Trump is determined to intervene. During his second term, Trump has tended to implement, "one way or another,” the scenarios he envisions whenever confronted with a crisis.

Although intervention may appear inevitable in a context where diplomacy fails to deliver results, the strategic objectives, the method of intervention and whether it would be direct or indirect remain unclear.

It is not yet known whether the ultimate goal would be regime change or merely halting and limiting Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Likewise, it remains uncertain whether the U.S. would intervene directly, act as a protective shield for Israel after intervening, or carry out a joint operation with Israel.

What is certain from Trump’s statements over the past month is his determination to intervene. However, his rhetoric regarding regime change has been contradictory. Should an intervention occur, it would not be difficult to anticipate strikes targeting the military bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij forces, ballistic missile launch and storage facilities, and sites linked to the nuclear program.

A limited operation could enable a gradual transition without the complete collapse of the regime and allow a new administration to emerge from within the existing system. Trump’s previous operations suggest that he may favor such a scenario.

However, a much broader intervention aimed at seriously damaging the state structure and causing the sudden collapse of the government could trigger major chaos, potentially leading to civil war within Iran. Such an outcome would not only affect Iran but could also create a new wave of instability across the entire region, particularly impacting Türkiye.

The U.S. demands from Iran are clear: termination of the nuclear program and the surrender of enriched uranium, restrictions on ballistic missile capacity and range, and a complete end to supporting proxy forces.

Iran is not opposed to negotiating these demands. Talks are currently underway, with Türkiye also involved. Although Türkiye has proposed direct negotiations, Iran remains cautious about this option.

Iran argues that meeting all these demands at once is not feasible. At a time of rising tensions, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan emphasized that the U.S. should adopt a gradual approach rather than an all-encompassing imposition in its dealings with Iran. For Iran, fulfilling all demands simultaneously would be difficult in terms of state prestige and internal balances.

Within this framework, Türkiye proposes addressing the issues step by step, prioritizing the nuclear file rather than treating everything as a comprehensive package, and seeks to keep all parties engaged in dialogue.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan discussed the matter with Trump and called for giving diplomacy a chance. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan is also conducting intensive diplomacy with both sides. From the outset, Türkiye has pursued active mediation and multilateral diplomacy. Today, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will be in Türkiye to discuss this critical process.

Türkiye is following a balanced policy amid U.S.-Iran tensions. As in the Ukraine-Russia war, it is pursuing a principled approach with both sides in this file as well.

Türkiye opposes any direct military intervention against Iran. It is concerned that such action would produce a destructive wave of instability that the region cannot bear and believes the issue should be resolved through diplomacy.

While Türkiye maintains a principled stance against all forms of military intervention, it also calls on regional actors to end the destabilizing actions of their own. It clearly communicates to its counterparts that proxy wars and destructive rivalries increase vulnerabilities and invite external intervention.

Finally, Türkiye insists that existing crises cannot be solved by expecting salvation from an external hegemon; rather, lasting solutions are only possible through regional ownership and regionally generated solutions.