The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, and the U.S. involvement in the war signal not only a deepening security crisis between two regional actors and one global power, but also the collapse of an already fragile and fragmented regional order. For Türkiye, this is not a distant conflict. It is a developing regional fracture with direct implications for national security, border stability and the balance of power in the Middle East. The Israel-Iran conflict marks a decisive moment that requires Türkiye to respond not only with diplomatic restraint but also with strategic clarity and defense preparedness.
Türkiye has long viewed Israel not as a status quo power but as a revisionist and destructive actor. Its repeated violations of international law, the genocide in Gaza, cross-border operations in Syria and Lebanon, and most recently, targeted military attacks against Iran confirm that Tel Aviv’s security doctrine is based on coercion rather than coexistence. These attacks clearly demonstrate a disregard for international borders, diplomatic immunity and norms of state sovereignty.
From Ankara’s perspective, Israel’s strategic stance reflects not a policy of deterrence but an effort to impose military hegemony on the region by using its alliance with the U.S. as a force multiplier. This shift from security to domination undermines any meaningful hope for regional diplomacy. War has become normalized, and conflict is no longer a last resort but a repeated tactic to gain geopolitical advantage. Türkiye rejects this model categorically and warns of its long-term consequences.
Unlike Israel’s unilateral approach, Türkiye supports a strategic vision based on regional balance, sovereignty and a security architecture owned by regional actors themselves. Türkiye does not believe in delegating its regional security to great powers or alliances stemming from the Cold War legacy. Instead, it seeks a geopolitical order in which Middle Eastern states can resolve their differences through diplomacy, de-escalation and equitable power sharing.
Ankara’s position is therefore not neutral; it is based on strategic realism. It rejects the “Israelization” of regional politics, where armed force has become the primary form of interaction and diplomacy is subject to the logic of the battlefield. Türkiye’s call for normalization is not rhetorical; it is a commitment to address the root causes of the conflict: occupation, inequality and external intervention. While Israel seeks to establish a geopolitical order through coercion, Türkiye promotes a normalization framework that aims to de-escalate tensions rather than escalate them.
Although Türkiye and Iran have points of competition, particularly in Iraq and Syria, Ankara strongly opposes Israel’s efforts to destabilize Iran through targeted attacks. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has clearly defined the current crisis, stressing: “No country in this ancient geography can exist solely within its own borders. Every event here concerns all societies in the region.” A weakened or fragmented Iran does not serve Türkiye’s interests; rather, it threatens them. This is not a matter of ideological alignment, but of strategic geography and structural interdependence.
The consequences of Iran’s destabilization will be multilayered and far-reaching. First, this situation will almost certainly lead to mass migration from Iran’s western provinces. Türkiye is already hosting millions of refugees and is at the center of regional migration routes. It cannot withstand a new wave of irregular migration caused by the collapse of the government or internal conflicts in Iran. The resulting social pressure and security burden would be unsustainable.
One of the most immediate consequences of the Israel-Iran tension is the intensification of terrorism and the resurgence of terrorist organizations. The recent activity of the PJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK terrorist organization, in western Iran is a clear indication of this trend. With the support of the PKK, the PJAK has declared that it has entered a new phase of activity, taking advantage of Iran’s weakened state due to external attacks and internal unrest. Presenting its cause as part of a broader “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising, the PJAK is attempting to exploit the weakening of state authority in border regions.
This mobilization is not happening in isolation. It is a direct result of regional instability. For Türkiye, the reemergence of PJAK poses a twofold threat: first, the risk of cross-border insurgent activity entering Türkiye’s eastern provinces; second, the reactivation of the PKK’s broader regional network spanning Iraq and Syria. If this situation is not brought under control, it could complicate counterterrorism operations and embolden other non-state actors developing in fragmented state environments. It could also affect Türkiye’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the PKK.
Furthermore, escalating clashes between the PJAK and Iranian forces could drive thousands of refugees to the Turkish border, forcing Ankara to once again shoulder the burden of a humanitarian crisis stemming from strategic turmoil. In this context, terrorism is not merely a symptom of the Israel-Iran conflict but is increasingly becoming a deliberate political tool in a fragmented Middle East.
Another of Türkiye's security red lines is the disruption of the region’s critical energy geopolitics by the instability of Iran. Iran plays a vital role in the East-West and North-South energy infrastructure that Türkiye relies on for both its domestic needs and its goal of becoming a regional energy hub. Any conflict led by Israel that seeks to disable this infrastructure through sanctions, sabotage or war will jeopardize Türkiye’s strategic economic interests and long-term development vision.
Lastly, the fragmentation of Iran will lead to increased geopolitical instability in the Middle East. It would create a vacuum in Iraq, embolden sectarian militias, trigger new proxy wars and potentially invite foreign military intervention. Such a disruption of the regional order would force Türkiye into a position of constant crisis management and weaken its ability to ensure stability and influence in its immediate vicinity.
While Türkiye rejects the destabilization of Iran by external military forces, it has also made it clear that “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities” is unacceptable. Ankara has consistently advocated for a nuclear-free Middle East, viewing the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a strategic threat to the region’s future. Türkiye’s opposition to Israel’s aggression does not imply tacit support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On the contrary, Ankara argues that both Israel’s impunity and Iran’s nuclearization are destabilizing forces that must be curbed through regional and international mechanisms.
Iran’s pursuit of so-called nuclear deterrence, justified by its leaders as a necessity for defense, is seen in Türkiye as a dangerous gamble that could trigger a regional arms race. Türkiye supports peaceful nuclear energy for all states under transparent international frameworks, but draws a clear line against any developments that could lead to armament. Strategic balance, whether conventional or nuclear, should be achieved through restraint, not escalation.
The changing dynamics in the region require Türkiye to re-adjust its defense and security posture. The idea that diplomacy alone can protect states from regional influences is no longer valid. In a security environment defined by precision strikes, asymmetric threats, nuclear uncertainty and regional competition, Türkiye must turn to strategic deterrence supported by advanced military capabilities.
This means investing not only in the display of conventional forces but also in new defense technologies such as artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, space-based reconnaissance and next-generation air defense. Türkiye’s domestic defense industry is a strength, but it must be complemented by a robust doctrine, interoperable systems and readiness across multiple theaters.
Another equally important issue is Türkiye’s role in establishing cooperative regional security mechanisms. Ankara should take the lead in coordinating with regional countries to create preventive frameworks that can limit unilateral actors such as Israel. Regional security cannot be left to the whims of actors whose strategic logic is based on escalating rather than reducing tensions.
In summary, Türkiye’s stance on the Israel-Iran conflict is not based on short-term political considerations. This stance stems from a long-term strategic necessity to maintain regional balance, defend sovereignty and limit militarized and nuclear revisionism. The risks are not abstract. They include direct threats to Türkiye’s territorial security, energy security, economic goals, and demographic stability.
Israel is not only acting as a rival but is also attempting to reshape the region through the use of force. Türkiye must act accordingly.
