by Kamran Gasanov
[REGNUM] The conflict in the Middle East is expanding. In its early days, Iranian missiles and drone strikes primarily targeted Arab countries hosting US bases, but the war quickly spread to Turkey.
Despite three recorded instances in which the Turks had to shoot down Iranian missiles, presumably over their territory, Ankara is in no hurry to respond, although it allows itself to engage in threatening rhetoric.
BROTHERLY TIES
The first incident occurred in early March. The Turkish Ministry of Defense reported that NATO air defense and missile defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile over Gaziantep province. The debris fell in an empty field; no one was injured.
At first, it was claimed that the strike never occurred. Then doubts arose that the final target was on Turkish territory. But even after the "landing" had been established, the Republic's Ministry of Foreign Affairs was in no hurry to escalate the situation.
After speaking with Iranian diplomats, Minister Hakan Fidan stated the following: "If it was a missile that went off course, that's one thing." He then advised the Iranians "not to embark on an adventure."
Four days later, Turkey detected and shot down a second missile fired from Iran. It then became clear that the US bases were being targeted.
The rhetoric began to escalate. "The necessary warnings have been sent to Iran," Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said after an emergency government meeting.
Ankara, according to Erdoğan, had already warned Tehran several times, but it continued its "provocative steps." The Turkish president had made every effort to demonstrate his interest in avoiding his country's involvement in the war, and therefore softened his language at the end of his statement, calling on Iran not to tarnish "the millennia-old neighborly and fraternal ties."
Telephone conversations took place between the presidents and foreign ministers. Erdoğan told Masoud Pezeshkian that his country had suffered but was not a party to the conflict. Fidan called on his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, to take action.
While Iran made no secret of its intentions in the Persian Gulf—to strike US bases and those assisting Washington—here, Tehran refused to take responsibility. Araghchi told Fidan that the missiles aimed at the Incirlik air base were not launched by Iran.
Be that as it may, on March 13, a third missile was destroyed in Turkish airspace.
On the one hand, when missile launches against Turkey become a pattern, Ankara needs to react. After the third incident, few doubts remain that the Iranians were behind it. On the other hand, there may be "mitigating circumstances" here, too.
Sources of the Turkiye newspaper believe that after the start of the US and Israeli aggression against Iran and the liquidation of part of the political and military command of the Islamic Republic, a so-called “mosaic defense” regime was launched there.
According to it, every general on the ground makes independent decisions. Furthermore, those made earlier automatically took effect.
That is, the Iranian Ministry of Defense does not coordinate every step of its military; they act according to pre-war instructions, where Türkiye, as a NATO country with US bases on its territory, is also designated as a target.
A STREAM OF INSULTS
On the other hand, Ankara is aware that its “friends” from NATO are trying in every possible way to draw it into the conflict.
The intelligence services told journalists that the country would adhere to a course of containment and a cold-blooded approach—Ankara “will not participate in any scenario that would lead to being drawn into war.”
Turkish military expert Cihat Yayci is still not at all certain that the missiles were launched on orders from official Tehran.
He believes such serious decisions are made at the highest level, and since Iran's political leadership was temporarily decapitated, the Mossad and the CIA have found openings to fill the gap. Yayci is inclined to believe that the attacks could be carried out from Iranian territory by troops paid by Israeli and American intelligence.
The Turkish President does not approve of the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and – contrary to NATO’s line – expressed condolences and “deep sadness” over the death of the spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On the day of the third missile launch, Fidan, in a conversation with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, spoke out against fueling civil war in Iran and "ethnic and religious conflicts." Turkey "will not allow this," the minister emphasized.
He added that the US and Israeli attack on Iran occurred “without any reason” and is illegal, but Iran’s strikes on its neighbors are also unlawful.
In almost all statements, Turkey tries to use generalities and avoid mentioning Donald Trump. However, insults are sparing for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu : the speaker of the Turkish parliament, Numan Kurtulmuş, compared him to Hitler.
Unlike German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who says that Germany is “on the same side as the United States” and that the ayatollah regime is illegitimate, and the EU leadership, which is increasing sanctions against Iran, Ankara is unequivocally in favor of a ceasefire.
AVOIDING CONFLICT WITH TRUMP
Europe also has a lot to lose—no less than Turkey. Oil and gas prices have already created the risk of stagflation for the EU.
But Ankara is demonstrating that it has more sovereignty – Erdogan has risked conducting operations against Kurdish militias against the will of Washington.
Trump is a temporary friend of Ankara. Erdogan is pleased to hear praise, recognition of his influence in Syria and his role as a mediator in Gaza. But is this worth the long-term risks lurking behind the chaos in Iran?
Millions of Iranian refugees in addition to millions of Syrians. The possibility of a "second Afghanistan" emerging along a 560-kilometer-long border (after Syria, Turkey shares its longest border with Iran).
A failed state always poses the threat of terrorists. Residents of Ankara and Istanbul experienced ISIS attacks firsthand during the Syrian civil war, where Erdoğan supported Bashar al-Assad's opponents.
Iranian Kurdistan is a particular headache. Trump tried to use the Kurds to launch a campaign against Tehran, but the fighters of the Kurdistan Free Life Party are in no hurry to expose themselves.
Ankara is closely monitoring the activities of the Iranian Kurdish party. A statement from the Turkish Ministry of Defense, published by Clash Report, stated that Ankara "reserves the right to respond to hostile actions." The ministry is clearly hinting at a military operation.
The Turkish armed forces have similar experience in Iraq and Syria. The problem is that if Washington wants to push the Kurds against Tehran, Turkey's intervention would effectively ignite a conflict between Trump and Erdoğan. Clashes between Turkish forces and Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) during Operation Peace Spring in Syria outraged Trump, prompting him to threaten to "destroy the Turkish economy."
The risk of the emergence of a new Kurdish state entity, capable of triggering a "domino effect" in Turkey itself, is hardly offset by the prospect of creating a "South Azerbaijan" with a 30 million Turkic-speaking population.
Trump is bogged down in Iran. He needs a combined attack from separatists (starting with the Kurds) and neighboring countries, including Turkey. Such a coalition could possibly inflict serious damage on the Islamic Republic's defenses.
However, there is no guarantee that Iran will collapse.
The US military operation will end sooner or later, but the Arabs and Turks will still have to live next door to the Persians. No one wants to make enemies for years to come. Given the likelihood of growing Kurdish separatism, Ankara will think twice before responding to the missiles.
Even if we imagine a scenario of a complete victory by a united coalition of the US, Turkey, and the Arab League over Iran—provided Washington does not encourage Kurdish separatism—Ankara is asking: what awaits the region afterward?
There are many risks and unknown variables here. What is certain is that Israel will strengthen its position.
Turkey, according to former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, is the next target. Iran has been diverting the Jewish state's forces and resources, and after its defeat, there will be no one to do so.
Moreover, the new Iran could become entirely pro-American, and Türkiye will no longer be able to rely on it in the event of disagreements with NATO.
Finally, the success of the operation to dismantle Iranian sovereignty will create another precedent, and Turkey, with its numerous disagreements with the West, will have something to think about.