Dr Sinem Cengiz: Turkiye navigating between Washington and Tehran

With the US-Israel and Iran war now a week old, three significant developments have occurred that reveal how Turkiye is signaling its positions to both Tehran and Washington. Ankara has communicated its messages through President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and the Ministry of Defense.

Following the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Erdogan stated that he was saddened by Khamenei’s passing and extended condolences to the Iranian people. Turkiye thus became the only regional country to publicly offer condolences to Iran. Turkish officials have previously expressed condolences on the death of Iranian officials, such as former President Ebrahim Raisi, so this is not unusual. But Erdogan’s gesture this time was a significant attempt to signal Turkiye’s neutral position in the war.

At present, Turkiye is the only NATO member that has open diplomatic channels of communication with Iran, which is a strategic priority for Ankara at this critical time.

The second message came from Fidan. On Tuesday, he criticized Tehran’s strategy of striking Gulf states “without making any distinction,” calling it “an incredibly wrong strategy.” He added that Iran was pursuing a policy of “if I am going down, I will take the region down with me.” Fidan’s statement was critical in diplomatic terms. It showed Ankara’s discomfort with both Washington and Tehran, as Fidan shared more details about how the situation had reached this point and how Turkiye had tried to prevent it from doing so.

At present, Turkiye is the only NATO member that has open diplomatic channels of communication with Iran, which is a strategic priority for Ankara at this critical time.

A day after Fidan’s statement, Turkiye’s Ministry of Defense said that a ballistic missile fired from Iran toward Turkish airspace was intercepted and destroyed by NATO air and missile defense systems over the Eastern Mediterranean. The missile had crossed Syrian and Iraqi airspace and was destroyed before reaching Turkish airspace.

Iran quickly moved into damage-control mode. Iranian officials denied targeting Turkiye and emphasized respect for the sovereignty of a “neighboring and friendly country.” Meanwhile, Iran’s deputy foreign minister told a Turkish news channel that Tehran had no reason to target Turkiye, stressing that bilateral relations between the two countries remain strong.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also immediately contacted Fidan, while Ankara summoned the Iranian ambassador in the Turkish capital following the incident. This was the first time that Ankara had directly warned Tehran, yet this reaction was also carefully calibrated. The swift diplomatic exchange underscored how seriously both sides viewed the incident.

Up to now, the missile’s intended destination remains unclear. Since while no statement was made in this regard, it highlighted another reality that, due to the weakening of Iran’s internal decision-making structure caused by recent losses, it is possible that elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps may have acted without clear coordination or that spoilers deliberately triggered the launch. With uncertainty inside Iran’s security apparatus, miscalculations become more likely and thus more scenarios appear.

However, since there were no casualties and no open intent expressed by Iran, the missile incident did not push Turkiye to trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which relates to NATO’s collective defense doctrine. However, for Ankara, consultations under Article 4 (used when a member feels its security is threatened) remain a possibility.

In the Defense Ministry’s statement, there was a clear emphasis on the “NATO elements” that destroyed the missile. This could be an implicit message to Tehran, reminding it that Turkiye is a NATO member, with all its capabilities, yet it prefers to maintain neutrality in this war. Many analysts argue that Iran’s caution primarily stems from Turkiye’s NATO membership. Yet the explanation goes beyond that. Turkish-Iranian relations have never been militarily confrontational. Both states have avoided triggering a casus belli, understanding the enormous costs of open confrontation.

READ: Huda al-Husseini: War with Iran and disruption to global energy markets

Ankara has repeatedly indicated that it will not go to war with its neighbors unless fundamental security thresholds are crossed, such as direct attacks on Turkish territory, attempts by PKK-affiliated groups to seize land, or large-scale violence against ethnic Turks. Ankara hopes these lines will never be crossed, but if the war prolongs, the situation might become too tangled to control.

Here, the issue of the PKK once again comes to the surface. According to reports, the US has been in talks with Kurdish opposition groups in Iran to arm them and encourage unrest. These reports are extremely concerning. The US administration clearly does not have a coherent roadmap for this war and is just acting in line with Israel’s objectives. However, bringing Kurdish factions into the mix would be a hugely risky move. What exactly would the US be aiming to achieve by sowing discord in an ethnically diverse country without a clear long-term strategy? It is no surprise that, amid these reports, the IRGC has reportedly targeted Kurdish positions in western regions.

 

The US administration clearly does not have a coherent roadmap for this war and is just acting in line with Israel’s objectives

If the Kurdish groups in Iran were to fall into this trap, they should remember the fate of their affiliates in Syria. The Syrian Democratic Forces once served as Washington’s main partner in Syria. However, the US abandoned the group in favor of Damascus and Turkiye. For the US, such partnerships are often tactical and temporary, not strategic.

Thus, the US — with Israel’s lobbying for stronger American-Kurdish cooperation — risks opening a Pandora’s box. But it should know that such a move would alarm many regional actors simultaneously. Turkiye, Syria and Iran all view Kurdish separatism as a major security threat. In Turkiye, the PKK has moved toward laying down its arms and engaging politically with the Turkish state after four decades of armed conflict, while the SDF has signed a deal to integrate with the Syrian state. For Ankara, besides the economic, political and security aspects of this war, the Kurdish dimension is one of the riskiest files.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Dr Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who writes for Arab News. You can follow her on X: @SinemCgnz.

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece, please send your article to opinion@maghrebi.org.