Ankara is exerting intensive efforts to halt the American and “Israeli” war on Iran and return to the negotiating table. However, Turkish leadership recognises that this path is far from guaranteed, particularly in light of the profound developments during the first month of the war, including growing uncertainty over whether the parties still accept negotiations as a viable solution. Previous negotiations between Tehran and Washington during the era of Donald Trump do not inspire optimism, as military escalation occurred even as negotiations were ongoing and despite scheduled rounds of dialogue.
This reality suggests that the war is likely to persist in the near term and potentially escalate further. Such a trajectory raises the risk of Turkey becoming involved, either directly or through deliberate attempts to draw it into the conflict. This is not merely a theoretical scenario discussed by analysts, but a tangible concern actively considered by decision-makers in Ankara. In particular, Turkish officials are more concerned about the possibility of being deliberately dragged into the war than about becoming involved unintentionally as events escalate.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and several officials from the government and the ruling Justice and Development Party have addressed the issue directly. They have placed personal responsibility on Benjamin Netanyahu and his government for initiating the war, which, according to Erdoğan, “the entire world is paying the price for,” and which, according to Fidan, “not only turns the region into a battlefield but threatens international peace.”
Former Interior Minister and current parliamentary figure Süleyman Soylu was even more explicit, accusing “Israel” of attempting, through provocations, to drag Turkey into the flames of this conflict.
Four Scenarios That Could Drag Turkey into the War
Based on the current trajectory of the conflict and its potential developments, four primary scenarios could force Turkey into involvement against its will:
1. Direct Military Engagement Following Attacks on Turkish Territory
The first scenario involves direct engagement as a response to attacks on Turkish territory. Three missiles have already fallen on Turkish soil at different times, with responsibility attributed to Iran, despite Tehran’s denial. According to NATO, the intended targets were military bases hosting alliance forces, particularly the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey.
2. Regional Escalation Forcing Turkish Participation
The second scenario involves a broader regional escalation that compels Turkey to engage in some capacity, especially if countries such as Greece and Cyprus become directly involved in the conflict.
3. Defensive Intervention to Protect National Security
The third scenario centres on defensive intervention to safeguard Turkey’s borders and national security in the event of widespread chaos or a potential fragmentation of Iran. This includes the possibility of the Kurdish issue being reactivated in the region, a file that Ankara has nearly closed domestically and across parts of Syria and Iraq.
4. NATO Engagement Triggering Turkish Involvement
The fourth scenario involves NATO entering the war, for example, in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and requesting participation from its member states, including Turkey. However, this outcome is not guaranteed. Ankara has often diverged from the positions of other NATO members, as demonstrated during the war in Ukraine, where Turkey neither participated directly nor joined Western sanctions against Russia.
Turkey’s Strategy to Avoid Being Drawn Into the Conflict
Turkey appears determined to avoid both direct involvement and being dragged into the war, which it had originally sought to prevent. Ankara has taken a series of deliberate steps aimed at mitigating these risks.
Regarding the missiles that landed on its territory, Turkish official discourse emphasised that Turkish lands were not the intended target, while NATO stated that the intended targets were alliance-linked military installations. Although both the president and the foreign minister delivered firm statements regarding the defence of Turkish territory and citizens, their rhetoric remained general and avoided directly escalating tensions with any specific party, including Iran.
In parallel, Turkey has implemented defensive measures, including the deployment of additional NATO air defence systems on its territory, particularly around Incirlik Air Base, reducing both the likelihood and potential impact of future attacks.
Ankara has also issued clear warnings against scenarios involving chaos, fragmentation, or the collapse of the Iranian state, recognising that such outcomes could destabilise sensitive regional dynamics, particularly the Kurdish issue. Some reports suggested that Turkey might prepare to position forces داخل Iranian territory under such circumstances. This was denied by the Turkish presidency, although it reflects Ankara’s deep sensitivity to such developments.
Diplomatic Efforts to Contain the War
Beyond military and defensive considerations, Turkey recognises that the primary guarantee for avoiding involvement is to stop the war itself and prevent its escalation. As such, Ankara is actively working to bridge differences and persuade both Tehran and Washington to pursue a negotiated solution.
Turkey leverages its strategic position, its relations with both parties, and its experience in mediation and facilitating negotiations. It maintains a reasonable level of trust with both sides. These efforts are not conducted in isolation but as part of a broader diplomatic initiative that includes Oman, Pakistan, Egypt, and potentially Qatar.
A Fragile Path Forward
Despite these diplomatic efforts, Ankara, like Tehran, understands that negotiations are not guaranteed, nor is their success assured. Confidence-building steps are still required, and time remains a critical factor.
This leaves the trajectory of the war active and open to further escalation. As a result, the risk of Turkey becoming involved, whether deliberately or unintentionally, remains present. The same applies to other regional actors, particularly Gulf states.
In this context, the situation demands both extreme caution and sustained diplomatic effort. The unfolding war is not only a test of military endurance but also a test of regional stability, where the consequences of escalation could extend far beyond the immediate battlefield.
