As the confrontation between the United States and Iran continues, the Turkish press has portrayed the war as a turning point that is reshaping regional power balances, with growing military and political consequences.
Turkish analyses argue that increasing pressure on US military capabilities is coinciding with Türkiye’s expanding ability to influence the course of the crisis. Ankara’s role, in this reading, now extends beyond diplomatic mediation to shaping regional balances and the rules governing future crises.
These assessments examine the war’s impact on Washington’s room for manoeuvre, the strategic calculations behind Türkiye’s position, and how the crisis could affect Ankara’s regional standing in the next phase.
Depleted Ammunition Stockpiles
In assessing the war’s impact on the balance of power, Turkish media have focused heavily on US military capabilities, arguing that the continuing confrontation with Iran is placing growing pressure on ammunition reserves and narrowing Washington’s operational flexibility.
Turkish newspaper Hürriyet cited The Washington Post as reporting that assessments conducted by the US Department of War, the Pentagon, in recent weeks concluded that military operations against Iran, combined with American commitments elsewhere in the world, were placing considerable strain on ammunition stockpiles.
Coşkun Başbuğ, a retired Turkish intelligence colonel and security and counterterrorism expert, said the United States was experiencing significant depletion of its weapons and ammunition reserves because of the war against Iran, as well as the substantial military support it had provided to Israel.
Başbuğ told Hürriyet that the pressure was particularly evident in missile stockpiles. He referred to reports that ammunition had been transferred from US reserves stored in several countries across the region, but stressed that the most important fact was the “major” decline in American military inventories.
According to the Turkish expert, every country sets critical minimum levels for ammunition, weapons and military equipment in preparation for a potential war. States generally avoid falling below these thresholds because such reserves are among the most important components of military deterrence.
However, he said the United States had been forced to use part of these strategic reserves during the war.
Başbuğ predicted that Washington would continue carrying out limited operations designed both to send deterrent messages to Tehran and display American military power, while keeping the war active in a manner consistent with its broader strategic objectives.
A Geopolitical Barrier
While these analyses focused on the pressures facing the United States, Turkish newspaper Milliyet examined Ankara’s position on the war against Iran and the motivations shaping Türkiye’s policy and regional priorities.
The newspaper began with comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who praised what he described as Türkiye’s “firm position”.
Araghchi said Türkiye had played an influential role in frustrating what he claimed was an American plan to divide Iran at the beginning of the war. Milliyet then presented the views of several Turkish experts on the significance of his remarks and their implications for Turkish policy.
Emte Gözügüzelli, a faculty member in the Department of International Law at Ankara Social Sciences University, said Türkiye had never participated in arrangements that threatened the territorial integrity of its neighbours or any other country, and would not do so in the future.
She said the Turkish state’s established vision, based on domestic production strategies and greater reliance on national capabilities, had demonstrated its strength in foreign policy and enabled Ankara to assert its weight in preserving the territorial integrity of neighbouring states.
Professor Mehmet Seyfettin Erol, head of the Ankara Centre for Crisis and Policy Studies, described Türkiye’s role as a “geopolitical barrier”.
He argued that Ankara was playing a constructive role in regional crises involving Iran through what he called “active neutrality” and “regional responsibility”.
Rahim Farzam, a researcher at the Centre for Iranian Studies, known as İRAM, said preserving Iran’s territorial integrity and preventing the conflict from expanding were strategic priorities for Türkiye.
Any alternative scenario, he said, would produce consequences that directly contradicted Ankara’s interests, including new waves of displacement, growing security threats and higher energy costs.
From Mediation to Setting the Rules
After examining the strategic motivations behind Turkish policy, Milliyet raised a broader question about Ankara’s place in the emerging regional order and whether the war was pushing Türkiye beyond mediation towards influencing the rules of crisis management and the distribution of regional power.
Gözügüzelli said Türkiye was playing an important mediation role in the Iranian file, similar to its role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis and other international disputes.
Erol, however, moved beyond mediation to discuss the foundations of Turkish influence.
He said Ankara’s ability to persuade the United States rested on a combination of the Turkish state’s rational strategic vision, the advantages of its geographical position, and its military and diplomatic deterrent capabilities.
According to Erol, Türkiye does not persuade Washington merely by insisting on abstract principles. Instead, it presents rational alternatives to US strategic calculations and reframes the cost-benefit equation confronting American decision-makers.
He linked Türkiye’s ability to influence regional and international crises to the collapse of the unipolar global order and to the exhaustion suffered by the United States as a result of “overextension”, leaving Washington unable to shape different regions on its own.
Erol argued that these developments indicated that, in an emerging multipolar world, the United States was beginning to view Türkiye not simply as a partner that needed to be persuaded, but as a “regional balancer” whose spheres of influence had to be recognised.
He concluded that Ankara’s diplomacy no longer confined Türkiye to the role of an intermediary seeking to resolve crises.
Instead, he said, it was moving the country from mediation to “setting the rules” and transforming it into a “geopolitical architect” of the region.
