To understand the stance of Turkey’s political class and society regarding the attacks on Iran, two main points must be examined: the fact that Turkey’s secularist circles were raised within an anti-imperialist discourse, and the Palestinian and Islamic sensitivities of the political Islamists. Additionally, both groups share a common sentiment: the belief that the United States and the West are trying to divide Turkey, and that after Iran, Turkey will be the next target.
Ironically, Turkey owes its current economic and military power to being part of the Western military and economic system. If its borders have not faced a serious threat since its founding, it is thanks to the NATO alliance. However, both the society and the political class—unable to escape the “War of Independence” (İstiklal Savaşı) mindset—remain trapped in Western hostility and a fear of disintegration. This fear forms the basis of the policies of denial and oppression toward Alevis and Kurds. The state, in its effort to create a monolithic Sunni-Turk identity, continues to view different identities and affiliations not as a source of richness, but as an enemy to be eliminated.
This mindset is what actually defines the reaction to the American and Israeli attack on Iran. However, one must not forget the economic and social pressure created by the civil wars in Iraq and Syria on Turkey. For over 20 years, Turkey has lived side-by-side with wars on its borders, resulting in significant security concerns and economic damage.
The fear that a regime collapse in Iran would lead to a new civil war and the establishment of a new Kurdish autonomous region on the border has been explicitly voiced by Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli. Reports from Axios suggesting that Trump met with leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq to request their military support must have further intensified this feeling.
In short, Turkey has transformed into a society that exists within the Western system while simultaneously hating the West, and the tremors of this contradiction emerge at every opportunity. Returning to the present:
On February 28, 2026, while negotiations were still ongoing, Israel and the United States launched a comprehensive military operation against Iran. The attacks resulted in the deaths of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous high-ranking military and political officials; nuclear facilities, defense infrastructure, and state institutions were targeted. This development, as in the rest of the world, sat at the center of Turkey’s political agenda and forced every political party to clarify its position.
As a neighbor with deep historical, cultural, and economic ties to Iran, Turkey faces the risk of being directly affected by this crisis. For Turkey—which meets a portion of its natural gas needs from Iran and is dependent on oil imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz—this attack is not merely a regional crisis but a geopolitical breaking point of existential proportions. Against this backdrop, Turkey’s major political parties displayed distinctly diverging stances:
AK Party: Emphasis on Diplomacy and Defense of Sovereignty
The ruling AK Party clearly stated that it found the attacks illegitimate under international law. President Erdoğan described the operation as a “clear violation of international law” and extended his condolences to the Iranian people. AK Party Spokesperson Ömer Çelik addressed the issue in more detail, emphasizing that an attack on a sovereign UN member state cannot be excused under any pretext.
Çelik particularly highlighted the timing: “An attack carried out while negotiations were ongoing and while Erdoğan was conducting intense diplomacy with both Trump and Iranian President Pezeshkian means that ‘diplomacy is being used as a tactical cover.’ A country cannot be attacked using its regime as an excuse; this is a subjective criterion that triggers the global war mechanism.” On the other hand, the AK Party stated that Iran’s targeting of third-country territories as part of its retaliation was also unacceptable.
MHP: “Illegitimate Attack” and the Threat Perception Toward Turkey
Devlet Bahçeli, Chairman of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), spoke harshly during a parliamentary group meeting. Bahçeli argued that the U.S. attacked Iran by “succumbing to the provocation and conspiracy of Zionism” and stated that the attacks were of a nature to “cripple regional and global balances.” Describing the killing of Khamenei as “vile,” Bahçeli advocated for the protection of the political and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The most distinct point separating the MHP leader from others was his sharp response to the “Turkey is next” rhetoric from some former U.S. and Israeli officials. Bahçeli spoke with an angry tone, emphasizing that any power threatening Turkey must “accept the majesty it will witness in advance.” In this framework, the party stated that this is a period where Turkey must protect its internal unity, and the “importance of the internal front” is better understood during such processes.
CHP: Call for Restraint and Dual Criticism
Özgür Özel, Chairman of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), declared the attacks contrary to international law and invited the parties to the negotiation table. Warning of the risk of conflict that could cause irreversible destruction in the region, Özel emphasized that Turkey has always maintained a peaceful line in its relations with its neighbors.
However, the CHP’s stance was not limited to criticizing the U.S. and Israel; Özel also expressed criticism of Iran’s domestic policies, stating that he did not approve of the current regime’s oppressive aspects. This two-sided approach became a subject of harsh criticism from the AK Party. Spokesperson Çelik found the CHP’s rhetoric ambiguous, arguing that the party should make “more prudent and fair” statements.
DEM Party: Opposition to Foreign Intervention, Advocacy for Internal Change
Tülay Hatimoğulları, Co-Chair of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), condemned the attacks during a parliamentary group meeting and described the U.S.-Israeli intervention as illegitimate. Warning that the attacks could drag the region into chaos, Hatimoğulları took a clear stand against foreign intervention. However, a dimension that made the party’s stance appear contradictory stood out: Hatimoğulları also announced that they support regime change in Iran. This position created a hybrid line that rejects foreign intervention on one hand while advocating for internal political transformation on the other.
Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi): Explicit Condemnation and Call for Unity in the Islamic World
Standing out with its Islamist-conservative line, the Felicity Party was one of the parties to express its position most clearly. Chairman Mahmut Arıkan argued that the goal of the attacks was to “surrender all states in the region to weakness and chaos, destabilize countries, and turn the region into a bloodbath.” Describing Khamenei’s death as “martyrdom,” the party called for solidarity within the Islamic world.
Another issue highlighted by Arıkan was the unacceptability of missiles launched from Muslim cities during the month of Ramadan targeting other Muslim cities. The Felicity Party also advocated for the closure of the İncirlik and Kürecik bases. According to the party, the “Great Israel Project” is a real threat, and common action by the entire Islamic world is the only power that can thwart this project.
Vatan Party: The Harshest Anti-Imperialist Stance
Positioned in the national-left (Ulusalcı) line, the Vatan Party displayed the most militant and action-oriented reaction. Party leaders organized rallies in various provinces, highlighting the slogan “An attack on Iran is an attack on Turkey.” According to the party, the ultimate goal of the U.S. and Israel is to create a new state from the territories of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria; in this context, they aim to neutralize Iran first, and then Turkey.
The most concrete demand of the Vatan Party was the immediate transfer of the İncirlik and Kürecik bases to the control of the Turkish Armed Forces. Criticizing both the government and the opposition, the party argued that the compromise with imperialism—carried out under the name of “balance policy”—must be abandoned and that Turkey must act in solidarity with Iran. Claiming that Turkey shares direct responsibility for this crisis due to its NATO membership and the U.S. bases on its soil, the party demanded concrete measures and an action plan.
Left and Socialist Parties: Condemnation from a Class Perspective
Left-wing parties such as SOL Party, TKP (Communist Party of Turkey), and TİP (Workers’ Party of Turkey) condemned the attacks, describing them as imperialist aggression. Labor unions also joined this line; KESK (Confederation of Public Employees’ Unions) strengthened the call for the closure of U.S. bases in Turkey. While the socialist circles claimed that all bourgeois parties, including the main opposition, were hiding behind a facade of “neutrality,” they argued that true opposition is only possible through the revolutionary solidarity of the international working class.
General Evaluation
When examining the stances of the Turkish political spectrum against this crisis, several distinct trends emerged. First, no political party supported the attacks by finding them legitimate. Second, parties diverged clearly regarding the intensity of their condemnation, the harshness of their practical demands, and their attitudes toward the Iranian regime.
The ruling AK Party and its coalition partner MHP followed a policy of balance that took into account bilateral relations and Turkey’s position within NATO while condemning the attacks in terms of international law. The CHP and DEM Party rejected the attacks but also voiced reservations regarding the Iranian regime, exhibiting a two-way stance. The Felicity Party and Vatan Party were the ones that made the harshest and most direct condemnations, bringing concrete demands for action to the agenda.
At the level of public opinion, observers noted a strong surge of anger against the U.S.-Israeli alliance. The demand to close the İncirlik and Kürecik bases was voiced by names from various political traditions. The crisis, while on one hand consolidating Turkey’s geopolitical position, on the other hand sharpened the foreign policy debates between the government and the opposition.
Conclusion
The attack on Iran by Israel and the United States was a breaking point that transcended borders in Turkey’s domestic politics. While all political parties agreed that the attacks were illegal, the form of concrete reactions, possible solution proposals, and attitudes toward the Iranian regime formed distinct points of divergence. The balance Turkey struck between being a mediator and protecting its strategic interests in this crisis revealed both the strength and the fragility of the country’s influence in the Middle East.
Join our channel today
Get all of Atlas Think Center’s original analysis on your phone — no algorithms, no filters!
Discover more from Atlas Think Center
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.