Turkey’s Strategic Neutrality in the US–Israel War Against Iran

Turkey’s Strategic Neutrality in the US–Israel War Against Iran*

The ongoing war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran presents a revealing case for understanding the evolving nature of middle power behavior in an increasingly unstable international system. At first glance, Turkey’s position may appear ambiguous or even contradictory. As a NATO member with longstanding ties to the West, one might expect Ankara to align more clearly with Washington and Israel. Yet, in practice, Turkey has avoided direct involvement, criticized aspects of the military campaign, and simultaneously maintained communication with all parties. This apparent ambivalence is not the product of indecision or inconsistency. Rather, it reflects a coherent and rational strategy best described as constraint-driven strategic neutrality. Turkey’s policy is shaped by four interrelated factors: acute economic vulnerability, security concerns rooted in regional instability, a broader ambition to assert strategic autonomy, and growing concern over Israel’s potential bid for regional hegemony.

To begin with, Turkey’s economic condition is a central driver of its foreign policy behavior. The country faces persistent structural weaknesses, including high inflation, currency instability, and dependence on external financing. These vulnerabilities have only deepened in recent years, making the economy more fragile than during the presidency of Donald Trump. Under such conditions, foreign policy cannot be divorced from economic risk management. The leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is acutely aware that geopolitical tensions can quickly translate into financial shocks. The memory of the crisis surrounding Andrew Brunson remains particularly salient. During that episode, a series of political confrontations with Washington—most notably Donald Trump announcing the doubling of tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum—coincided with a sharp depreciation of the Turkish lira, which lost approximately 60 percent of its value. The lesson for Ankara was clear: strained relations with the United States can have immediate and severe economic consequences.

In the context of the current war, this economic fragility imposes clear constraints on Turkey’s room for maneuver. Ankara cannot afford to provoke Washington or risk secondary sanctions, nor can it sustain the economic fallout from prolonged regional instability. Energy markets, trade routes, and investor confidence are all highly sensitive to developments in the Middle East. As a result, Turkey’s foreign policy reflects a careful balancing act aimed at minimizing exposure to external shocks. This explains why Ankara has avoided taking any steps that would directly antagonize the United States, even while expressing criticism of military actions. In this sense, economic vulnerability does not merely influence policy; it fundamentally structures the boundaries within which policy is made.

At the same time, Turkey’s position cannot be understood solely through the lens of economic constraint. Security considerations play an equally important role, particularly Ankara’s perception of the risks associated with a weakened or collapsing Iran. While Turkey and Iran are regional competitors with divergent interests, Ankara does not view the outright defeat or destabilization of Iran as desirable. On the contrary, Turkish policymakers fear that such an outcome would generate significant spillover effects, including state fragmentation, refugee flows, and the resurgence of non-state armed groups. Of particular concern is the potential for increased Kurdish militancy along Turkey’s borders, a long-standing issue in Turkish national security.

This security logic leads to a nuanced position: Turkey prefers a contained and predictable Iran over a chaotic or collapsing one. The war, therefore, presents a dilemma. On the one hand, a weakened Iran could reduce a regional rival’s influence. On the other hand, excessive weakening could produce precisely the kind of instability that Turkey seeks to avoid. This explains Ankara’s consistent calls for de-escalation and its opposition to actions that could broaden the conflict. Turkey’s stance is not pro-Iran; rather, it is anti-chaos. The priority is maintaining a manageable regional balance, even if that requires defending certain principles, such as sovereignty, in diplomatic rhetoric.

A third and equally significant factor shaping Turkey’s policy is its pursuit of strategic autonomy. Over the past decade, Turkey has increasingly sought to position itself as an independent actor rather than a subordinate member of any geopolitical bloc. This shift reflects both structural changes in the international system and domestic political calculations. As global power becomes more diffuse, middle powers like Turkey have greater incentives to hedge their bets and diversify their partnerships. Aligning too closely with any one actor—whether the United States or Iran—would limit Ankara’s flexibility and potentially undermine its long-term interests.

In practice, this pursuit of autonomy manifests as a deliberate effort to maintain functional relationships with all relevant actors. Turkey continues to cooperate with the United States within the framework of NATO, while also engaging with Iran on issues such as trade and regional security. At the same time, Ankara has been openly critical of Israeli policies in the region, reflecting both ideological positioning and domestic political considerations. This multidirectional diplomacy is not without tensions, but it allows Turkey to preserve a degree of independence in its foreign policy decision-making.

A fourth and increasingly important dimension of Turkey’s foreign policy is its growing concern over the possibility of Israeli regional hegemony. From Ankara’s perspective, the weakening of Iran—especially if achieved through sustained US and Israeli military pressure—could significantly alter the regional balance of power in Israel’s favor. Turkish policymakers are wary of a scenario in which Israel emerges as the uncontested dominant military power in the Middle East, capable of shaping political outcomes across multiple theaters, from Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean.

These concerns are not merely ideological; they are rooted in concrete geopolitical calculations. Turkey and Israel have competing interests in several arenas, including energy exploration in the Eastern Mediterranean, influence in Syria, and broader regional leadership. A decisive Israeli victory over Iran could reduce the number of meaningful counterweights in the region, thereby constraining Turkey’s own room for maneuver. In such a scenario, Ankara could find itself facing a more assertive and less constrained Israel, potentially backed by strong US support.

As a result, Turkey’s policy reflects an implicit balancing logic. While Ankara does not align with Iran, it is also reluctant to support an outcome that would significantly enhance Israel’s relative power. This creates a delicate equilibrium: Turkey opposes Iranian regional expansion but simultaneously resists the emergence of Israeli dominance. In effect, Ankara seeks to preserve a multipolar regional order in which no single actor can achieve hegemony.

This concern over Israeli power further reinforces Turkey’s strategy of active neutrality. By avoiding alignment with either side, Turkey maintains the flexibility to adjust its position as the balance of power evolves. It can criticize Israeli actions to signal opposition to perceived overreach, while also avoiding steps that would place it firmly in Iran’s camp. This balancing act is not without risks, as it may generate mistrust among all parties. However, it also allows Turkey to retain strategic ambiguity, which can be a valuable asset in a fluid and uncertain environment.

Within the context of the current war, this broader strategy has taken the form of what can be described as active neutrality. Unlike passive neutrality, which implies disengagement, active neutrality involves sustained diplomatic engagement without formal alignment. Turkey has publicly opposed the escalation of the conflict, calling for ceasefires and negotiations, while refraining from any direct military involvement. Simultaneously, it has sought to position itself as a mediator capable of facilitating dialogue between opposing sides. By maintaining open channels of communication with Washington, Tehran, and other regional actors, Ankara aims to enhance its diplomatic relevance and influence.

This approach serves multiple purposes. First, it allows Turkey to reduce the risk of being drawn into the conflict, which could have significant economic and security costs. Second, it reinforces Turkey’s image as a responsible regional power committed to stability and conflict resolution. Third, it creates opportunities for Ankara to play a more prominent role in shaping the post-war regional order. In this sense, neutrality is not merely a defensive posture; it is also a strategic asset that can be leveraged for political gain.

However, Turkey’s policy is not without its limitations and contradictions. Balancing between competing powers requires constant adjustment and carries the risk of alienating all sides. The United States may view Turkey’s reluctance to fully support its position as a lack of solidarity, while Iran may remain suspicious of Ankara’s ties to NATO. Similarly, Turkey’s criticism of Israeli actions may resonate domestically but complicate its relations with Western partners. These tensions highlight the inherent challenges of pursuing strategic autonomy in a polarized environment.

Despite these challenges, Turkey’s approach reflects broader trends in contemporary international politics. The era of rigid alliances and binary alignments is giving way to a more fluid and complex landscape in which states seek to maximize their options. Middle powers, in particular, are increasingly adopting strategies of hedging and selective engagement, rather than committing fully to one side. Turkey’s behavior in this war is emblematic of this shift. It demonstrates how states can navigate competing pressures by prioritizing flexibility and pragmatism over ideological consistency.

Ultimately, Turkey’s foreign policy in the context of the US–Israel war against Iran can be understood as a rational response to a set of structural constraints and opportunities. Economic vulnerability limits Ankara’s ability to confront major powers directly, while security concerns discourage support for outcomes that could destabilize the region. At the same time, the desire for strategic autonomy drives Turkey to maintain a degree of independence in its diplomatic positioning. Finally, concerns over the emergence of Israeli regional hegemony push Ankara toward a careful balancing strategy aimed at preserving a multipolar order.

In conclusion, Turkey is not attempting to secure a decisive victory for any party in the conflict. Rather, its primary objectives are to safeguard its economic stability, avoid entanglement in a potentially costly war, and enhance its diplomatic standing while preventing the emergence of a dominant regional power. This strategy may appear cautious or even opportunistic, but it is grounded in a clear assessment of Turkey’s capabilities and constraints. In an increasingly multipolar and uncertain world, such an approach is not only understandable but arguably necessary. Turkey’s policy, therefore, should not be seen as a sign of weakness or inconsistency. Instead, it represents a calculated effort to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape in which survival, stability, and influence are deeply interconnected.

[*]. This paper was presented at the panel “US/Israel War on Iran: Regional and Global Players and the Impact on the Global Economy,” held at the Australian National University on April 9, 2026.

Join our channel today

Get all of Atlas Think Center’s original analysis on your phone — no algorithms, no filters!