In a joint press conference with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, in Istanbul on 30 January, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reiterated his government’s stance regarding the US military buildup directed against Iran. “We have told our counterparts at every opportunity that we are against a military intervention targeting Iran. We hope that Iran’s internal issues will be resolved peacefully by the Iranian people without any external intervention,” he said.
The US has sent an “armada” – as US President Trump put it – into the region, making no secret of its intent to engineer regime change in Iran. Iran, in response, has made it clear that it will respond swiftly and comprehensively to any foreign aggression. For his part, Fidan stressed the need to return to diplomatic solutions, cautioning against the adverse consequences of military aggression on security and stability in the region. “What has happened in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza remains fresh in our memories. While we are still trying to heal the wounds of the past, opening a new wound in our region would benefit no one,” he said. He also relayed Tehran’s readiness to engage in negotiations, which Iranian officials have stated should be fair and non-coercive.
Following a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump seemed receptive to a proposal to hold a trilateral meeting via video linkup that would include Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. The hope is that this meeting will achieve some progress towards the resumption of negotiations and a reduction in tensions, especially given the numerous rounds of behind-the-scenes communications and mediating efforts that have already taken place. But, even as it works to defuse tensions, Turkey is forced to make contingency plans in view of the security and humanitarian chaos an American aggression could trigger. According to reports citing Turkish Defence Ministry officials, Turkey is not just strengthening security but also contemplating a buffer zone along the 530-kilometre border it shares with Iran in order to prevent a massive influx of refugees. The Turkish government is still haunted by the domestic political and economic repercussions from the Syrian crisis. It took years to accommodate and regulate the status of over three million Syrian refugees while dealing with related domestic tensions. If it cannot avert this crisis, it will try to minimise the fallout.
While it obviously serves Ankara’s interest to deploy its diplomatic machinery towards averting war against its neighbour and preserving regional stability, Turkey has other reasons for promoting its mediating role. Presenting itself as an effective and impartial mediator is a means to assert its presence, expand its influence, and advance from a regional to an international player. In recent years, Ankara has increasingly pursued this strategy, leading to its active engagement in crucial regional issues. Washington has encouraged this trend, as it has come to view Turkey as an indispensable diplomatic link between it and diverse actors in the Middle East and elsewhere. As a result, Ankara has gained a long sought-after international visibility and standing.
Ankara’s current mediating efforts between the US and Iran are probably motivated by the need to curtail Israeli impact in the region. Israel is the primary instigator and main beneficiary of the escalation, which it imagines will give it greater leeway to pursue its expansionist project. On this matter, the Turkish foreign minister expressed this thinking in his joint press conference on Friday: “At the same time, we observe that Israel is attempting to persuade the US to carry out a military strike against Iran. These efforts by Israel have the potential to severely damage the already fragile stability of our region. We hope that the US administration will act with prudence and will not allow this to happen. Israel must put an end to its destabilising policies in the region.” From the Turkish perspective, diplomatic mediation is the antithesis of the Israeli preference for aggression and therefore a means to contain – rather than appease – Tel Aviv.
Through its drive to deescalate the US-Iran tensions, Turkey might have yet another objective rooted in its national security thinking. Given its good standing with both Iran and the US, Turkey is in a position to play a mediating role that few other states could. Ankara appears to be leveraging its value to reinforce Washington’s shift on the Kurdish issue. Whereas Washington, until recently, supported Kurdish forces in Syria, it has gradually ceded to the Turkish stance, which seeks to eliminate a Kurdish presence along its southern border. Nor can Turkey’s economic interests be overlooked as a factor in its calculus given the economic damage that could result from a war against Iran and its repercussions. At the Turkish-Iranian bilateral level, the two sides have been looking forward to expanding partnerships in many sectors, not least in energy, given the importance of Iranian gas and oil. The volume of bilateral trade has exceeded $5.5 billion annually in the past five years and both sides envision increasing it further. While US-driven sanctions have hampered such plans, the US-Israeli scheme of forced regime change would put them on hold indefinitely.
On the whole, Turkish mediation seeks to accomplish multiple objectives, whether explicitly stated or implied. Some entail the preservation of regional and national security and stability; others are related to securing or promoting shared interests. While there are encouraging signs suggesting that Ankara’s efforts will make progress towards peace, there remain significant challenges that could obstruct all such aspirations.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 5 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: