Essay 09

Turkey has voiced deep and multifaceted concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, driven by a complex interplay of regional security, stability, and shifting geopolitical realities. As a nation sharing a 500-kilometer border with Iran, Turkey perceives the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as a direct and immediate threat, one that could upend the delicate balance of power in the Middle East and ignite widespread instability. The following points elaborate on the principal factors shaping Turkey’s position, drawing on recent official statements and expert analyses.

1. Risk of a Regional Nuclear Arms Race
   Turkey’s leadership has repeatedly cautioned that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could compel Ankara to reconsider its own nuclear posture. In late 2025, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan emphasized that while Turkey is committed to maintaining the current regional equilibrium, it “may inevitably have to join the same race” if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, describing the issue as a “high-level strategic concern.” This apprehension is rooted in the fear that Iran’s nuclearization would set off a domino effect, prompting other regional powers—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or even the United Arab Emirates—to pursue their own nuclear capabilities. Such a proliferation cascade would dramatically escalate tensions and undermine nonproliferation efforts in an already volatile region.
2. Direct Security Threats and Border Proximity
   Turkey’s geographic proximity to Iran amplifies its security anxieties. The shared border exposes Turkey to immediate risks, including the potential for military spillover, missile attacks, or even nuclear fallout in the event of conflict. Iran’s development of advanced ballistic missiles capable of reaching Turkish territory is seen as a direct challenge to Ankara’s national security. These concerns are further complicated by historical rivalries and overlapping spheres of influence in conflict zones such as Syria, Iraq, and the South Caucasus. While Turkey and Iran have occasionally cooperated—particularly on issues related to Kurdish separatist movements—Ankara fears that a nuclear-armed Iran could act more assertively, emboldening Tehran in regional disputes and undermining Turkey’s strategic interests.
3. Impact on Regional Stability and Economic Interests
   The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran threatens to destabilize the broader Middle East, raising the specter of preemptive military action by external actors such as the United States or Israel. Turkey strongly opposes such interventions, warning that they could trigger widespread chaos and humanitarian crises. This instability would jeopardize Turkey’s substantial economic ties with Iran, which amount to approximately $10 billion in annual trade, and disrupt the delicate ethnic and sectarian balances in neighboring regions, including Kurdish-populated areas in northern Iraq. Ankara has consistently advocated for diplomatic engagement and the resumption of nuclear negotiations, arguing that military solutions would only deepen instability and fail to address the root causes of the crisis.
4. Broader Geopolitical Context
   Turkey’s approach is also shaped by its role as a NATO member and its strategic partnership with the United States, including the hosting of U.S. radar systems for missile defense—installations that Iran has denounced as efforts to shield Israel from retaliation. While Turkey maintains open channels of dialogue with Tehran and has played a mediating role in past nuclear diplomacy (notably the 2010 Turkey-Brazil-Iran agreement), it remains vigilant, seeking to balance its economic interests with pressing security concerns. Recent internal unrest in Iran has heightened Ankara’s apprehensions, as instability could empower hardline factions and further complicate regional dynamics. Turkey, along with other regional actors, has expressed opposition to foreign interventions that might inadvertently strengthen Tehran’s most uncompromising elements.

In summary, Turkey’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program are pragmatic and grounded in a sober assessment of regional risks. Ankara’s policy is characterized by a dual-track approach: advocating for robust diplomacy to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously investing in its own defense infrastructure, including the development of peaceful nuclear energy that could, if necessary, be adapted for military purposes. This strategy reflects Turkey’s desire to avoid direct confrontation while ensuring it is prepared for any eventuality, underscoring its commitment to safeguarding national security and regional stability.

Why Does Turkey Support Iran?

Turkey’s support for the stability of Iran’s Islamic Republic regime is not rooted in ideological alignment, but rather in a pragmatic calculation shaped by national security imperatives, economic interests, and the complex dynamics of regional geopolitics. Despite being historical rivals and often finding themselves on opposing sides in regional conflicts—such as in Syria and Iraq—Ankara’s approach to Iran is guided by a desire to prevent instability that could directly threaten Turkish interests. This strategic posture has become especially pronounced during periods of internal unrest in Iran, such as the protests of 2025-2026, when Turkish officials echoed Tehran’s claims of foreign interference and simultaneously sought to deepen bilateral cooperation. The following points elaborate on the key drivers behind Turkey’s stance:

1. Border Security and Containment of Instability

Turkey and Iran share a 331-mile (500 km) border, making the stability of the Iranian regime a matter of immediate concern for Ankara. Turkish policymakers fear that a collapse or prolonged unrest in Iran could create a power vacuum, leading to increased smuggling, the movement of armed groups, and the proliferation of militancy along the border. Of particular concern is the potential empowerment of Kurdish separatist groups such as the PKK, which both Ankara and Tehran view as a common threat. Additionally, the prospect of a refugee crisis akin to the Syrian exodus looms large in Turkish calculations. To preempt such scenarios, Turkey has consistently opposed foreign military interventions in Iran, warning that destabilization could have “serious detrimental consequences for the entire region.”

2. Economic and Energy Interdependence

Iran is a vital energy supplier for Turkey, providing natural gas that accounts for approximately 15-20% of Turkey’s consumption. The two countries maintain robust trade relations, with annual bilateral trade exceeding $10 billion. Turkey has also played a role in helping Iran navigate around U.S. sanctions, notably through gold-for-gas transactions and other creative mechanisms. For Ankara, a sanctioned but stable Iran ensures continued access to affordable energy and strengthens Turkey’s bargaining position in regional energy markets. Any disruption in Iran—whether due to internal chaos or external intervention—could jeopardize these economic ties, drive up energy prices, and negatively impact Turkey’s already fragile economy. Consequently, Ankara prioritizes economic engagement and stability over supporting opposition movements within Iran.

3. Geopolitical Calculations and Regional Balance

From a geopolitical perspective, Turkey views Iran as a critical buffer against broader regional threats, including the risk of power vacuums that could invite increased intervention by the United States or Israel—developments that Ankara perceives as undermining its own regional influence. While Turkey and Iran compete for influence in places like Syria (where Turkey supports Sunni opposition groups and Iran backs the Assad regime), they also find common ground on issues such as countering Kurdish separatism and promoting stability in Iraq. Turkish leaders, including President Erdogan and Foreign Minister Fidan, have often echoed Iranian narratives about foreign plots behind domestic unrest, aligning rhetorically with Tehran to preserve a delicate balance. This approach also enables Turkey to position itself as a potential mediator in regional crises, as demonstrated by its efforts to de-escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

4. Ideological and Domestic Considerations

Although pragmatic concerns dominate, there is an undercurrent of ideological affinity under Erdogan’s AKP government. Turkey has at times expressed solidarity with regimes like Iran’s that resist Western pressure, framing them as fellow challengers to secular or pro-Israel influences in the region. Domestically, Erdogan leverages this stance to bolster his image as a defender against “imperialist” interventions, drawing parallels to Turkey’s own experiences with protests and external criticism. However, this ideological sympathy is secondary to practical interests; for example, Turkey’s decision not to evacuate its citizens from Iran during periods of unrest signals a fundamental confidence in the regime’s resilience and a preference for continuity over upheaval.

Turkey’s Strategic Balancing Act on Iran: Pragmatism Over Paradox

Turkey’s approach to Iran is often perceived as contradictory, but it is, in reality, a calculated exercise in pragmatic realpolitik. Ankara’s support for the stability of the Islamic Republic’s regime is not an endorsement of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Instead, Turkey consistently opposes Iran’s potential nuclear weaponization, while simultaneously prioritizing regime continuity to prevent regional chaos that could amplify the very threats it seeks to avoid. This nuanced stance is rooted in a clear-eyed assessment of regional dynamics and national interests.

Distinguishing Regime Stability from Nuclear Policy

For Turkey, a stable Iranian government acts as a crucial buffer against the spillover of instability—such as mass refugee flows, the empowerment of non-state militias, or the emergence of a power vacuum that could invite intervention from external actors like the United States or Israel. Ankara’s calculus is that regime collapse in Iran would unleash unpredictable consequences, destabilize the region and directly threatening Turkish security and economic interests.

However, Turkey draws a firm line when it comes to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Turkish officials, including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, have repeatedly warned that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would upend the delicate military balance between the two countries. Such a development could force Turkey to reconsider its own non-nuclear stance, potentially igniting a regional arms race. By separating its support for regime stability from its opposition to nuclear weaponization, Turkey maintains the flexibility to criticize and resist Iran’s nuclear program while advocating for the regime’s survival as a means of containing broader instability.

Diplomacy as the Preferred Path

Turkey firmly believes that coercive measures—such as military strikes or sweeping sanctions—are counterproductive, as they risk empowering Iranian hardliners and accelerating Tehran’s nuclear pursuits. Instead, Ankara champions diplomatic engagement, as demonstrated by its involvement in the 2010 Turkey-Brazil-Iran nuclear deal and its ongoing calls to revive negotiations. Turkey’s diplomatic posture is informed by its NATO membership, its geographic proximity to Iran, and its desire to position itself as a mediator rather than an adversary. By supporting regime stability, Turkey hopes to encourage moderation in Tehran and foster cooperation on shared concerns, such as countering Kurdish separatism and managing cross-border security threats.

Economic and Security Interdependence

Turkey’s economic relationship with Iran is both deep and strategic, with bilateral trade ranging from $10 to $30 billion and Iran serving as a vital energy supplier. The collapse of the Iranian regime would pose a direct economic threat to Turkey, disrupting trade flows and energy supplies. While Turkey opposes Iran’s nuclear program—fearing it could trigger foreign interventions that would jeopardize these economic ties—it has also demonstrated a willingness to help Iran circumvent sanctions to preserve mutual interdependence.

On the security front, Turkey and Iran share interests in containing mutual threats, particularly Kurdish separatist movements. This cooperation often takes precedence over disagreements on the nuclear issue, provided Iran does not cross the threshold into weaponization. Turkey’s selective enforcement of sanctions—such as freezing assets linked to Iran’s nuclear activities in accordance with UN mandates—reflects its effort to balance international obligations with the imperative of maintaining a stable neighbor.

Managed Rivalry, Not Contradiction

Ultimately, Turkey’s strategy toward Iran is best understood as a form of managed rivalry. Ankara seeks to preserve the Iranian regime to contain regional risks, while simultaneously leveraging diplomatic pressure and alliances to deter nuclear escalation. This approach is not ironic, but rather a sophisticated response to the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, where outright confrontation could prove far more destabilizing than cautious engagement.

Pragmatism Over Ideology

In summary, Turkey’s support for the Iranian regime is driven by a desire to safeguard its own borders, economic stability, and regional influence, rather than any deep-seated alliance with Iran’s ideological foundations. Ankara calculates that a divided or collapsed Iran would pose far greater risks than the current status quo, prompting it to advocate for dialogue, stability, and managed engagement. This nuanced position allows Turkey to voice concerns over issues like Iran’s nuclear program while maintaining essential ties and working to prevent destabilizing outcomes that could reverberate across the region.