The escalation of US-Iranian tensions constitutes one of the most dangerous turning points in the Middle East, not only because of the potential for direct military confrontation but also because of what it reveals about the deep fragility of the regional structure surrounding Iran. From the perspective of neighboring countries, the crisis is no longer a bilateral conflict that can be contained or isolated, but rather an open threat to internal stability, national unity, and the ethnic and geographical balances of the entire region. In this context, Türkiye’s role stands out as the most proactive in proposing mediation between Washington and Tehran, driven by national security considerations that go beyond traditional diplomatic calculations.
The Turkish approach stems from a realistic understanding that Iran is not an ordinary country whose weakening or collapse can be easily absorbed. Iran's geography, with its size and expanse, and its diverse population, make any disruption to the center of power likely to turn into widespread chaos. Ankara recognizes that a scenario of military confrontation, or a prolonged attrition of the Iranian state, will not lead to a controlled political transition, but rather will unleash dynamics of disintegration that are difficult to control in terms of their paths or boundaries.
The ethnic factor occupies a central position in this concern. Iran includes large national minorities, spread across border regions interconnected with neighboring countries, most notably the Kurdish minority. Kurds constitute a special case in Turkish calculations, not only because of their number but also because of their continuous geographical extension across Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Türkiye. This extension makes any shift in the balance of power within one of these countries rapidly transferable to the others, whether at the level of political discourse or security reality.
From the Turkish point of view, the Kurdish issue is the most dangerous consequence of any potential disintegration in Iran. The weakness of the central authority in Tehran may open the door for Kurdish demands for autonomy or advanced forms of self-administration, which may become a source of political and symbolic inspiration for Kurds in neighboring countries. Ankara fears that this could lead to the reactivation of cross-border narratives, based on the unity and integration of Kurdish geography, even if not immediately translated into a unified political project.
This concern is inseparable from Turkish historical memory. During the twentieth century, Iranian territory was the scene of actual attempts to establish independent or semi-independent Kurdish entities, most notably the short-lived Kurdish republics that emerged in northwestern Iran. Although these experiences were quickly aborted, they remained firmly rooted in the Turkish security mind as a model that could be repeated in chaotic conditions. Ankara fears that any Iranian collapse could lead to the revival of these precedents, with their direct implications for its territorial integrity.
Turkish concern intensifies when the Kurdish issue is read within a broader regional framework, where ethnic identities are no longer confined within national borders but are nourished by accumulated experiences in several countries. The Kurdish experiences in Iraq and Syria, despite the different circumstances of their emergence, have instilled a conviction among segments of the Kurdish elite that moments of regional chaos may open rare historical windows for re-proposing entity projects. From here, Ankara sees that any Iranian turmoil may become a factor of political and symbolic mobilization, even if it remains far from a direct declaration of secession.
In addition to the ethnic dimension, the refugee issue stands out as one of the most prominent motives for Turkish action. Türkiye, which has been bearing significant social and economic burdens for years as a result of large human flows, believes that any military confrontation or security collapse in Iran could lead to massive waves of displacement. These concerns are not limited to Iranian civilians but also include ethnic minorities who may find themselves caught between local conflicts, thus pushing them towards the Turkish border as the closest and safest option.
These concerns are further complicated by the potential overlap between migration and security chaos. Ankara fears the infiltration of armed elements or unlawful networks benefiting from the absence of central control, which imposes additional security burdens and threatens to turn border areas into long-term attrition arenas. From its perspective, managing this type of challenge exceeds traditional containment capabilities and threatens to erode internal stability.
Geographically, Türkiye views Iran as a strategic barrier separating it from the waves of instability coming from the depths of Asia. Any collapse of this barrier could open the door for complex international interventions, proxy conflicts, and transform the region into an open arena of competition that is difficult to control in terms of its pace or endings. In such a scenario, Ankara loses its ability to maneuver and is pushed into a position of permanent defense.
In this context, despite the transfer of the negotiation venue to Oman, Türkiye is offering itself as a mediator between the United States and Iran, not in defense of Tehran's policies, but in an effort to reduce the level of escalation and prevent slipping into widespread ethnic and geographical chaos. It is counting on its relatively open relations with both parties, and on its geographical location, to present itself as a channel capable of freezing the conflict or managing it within containable boundaries.
In conclusion, Turkish behavior in the US-Iranian tension file reflects a deep understanding that the conflict is no longer confined between two countries, but is linked to the future of minorities, the unity of states, and the stability of the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. Between an exhausted Iran and a collapsed Iran, Ankara sees the second option as the most dangerous and seeks to prevent it before it becomes a reality that redraws the region's map on ethnic foundations that cannot be tolerated.
In this highly fragile scene, Iran's own interest seems linked to returning to respect for international laws, not in response to external pressures, but out of mercy for its people first. Compliance with international law provides a protective umbrella for the state and society alike and prevents the country from scenarios of isolation and chaos that the citizen pays the price for before the regime.
