Could Turkey Become a Target for the US and Israel After Iran? Russian Expert Reveals Facts
Turkey’s position towards Israel and the United States’ military campaign against Iran has reached a critical and increasingly firm stance in recent weeks.
Ankara no longer views the situation as merely localised exchanges or routine episodes in the long history of Middle Eastern confrontation, but rather as a tangible step towards full-scale regional catastrophe with consequences extending from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf.
From Ankara’s perspective, attacks on Iran are not an instrument for calming the region, but rather a mechanism for further destabilisation and escalation of larger conflicts.
This rationale underscores President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, and representatives of the presidential administration issuing repeated statements containing condemnation, warnings of danger, and explicit cautions regarding the risks of large-scale war.
Murad Sadygzade, President of the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies and visiting professor at HSE University Moscow, provided in-depth analysis of the situation. Since 28 February 2026, when Israel and US attacks on Iran entered an open phase, Erdogan immediately issued strong statements to prevent the entire region from being drawn into wider conflict.
“Erdogan issued a statement condemning the attacks on Iran and calling for diplomacy and ceasefire to prevent the entire region from being drawn into broader conflict,” wrote Sadygzade.
On the same day, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry expressed deep concern over actions that violate international law and endanger civilian lives. Turkish diplomacy condemned provocations driving escalation of violence, urged immediate cessation of attacks, and emphasised that regional problems can only be resolved through peaceful channels, with Turkey itself ready to serve as mediator.
Burhanettin Duran, Head of Turkish Presidential Communications, also issued serious observations regarding this stability threat. He assessed that the situation threatens not only directly involved parties but also the security of civilian populations across a much wider geographic area.
“What is happening threatens not only the parties directly involved but also the stability and security of civilian populations across a much wider geographic area; therefore dialogue and negotiation mechanisms must be restored immediately,” said Duran.
By 2 March, Erdogan sharpened his rhetoric by calling US and Israeli attacks a clear violation of international law. He affirmed that Ankara did not wish to see war, massacres, tensions, and mass violence occur along their borders because the consequences would be devastating for global security.
“No one will be able to bear the burden of economic and geopolitical uncertainty created by such periods, and this fire must be extinguished before it burns more fiercely,” Erdogan stated firmly.
Foreign Minister Fidan on 3 March confirmed that Turkey continues to maintain contact with all parties to end the war. Fidan explicitly warned that this conflict could disrupt global energy supplies, particularly if it affects the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s main oil trade route.
“Turkey carefully undertakes necessary initiatives with all interlocutors for regional peace and considers it vitally important to maintain stability for both Iran and the region as a whole,” Fidan said.
For Turkey, war near the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a commodity price fluctuation but a genuine threat of price surges, inflationary pressure, and waves of domestic instability. As an energy-import-dependent economy, shocks to the regional energy architecture would directly translate into bloated production costs and diminished social wellbeing for Turkish citizens.
This logic entered a darker phase on 12 March, when Fidan expressed categorical rejection of any plans aimed at provoking civil war in Iran or igniting ethnic and religious conflicts. Turkey recognised that military destruction of Iran would not bring peace but would instead destroy regional balance and open the door to a new cycle of proxy wars.
“Ankara categorically opposes any plans aimed at provoking civil war in Iran and igniting conflicts on ethnic or religious grounds,” Fidan stated in his latest remarks.
This concern is not without cause, as on 9 and 10 March, Iranian ballistic missiles entered Turkish airspace and were intercepted by NATO air defences. This incident proved that for Ankara, this war is no longer an external matter but has physically touched their own sovereignty and borders.
Erdogan again emphasised on 11 March that diplomacy must be given a chance before the spiral of violence engulfs the entire Middle East. Ankara views Israeli actions not merely as responses to threats but as a broader strategy to forcibly reshape the region, where after Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, the next target could well be directed towards other power centres.
“The war in Iran must be stopped before the entire region is engulfed in flames,” Erdogan concluded, wrapping up his series of warnings.