The escalating tensions between the United States (U.S.) and Iran in recent times, accompanied by the Israeli factor, point to a multilayered process that is reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East. This conflict is not merely a bilateral security issue; rather, it reflects a broader field of competition encompassing energy geopolitics, the global financial order, Turkey’s geostrategic position, China’s rise, international trade corridors, and logistics hubs. In this context, a comprehensive military operation against Iran could produce consequences that indirectly limit Turkey’s regional and global power projection.
The Negotiation Process and the Mediation Issue
The decision to conduct U.S.-Iran negotiations in Oman and later in Geneva, rather than in Turkey, has sparked debate over diplomatic capacity. In recent years, Turkey has assumed mediation and facilitation roles in various crisis areas. Had the negotiations been conducted in Istanbul, the process between the parties might have been more conciliatory due to Turkey’s diplomatic experience and international negotiation capabilities.
Global Energy Geopolitics and Dollar Hegemony
One of the most significant elements of U.S. pressure on Iran is energy geopolitics. Iran ranks third in the world in proven oil reserves, behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, and second in natural gas reserves, behind Russia. A significant portion of Iranian oil is exported to China, and the conduct of this trade in non-dollar currencies and through barter mechanisms has posed a strategic challenge to the dollar’s status as a reserve currency.
The United States’ global hegemonic capacity rests not only on its military superiority but also on the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. The fact that international energy trade is conducted mainly in dollars is a key factor in maintaining this position. Washington has perceived Iran’s shift toward alternative currencies in energy trade as a strategic move. This development has moved the Iran issue beyond a regional security dimension, making it part of global financial competition.
The sanctions and regime pressure policies implemented by the U.S. in the case of Venezuela are often compared in the Iranian context. However, the political structures, social dynamics, and geopolitical positions of the two countries differ significantly. Therefore, it is not feasible for the U.S. to achieve success in Iran by applying the same methods used in Venezuela. Iran’s political and military structure, foreign policy relations, and regime resilience differ fundamentally from those of Venezuela. Iran possesses an ideologically grounded state-nation structure, strong military capacity, and international support networks from countries such as Russia and China. The intervention in Venezuela operated through its limited military capacity and the system’s vulnerability to external shocks. Consequently, the same strategy would not yield similar results in Iran. Especially considering the China and Russia factors, it appears highly difficult for the U.S. to control Iran through the military and political strategies it applied in Venezuela.
The China Factor and the Belt and Road Initiative
Behind the U.S. and Israel’s policies toward Iran lies China’s global rise and its growing economic presence in the Middle East. Within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, China aims to establish new trade and logistics networks along the Asia-Europe axis. Iran’s geographical position, extending from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Oman and its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, makes it strategically significant for this initiative. From the U.S. perspective, weakening or controlling Iran also aims to disrupt China’s trade routes extending to the West through the Middle East. Thus, comprehensive military operations against Iran reflect both regional and global dimensions of great power competition.
Turkey’s Geostrategic Position
Turkey is located at the center of transportation, logistics, and energy routes intersecting along the East-West and North-South axes, and is situated on the historic Silk Road. Initiatives such as the Development Road Project, planned to extend from Iraq’s Basra Gulf to Europe via Turkey, and the Zangezur Corridor have the potential to position Turkey as a regional logistics hub and central country. These projects carry strategic importance both for integration with European markets and for connectivity with Asia-centered trade networks.
In this context, the destabilization of Iran, similar to the cases of Iraq and Syria, would increase security risks for Turkey from its neighbors. A fragmented or internally chaotic Iran would raise both economic and security costs for Turkey. Therefore, the indirect effects of operations against Iran seriously threaten Turkey’s strategic interests and its “Century of Turkey” vision.
Moreover, Israel’s expansionist and theological tendencies in its foreign policy suggest a preference for fragmented states preoccupied with internal conflicts rather than strong, cohesive ones. From this perspective, Turkey’s weakening would expand Israel’s room for maneuver. In such a scenario, Turkey could effectively become neighbors with Israel through the fragmentation of the Iranian borders. When military operations against Iran are examined within this framework, it becomes evident that emerging threat dynamics may gradually shift toward Turkey, increasing regional security risks.
Asymmetric Strategy and the Cost-Imposition Doctrine
Iran’s retaliatory actions against U.S. and Israeli targets in the Gulf can be interpreted not as an attempt to achieve direct military victory but as a deterrence and cost-imposition strategy. This approach, commonly employed in asymmetric power balances, aims to render the conflict economically and politically unsustainable for the opposing side. In this framework, Iran’s objective is not necessarily to defeat the United States but to erode Washington’s strategic determination by raising the costs of conflict.
Iran’s attacks targeting U.S. bases in Gulf countries increase the risk of the conflict expanding regionally into a large-scale war. However, if Iran were to concentrate its military capacity on U.S. strategic assets, such as American aircraft carriers in the region, rather than on dispersed targets in the Gulf, it could generate more direct, outcome-oriented deterrence. The sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier by Iran in the Gulf of Oman would impose significantly higher military costs on Washington. While such a scenario could create grounds for coercive diplomacy and negotiation, it would simultaneously carry the risk of rapid conflict escalation.
The Contradiction Between U.S. Domestic Dynamics and Foreign Policy Developments
The United States’ foreign policy capacity is not independent of its domestic political and economic dynamics. Increasing social polarization, financial pressures, and the cost of foreign interventions may pose significant obstacles to the sustainability of prolonged military operations. Conversely, the U.S.’s concentration in the Middle East and high war expenditures could create strategic opportunities for China, Russia, and European actors. In particular, the depletion of U.S. resources through Iran could open space for China in the Asia-Pacific and enhance Moscow’s maneuvering capacity in the Russia-Ukraine War.
Iran’s Internal Structure and Regime Resilience
It does not appear likely that the U.S. could collapse the Iranian regime in the short term. Historically, perceptions of external threats in Iran have strengthened internal consolidation. However, structural economic problems caused by sanctions and rising social dissatisfaction pose serious long-term risks to regime stability. Therefore, it is essential for Iran to adopt a multidimensional foreign policy strategy based on mutual gains. In this regard, Turkey’s multidimensional foreign policy approach may serve as an example. Otherwise, a foreign policy limited to partnerships primarily with China and Russia narrows Iran’s room for maneuver.
The fundamental variables that will determine the course of the Iran war include possible leadership scenarios after Ali Khamenei, the level of political consolidation around a new leader, and the extent of support from China and Russia.
Conclusion
Although the U.S.-Israel-Iran war appears, on the surface, to be a military intervention focused solely on Iran, it is closely linked to multilayered geoeconomic dynamics, including energy markets, the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, China’s rise, and trade corridors in the Middle East. The weakening or destabilization of Iran could have consequences that directly affect not only Iran but also Turkey through shifts in regional power balances.
Turkey’s geostrategic position could make it a central actor in global power competition. For this reason, the indirect repercussions of operations against Iran must be carefully analyzed from Turkey’s perspective. Evaluations within Turkish public discourse suggesting that “the ultimate target is Turkey” should also be considered from a strategic standpoint.
In conclusion, the current war can be assessed not only as a regional conflict but as a manifestation of global power competition in the Middle East. Turkey’s strengthening of its defense industry capacity and pursuit of a balancing, multidimensional foreign policy will be decisive in shaping the course of the Iran war.
