In recent years, Turkey has sought to position itself as a balancing regional actor, based on the understanding that any large-scale regional confrontation could directly harm its internal stability, national security, and economic situation.
Senior security officials in Jerusalem assess that this is why Ankara intervened in the tensions between Iran and the United States and attempted to mediate a diplomatic solution to the crisis.
Turkey’s mediation policy is not a one-off diplomatic move, but rather part of a broader national security doctrine that views active diplomacy as a tool for managing strategic risks. Over the past decade, Turkey has faced multiple active conflict zones, including the war between Russia and Ukraine, the fighting in Syria and Iraq, tensions with Iran, and disputes in the Mediterranean over control of natural resources such as oil and natural gas.
In light of this reality, Ankara has developed a policy aimed at preventing regional conflicts from escalating into large-scale wars that could drag Turkey into direct involvement.
Western intelligence officials assess that Turkey’s mediation attempts between Washington and Tehran reflect deep concern in Ankara over the prospect of a full-scale regional war.
According to Western intelligence assessments, a military confrontation between the United States and Iran could generate four major threats to Turkey: expanded activity by pro-Iranian militias in nearby arenas, a severe energy crisis due to Turkey’s dependence on regional oil and gas, a large wave of refugees from Iran that could destabilize the country internally, and the fate of the Kurdish minority in Iran, a highly sensitive issue for Ankara.
From a Turkish perspective, the Kurdish question is one of the most dangerous consequences of any collapse of the Iranian regime.
Such a development could encourage Kurdish demands for autonomy or advanced self-rule, potentially serving as political and symbolic inspiration for Kurds inside Turkey.
Senior Israeli security officials assess that Turkey may try to promote diplomatic frameworks focused primarily on the nuclear issue, while minimizing discussion of Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional proxies, including Hizbullah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.
This assessment stems from the understanding that Turkey itself maintains complex relations with some of these actors and is therefore not interested in their complete dismantlement.
In addition, Israeli intelligence officials identify a Turkish effort to strengthen its status as a central regional mediator at the expense of other regional players, including Egypt and the Gulf states.
Such a process could, according to Israeli assessments, increase Turkey’s influence in sensitive arenas, including Palestinian issues and future regional crises.
The prevailing assessment within Israel’s political leadership is that Turkey is acting first and foremost in pursuit of its own interests, rather than out of a commitment to broad regional stability.
Accordingly, the Israeli intelligence community continues to closely monitor Ankara’s diplomatic activity, especially its contacts with Iran.
Security officials estimate that the success of Turkish mediation depends on Ankara’s ability to maintain the trust of all parties involved. However, this role also exposes it to risks, as any failure in mediation could damage its regional standing and subject it to pressure from other regional actors.
The assessment within Israel’s defense establishment is that despite these challenges, Turkey is likely to continue investing efforts to cement its position as a regional mediator.
According to security assessments, Ankara views this role as a central component of its national security strategy, combining military power, active diplomacy, and the management of a complex regional balance of power.
Beyond immediate considerations of stability and security, Turkey’s mediation efforts in the Middle East are part of President Erdoğan’s broader ambition to restore Ankara’s status as a leading regional power, one that shapes the agenda rather than merely reacting to it.
According to intelligence assessments in both the West and Israel, this policy is rooted in a neo-Ottoman worldview that sees Turkey as the natural heir to the Ottoman Empire, with historical responsibility and legitimate presence across the Middle East, the Balkans, and North Africa.
Erdoğan and his circle of advisers no longer speak only in terms of political borders, but of spheres of influence. Diplomatic mediation is viewed as a central tool for expanding that influence, alongside the use of both soft and hard military power.
Turkey has followed this approach in Syria, Libya, the Caucasus, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and now in its mediation efforts between Iran and the United States. From Ankara’s perspective, successful mediation is not only a mechanism for preventing wars, but also a way to create regional dependence on Turkey and turn it into an indispensable actor.
Senior Israeli security officials assess that for Erdoğan, mediating between Washington and Tehran serves several goals simultaneously. First, it positions Turkey as a bridge between the West and the Muslim world, a role previously played by countries such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Second, it strengthens Turkey’s standing with the United States as a vital regional partner, particularly amid tensions between Ankara and Washington over NATO, Russia, and the Kurdish issue.
Third, it allows Turkey to indirectly influence the outcome of any future arrangement with Iran in a way that preserves its interests in Syria, Iraq, and the energy arena.
Senior Israeli security officials also identify, behind Ankara’s conciliatory rhetoric, a struggle for leadership of the Sunni world. Turkey, regarded as one of the leading supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, seeks to distinguish itself from the Saudi-Emirati axis and present an alternative leadership model for the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Successful mediation between major powers or regional rivals strengthens this narrative and helps Erdoğan consolidate his standing as a leader with a broad regional vision.
However, Israeli intelligence officials assess that these ambitions also carry limitations and risks. The gap between Turkey’s aspirations and the level of trust it enjoys among key actors, foremost among them Israel, constrains its freedom of action. Its public support for Hamas, its complex relations with Iran, and its stance toward Greece and Cyprus make it difficult for Ankara to be perceived as a truly neutral mediator.
Nevertheless, the prevailing assessment in political circles in Jerusalem is that Ankara will not retreat from this policy. In this sense, the mediation efforts are not merely a tool for crisis management, but part of a long-term strategy aimed at returning Turkey to the center of the regional stage, in the spirit of an Ottoman legacy adapted to the conditions of the 21st century.
