The war launched by US imperialism and Zionist Israel against Iran is transforming into a regional conflict, drawing in countries from the Gulf to Lebanon and involving Iran’s ‘proxy forces’. These developments already demonstrate that the consequences of the ongoing war will not be limited to Iran. One of the most debated issues regarding this spreading war is the position of Turkey, a significant regional power. President Erdoğan, who was one of the few leaders US President Trump spoke with by phone on the day the attack on Iran began, condemned the US and Israel in his initial statement while also declaring Iran’s targeting of US bases in Gulf countries as “unacceptable”. His coalition partner Bahçeli also called the attack on Iran “unacceptable”, attributing it to “the US falling for Zionist provocation”. Statements from AKP Spokesperson Ömer Çelik and Foreign Minister Fidan highlight calls for “an end to the attacks” and a “return to the negotiating table”. Erdoğan went a step further during a speech at the AKP Ankara provincial organisation's 'Iftar Programme', once again implying Israel by stating, “traps are being set and insidious calculations are being made against Turkey behind closed doors,” calling for the 86 million citizens to unite behind the government (strengthening the internal front). The pro-government media, along with its “experts”, is also discussing scenarios of a Turkey-Israel war.

In light of these developments and statements, two questions must be answered to clarify Turkey's position in the war:

Firstly; is Turkey truly pursuing a ‘neutral’ policy in the war?

Secondly, and more widely debated; are “traps being set against Turkey behind closed doors” as Erdoğan claims? In other words, is Turkey next after Iran?

The discussion must begin with this reminder: The Palace regime's perception of a “regional threat” via Israel is not new. Following Israel’s delivery of serious blows to forces within the ‘axis of resistance’ alongside the war and occupation in Gaza—developments that played a major role in the regime change in Syria and Iran becoming a direct target today—Erdoğan stated that Israel “has its eye on Turkey’s territory”. His partner Bahçeli, pointing to the regional threat, initiated the recent process through his call to Öcalan and the goal of ensuring Kurdish armed forces cease to be a threat to Turkey.

Following the regime change in Syria, tensions occasionally escalated in the struggle for spheres of influence between Turkey and Israel, leading to debates that these two powers might clash. The primary reason for this tension was Israel's use of the Druze and Kurdish issues to ensure the temporary HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) administration remained weak and to oversee a transition process in Syria under its own control, while the Erdoğan administration acted with the aim of supporting the HTS administration to liquidate or pressure Kurdish forces. This tension turned into cooperation when US imperialism intervened and found a solution that ‘balanced’ these two powers within its own political axis: As long as the HTS administration fulfilled the demands of the US and Israel, space was opened for the policy of limiting the power of the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) and the Kurdish autonomous administration. Consequently, while Erdoğan spoke of the Israeli threat on one hand, Foreign Minister Fidan was involved in every stage—from the HTS administration joining the ‘Coalition to Defeat ISIS’ to the signing of a mutual agreement with Israel in Paris on 6 January—playing an encouraging role for the HTS administration. The US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, put an end to these debates by stating, “Turkey and Israel will not fight. You will see cooperation from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.”

The role it plays in the war against Iran leads to Israel once again coming to the fore in the redesigning of the region based on US political interests. The fact that Turkey is decisively tied to the US political axis today does not mean it is not uncomfortable or concerned about its regional rival, Israel, gaining prominence. Therefore, it must be said that the risks created by the war against Iran regarding Turkey's position in the region and its expansionist ambitions are decisive in the Erdoğan regime appearing “neutral” and assuming a “mediator” role.

Firstly, the cooperation between Kurdish forces in Rojhilat causes serious concern within the Erdoğan administration regarding the emergence of an autonomous status in Iran similar to that in Rojava. It would be no surprise if the US and Israel seek to turn the fact that Kurds are the most organised group in Iran into an opportunity—indeed, the targeting of the Iranian regime's military centres in Rojhilat points to such a pursuit.

Secondly, prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran was Israel's most important ally in the Middle East. It is not an unlikely scenario that a potential regime change in Iran would create a political equation where Turkey's geopolitical position from the Caucasus-Caspian region to the Middle East would no longer hold its current importance for the US and Western imperialists, and its sphere of influence would be limited.

Furthermore, although significantly constrained since the Trump era, such a shift in political balances would further narrow the Palace regime's policy of exploiting contradictions between US and Western imperialists and Russia and China.

These risks are sufficient to understand/explain why the Erdoğan administration wants the war to end and a return to the table. However, conducting negotiations with US imperialism based on these risks does not mean the Erdoğan administration is ‘neutral’ in this process, contrary to what is claimed. Because to say the Erdoğan administration is “neutral” today, one would have to forget that Turkey was admitted to NATO not only because of the “Soviet threat” but also as a result of the US and Western imperialists' policy to keep the Middle East under control. The most concrete recent example of this policy is the activation of the Malatya Kürecik Base in 2012 within NATO's missile shield system (early warning radar system). Even the "deaf sultan" knows this radar base was activated to “monitor ballistic threats originating from Iran” and to “provide early warning data to Israel’s missile defence system”. Therefore, to claim this base is not being used against Iran today, one would have to argue that Erdoğan is defying his friend Trump and refusing to perform Turkey’s duties within NATO. Yet, Trump frequently praises Erdoğan, saying he does everything he asks, and the Erdoğan administration states at every opportunity that it is “committed to its duties within NATO”.

Iran’s decision not to confront Turkey while targeting US bases in Gulf countries and their strategically important energy facilities does not stem from ignorance of this fact. While Iran aims to pressure the US and Israel through Gulf countries to end the war by targeting their economic lifelines, it tries not to confront an important regional power like Turkey, which is in competition with Israel. Because confronting Turkey would not only significantly increase the potential risks of the war but also eliminate the possibility of using these contradictions—similarly, Iran, where 25% of the population is Azeri, does not target Azerbaijan despite its cooperation with Israel.

Regarding the answer to the question “Is Turkey next?”, the following points should be noted:

Firstly, reading these developments through Turkey-Israel rivalry means failing to see the reality that US imperialism is at the centre of the ongoing war and the regional redesign policy. By attributing the war to “Israel’s provocation of the US”, Erdoğan and Bahçeli are attempting to cover up the Palace regime's relations of dependency on the US and NATO and its role in this war. Reducing the matter to Israeli provocation is nothing more than an attempt to render invisible the fact that US imperialism wants to push back and encircle its rivals, Russia and China, from the Middle East to the Caspian and Central Asia through this intervention. As a continuation of this, the pro-government media highlighting Turkey-Israel war scenarios, and the propaganda from certain Eurasianist and nationalist circles who—though appearing to be against the government—claim “Turkey is next”, also serve to obscure this reality.

While US imperialism has made its largest military build-up in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq intervention, these efforts to obscure the truth are not without reason. Because accepting that this war is primarily a war centred on US imperialism requires questioning the Erdoğan regime’s policy of cooperation with US imperialism from Gaza to Syria. Given this reality, remaining neutral in this war today is only possible by closing the US and NATO bases in Turkey.

In conclusion; through “Israeli threat” propaganda and the rhetoric of “strengthening the internal front”, the Palace regime is attempting to hide its dependency relations with US imperialism, its position within NATO, and its role in this war, aiming to recruit the public to its own reactionary policies. Therefore, the way for the peoples of the country and the working class of every nationality to oppose this war, to show solidarity with the people of Iran and the region, and to avert potential threats against Turkey, lies primarily in bringing the demand to close US and NATO bases in the country to the fore and escalating the struggle against the government's two-faced policy.