Is Turkey Being Dragged into a New Theatre of War within the Iran-US-Eastern Mediterranean Triangle?

Developments Requiring Verification and the Dynamics of Escalation

Claims circulating in the Israeli media and on social media sources, alleging that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the head of Mossad had been killed as a result of attacks carried out by Iran, should be regarded as an extremely critical element of psychological warfare used throughout the conflict, even though they were later proven to be false. This is because such reports do not merely aim to reflect military reality; they also seek to influence public opinion, shape perceptions of the enemy, and impact the decision-making processes of the opposing side.

Furthermore, considering past attacks targeting Iran’s religious leader, the possibility of a high-level casualty on the Israeli side could indicate that a leader-targeted retaliation doctrine has been activated. This situation demonstrates that the war has evolved into a structure that transcends conventional boundaries, directly targeting the state’s highest governing mechanisms. Such a development could trigger an uncontrolled escalation by deepening the conflict not only militarily but also on symbolic and psychological levels.

US Policy Towards Iran and the Scrutiny of the “Nuclear” Pretext

“Iran’s nuclear programme” is consistently cited as the primary justification for the US’s hardline policies towards Iran. However, when examined through the lens of international relations literature, we observe that this narrative is utilised not so much as a normative security concern but rather as a strategic tool. This is because the failure to apply similar pressure regarding Israel’s nuclear capabilities—which are known to be far more advanced and operational—within the same international system clearly demonstrates that this approach is selective and driven by self-interest.

This situation indicates that the US’s policies towards Iran are not solely aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation; they are also linked to objectives such as restructuring the balance of power in the Middle East in its favour, controlling energy resources, and limiting the influence of rival actors. The picture that emerges in this context points to the existence of a practice that could be characterised as a ‘double standard’ within the international system.

Consequently, whilst Iran’s nuclear programme is put forward as a pretext in this great power struggle, it is understood that the core competition is shaped around energy, geopolitical control and regional hegemony. This necessitates that regional actors such as Turkey develop a broader strategic perspective by looking beyond these narratives.

Turkey’s Strategy for Being Dragged into War: Provocation and Perception Operations

The possibility of Turkey being drawn into a direct conflict with Iran is one of the most critical breaking points of this crisis. In this context, one of the most striking claims is that missile attacks directed at Turkey might be made to appear as if they originated from Iran, whilst in reality they could have been carried out by different actors.

In such a scenario, the aim is to direct the perception of threat in Turkey towards Iran, thereby provoking a military response and thus turning Turkey into an active party to the war. This approach aligns with “false flag” operations, which are frequently seen in modern warfare doctrines.

Should such a provocation succeed, Turkey could find itself facing not only Iran but also a broader network of regional conflicts. Turkey must continue to demonstrate a reflex of calm and resilience in the face of such provocations.

Trump’s Emphasis on the Turkish Army: A Strategic Message?

US President Donald Trump’s description of the Turkish military as “strong and undamaged” may appear, on the surface, to be a positive assessment; however, upon closer examination, it contains significant strategic messages. This statement indicates that Turkey’s military capacity is viewed not merely as that of an allied force, but also as an operational tool that can be actively deployed on the ground.

A look at the historical strategies of major powers reveals a tendency to utilise the military capabilities of regional actors rather than resorting to direct military intervention. In this context, positioning Turkey as a force capable of playing an active role on the ground, particularly against a challenging target such as Iran, can be seen as an approach consistent with the US’s indirect warfare strategies.

However, this situation carries serious risks for Turkey. A prolonged conflict could lead to the attrition of the Turkish Armed Forces, the depletion of Turkey’s limited economic resources, and a weakening of the country’s internal security balance. Consequently, such rhetoric should be viewed merely as military praise and not taken seriously.

The Militarisation of Cyprus: The “European Naval Base” Scenario

Developments in the Eastern Mediterranean indicate that the island of Cyprus is becoming increasingly militarised and is effectively being transformed into a “European Naval Base”. The military assets deployed to the region reinforce this claim:

• France: The Languedoc frigate and the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, expected to arrive in the region
• Italy: The Federico Martinengo frigate
• Spain: The Cristobal Colon warship
• Greece: F-16 fighter jets and the Kimon-class frigate

This military build-up is not solely for defensive purposes; it is also viewed as part of a strategy to control energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean and to establish forward bases in the event of a potential regional war. In a scenario where Turkey enters into direct conflict with Iran, the likelihood of a new front opening up centred on Cyprus appears quite high. According to this scenario, Turkey’s focus shifting to the eastern front could lead to a sudden shift in the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In this context, strategic moves against Turkey via Cyprus, and the creation of de facto situations regarding maritime jurisdiction areas and energy fields, may be on the cards. Such a development could force Turkey to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously. The fact that our Ministry of National Defence has deemed the NOTAM issued by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to be invalid and void demonstrates that this struggle has not only military but also legal and diplomatic dimensions. NOTAM crises are of critical importance in terms of airspace control and sovereignty claims. Such steps serve as precursors to potential military tensions on the ground and can be interpreted as an effort by the parties to strengthen their positions within the framework of international law.

The Greek Factor: Opportunistic Strategy and Simultaneous Pressure

The possibility of Greece intervening in a scenario where Turkey is preoccupied with Iran constitutes an extremely critical risk factor in terms of regional power balances. It is likely that Greece would seek to escalate tensions in the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean by pursuing an opportunistic strategy during a period when Turkey’s military capabilities are concentrated on a different front.

Such a development could trigger a chain of crises ranging from limited military manoeuvres to airspace violations, and from disputes over maritime jurisdiction to more widespread conflicts. The emergence of simultaneous crises would place Turkey under significant pressure in terms of military planning and resource management.

For this reason, the Greek factor must be assessed not merely within the context of bilateral relations, but as part of a broader regional strategy.

Conclusion: As the US Squeezes Turkey, It Is Sealing Its Own Fate

The US is preparing its own downfall whilst squeezing Turkey. By keeping Turkey occupied with a war against Iran, the US is attempting to create space for an EU-Greek coalition in Cyprus; however, this policy could backfire. Should Turkey’s strong, undamaged military and its guarantor rights regarding Cyprus come into play, a new theatre of war will emerge in the Eastern Mediterranean. The US’s intense pressure on Turkey carries the risk of dividing NATO and losing its strategic position in the Middle East. As the regional balance of power shifts, this move—which Washington views as a ‘short-term tactical’ gain—could be interpreted as paving the way for its own geopolitical demise in the region in the long term.