The Israel–Iran conflagration has provided Türkiye with what every aspiring regional power craves: an opportunity to appear statesmanlike while others do the actual fighting. As missiles arc across Middle Eastern skies, Ankara has positioned itself as the voice of reason, the diplomatic heavyweight, and—most importantly—the regional power that everyone simply must consult.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s response to the crisis has been nothing if not theatrical. Within hours of Israeli strikes on Iranian targets beginning on 13 June, Türkiye’s diplomatic machinery swung into action with the precision of a Swiss timepiece and the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s condemnation was swift and unequivocal, describing Israel’s actions as “a clear violation of international law” and “a provocation serving Israel’s strategic destabilisation policy in the region.”
Yet beneath the righteous indignation lies a more calculated strategy. Türkiye has discovered that being the regional power that condemns everyone while fighting no one is remarkably good for business—diplomatic business, that is.
The art of strategic outrage
Erdoğan’s personal statement on the crisis reads like a masterclass in diplomatic positioning. “Israel has taken the strategy of drowning our region in blood, tears and instability to a very dangerous stage as of this morning,” he declared, with the kind of moral clarity that only comes from watching other people’s wars from a safe distance. The Turkish president’s characterisation of Israeli actions as “banditry” and calls for the international community to “finally say stop to Israeli banditry” demonstrate Türkiye’s comfort in adopting the role of regional conscience.
This moral positioning serves multiple purposes. First, it aligns Türkiye firmly with Iran—described by Erdoğan as “our neighbour,” “friend and brother people”—while maintaining the fiction that this is about principle rather than geopolitical calculation. Second, it allows Türkiye to present itself as the regional power that stands for international law and diplomatic solutions, even as it maintains complex relationships with all parties involved.
The timing of Türkiye’s diplomatic offensive is particularly noteworthy. As TRT Haber reported, the attacks occurred “at a time when negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear programme were intensifying,” allowing Türkiye to position itself as the defender of diplomatic processes. This framing conveniently ignores Türkiye’s own complicated relationship with international law when it suits Ankara’s interests.
Telephone diplomacy and the Illusion of Influence
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Türkiye’s response has been Erdoğan’s marathon of telephone diplomacy. According to Daily Sabah, the Turkish president engaged in “intensive phone diplomacy” with leaders ranging from U.S. President Donald Trump to Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian. This flurry of international calls serves a dual purpose: it demonstrates Türkiye’s supposed centrality to regional affairs while creating the impression that Ankara’s voice carries weight in resolving the crisis.
The substance of these conversations reveals Türkiye’s careful positioning. In his call with Trump, Erdoğan expressed Türkiye’s view that “nuclear negotiations are the only way to resolve the Israel–Iran conflict” and Türkiye’s readiness “to do everything it can to prevent uncontrolled escalation of the tension.” This statement manages to sound both principled and pragmatic while committing Türkiye to precisely nothing concrete.
More telling was Erdoğan’s conversation with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, where he warned that “our region cannot tolerate another crisis, and a devastating war could create waves of irregular migration toward all the countries in the region.” Here, Türkiye’s self-interest becomes apparent. As a country already hosting millions of Syrian refugees, Türkiye has genuine concerns about additional refugee flows. Yet this practical worry is packaged as regional statesmanship.
The convenient geography of moral authority
Türkiye’s geographic position provides it with the luxury of moral authority without immediate physical risk. Unlike Israel and Iran, which are directly exchanging fire, or regional states that might find themselves drawn into the conflict, Türkiye enjoys the benefits of proximity without the costs of participation. This allows Ankara to adopt positions that would be impossible for more directly involved parties.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s statement that Israel’s attacks show “the Netanyahu government does not want any issue to be resolved through diplomatic means and does not hesitate to put regional stability and global peace at risk for its own interests” carries particular weight precisely because Türkiye is not currently being bombed. It is easier to advocate for diplomatic solutions when one’s own territory is not under threat.
This geographic advantage has allowed Türkiye to position itself as the regional power that can speak to all sides. Erdoğan’s conversations with both Iranian President Pezeshkian and various Arab leaders demonstrate Türkiye’s ability to maintain relationships across the region’s sectarian and political divides.
The economics of regional leadership
Türkiye’s positioning during this crisis also reflects economic calculations that extend beyond immediate diplomatic gains. As Sözcü reported, “Iran and Israel’s missiles raised gold prices,” highlighting how regional conflicts affect global markets. Türkiye, with its strategic location between Europe and Asia, benefits from being seen as a stable regional power during times of crisis.
The Anadolu Ajansı’s analysis of how “the Iran–Israel conflict affected the markets” underscores Türkiye’s awareness that regional instability can create economic opportunities for countries positioned as safe havens or diplomatic mediators. Türkiye’s emphasis on diplomatic solutions and regional stability serves its economic interests by presenting the country as a reliable partner in an unstable neighbourhood.
The limits of diplomatic theatre
Yet for all Türkiye’s diplomatic positioning, the actual influence of its regional power aspirations remains questionable. The fact that Erdoğan felt compelled to convene a security meeting at the Presidential Complex suggests that Türkiye’s ability to influence events may be more limited than its rhetoric suggests. The meeting addressed “Israel’s expanding aggression, diplomatic efforts to end the conflicts, the attacks’ global and regional security impacts, necessary measures, and Türkiye’s preparations for potential developments.”
The Turkish government’s concern about the conflict’s potential to “seriously harm regional security” and create “waves of irregular migration” reveals the constraints on Türkiye’s regional power ambitions. Despite its diplomatic positioning, Türkiye remains vulnerable to the consequences of conflicts it cannot control.
Regional power in the modern era
Türkiye’s response to the Israel–Iran crisis illuminates the modern dynamics of regional power competition. In an era where direct military confrontation between major powers is increasingly rare, the ability to position oneself as the indispensable mediator becomes a form of power projection in itself.
Erdoğan’s warning that Israel is trying “to drag the whole region into the fire” while simultaneously positioning Türkiye as the voice of reason demonstrates this dynamic perfectly. Türkiye gains regional power status not through military might or economic dominance, but through diplomatic positioning and the cultivation of relationships that allow it to claim relevance in every regional crisis.
The Turkish approach also reflects a broader trend in Middle Eastern geopolitics, where regional powers increasingly compete through proxy relationships and diplomatic positioning rather than direct confrontation. Türkiye’s ability to maintain relationships with both Iran and various Arab states while condemning Israel allows it to present itself as the regional power that transcends traditional alliances.
From posturing to performance: A test of influence
Whether Türkiye’s current positioning as a regional power mediator is sustainable remains an open question. The country’s economic challenges, domestic political pressures, and complex relationships with both NATO allies and regional partners create constraints on its diplomatic freedom of action.
Moreover, Türkiye’s effectiveness as a regional power ultimately depends on its ability to deliver results. Diplomatic positioning and moral authority are valuable assets, but they must eventually translate into concrete influence over events. The current crisis will test whether Türkiye’s claims to regional power status are backed by actual capability to affect outcomes.
As the Israel–Iran conflict continues to unfold, Türkiye’s performance as a self-appointed regional power mediator will face its most significant test. The country’s ability to maintain its diplomatic positioning while avoiding the costs of deeper involvement will determine whether its current approach represents genuine regional leadership—or merely the diplomatic equivalent of theatre criticism: lots of commentary, but limited ability to change the performance.