By Mike Kevrekidis
Origins of a Strategic Marriage
When North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) welcomed Turkey as a member in 1952, the decision reflected the hard logic of the early Cold War. The West was racing to contain Soviet influence, and geography mattered as much as ideology. Turkey controlled access to the Black Sea through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, bordered the Soviet Union, and sat at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. In strategic terms, it was a linchpin.
Turkey’s path into NATO was not symbolic. Ankara demonstrated its willingness to shoulder real costs by sending troops to fight alongside Western forces in the Korean War (1950–1953). This contribution helped cement Turkey’s case as a somewhat credible military partner and reassured Western capitals that Ankara was prepared to align itself with the Atlantic bloc.
Yet NATO membership was never meant to be only a matter of troop numbers or terrain. The alliance’s founding documents emphasized shared interests and, at least aspirationally, shared democratic values. During the Cold War, those ideals were sometimes subordinated to necessity, but they were never abandoned in principle.
Geography Still Matters—but the World Has Changed
For decades, Turkey’s location delivered some benefits to NATO. U.S. and allied forces relied on their Turkish bases for intelligence-gathering, early warning systems, and power projection into the Middle East. During crises—from the Cuban Missile Crisis to the Gulf War—Turkey’s territory played some supporting role.
But the strategic environment of the 21st century differs sharply from that of 1952. NATO has expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact states. The alliance’s military reach now includes advanced missile defense, long-range airpower, cyber capabilities, and space-based assets that reduce reliance on any single geographic chokepoint. Turkey remains important—but it is no longer singular.
At the same time, Ankara’s own foreign policy has evolved. Over the past two decades, Turkey has pursued a more autonomous, transactional approach, balancing relationships with Russia and regional powers. This recalibration has complicated its role within NATO and strained assumptions about alignment.
Iran: A Human Struggle Behind the Geopolitics
One of the West’s central challenges in the Middle East today is the Iran and its theocratic system of governance. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been ruled by a clerical establishment that tightly controls political life, restricts civil liberties, and suppresses dissent.
Inside Iran, resistance is not an abstract geopolitical concept—it is lived experience. Recurrent protest movements, from the 2009 Green Movement to the nationwide demonstrations sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, reveal a society in persistent tension with its rulers. Women, students, workers, and ethnic minorities have repeatedly taken to the streets, often facing mass arrests, violent crackdowns, and executions. These episodes are well documented by international human rights organizations and by Iran’s own diaspora.
For Western governments, Iran represents both a security challenge—through its regional proxies and nuclear ambitions—and a moral dilemma: how to support a population that seeks greater freedom without provoking wider conflict.
Ankara’s Alignment—and the Discomfort It Creates
Against this backdrop, Turkey’s relationship with Iran raises uncomfortable questions. Ankara has expanded economic ties with Tehran, coordinated tactically on regional issues, and frequently opposed Western-led pressure campaigns against the Iranian regime. While Turkey officially frames this posture as pragmatic diplomacy, critics argue that it amounts to de facto support for a system many Iranians are trying to escape.
What makes this stance striking is not that Turkey refuses to confront Iran militarily—few expect that—but that it has often gone beyond neutrality. Energy cooperation, trade mechanisms designed to circumvent sanctions, and political rhetoric that downplays Iran’s human rights abuses signal a willingness to align with Tehran when interests converge.
For NATO partners, this alignment appears at odds with the alliance’s broader objectives. At minimum, it challenges the expectation that members will not actively undermine collective efforts to pressure authoritarian regimes that destabilize the region.
Leverage as Strategy
Why would Turkey choose this path? One plausible explanation lies in leverage. Ankara’s foreign policy increasingly rests on the concept of indispensability—being too strategically important for Western allies to sideline or seriously penalize.
By positioning itself as a necessary intermediary—between East and West, between conflict zones and stable markets—Turkey enhances its bargaining power. This logic has been visible in multiple arenas: migration management with the European Union, negotiations over NATO expansion, and regional conflicts from Syria to the South Caucasus.
From this perspective, persistent instability can be an asset. As long as adversarial regimes remain entrenched and regional tensions endure, Turkey’s role as a gatekeeper appears indispensable. Cooperation with Iran, rather than confrontation, helps preserve that status.
The Paradox of a Democratic Iran
This leads to a paradox rarely acknowledged openly. A more democratic, less isolated Iran—one aligned more closely with Western norms—could reduce Turkey’s relative importance. Energy corridors might diversify. Diplomatic channels could multiply. The West’s reliance on Turkey as a singular bridge into a hostile region would diminish.
In such a scenario, Ankara’s leverage would shrink. Its ability to extract concessions—on trade, defense procurement, or political disputes—would weaken. Seen through this lens, Turkey’s reluctance to challenge the Iranian regime begins to look less like ideological sympathy and more like strategic calculation.
Does the West Still “Need” Turkey?
This brings us to the uncomfortable question at the heart of the debate: does the West truly need Turkey in the way it once did?
The honest answer is nuanced. Turkey remains a major military power within NATO, hosts critical infrastructure, and occupies a strategic location that cannot be replicated. But necessity is not binary. The alliance has options it lacked during the Cold War—diversified bases, expanded membership, and technological capabilities that reduce geographic dependence.
What has arguably been overstated is the idea that Turkey is irreplaceable. That perception has, at times, been leveraged by Ankara to justify policies that conflict with NATO’s stated principles and interests.
A Choice, Not a Fate
Turkey’s NATO membership was born of necessity, but it was sustained by mutual benefit. Today, that balance is under strain. Aligning with authoritarian regimes, whether in Iran or elsewhere, may offer short-term leverage, but it risks long-term isolation within an alliance built on trust.
For the West, reassessing its assumptions about Turkey is not about exclusion—it is about realism. For Turkey, the choice is ultimately strategic and moral: to continue treating instability as leverage, or to recommit to the values that once made its NATO membership more than a matter of geography.
History shows that alliances endure not because they are unavoidable, but because they are chosen—again and again.
Mike Kevrekidis
Κάντε το πρώτο σχόλιο