If Iran falls, who stands next in line? In Ankara, that question is no longer theoretical.
Ankara Fears Crushing Tehran Could Trigger a New Phase of Regional Power Struggles.
As the war between Israel, the United States and Iran deepens, officials in Turkey are asking a stark question: if Tehran is broken, what comes next — and who?
From the first days of the open strikes on Iran in late February, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the attacks as violations of international law and warned that the conflict risked spiraling into a regional catastrophe.
Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reinforced that message, cautioning that escalation could destabilize energy markets and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint critical to global oil flows — and to Turkey’s import-dependent economy.
But Ankara’s concerns run deeper than fuel prices.
Turkish officials argue that forcibly dismantling Iran would not bring stability. Instead, it could collapse one of the region’s major power centers, triggering internal fragmentation and unleashing a chain reaction from Iraq and Syria to the Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean.
For Turkey, which has absorbed the spillover of wars in Iraq and Syria for two decades — from refugee waves to cross-border militancy — the prospect of chaos inside Iran is viewed as an existential strategic risk.
The fear is not ideological alignment with Tehran. Turkey and Iran compete across multiple theaters, from Syria to the South Caucasus. Rather, Ankara sees the regional balance — tense and imperfect though it may be — as preferable to a vacuum.
There is another layer to Turkish anxiety: the belief that Israel’s campaign may not end with Iran. Israeli political figures have publicly identified Turkey as a growing regional rival.
In Ankara’s strategic calculus, if Iran is decisively weakened, attention could shift toward other independent regional actors — with Turkey foremost among them.
Recent incidents have reinforced that sense of proximity. Iranian missiles have reportedly entered Turkish airspace during regional exchanges, prompting diplomatic protests.
For Ankara, the war is no longer distant. It is edging toward its borders.
At the same time, Turkey faces domestic economic fragility. Rising energy costs, inflationary pressure and market volatility could compound existing challenges. A prolonged regional war would translate quickly into higher import bills, strained budgets and social tension.
Ankara’s response has therefore followed a dual track: vocal diplomatic opposition to escalation and quiet reinforcement of defensive preparedness. Erdogan has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and mediation, framing diplomacy as the last barrier before a broader conflagration.
In Turkish strategic thinking, the destruction of Iran would not conclude a conflict. It would reset the Middle East into a far more combustible phase — one in which alliances shift, power vacuums open and rivalries intensify.
For now, Turkey speaks the language of restraint. But behind that language lies a sober calculation: if the region’s fire is not contained, it will not stop at Iran’s borders.
