- The US-Israel and Iran war has widened sharply, with Iran firing missiles towards Turkish airspace Wednesday
- Since the war began, Iran has fired missiles and drones across the Middle East. Turkey was exempted
- An attack on Turkey would narrow Iran's diplomatic manoeuvring space, said an expert
The US-Israel and Iran war has widened sharply, with the NATO air defences destroying an Iranian ballistic missile fired towards Turkey on Day 5 of the war.
Since the conflict began early Saturday, when Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a joint US-Israeli airstrike, Iran has fired missiles and drones across the Middle East, striking Israel, and at Iraq, Jordan and all six Gulf states in a bid to strike at US assets.
Turkey - a majority Sunni Muslim NATO member, which shares a 500-kilometre border with Iran - was exempted. That changed Wednesday.
A ballistic missile launched from Iran and heading towards Turkish airspace via Iraq and Syria was destroyed by NATO air defence systems, Turkish officials said yesterday. There were no casualties or injuries in the incident.
While Iran has retaliated by aiming drones and missiles at Israel, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf states in the hope of striking US bases and assets, Turkey had so far been spared Tehran's wrath. That changed Wednesday.
What US, NATO Said
Reacting to the incident, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a call with Turkey's Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan "that attacks on Turkey's sovereign territory were unacceptable and pledged full support from the United States," State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.
The incident also drew condemnation from NATO.
"NATO stands firmly with all allies, including Turkiye, as Iran continues its indiscriminate attacks across the region," NATO spokeswoman Allison Hart said, using Turkey's official name.
Ankara summoned the Iranian ambassador to convey its "reaction and concerns" over the incident while Fidan warned Tehran against steps that could widen the conflict, AFP reported quoting a diplomatic source.
A direct attack on Turkey's territory would alter the legal and military framework of the conflict. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states that an attack against one ally can be considered an attack against all. Although its activation requires political consensus, the risk of it being invoked introduces a deterrent factor that is qualitatively different from that faced by the Gulf states.
The Importance Of Turkey
On Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for "an end to the bloodbath" in the Middle East, vowing to help reach a ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran.
"We are on the side of peace. We want an end to the bloodbath, for the tears to stop flowing and that our region finally reach the lasting peace it has cried out for for years," Erdogan told members of his AKP party in Ankara.
"We want neither conflict nor war with our neighbours during this holy month of Ramadan," the president added.
Erdogan, who maintains good relations with President Donald Trump despite frequently criticising American ally Israel, nonetheless insisted that the US-Israeli strikes on Saturday, which sparked the war and triggered retaliation from Tehran, were "illegal".
Erdogan, a key regional player, had previously expressed his sadness at the death of Iran's supreme leader.
The Wednesday strike has the potential to further queer the pitch for Iran.
Why Striking Turkey Is A Bad Idea For Iran
Experts spotlighted that Turkey maintains dialogue with Washington, Gulf capitals and Tehran. An Iranian attack would close that avenue and force Ankara to align itself unequivocally with the opposing bloc, compounding Iran's troubles.
Striking the Gulf allows Iran to project power and send deterrent signals to the US without automatically activating a superior military alliance.
Hitting Turkey would mean challenging a state with significant military capability and, potentially, the entire Atlantic structure.
The political, military and economic cost would be much higher.
There is also the fear of further sanctions and deeper international isolation if a NATO member is attacked.
Therefore, the exclusion of Turkey from Iranian targets was a result of a multi-level deterrence calculation: NATO membership, the presence of US nuclear weapons, early warning infrastructure, its own military capability and diplomatic value as a mediator.
"A direct military move against Turkey would risk triggering a symmetrical response from Ankara. This could push the conflict beyond manageable limits," AFP reported, quoting Arif Keskin, an Iranian expert at Ankara University.
He further warned that attacking a NATO member could also trigger the military alliance's collective defence mechanisms, which would "raise the strategic cost dramatically".
"Iran has neither the strategic incentive nor the intention to target anywhere in Turkey. The risks of such a move would be extremely high for Tehran, both politically and militarily," Serhan Afacan, director of the Ankara-based Centre for Iranian Studies (IRAM), told AFP.
By continuing to attack Turkey, Iran also risks busting its last potential avenues for negotiation.
For Tehran, Ankara remained "a critical diplomatic actor" who could play a key in back-channel diplomacy, Keskin said.
"An attack on Turkey would narrow Iran's diplomatic manoeuvring space and cut off a crisis-management route it may later need," he told AFP.
It also risked pushing Ankara into "an opposing camp" which could play out badly for Tehran given Turkey's geostrategic location, the expert said.
"Iran's choice not to attack Turkey is not a matter of goodwill but the outcome of a highly layered strategic calculation," he said.
(With AFP inputs)
