Turkey Breathes Easier As Iran-Israel Truce Eases Fallout Risk
As the fragile Iran-Israel truce took hold, there was no letup in Turkey's diplomatic efforts Wednesday to prevent any return to a conflict fraught with risk for Ankara's domestic and regional policies.
Hours after US President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met him for talks on the sidelines of a NATO summit for their third conversation in 10 days.
Erdogan's "intensive diplomatic efforts" to curb the conflict also involved calls with Russia's Vladimir Putin, Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian and top Middle Eastern leaders.
"Turkey has been trying very hard to de-escalate the situation, but it's not seen as a credible mediator, neither by Iran nor by Israel," Gonul Tol of the Washington-based Middle East Institute told AFP.
Turkey's ties with Israel have been shattered by the Gaza war and Iranians see Ankara as complicit "because it hosts this strategic radar", she said of a NATO early-warning system at Kurecik base in eastern Turkey that can detect Iranian missile launches.
Turkey has categorically denied radar data was used to help Israel but its presence has rattled Iran -- with several Iranian military officials warning it could be "the first target" in case of a wider war, she said.
Even so, Erdogan reportedly sought to set up US-Iran talks in Istanbul last week, which only failed because Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- in hiding due to assassination threats -- couldn't be reached to approve it, the Axios news site said.
Unsettled by the long arm of Israel's reach, Erdogan upped Turkey's deterrence, ordering the defence industry to increase production of medium and long-range missiles. warning Ankara was "making preparations for every kind of scenario".
"Concerns about a possible Turkish-Israeli confrontation in the short term seem exaggerated... (but) both would be wise to reduce tensions," said Gallia Lindenstrauss, senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).
For Turkey, the big fear would be seeing neighbouring Iran plunged into chaos as happened in Iraq and Syria, said Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy.
"Ankara absolutely does not want to see Iran descending into chaos, decentralisation or civil war which could create cross-border threats or fresh refugee flows," he told AFP.
In Iraq and Syria, destabilisation had created a power vacuum that was used by the Islamic State (IS) group and Kurdish PKK militants "to launch attacks into Turkey", fuelling Ankara's efforts to support both nations' recentralisation, he said.
But "the biggest risk" would be another flow of refugees: "If Iran collapses, there's only one country the Iranians will flee to in large numbers: Turkey," he said.
On Friday, Erdogan warned Germany's Friedrich Merz the conflict "could harm the region and Europe in terms of migration" although there was no sign of any influx at the Turkish border last week.
Turmoil in Iran could also harm Ankara's efforts to draw a line under its decades-long conflict with the PKK, which last month said it would disarm, Tol said.
Although most PKK-linked groups embraced the call to disarm, its Iranian affiliate, the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), did not, with Ankara concerned any unrest could embolden recalcitrant Kurdish separatists.
"The worry is that this chaos may strengthen the PJAK. There are PKK fractions who are not happy with (founder Abdullah) Ocalan's call who could think: why disarm now when there's so much chaos we can capitalise on," she told AFP.
A more immediate concern for Turkey was the economic implications of the conflict, she said, with its crisis-hit economy already "struggling" with rising energy prices while fighting hard to bring down inflation.
"But if Iran closed down (the Strait of) Hormuz, that would mean a bigger jump in energy prices and that's something Turkey is deeply worried about," she said.
Oil prices spiked during the 11-day conflict as concerns grew that Iran might disrupt supplies passing through Hormuz, peaking on Monday after US warplanes hit Iran.
With the ceasefire taking hold, Turkey was breathing easier Wednesday -- although the Iran-Israel crisis remained high on the agenda at the NATO summit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
40 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Sees 'Progress' On Gaza, Raising Hopes For Ceasefire
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday that "great progress" was being made to end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza as a new ceasefire push began more than 20 months since the start of the conflict. "I think great progress is being made on Gaza," Trump told reporters ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands, adding that his special envoy Steve Witkoff had told him "Gaza is very close." He linked his optimism about imminent "very good news" for the Gaza Strip to a ceasefire agreed on Tuesday between Israel and Hamas backer Iran to end their 12-day war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also suggested that Israel's blitz of Iran's nuclear and missile facilities, as well as its security forces linked to overseas militant groups, could help end the Gaza conflict. Netanyahu faces growing calls from opposition politicians, relatives of hostages being held in Gaza and even members of his ruling coalition to bring an end to the fighting, triggered by Palestinian militant group Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack. Key mediator Qatar announced Tuesday that it would launch a new push for a ceasefire, with Hamas on Wednesday saying talks had "intensified". "Our communications with the brother mediators in Egypt and Qatar have not stopped and have intensified in recent hours," Hamas official Taher al-Nunu told AFP. He cautioned, however, that the group had "not yet received any new proposals" to end the war. The Israeli government declined to comment on any new ceasefire talks beyond saying that efforts to return Israeli hostages in Gaza were ongoing "on the battlefield and via negotiations". Israel sent forces into Gaza to root out Iran-linked Hamas and rescue hostages after the Hamas attack that resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's military campaign has killed at least 56,156 people, also mostly civilians, according to the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. The United Nations considers its figures reliable. The latest Israeli military losses led to rare criticism of the war effort by the leader of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party, a partner in Netanyahu's coalition government. "I still don't understand why we are fighting there... Soldiers are getting killed all the time," lawmaker Moshe Gafni told a hearing in the Israeli parliament on Wednesday. The slain soldiers were from the Israeli combat engineering corps and were conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Khan Yunis area in southern Gaza when their vehicle was targeted with an explosive device, according to a military statement. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, the main group representing relatives of those held in Gaza, endorsed Gafni's criticism of the war. "On this difficult morning, Gafni tells it like it is... The war in Gaza has run its course, it is being conducted with no clear purpose and no concrete plan," the group said in a statement. Of the 251 hostages seized by Palestinian militants during the Hamas attack, 49 are still held in Gaza including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. Rights groups say Gaza and its population of more than two million face famine-like conditions due to Israeli restrictions, with near-daily deaths of people queuing for food aid. Gaza's civil defence agency said Wednesday that Israeli fire killed at least another 20 people, including six who were waiting for aid. Civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP that a crowd of aid-seekers was hit by Israeli "bullets and tank shells" in an area of central Gaza where Palestinians have gathered each night in the hope of collecting rations. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military said it was "not aware of any incident this morning with casualties in the central Gaza Strip". The United Nations on Tuesday condemned the "weaponisation of food" in Gaza and slammed a US- and Israeli-backed foundation that has largely replaced established humanitarian organisations there. The privately run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was brought into the Palestinian territory at the end of May but its operations have been marred by chaotic scenes, deaths and neutrality concerns. The GHF has denied responsibility for deaths near its aid points. The Gaza health ministry says that since late May, nearly 550 people have been killed near aid centres while seeking scarce supplies. The civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed 46 people waiting for aid on Tuesday. Smoke rising from the Bureij area following an Israeli air strike in the central Gaza Strip AFP A campaign group representing families of Israeli hostages in Gaza called for an end to the war AFP Palestinians carry parcels collected from a food aid distribution point set up by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation AFP
DW
an hour ago
- DW
Fact check: Did NATO expansion drive Russia to war? – DW – 06/25/2025
NATO has allegedly deceived and disrespected Russia by expanding into Eastern Europe, threatening Moscow's interests. That, at least, is how the Kremlin has justified its war in Ukraine. But is there any truth to it? NATO leaders have gathered in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24 and 25 to discuss the topic of increased defense spending, and support for Ukraine will be high on the the agenda. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is now well into its fourth year. As the fighting drags on, the United States has increasingly demanded that its NATO allies shoulder a greater share of the costs of funding the alliance, whose members have been providing significant military and financial support to Kyiv. In the past four years, NATO has been a target of false narratives time and again. DW Fact Check looked at some of the most common claims. However, for the Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO itself represents a threat to Russian national security — especially since its post-Cold War expansion into Eastern Europe, which includes countries that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union or at least in the Soviet sphere of influence. The prospect of Ukraine, a country with even stronger historical and cultural ties to Russia, drawing closer to or even joining NATO — or indeed the European Union — has been cited by Putin as justification for Russian interference in Ukraine since 2014 and the so-called "special military operation" launched in February 2022. As early as March 2000, speaking to the BBC in one of his first interviews as Russian president, Putin insisted that he was not opposed to NATO but stressed concerns about the alliance's eastward expansion, which by that point had already seen Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join as members. Despite NATO's insistence that the alliance was purely defensive, Putin was not convinced. He considers the expansion a breach of trust in the wake of the so-called "Two Plus Four Agreement," the September 1990 settlement regulating the reunification of West and East Germany (the "two") and signed by the four allied powers which had occupied Germany at the end of World War II: the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union. According to Putin, the Western powers had promised that NATO would not expand eastwards into territory formerly controlled by the Soviet Union. NATO has always denied this claim. The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, or the Two Plus Four Agreement, made it clear that no foreign (meaning non-German) troops or nuclear weapons were to be permanently stationed on the territory of the former East Germany. But the German Interior Ministry states that the deal made "no binding assertions regarding the eastward expansion of NATO or the admission of other members." But what informal promises and statements were made, what exactly they entailed and how they are to be interpreted has been the subject of heated debate among both politicians and historians ever since. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin quoted former NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner who said in a speech in Brussels in May 1990: "The fact alone that we are prepared not to station NATO forces beyond the borders of the Federal Republic [of Germany] gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees." As a 2016 German government position paper on the topic points out, however: "Neither in this speech nor at any other point did [Wörner] declare that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO." For Putin and his allies, two other well-documented comments made by senior German and US politicians in February 1990 are of particular importance: former US Secretary of State James Baker's proposal to Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev of "assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position," and former West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher's commitment to a "non-expansion of NATO." According to Tim Geiger of the Leibniz Institute for Contemporary History, however, these words should not be taken out of context. Writing on behalf of the German Armed Forces, the Bundeswehr, Geiger argues that Baker's and Genscher's suggestions merely serve to demonstrate the lengths to which the West German foreign ministry was willing to go at the time to accommodate Soviet concerns regarding German reunification, but had never constituted German or American foreign policy. Indeed, he points out that, within two months, both US President George H. W. Bush and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl had dismissed the ideas as unworkable since they contravened a country's right of freedom to select alliances. This argument is also made by Jim Townsend, senior fellow at the CNAS Transatlantic Security Program, who worked both for and with NATO in various roles throughout the 1990s. "It was all about Germany and German unification," he told DW. Gorbachev himself confirmed as much in an October 2014 interview in which he stated: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all … Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either." But that's not enough for Joshua Shifrinson, associate professor of international politics at the University of Maryland, who told DW that Gorbachev's apparent rejection of Putin's theory has also been taken out of context. Indeed, the former Soviet president also said in the same 2014 interview that the first eastward expansion of NATO in the 1990s was "a big mistake from the very beginning," and "definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990." Among the sources analyzed by Shifrinson are the previously classified minutes of a meeting of the chief US, British, French and German ambassadors to NATO in March 1991, also reported by , in which the German representative Jürgen Chrobog said: "We had made it clear during the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the [River] Elbe. We could not therefore offer membership of NATO to Poland and the others." According to the minutes of the meeting, photos of which DW has also seen, none of Chrobog's colleagues objected. Indeed, France's Raymond Seitz even added: "We had made it clear to the Soviet Union — in Two Plus Four and in other exchanges — that we would not take advantage of the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe." For Shifrinson, this is proof that NATO had not just committed to keeping foreign troops out of eastern Germany, but that "people were thinking about the future of Eastern Europe in general." Benjamin Friedman, who also analyzes relations between Russia and NATO for the US think tank Defense Priorities, added: "The United States didn't make some solemn promise that we would never expand NATO, but we certainly gave the Russians that impression and I think that upset them." Regardless of the ongoing debate, said Shifrinson, "it's incontrovertibly true that Russia invaded Ukraine. You can acknowledge that assurances were given and later abrogated and still not justify Russian behavior." "The expansion or prospect of expansion [of NATO] to Ukraine was a huge cause, not the only one, but a huge cause of the war," said Friedman. "There's a difference between making a statement about causality and a statement about guilt or moral responsibility." Townsend, who after stints at the Pentagon and NATO, moved to the Atlantic Council think tank, also sees Russia as the clear aggressor. "We didn't do anything to upset the Russians, we were very careful about that, and they gave us the green light during those days," he said. "It wasn't until Putin's speech that he gave at the Munich Security Conference that they suddenly had a problem." If NATO has made any mistake, in Townsend's mind, it's a very different one. "If there was any kind of actions that NATO took, [that might have destabilized the European security architecture], it was by not getting strong enough."
Int'l Business Times
2 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Cambodians At Quiet Thai Border Plead For Peace
At the usually bustling border crossing of Poipet between Thailand and Cambodia, tuk-tuk driver San Noeun now has to work overnight to make ends meet. Thailand has all but closed the land crossings in seven border provinces as a territorial dispute with Cambodia that erupted into deadly military clashes last month festers. Cambodians living near the checkpoint in Poipet -- the main land crossing between the two neighbours -- say they are worried about the conflict escalating. San Noeun, 64, said the dispute had badly impacted small businesses and people like himself who earn hand-to-mouth from daily commuters around the border. "Since the border dispute, we cannot make much money," he told AFP, adding he could previously make around $18 a day. "It causes trouble to our livelihood." He wrung his hands in an appeal to both the Cambodian and Thai authorities to end the dispute and re-open the border. "Please don't use weapons. I don't want to see a war anymore. I am so tired of it," he said. Poipet -- a busy casino city popular with Thai gamblers and known for underground cyberscam operations -- is dotted with new construction projects. But since the gates on the Cambodian and Thai sides were both locked, the border crossing has fallen unusually quiet. Local residents told AFP there are fewer people around in the evenings, and those that do come are spending less. San Noeun said he usually drives many foreign casino workers around "but they don't come out to hang around now". Chhan Siyoeung, 54, a shoe vendor with a store about a kilometre (0.6 miles) from the Thai border, also bemoaned a drop in sales due to fewer commuters. "When there is a problem like this, people don't want to spend money," she said. "I am so scared, but I cannot go anywhere else. If I stay here, I could make some money." She said military violence would see local Thais and Cambodians suffer the most, and urged authorities not to take up arms. In the flimsy hut where he stays with his son, San Noeun is also afraid. "I am a bit scared. We do not have a bunker." He had just returned with 200 baht ($6) after offering an overnight ride-hailing service. "It is very hard now. We do not make enough money for day-to-day expenses," he said, fretting over his $2,000 debt to a bank. Despite the hardship, some told AFP they were confident they could ride out the hardships of the border dispute. "It is quiet, So it is a bit difficult to do business," fruit vendor Pov Bal, 34, said. "But it should be okay." Thailand has all but closed several land crossings points over a territorial dispute with Cambodia AFP Shoe vendor Chhan Siyoeung, said fewer commuters at the border has meant a drop in sales and income AFP The border closure has badly impacted those earning hand-to-mouth from daily commuters around the land crossing AFP
