The U.S. and Israeli operation against Iran has been ongoing for 14 days. These two weeks have significantly changed the expectations of many international actors regarding developments in the Middle East. Despite large-scale air strikes and growing tensions in the region, the Iranian regime remains resilient. Most experts tend to believe that an air campaign alone is unlikely to lead to the overthrow of the ayatollahs’ regime, while any further scenario, including a potential ground operation, appears complicated, politically risky and unlikely.

For Ukraine, in this context the key issue remains Russian aggression. Above all, whether the support of partners will change when their resources, political attention and military capabilities are increasingly concentrated on the Middle East. There is also some uncertainty regarding the next stage of peace negotiations. The meeting that was planned to take place in Abu Dhabi, according to preliminary information, may instead be held next week in Istanbul.

We spoke about the situation in the region, possible scenarios of further developments, the likelihood of a U.S. and Israeli ground operation against Iran, the impact of the escalation in the Middle East on Ukraine and the peace process, as well as the new architecture of European security and the potential role of Kyiv and Ankara in it with Prof.Dr. of International Relations and Vice-Rector of the leading Turkish Kadir Has University, Mitat Çelikpala.

ANY ESCALATION COULD CREATE SERIOUS REGIONAL CONSEQUENCES

– Professor, how do you assess the current situation in the Middle East, and how high is the risk that this escalation may turn into a broader regional conflict or even World War III?

– When we look at the current situation in the Middle East, I would say the risk of escalation is real. Even the possibility of a Third World War exists theoretically because of the nature of the clashes we are seeing at the moment.

What we see now is an operation by the United States, supported by Israel, against Iran, which is an important actor in the region. The repercussions could go far beyond Iran itself. Any escalation in this confrontation could create serious regional consequences.

At the moment, European actors are relatively cautious. They are trying to calm the situation and observe what is happening. China and Russia are still not directly involved in this equation. But Iran clearly has the capacity to respond. Therefore, the threat of escalation exists.

From the perspective of Türkiye, Iran is in some respects a partner, but also a competitor. This competition exists not only in the Middle East but also in other regions. Therefore, the Turkish authorities are observing developments very closely and are also trying to find ways to de-escalate the situation.

The big question now is whether the United States or Israel are ready to stop the attacks against Iran and move toward some kind of normalization. If that does not happen, Iran will feel the need to respond or retaliate. And the big question remains: who will stop this escalation? Whether it will be the Americans, the Israelis, or other actors – this is still uncertain and raises concern.

IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE REGIME IN IRAN WITH AIR OPERATIONS ALONE

– What is your forecast for developments in the short and medium term? How long could this confrontation last? Is an end to the military phase possible soon?

– I think it will take quite a long time. If we look at the historical context, for decades the Americans have tried in different ways to weaken or neutralize the regime in Iran. But the Iranian regime is still intact and in some respects even stronger.

With air operations alone it is almost impossible to change the regime. They probably expect that public opinion inside Iran will eventually change and that people will stop supporting the existing regime. But under the current circumstances this is not easy.

You remember the Israeli operations over the last two years. What we see now is in many respects a continuation or an expansion of those operations. They achieved some strategic results, but fundamentally changing the situation under the current conditions is very difficult.

A ground operation against Iran would also be extremely complicated. Iran is a mountainous country, it is a huge territory, and conducting such an operation there would not be easy.

We have seen attempts to influence regimes in other places, for example in Venezuela. But in Iran it is very difficult to reproduce similar outcomes.

Therefore, if Israel and the United States want to escalate the situation further or continue military pressure to change the regime in Iran, it will take a long time. It is almost impossible to end such a confrontation within just a few weeks or even months. Moreover, the leadership in Iran clearly has the intention and the political will to continue resisting.

– If it is impossible to overthrow the regime “from the air,” and a ground operation is unrealistic…

– There is no international support for it. There is no UN mandate and there is also no strong European support. Even the United Kingdom hesitates about supporting such American operations. The Gulf countries have their own concerns. Their capabilities are limited, and to some extent they support American air operations, but at the same time they face serious responses from the Iranians. Therefore, under the current circumstances I do not expect any kind of large-scale ground operation against Iran.

THE IDEA OF A COLOR REVOLUTION IN IRAN DOES NOT LOOK REALISTIC

– Mr. Mitat, you mentioned public opinion in Iran. Do you think the United States missed the moment when public pressure inside Iran could have led to regime change?

– I do not think this is the way to change a regime in a country like Iran – through Israeli and American military operations. It is simply impossible.

Even the opposition inside Iran is now very silent. Because from their perspective this has become a national issue: Iran is under attack by Israel. The Americans and others may now even risk losing the pro-American opposition in the region.

You can see that figures such as the Shah’s son (Reza Pahlavi – editor’s note) and others have been very silent over the past week. They are watching the situation very carefully.

The idea that public opinion could generate a political movement similar to what we saw in Ukraine – a kind of color revolution in Iran – does not seem realistic at the moment.

Many people now feel that their country is under attack by the United States and Israel. This creates a strong nationalist reaction. In the Middle East, when such a perception of external threat appears, people often unite around the state rather than oppose it.

ANY INSTABILITY IN IRAN WOULD CREATE SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR TÜRKİYE

– Türkiye’s position toward Iran appears quite balanced. If Türkiye faced a direct attack, would Ankara move toward a military response or wait for a NATO collective response under Article 5?

– It is still too early to make such forecasts. At the moment this is not a direct threat or a direct attack against Türkiye. There are some concerns, first of all related to security. But Türkiye is a NATO member and the NATO defense mechanism works. From Türkiye’s perspective, this situation has also been a kind of test case. And we understood that the NATO security umbrella works for Türkiye. This is a positive aspect.

Secondly, Iran is a competitor and rival for Ankara in the region. But at the same time the collapse of Iran would not be a positive development for Türkiye for many reasons.

First of all, economically and financially Iran is a partner, especially in terms of energy trade and other economic relations. Part of Iran’s population is culturally close to Türkiye, including Turkish-speaking communities of Azerbaijani origin.

Third, any instability in Iran would immediately create humanitarian problems for Türkiye. Syria and Iraq are much smaller countries, yet the consequences of instability there were already catastrophic for Türkiye in the 1990s and during the last decade. Iran has a population of more than 80 million, so any humanitarian crisis or migration wave would become a serious challenge for Türkiye.

Another issue is what kind of regime might emerge in Iran in the event of regime change. If such change were driven by Israeli military operations, this would create additional tensions. Some Israeli politicians have even suggested that Türkiye could be “next,” which triggered strong reactions in Türkiye.

Finally, there is concern that Iran, if further pressured, could respond in a much more aggressive way and potentially ignite a broader conflict across the Middle East. Such developments would directly affect Türkiye.

For all these reasons, Türkiye’s priority is to prevent further escalation and stop the war. This position does not depend on whether one supports or opposes the Iranian regime. In a certain sense, the current regime represents a form of stability. If changes in Iran are to happen, it would be better if they occur gradually and organically, without external intervention.

RUSSIA IS INTERESTED IN THE UNITED STATES SPENDING RESOURCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

– Some experts in Ukraine believe that Russia sees the war against Ukraine as the main arena to demonstrate power. Could the escalation in the Middle East influence the Kremlin’s strategy and the prospects for negotiations?

– The Russian side is very interested in distracting U.S. attention toward the Middle East and confrontation with Iran, because this means the Americans will spend their resources there.

In such a scenario, the United States will have to allocate resources not only in the north but also in the south.

I have also seen reports suggesting that information about targets may be shared with Iran, particularly when Iran strikes American bases in Qatar and other regions. Iran probably does not possess such precise information on its own, so it is possible that Chinese or Russian sources share intelligence with them.

Will this help negotiations regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? I have doubts about that. The European side is not directly involved in the Iranian issue, and the United Nations is also not playing a significant role.

At the same time, Ukraine’s position remains extremely important. Would Kyiv see this situation as a reason to stop the war against Russia? Would Ukraine be ready to negotiate under strong pressure and direct attacks? I do not see strong spillover effects here.

Rather, what we are seeing resembles the formation of blocs: Iran, China and Russia on one side, and Western actors on the other.

If Western countries, the United States and even Russia begin to interpret the situation in this way, it could signal an expansion of confrontation on different fronts – not only in the north, in the Black Sea or the Baltic region, but also in the south, including the Persian Gulf and Iran.

Russia is also trying to offer additional energy resources to some countries in order to gain profits and expand influence. At the same time, the political position of the West remains unclear. We also do not know what exactly is currently in Donald Trump’s plans.

The operation against Iran may also create negative consequences for other countries. This partly explains why many European actors remain relatively silent and why their strategic perspective seems to be shifting.

UKRAINE AND TÜRKİYE COULD PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN A NEW EUROPEAN SECURITY ARCHITECTURE

– What role could Ukraine and Türkiye play in the future model of European security?

– Recent developments are bringing Türkiye and Ukraine closer to Europe. Under the current circumstances it is difficult to fully rely on the American administration because the United States has its own priorities.

Israel also has its own political interests and strategic vision, which many countries do not necessarily share. What concerns many actors is the unity of Western countries in terms of their security vision.

Before the war and during the first year of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Western countries managed to create a certain level of unity and define a common security strategy. Now this unity has weakened.

The question is whether Türkiye and Ukraine could help bring some European actors together and encourage them to take regional security more seriously.

Turkish and Ukrainian authorities remain very active in discussions with European partners.

One possible approach could involve developing a regional security framework together with countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states, while maintaining cooperation with the United States and NATO.

However, we are currently in a transitional period, and European actors are still searching for a clear strategic approach. Ukraine will remain at the center of these discussions, especially regarding how to respond to the war under the current circumstances.

ESCALATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST COULD COMPLICATE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE WAR IN UKRAINE

– The next round of negotiations may take place in Istanbul next week. What should Ukraine do now to bring a just and lasting peace closer?

– The situation is very complicated. For Ukraine, the three key pillars of any negotiations with Russia remain sovereignty, the issue of the occupied territories, and reliable security guarantees from Western partners. At the moment most diplomatic contacts take place through the United States rather than through direct negotiations.

At the same time, the escalation around Iran may also affect the situation. If the United States becomes more deeply involved in the Middle East, this could have direct consequences for Ukraine. In such circumstances Washington may try to push Kyiv toward some form of interim agreement.

However, it remains unclear how Ukraine or European countries would respond. European governments continue to support Ukraine and try to pressure Russia through sanctions and other instruments in order to bring it to the negotiating table.

Nevertheless, this situation makes the diplomatic process much more complicated, and it remains uncertain whether these negotiations will lead to any concrete results. For now, Istanbul appears to be a realistic venue for negotiations. The Gulf region is effectively out of the equation, while Istanbul is perceived as a relatively neutral place.

Olga Budnyk, Ankara