Whenever the question of Iranian influence in the Middle East arises, Turkey is often presented as a ready-made alternative. The logic seems straightforward: if Iran’s power diminishes, Ankara will naturally step forward to fill the void. However, this assumption is based on a misleading comparison between two countries whose regional ambitions are built on fundamentally different foundations.

Iran exercises influence as a revolutionary system that operates beyond the boundaries of the state. Despite its growing regional activism, Turkey still largely behaves as a nation-state seeking strategic leverage rather than ideological expansion.

Iran exercises influence as a revolutionary system that operates beyond the boundaries of the state. Despite its growing regional activism, Turkey still largely behaves as a nation-state seeking strategic leverage rather than ideological expansion.

Some analysts have begun to frame the issue precisely in these terms. Ilan Giladi, of the University of Haifa, argued in an article published in Haaretz that Turkey could emerge as a key security actor in the region following any major confrontation with Iran. According to this view, Gulf states have already begun to recalibrate their defence strategies in ways that reduce their reliance on the United States and open the door to a greater Turkish role

However, this argument assumes that Turkey could replicate Iran’s regional influence without addressing a more fundamental question: does Ankara have the same structural and ideological framework that enabled Tehran to establish and maintain its network of influence across the Middle East?

READ: Israel continues to undermine all efforts to end war: Turkish president

The divergence begins with the nature of the state........

© Middle East Monitor