Follow us on social

Shutterstock_512559409-scaled

What’s behind Iran’s sudden realignment with Turkey?

Rather than herald the emergence of a new alliance in the region, the recent rapprochement between Iran and Turkey appears to be a marriage of convenience.

Analysis | Middle East

Ever since Turkey’s military incursion into northeastern Syria in October 2019, dubbed “Operation Peace Spring,” and particularly after the Syrian government’s offensive on rebel stronghold Idlib in December with the crucial assistance of Iran-allied militias, bilateral ties between Ankara and Tehran have increasingly sourced. Until now. 

In a surprise announcement that marked a noticeable shift in Iran’s regional policy, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif declared Tehran’s “support” for the Turkey-backed “legitimate” Government of National Accord in Libya during a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu on June 15. It was the Iranian government’s first official endorsement of GNA amid claims and rumors that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is surreptitiously transferring arms to forces of the Russian-backed Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Haftar.

On the same day, Turkey launched an all-out military operation against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, positions in northern Iraq. In another surprise move and despite Tehran’s usual objections to any violation of Iraqi sovereignty, the IRGC simultaneously initiated its own assault from the east and struck positions of Kurdistan Free Life Party, a Kurdish militant group that seeks autonomy for Iran’s minority Kurds and is believed to be closely associated with PKK. 

The abrupt convergence of geopolitical and security interests between Tehran and Ankara, or more precisely, Iran’s efforts to mend fences with Turkey, is no accident. Increasingly squeezed by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions and constantly pushed back by the U.S.-led constellation of its Arab rivals including in Iraq, Iran has been in dire need of a regional opening to alleviate the consequences of isolation, and Turkey in a good position to facilitate it despite longstanding mutual differences in Syria. Turkey’s potential as a U.S. ally and assertive regional actor is particularly significant for the leadership in Tehran because unlike during the Obama era, it has been reluctant to help Iran evade American sanctions under Trump, leaving Iran more vulnerable and forcing Iranians to rely increasingly on Iraq for the purpose. While the volume of Iranian-Turkish bilateral trade has plummeted about 50 percent due to reimposition of US sanctions — from around $10.7 billion in 2017 to almost $5.6 billion in 2019, according to one estimate — Iran’s economic relations with Iraq are booming despite increased U.S. pressure on Baghdad to reverse the trend. 

But Libya and the Kurdish question are not the only policy areas where Tehran’s and Ankara’s interests may converge. In the June 15 joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif also made a significant, yet mostly neglected, mention of Yemen. “We have common views with the Turkish side on ways to end the crisis in Libya and Yemen,” he said, indicating the possible emergence of a regional realignment between Iran and Turkey against the Saudi-led bloc in the Yemeni and Syrian conflicts. 

Since the start of the Saudi-led coalition’s invasion of Yemen in March 2015, Turkey supported the coalition's military campaign, opposing the Iran-backed Houthis. However, as Turkey's relations with Saudi Arabia soured in 2018 over the Khashoggi murder scandal, Ankara began reconsidering its position toward the conflict. Now that the Saudi-led campaign has failed to defeat the Houthis and at the same time, Riyadh has been experiencing growing disagreements with its ally, the UAE, over their long-term plans for Yemen, Turkey has adopted a more active policy toward the Yemeni civil war.

In the context of this new approach, Turkey seeks to increase its influence in Yemen, especially in the southern parts of the war-ravaged country, through actively supporting al-Islah Party, which is known as the Yemeni affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, there have been reports recently of the Turkish-backed militants being deployed from Syria to Yemen to fight alongside pro-Brotherhood forces and against UAE-backed troops and fighters in the Southern Transitional Council. Therefore, although there’s still no sign of any possible alignment between Iranian- and Turkish-aligned forces in Yemen, the common objective of dealing a blow to the Saudi-led alliance and extracting concessions from it appears to have brought the diplomatic positions of Tehran and Ankara closer to each other on the Yemen issue.

A common concern over the potential expansion of Riyadh’s as well as Israel’s regional influence has also contributed to Iranian support for Turkey's position on Libya. While Russia and Syria, both Iran’s partners, back the LNA, the Islamic Republic would prefer to see the consolidation of the Turkish-backed GNA over the empowerment of the Saudi-Egyptian axis in North Africa. Furthermore, Riyadh’s direct and indirect support for the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces with the aim of countering the influence of both Iran and Turkey in Syria, gives Tehran and Ankara another incentive for cooperation.

However, as far as Tehran is concerned, the realignment with Ankara against Riyadh is more tactical, aimed primarily at intensifying pressure on the Saudis to change their approach toward Iran. In this vein, despite reiterating the Islamic Republic’s support for the Turkish-backed authority in Libya, Brigadier General Hussein Dehghan, a military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently stressed Iran's willingness to reconcile with Saudis. “If Saudi Arabia accepts, we are ready to talk to them without any preconditions,” he said in an interview on June 22.

A day after Dehghan’s interview, the Houthis announced a new set of missile and drone strikes against Saudi defense ministry compound and other military targets in Riyadh. As such, by tightening the grip on Saudi Arabia in the realm of regional diplomacy — through realignment with Turkey — as well as on the ground, Iran appears to be striving, via its own pressure campaign, to force the Saudi leaders into recognizing Iran’s regional status and come to terms with it.

With these dynamics in mind, Turkey’s view of recent convergence with Iran seems to be similarly of a tactical nature. Iran's diplomatic support for the GNA will not only help Ankara legitimize its intervention in Libya, but can also lead to a face-saving solution for Turkey in Syria. Although in the wake of the March 5 ceasefire agreement between Turkey and Russia the situation in Idlib has partially stabilized, the Erdogan government knows that the current status quo is not sustainable in the long run and that the Syrian army and its allies will sooner or later resume a conclusive military operation in the area. Under these circumstances, redeploying armed rebels to Libya and Yemen could, to some extent, relieve Ankara’s concerns over the possibility of those mostly Islamist rebels entering the Turkish territory and posing a security threat to their own sponsor. Meanwhile, by shrinking the chances of an all-out proxy conflict, the move would increase the likelihood of a compromise between Turkey, Iran and Russia in Syria. This does not yet mean that fundamental differences between Iran and Turkey in the region, especially in Syria, will be quickly, let alone automatically, resolved.

Rather than herald the emergence of a new alliance in the region, the recent rapprochement between Iran and Turkey appears to be a marriage of convenience, aimed at securing separate interests for each party. Factors such as the possibility of enhanced coordination between Ankara and Washington in Syria, a potential detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and Tehran’s desires not to alienate Russia by taking a more proactive position against Khalifa Haftar — could negatively affect the new Iran-Turkey realignment.


Gabriel Petrescu / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.