Public opinion in Turkiye is clear: Stay out of this war

For more than two decades, Turkiye has lived with wars on its doorstep — first Iraq, then Syria, and now Iran. None of these conflicts have remained within the countries’ borders, and all have affected Turkiye’s security, economy, and domestic politics.

Over time, Turkiye has adopted an increasingly proactive foreign policy in response to geopolitical transformations and the structural challenges posed by its neighborhood. With the country playing a greater role in regional issues, its population has also taken a growing interest in Ankara’s foreign policy decisions. 

Most Turkish people oppose the country being dragged into any war. If anything, they prefer Turkiye to act as a mediator. According to a recent public survey that asked what Turkiye’s policy should be in the conflict between Iran and the US, most preferred neutrality or supported brokering peace. There is strong public opposition to US and Israeli military action, but that does not mean there is support for the Iranian regime. 

Turkiye’s position is delicate here because it is the only NATO member that shares a long land border with Iran. That alone makes things more difficult for Ankara. On the one hand, it is part of the Western alliance, while on the other, it risks facing the consequences of whatever happens next door. Historically, Turkiye’s membership in NATO has shaped its policies not only with the West but also with its neighbors — a situation that calls for clear neutrality.

However, this neutrality is far from passive, because Turkiye cannot afford that. Rather, we currently see an active neutrality, where Turkiye is trying to be part of a peace framework — as seen in its cooperation with Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — while also avoiding being drawn into the conflict by refusing to allow its territory and airspace to be used by the US in military operations against Iran.

Turkish people are worried about what comes next. 

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

Politically, Turkiye has not aligned with any of the parties in the Iran conflict. This is not the first time in Turkish political history that the country has taken such a stance. When the US launched its war against Iraq in 2003, most Turkish people opposed the conflict. This was one of the strongest anti-war public opinions in any NATO country at the time and was particularly striking given the alliance between Ankara and Washington. As a result, the Turkish parliament voted against allowing US troops to open a northern front from Turkish territory. Despite pressure from the US, Turkiye refused to become part of that war, with public opinion playing a crucial role in the decision. Turkiye has existed within the Western system while its public remains skeptical of the West.

In fact, the end of the Iraq war did not change Turkish public opposition to US policy in the region. If we look at public opinion now, the pattern is similar.

Turkish people oppose the war even if it results in the fall of the Iranian regime; they are skeptical of US intervention, and worried about what comes next. This shows a consistent public mindset in Turkiye that is shaped by four main dynamics: fear of regional spillover, distrust of US policies, popular anti-war sentiment, and economic and refugee-related concerns.

The Turkish public and political parties fear that further escalation of the war could make Turkiye a primary destination for refugees. During the 2010s, millions of Syrians fled to Turkiye, resulting in economic, social, and security pressure on the country. A similar pattern happened during the Iraq conflict. Now with a similar situation in Iran, a country with a much larger population, the scale is likely to be greater. In addition, there are concerns over disruption to the fragile Kurdish peace process at home.

Ankara’s stance on the conflict is far from passive. 

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

Traditionally, on foreign policy issues, the Turkish political spectrum is complex. There are several sentiments, including anti-Western or anti-imperialist discourse; Islamic, especially regarding issues such as Palestine; and pro-Western perspectives. 

In the Iran war, although the desire for neutrality is shared, all parties have differed in their tone as a reflection of their ideological backgrounds. Turkiye’s ruling AKP has emphasized the importance of diplomacy and opposed violations of any country’s sovereignty. Its nationalist ally MHP is also against the war, but has raised concerns about suggestions that Turkiye could be the next target after Iran, especially in the wake of statements by some Israeli officials. The main opposition party, CHP, also condemns US and Israeli attacks on Iran, but is critical of the Iranian regime’s domestic policies. Lastly, the pro-Kurdish DEM party opposes the war, while also viewing the possibility of regime change in Iran more positively.

As was the case with previous conflicts in neighboring countries, the Iran war also tops Turkiye’s political agenda. Despite slight differences in the tones of the political parties, the overall pattern is clear: Turkiye should stay out of this war.

Turkish foreign policy has a long history of diplomacy under tense conditions. Ankara’s current neutrality is not only the government’s preferred position but also reflects the broader political spectrum and an increasingly influential public opinion. Given Turkiye’s NATO membership and its active role in regional politics, its neutrality should be understood within a broader perspective. This stance is not passive, but is both a necessity driven by structural constraints and a product of domestic political and economic factors.

• Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz