By Barçın Yinanç
The unintended consequence of U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the assertion of Iranian power.
“We are in power in four capitals,” Iranians used to brag of their presence and clout in Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Yemen.
But this strategic overextension has led to vulnerabilities which were exploited by Israel and the United States. As resources were depleted to keep the axis of resistance active, Iran appears to have neglected to have a functioning air defense system which proves how the revolutionary guards drew resources at the expense of the air forces.
The reciprocal missile attacks between Israel and Iran and the former’s superiority in air power proves to be a good occasion to underline Turkey’s vulnerabilities in air power as well as the lack of anti-missile defense systems.
TURKEY’S STRATEGIC OVEREXTENSION
Turkey is also suffering from strategic overextension. It maintains a large troop presence in Northern Iraq and Syria to counter PKK terrorism (16 to 18,000 in Syria according to AKP spokesperson Ömer Çelik). It contributes to NATO operations in several geographies including Iraq and Kosovo. Somalia hosts Turkey’s biggest military base abroad. The list can go on. For the first time since 1974 military intervention in Cyprus, Turkey had to move troops from the island to the mainland during the deadly earthquake in 2023.
The absence of an effective air defense is not only due to the depletion of resources due to troop presence abroad.
As Turkey failed to secure the purchase of anti-missile defense systems from Western allies under its terms, it sought alternatives. The purchase of Russian made S400s resulted in the expulsion of Turkey from the F35 program. Forced to keep the S400s in their package Turkey risks the loss of its air force superiority as well vis-a-vis its neighbors.
UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF RELYING ON ARTICLE 5
The difference however between Turkey and Iran is that the former enjoys the protection of NATO’s Article 5. While the public is largely unaware of the important contribution of NATO to Turkey’s defense, it is probably the deterrence of the Alliance that provided the AKP government the luxury of strategic overextension.
Yet, as Turkey has agreed to increase its defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035, the Turkish public might become more familiar with NATO as the increase in defense spending will mean budget cuts in areas directly affecting everyday lives.
NO NATO DEBATE IN TURKEY
While there was heated debate among the European public about this huge hike due to pressure from Donald Trump, the Turkish public will be encouraged by pro- government outlets to focus on the Trump-Erdoğan meeting and on the fact that Turkey will host next year’s summit.
Few would question the motivation behind the Alliance’s decision for this historic hike in defense spending.
It appears Trump has not objected to pointing the finger at the Kremlin as the summit declaration called Russia a “long-term threat.” Initially the US was hesitant to use hostile language as Trump was trying to lure Putin to the negotiation table.
The reaffirmation by member countries of their “enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine” shows Trump’s frustration at Putin. The latter will certainly take note of the conclusions of the NATO summit in his relations with Turkey which has defined Russia as a “strategic partner.”
The summit decision to include direct contributions towards Ukraine’s defense and defense industry when calculating Allies’ defense spending comes as good news to Turkey, as it has a booming defense cooperation with Kyiv.
“We will work to eliminate defense trade barriers among Allies,” said the summit declaration, a point long defended by Turkey since it suffers from a veiled embargo from its allies. A deal to modernize F16s is yet to be finalized, even though Trump has served almost six months in office.
There was no mention of cooperation between NATO and the EU in the summit declaration which might please Turkey. To bypass Ankara’s reserves to the issue NATO’s secretary general chose to have a separate meeting with EU representatives.
