Türkiye could be balancing factor: Israel–US's Iran war to radically change Gulf geopolitics

The US–Israel–Iran war that has begun in the Middle East is not merely a military conflict. This war represents a new geopolitical situation in which the Gulf security architecture established after the Cold War is undergoing a major upheaval. For thirty years, the region's security has largely been shaped under the US military umbrella. However, current events show that this order is entering an uncertain phase.

When this war ends, two possibilities may emerge. If Iran suffers a heavy defeat and Israel maintains its power, Gulf countries could become directly dependent on Israel, let alone establish a semi-independent security architecture.

After the 1991 Gulf War, a new order was established in the region. This order was based on a simple security formula: the Gulf monarchies would preserve their energy and financial power, while the United States would act as the region's ultimate security guarantor. However, this order was effectively dismantled by Israel's policies of pushing its own boundaries.

It may have escaped many people's notice: when did the real concern for the US and Israel begin? A few months before the October 7 attacks, an important meeting took place in China. The foreign ministers of Iran and Saudi Arabia attended that meeting.

The developing rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia could have rendered the US presence in the region meaningless. To put it ambitiously, this is one of the reasons the US has returned to the Middle East with renewed force.

Because thirty years ago, the US invaded Iraq by frightening the Gulf countries with the Saddam threat and continued to collect trillions of dollars in protection fees. From the Gulf War until today, it has maintained its hegemony by presenting Iran's presence as a threat to the region's countries.

A sharp critique from Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian directed at his own administration is noteworthy:

"We thought our enemies were our neighbors. But our real enemies were the imperialists."

What happened before the Iraq invasion should also be remembered. After the Iranian Revolution, Iran and Iraq fought each other for a full eight years. During this process, the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf countries provided Iraq with approximately one trillion dollars' worth of weapons. When the war ended, Iraq, having become an arms depot, turned into a threat for the region's countries. "Uncle Sam" found a solution for this too: Iraq invaded Kuwait. Fearing this invasion, other countries formed a coalition with the US and once again financed the war waged against Iraq.

While all this was happening, Iran was pleased with the situation because the US had eliminated its rival. However, short-term calculations can turn into long-term devastation.

After Israel and the US started the war, Iran targeted this weak point. At first glance, Iran striking US bases in the Gulf while fighting two states might seem like a reckless move. But in the long term, the fact that countries for which the US acts as security guarantor are subjected to such attacks will have serious consequences.

US air defense systems in the Gulf countries have not been active enough. This reality brings back a question that has long been debated in Gulf capitals:

Can the region's security be sustained by relying on a single global power?

Gulf countries may now have to pursue a policy of balance that goes beyond the classic alliance model:

• Military cooperation with the US

• Deepening relations with China in economy and energy

• New partnerships with Türkiye in defense industry and foreign policy

• Energy cooperation with Russia and the search for new balances

Saudi Arabia is the leading country in the region. It did not adopt a submissive stance in the face of Israel's massacres in Gaza and has begun to feel more deeply what Israeli expansionism means.

Since the US position is one of compelled support when it comes to Israel, the role Saudi Arabia will play in the future of regional geopolitics is extremely important. This is inevitable, at least for its own survival.

In the Gulf's search for security, Ankara could become a significant strategic actor:

As a regional balancing power,

Through defense industry partnerships,

Through diplomatic cooperation and the protection of common interests, as seen in Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan.

Whatever the outcome of the war, the Gulf security architecture is experiencing a profound shock. Israel's attempts to carry out "false flag operations" targeting Gulf countries are also an effort to cover up the emerging security vacuum.

The best course for our region is for this war to end as soon as possible and for everyone to withdraw to their own spheres. The US, however, keeps making lengthy predictions about the war's duration in every statement. It seems the plan at home didn't match the reality on the ground.

A piece of information from Politico magazine, citing US security sources, is also noteworthy: Trump may have started a war on his own, but US institutions were not fully prepared for it.

Another interesting point is the similar situation emerging in Europe. Mainland Europe is also struggling to establish a lasting security architecture without Türkiye.

This war has turned into a major trauma for Middle Eastern states. The feeling that the security order lived under the shadow of the US has outlived its time is deeply felt.

Let's see what God brings.