Türkiye’s regional vision seeks to reshape Middle Eastern security, but can it really? |
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has proposed a new regional security architecture stretching from Pakistan to the Persian Gulf, describing it as a “golden opportunity” for Middle Eastern nations to strengthen cooperation based on mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Fidan suggested the framework could include Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Gulf states, with the possibility of Iran joining at a later stage.
He also indicated that Israel could eventually become part of the arrangement if it recognizes a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
Perhaps, the Turkish diplomat's initiative is both courageous and exciting, presenting a real chance to bring about meaningful change and positively impact our future.
Talking to AzerNEWS, Geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman said Iran’s geographic and political weight makes it impossible to build a sustainable regional security system while treating Tehran as merely an optional participant.
“Iran's position within the Middle East makes it impossible to separate the question of regional security from the question of Iranian participation. Tehran remains deeply connected to developments across the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the broader maritime environment linking the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. Any effort to construct a durable security framework inevitably encounters Iranian interests, capabilities, and networks. For that reason, Fidan's comments are best understood as an attempt to define the initial political geography of cooperation rather than a final institutional design.
The countries identified by Fidan already possess substantial incentives to work together. Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt, Pakistan, and the Gulf states share concerns regarding maritime security, trade corridors, economic development, energy infrastructure, counterterrorism, and regional stability. Their governments increasingly recognize that regional crises spill across borders and that coordination among major states has become more important as external powers demonstrate varying degrees of engagement and commitment. A framework built around those common interests could emerge without waiting for every regional actor to reach consensus on every strategic issue.”
Tsukerman argued that Iran occupies a unique position in the emerging framework, particularly as Saudi Arabia attempts to balance diplomatic engagement with long-standing strategic distrust toward Tehran.
“Saudi Arabia continues to pursue diplomatic engagement with Tehran while simultaneously viewing Iranian regional activities through the lens of long-term competition. Years of confrontation, proxy conflicts, and mutual suspicion have left a deep imprint on the strategic thinking of both governments. Diplomatic normalization has reduced tensions, opened channels of communication, and lowered the risk of direct confrontation, yet it has not erased the underlying concerns that continue to shape security calculations in Riyadh.
Türkiye's relationship with Iran reflects a similarly complex reality. Geography has compelled both countries to maintain functional relations despite recurring disagreements. Their interactions across Syria, Iraq, energy markets, regional diplomacy, and trade have produced a pattern of coexistence in which cooperation and competition frequently operate side by side. Turkish policymakers understand that excluding Iran from regional discussions does not eliminate Iranian influence. They also understand that granting Tehran a decisive role in defining regional institutions would generate resistance among many Arab partners.”
According to Tsukerman, the architecture envisioned by Fidan appears to rest on a smaller core bloc establishing common principles before expanding further across the region.
“As a result, the architecture Fidan appears to envision rests on the creation of a core group capable of establishing common principles and mechanisms of cooperation before broader regional expansion takes place. Sovereignty, territorial integrity, economic connectivity, and state-centered security cooperation provide the foundation for that effort. Those principles carry particular significance because they address many of the concerns repeatedly raised by Gulf states regarding regional interference and instability.
The future of such a framework ultimately depends on whether Iran finds value in participating under those conditions. Economic integration, infrastructure development, trade expansion, and regional stability could create incentives for engagement. Strategic mistrust, competing regional ambitions, and unresolved conflicts could just as easily limit Tehran's enthusiasm. Any lasting regional architecture will eventually require some level of Iranian participation, yet the process of building that architecture is likely to begin among countries whose interests already overlap to a greater degree than their differences divide them.”
On the Palestinian issue, Tsukerman said Fidan’s proposal mirrors the diplomatic logic that has shaped Arab policy toward Israel since the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.
“Fidan's formulation draws directly from a diplomatic tradition that has shaped Arab policy toward Israel for more than two decades. The Arab Peace Initiative introduced by then Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002 established a framework under which normalization with Israel would accompany the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines and a negotiated resolution of the broader conflict. Throughout major regional upheavals, changing leaderships, shifting alliances, and evolving geopolitical realities, Saudi Arabia has maintained that framework as the foundation of its official position.
Recent developments have given the initiative renewed strategic importance. Saudi Arabia increasingly presents the proposal as........