Turkey Told US Not to Start War in 2003, Says Former White House Official
Former White House official Matthew Bryza said Ankara had warned Washington against the 2003 Iraq War and believes Turkey took a similar position before the Iran War.
Kyiv Post
75
5 min čtení
0 zobrazení
Former US diplomat Matthew Bryza told the Osmanqizi English podcast that Turkey strongly warned Washington against launching a new war in the region.
Speaking after three ballistic missile incidents in Turkey, Bryza said Ankara had not moved to trigger NATO’s Article 4 consultation mechanism and had shown little interest in doing so.
Bryza said that while Turkey is a key NATO ally with the alliance’s second-largest land army after the United States, it does not automatically align with every US policy decision.
“Being a NATO ally doesn’t mean you have to go along with every whim” of the United States, Bryza said, adding that Turkey’s national interests do not fully overlap with Washington’s.
He said Turkey is angered by Iranian missiles landing on its territory, but does not want to be drawn into military action against Iran.
Turkey fears spillover from Iran conflict
Ramin Jabbarli, director of the US-based Foundation for Inclusive Society, told Kyiv Post that Ankara is particularly keen to avoid instability inside Iran, including any civil war scenario.
One of Ankara’s main concerns, Jabbarli said, is that any attempt to use Kurdish armed groups against Tehran could accelerate internal collapse and spread instability across the region.
“For Turkey, that raises a deeper fear: if Iran unravels, Ankara believes it could be next to face the consequences,” Jabbarli said.
An Iranian-linked strike targeted a key Saudi oil refinery in Yanbu, a Red Sea export hub that has served as an alternative route after disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq War still shapes Ankara’s thinking
Turkey’s caution, Bryza said, is shaped in part by its experience of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
The war began on March 20, 2003, with a “shock and awe” bombing campaign followed by a ground assault. At the time, Bryza was serving at the White House as director for Europe and Eurasia at the National Security Council.
In that role, he was closely involved in US policy toward Turkey during the run-up to the war, including efforts to secure Turkish approval for US troops to open a northern front into Iraq. That plan failed when Turkey’s parliament rejected the motion in March 2003, underscoring Ankara’s reluctance to back a new war along its border.
“I was the co-manager of the diplomatic project to try to get Turkey to agree to our request to invade Iraq via Turkey. And I saw how reluctant Turkey was not only to go along with our plan, but also how hard it tried to persuade the United States not to launch another war on Turkey’s border with Iraq, because the consequences for Turkey could be enormous: economic, political and humanitarian, including refugees. Turkey’s geography is not going to change, but the United States can go home afterwards,” Bryza said.
Bryza said he believes the same pattern is visible in the current conflict: Turkey did not choose the war, advised Washington in private not to start it, and is now trying to contain the fallout without being drawn into military action.
Turkey gets Patriots as Iran risk rises
His remarks came as Turkey’s defense ministry said on Wednesday that NATO was deploying an additional Patriot missile battery at Incirlik air base, just days after a third ballistic missile from Iran was shot down.
“Another Patriot system is being deployed in addition to the existing Spanish Patriot system stationed there,” a ministry official told reporters at the Turkish base near the southern city of Adana, according to AFP.
Ankara has wanted Patriot systems for years, but never managed to buy and field them as its own long-term shield.
For former Turkish ambassador to Iran Umit Yardim, the Patriot move matters politically as much as militarily. He said Iran has long warned against Patriot systems in Turkey.
“The Patriot systems are watched very closely by Iranian defense authorities because, in their eyes, they directly represent NATO’s presence,” Yardim told Kyiv Post.
Bank case seen as reward for Gaza role
Earlier in March, the United States tentatively agreed to drop a criminal case accusing Turkiye’s state-run Halkbank of participating in a multibillion-dollar scheme to evade sanctions against Iran.
US prosecutors said Turkish assistance in negotiating a ceasefire and the release of captives in Gaza contributed to the settlement.
In a document filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, prosecutors said resolving the case would be in the “best interests” of the US government, a move that would end a years-long prosecution that has strained relations between Washington and Ankara.
Many analysts saw the move as a diplomatic gift, as Halkbank had faced a record-breaking fine.
Bryza said Ankara helped bring Hamas to the negotiating table, supported ceasefire efforts and assisted in securing the release of captives in Gaza, exactly the kind of role Turkey wants to play as it seeks to stay out of the war.
Sevinj Osmanqizi is a journalist covering US foreign policy, security, and geopolitics, with a focus on the broader post-Soviet space. She reports on Washington’s decision-making and its implications for Ukraine and regional stability.
