US Patriot Air Defense Returns to Turkey as Erdogan Warns Conflict Must Be Stopped
In an interview with Kyiv Post, the former Turkish ambassador to Iran Umit Yardim said Ankara is trying to avoid being dragged into a wider regional war.
Kyiv Post
75
6 мин чтения
0 просмотров
On Wednesday, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan once again warned against a wider regional spillover from the Iran war, saying the conflict must be stopped before the Middle East is “thrown into the fire.” He said Ankara was acting carefully to keep Turkey from being pulled deeper into the conflict and was in contact with all sides in search of an end to the war.
Former Turkish ambassador to NATO and Iran Umit Yardim said in an interview with Kyiv Post that Ankara sees the latest missile incidents as serious, but is still trying not to get dragged directly into the conflict.
Yardim said Iran had largely refrained from targeting Turkey directly while striking elsewhere in the region. That, he argued, was not accidental. Turkey is a NATO member, and any direct Iranian attack on Turkish territory would carry far greater consequences than strikes on smaller Gulf states, such as Iraq.
“An Iranian strike on Turkey would amount to a dangerous signal – one that could raise the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Iran,” Yardim told Kyiv Post.
His reading is that both sides are still trying to avoid that outcome. Turkey has not moved to invoke NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed this week that “nobody is talking about Article 5” after the missile incident involving Turkish airspace.
Twelve days into the conflict, the fight for the Strait of Hormuz has become central to the war, prompting a historic crude reserve release. But will it be enough to ease tensions?
Patriot air defense returns, but not as Turkey’s own system
That does not mean Ankara is taking the incidents lightly. On Tuesday, the Turkish Defense Ministry issued a statement saying NATO had increased air and missile defense measures and that “a Patriot System is currently in Malatya and is being prepared for operational readiness to support the protection of our airspace.” The ministry did not say how long the system would remain in Turkey.
The ministry said the US Patriot air defense system was deployed to Malatya province, near the Kurecik radar base, which provides vital early-warning data for NATO and helped identify the two Iranian ballistic missiles heading toward Turkey over the past week.
Turkey has wanted Patriots for years, but never got to buy and field them as its own long-term shield. The issue became entangled in Ankara’s purchase of the Russian S-400 system, which triggered a deep crisis with Washington and blocked any straightforward Patriot deal.
For ex-Ambassador Yardim, the Patriot deployment matters politically as much as militarily.
He recalled an incident from his time as Turkey’s ambassador to Iran. In 2012, he said, Hassan Rouhani – still two years before taking office as president – warned him over the arrival of Patriot systems in Turkey. Rouhani argued they were aimed against Iran and harmful to bilateral ties.
Yardim did not rule out the possibility that Tehran may again use private channels to protest the deployment.
“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.
“Pandora’s box” better left closed
At the same time, Yardim cautioned against assuming that every missile or drone incident can be clearly traced to a single chain of command. Even if investigators identify the technical origin of a drone or missile, he said, that may still not prove who decided to launch it.
“The Middle East, as you might know, is a sort of Pandora’s box,” he said.
That uncertainty is one reason Ankara appears to be keeping its public response measured. Turkey chose not to “internationalize” the tension.
Yardim said Iran also appears to be trying to avoid crossing a red line with Turkey.
“I have a feeling, a sort of rational feeling, that Iran will try to refrain from a direct confrontation from Turkey,” Yardim told Kyiv Post.
That restraint also reflects Turkey’s own calculations. Yardim said Ankara does not see itself in the same category as Gulf countries that are more directly exposed to Iranian attacks and more tightly aligned with Washington’s military posture in the conflict.
That is why, he suggested, Article 5 is not on the agenda.
“If Turkey is drawn into this war like the Gulf countries or the other two partners, the consequences would be terrible – it would mean NATO becoming part of the war as well,” he said.
The result is a policy of caution on both sides – public warnings, private security coordination, and visible defense reinforcement, but no rush to turn the incidents into a formal alliance crisis.
Ukraine’s drone experience is becoming exportable
The Iran war – together with Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine – has also reshaped regional relations. For years, Ukraine was on the receiving end of Iranian-designed Shahed drone attacks launched by Russia against civilian infrastructure. Now, in Yardim’s view, Ukraine is becoming a source of invaluable expertise.
“Ukraine has turned its hard-earned experience into knowledge that is valuable far beyond the battlefield where it was first learned. Middle Eastern countries, European states and others are increasingly looking at Ukraine not as a victim, but as a country to learn from.”
Yardim also cautioned against a change in tone between Turkey and one of its closest regional allies, Azerbaijan. He said recent events had triggered damaging exchanges on social media, with some Turkish and Azerbaijani voices accusing each other of siding either with Iran or with Israel and the United States.
For Yardim, that shift in narrative is dangerous. Whatever tactical differences may exist, he argued, Turkey and Azerbaijan should not let the current war undermine their long-term strategic relationship.
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.
