Kazim AlamWith Ankara hosting the 36th summit of the transatlantic military alliance NATO, the spotlight is firmly fixed on Türkiye as an island of calm amid one of the most volatile periods in recent Middle Eastern history and global upheavals.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will welcome leaders from 30 European and two North American countries for the NATO summit on July 7 and 8, the first time since 2004 when Türkiye last hosted the high-profile event.
After the US, Türkiye has the largest military in NATO, which has successfully protected the weaker nations of Europe from aggression by inimical powers since the alliance’s founding in 1949. Türkiye also possesses one of the most powerful navies and the largest submarine force in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
The upcoming NATO summit will take place at a crucial time: the spillover effects of the US-Israeli war against Iran have created deep instability in the broader Gulf.
Meanwhile, a full-on military conflict continues to ravage Eastern Europe as the Russia-Ukraine war shows no signs of abating.
At the same time, the US is turning increasingly inwards: Washington is scaling back its international commitments – such as reducing the pool of military assets available to NATO during a crisis or war – while urging its NATO partners to bolster their own defence spending.
Amid raging regional and international fires, however, Türkiye stands apart as a security provider, diplomatic bridge, and economic safe haven, according to geopolitical and defence experts.
They point to Türkiye’s strategy of balance, foresight and engagement that has allowed the country to contain the spillover of numerous crises while reinforcing its role within NATO’s southern flank, the geographic region encompassing the Mediterranean Sea, the Middle East, and North Africa.
The most immediate test of Ankara came from ballistic missile threats linked to the Iran war, experts note.
Yasar Sari, director of the Haydar Aliyev Centre for Eurasian Studies at Ibn Haldun University, tells TRT World that Türkiye has repeatedly used NATO air and missile defence systems to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles entering or approaching Turkish airspace, with at least three interceptions since the conflict began.
These incidents highlight both Türkiye’s effectiveness in managing immediate risks and a broader strategic dilemma for NATO: how to respond to attacks that fall short of triggering Article 5, while avoiding wider escalation, he says.
NATO’s Article 5 promises collective defence, meaning an armed attack against one member state is considered an attack against all members.
“Türkiye's cautious stance… reflects its attempt to balance defending itself with avoiding deeper involvement in the conflict,” Sari says.
Mesut Hakki Casin, a defence expert and professor of international law and security, situates Türkiye’s defensive posture within the broader context of the country’s contributions across multiple theatres.
In the Black Sea, Türkiye has upheld the 1936 Montreux Convention by restricting the passage of warships belonging to the belligerent parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, he tells TRT World.
Together with Romania and Bulgaria, Ankara has conducted mine countermeasures operations, ensuring security for the longest Black Sea coastline and control of the Turkish Straits, he says.
Türkiye has also supplied state-of-the-art warships to Romania and Ukraine and, in line with NATO planning, delivered TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles that “changed the course of the war”, he adds.
In the Mediterranean, the region around the large inland body of water between Southern Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia, Türkiye has conducted large-scale naval exercises involving 150 vessels and 20,000 personnel to underline its red lines on Cyprus, the Aegean islands, Turkish territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, and regional energy resources, Casin says.
The country is currently supporting the alliance with 50 vessels and exporting defence equipment to fellow members, he notes.
Open channels, active diplomacy
Ahmet Keser, professor at Hasan Kalyoncu University, tells TRT World that Türkiye has demonstrated the broader strategic impact of its military and diplomatic strength in Syria and Libya as well.
By maintaining a presence aimed at restoring domestic peace and stability, Türkiye has helped prevent “the emergence and diffusion of larger global crises, including new waves of migration” that could have affected the broader international community, he says.
Experts point out that Türkiye has consistently refused to align exclusively with any bloc, underscoring its determination to keep dialogue open with all relevant regional players.
Keser describes how Türkiye has maintained both official diplomatic channels and personal dialogue at the leadership level with all parties involved in pursuing a “balanced and impartial foreign policy” grounded in legal legitimacy.
This has included mediation efforts and support for de facto mediators to prevent escalation and geographical spread of conflicts, he says.
Sari highlights that Türkiye maintains open channels “with all conflicting parties, except Israel,” enabling it to act as a “neutral intermediary and a reliable base for both operations and diplomacy”.
Casin points to concrete recent steps, including Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s visits to the region and the joint tactical manoeuvres involving Turkish, Egyptian and Pakistani forces as part of preparations by the quartet of Türkiye, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan against worst-case scenarios.
Managing energy, economic challenges
Most countries faced serious oil and gas disruptions because of the months-long blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Oman and Iran through which one-fifth of global energy supplies passed before the war.
But Türkiye’s long-term pre-emptive measures paid off in a big way during the crucial three-and-a-half months when oil prices surged and hit a multi-year high.
Sari attributes Türkiye’s success to its diversification of sourcing, activation of backup transportation options, and active oversight of the evolving situation.
Keser traces the foundation of this resilience to multi-year projects: the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipelines, TurkStream for Russian gas to Europe, and the overall transformation of Türkiye into a “critical energy corridor” that links resources from the north, the Caucasus in the east and Iraq in the south.
“Türkiye has effectively become a guarantor of energy security not only for itself but also for many Western countries dependent on external energy supplies,” he says.
The recent Hormuz crisis has only underscored Türkiye’s emergence as an energy hub capable of offering reliable transit routes and greater resilience against geopolitical shocks, he adds.
Sari notes that Türkiye is actively positioning itself as an alternative corridor, with plans to repair and expand the Iraq-Türkiye pipeline to carry up to 1.5 million barrels of oil daily and to develop overland gas routes from Qatar and Turkmenistan.
Experts say the unique combination of geopolitical balance, institutional stability, and energy security has made Türkiye an increasingly attractive destination for capital fleeing regional turmoil.
According to Sari, Türkiye’s diversified supply chain and consistent institutional framework, which includes protections for foreign investors, have made the country a safe investment destination amid regional turmoil.
In 2025, Türkiye's GDP hit $1.6 trillion, growing 3.6 percent despite regional tensions. Per capita income reached $18,040, which places the country among high-income countries per the World Bank.
“As conflicts shake the Gulf region, investors and companies are increasingly looking to relocate their capital and operations, with Türkiye gaining rising interest from Gulf and East Asian companies as a relatively secure alternative,” he says.
Keser expresses the same sentiment, noting that Ankara’s consistent promotion of stability and de-escalation has “naturally strengthened Türkiye’s reputation”.
“Türkiye has increasingly come to be perceived as an island of peace and stability and as a credible reference point – or even an impartial arbiter – with regard to questions of legal legitimacy in international conflicts,” he says.
