Toğrul İsmayıl: The Missile Incident Over Türkiye as a Signal of an Expanding Risk Zone Around Iran

 Prof. Dr. Toğrul İsmayıl — Turkish political scientist, Doctor of Political Sciences, expert in international relations, professor at Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University (Turkey)

The missile incident involving the interception of an Iranian projectile over Turkish territory should be interpreted as a serious warning sign amid the rapidly intensifying tensions surrounding Iran. Although this episode does not yet indicate that the conflict has fully expanded beyond the Middle East, the very fact that a missile entered the airspace of a NATO member state has raised substantial questions regarding the possible widening of the crisis and the growing vulnerability of the surrounding security environment.

In his commentary to Minval Politika, Turkish political scientist Professor Togrul Ismayil, Head of the Department of Political History at Kahramanmaraş University, emphasized that it would be premature to conclude that the conflict has already moved beyond the region in a strict geopolitical sense. In his assessment, the current development should rather be understood as evidence of an “expanding zone of risk” generated by the high-intensity confrontation between Iran, Israel, and, indirectly, the United States.

According to Ismayil, the present phase of hostilities is characterized by the use of long-range weapons systems capable of traversing extensive air corridors across the region. Under such conditions, ballistic and cruise missiles may deviate from their intended flight paths, be intercepted by air defense systems, or fall on the territory of third states. For this reason, he argues, the incident over Türkiye should be viewed primarily as a consequence of the scale and intensity of ongoing military operations rather than as direct proof of deliberate geographical expansion. At the same time, the episode demonstrates the fragility of regional security in an era of long-range missile warfare and the ease with which third countries may become exposed to its consequences.

A central question raised by the incident concerns the possibility of NATO being drawn into a more direct confrontation with Tehran. Ismayil considers such a scenario possible in theory, yet unlikely in practice under current circumstances. He notes that even an incident occurring on the territory of a NATO member does not automatically trigger the Alliance’s collective defense mechanisms. In particular, the activation of Article 5 would require convincing evidence that the event constituted an intentional act of aggression rather than an accidental spillover from a broader military confrontation. NATO, he stresses, has historically acted with considerable caution in such ambiguous situations. Therefore, while the probability of a direct military clash between NATO and Iran remains relatively low, incidents of this kind undeniably heighten alertness and increase tension along the Alliance’s southern flank.

Ismayil also draws attention to the implications of the incident for Turkish foreign policy. He argues that Turkish diplomacy has traditionally relied on strategic balancing between the West and regional centers of power. From this perspective, the episode is unlikely to produce a fundamental shift in Ankara’s long-term strategic orientation. Nevertheless, it may temporarily intensify Türkiye’s coordination with its NATO allies in matters of security, intelligence exchange, and air defense. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in Ismayil’s view, consistently seeks to avoid scenarios in which Türkiye becomes a frontline state in a larger regional war. Consequently, Ankara is likely to pursue a dual-track approach: strengthening its defensive capabilities and cooperation with the Alliance while simultaneously preserving channels of communication with Tehran.

From an institutional perspective, the incident may also be understood as a test of NATO’s collective security mechanisms. Ismayil observes that episodes of this kind examine not only military preparedness but also the political and organizational responsiveness of the Alliance. Key factors include the speed of intelligence-sharing, the coordination of air defense systems, and the diplomatic reaction capacity of NATO structures. Should similar incidents recur, they may lead to a reassessment of security protocols on the southern flank of the Alliance and encourage the refinement of crisis-response procedures in regions exposed to indirect spillover from nearby wars.

With regard to the broader strategic triangle involving Iran, the United States, and Israel, Ismayil does not believe that this episode will by itself produce a major strategic turning point. Its principal effect, rather, lies in intensifying the perception of regional escalation risk. When missiles cross the airspace of third countries, the conflict ceases to appear as an isolated bilateral confrontation and instead begins to be perceived as a crisis with potentially international consequences. In this sense, the incident may contribute simultaneously to two parallel dynamics: increased diplomatic pressure on the parties to re-engage in dialogue, and expanded justification for the reinforcement of military deployments and missile defense systems across the region.

In this context, Ismayil does not exclude the possibility of a stronger NATO military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He notes that the region is already gradually becoming an area of heightened military concentration. If the risk of further missile-related incidents persists, one may expect the deployment of additional NATO naval assets, the strengthening of missile defense infrastructure, and the expansion of aerial surveillance and monitoring capabilities. However, he underscores that such measures would most likely remain defensive in nature. They would represent not preparation for war with Iran, but rather a strategy of deterrence and insurance against unintended escalation.

In conclusion, Ismayil characterizes the interception of the missile over Türkiye not as the beginning of a global conflict, but as a significant indicator that the war environment surrounding Iran is generating wider regional risks, including for NATO member states. The principal challenge at this stage, therefore, is not merely military reaction, but the prevention of a chain escalation that could transform localized confrontation into a broader international security crisis.