'Come on, join in'

Throughout my 35-year professional career, I have primarily focused on the Middle East.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Israel's attack on Lebanon in 2006, the uprisings in Tunisia and Libya fueled by the Arab Spring in 2011, the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in 2012...

I witnessed developments on the ground most of the time; I followed international meetings, spoke with whoever was involved in the issues, gathered information, and tried to learn what was happening behind the scenes; I wrote numerous news reports, conducted interviews, and shared my assessments on radio and television.

Among the things I have learned from all these years of experience, the most important is this:

Wars in the Middle East usually do not start with the sounds of cannons, tanks, or rifles; they begin with small signs that no one really assigns meaning to or pays attention to.

For this reason, I can say that the developments of recent days are not ordinary.

The third missile to fall on Turkey...

We do not know if other missiles or missile fragments will fall on Turkey by the time this article is published on 12punto.com.tr.

But it is not out of the question.

Yes, the third one...

The first was said to be a coincidence, the second was brushed off as a "reflection of the conflict on the other side of the border" or something similar.

The third, however, is laden with too much meaning to be explained away as a simple accident.

Let us write it with an open heart: it is clear that someone is saying "come on, join in" to Turkey.

There is no need to flip through grand strategy books to understand this.

Let us put on our reading glasses and turn the pages slowly. Today, a significant portion of modern wars are not conducted by opening a direct front, but by dragging peripheral actors into the war.

Especially if the target country is large, has a crowded population, and difficult geography...

Then the plan changes; the strategy of "dismantle from within, encircle from the outside, push neighbors into the field" comes into play.

And today, this is exactly the scenario in the minds of some people across the Atlantic.

So, is a ground operation against Iran easy?

Or let us formulate the question this way: Can America really conduct a ground operation against Iran?

On paper, everything is possible. But the real world is very different from the maps on paper.

With a population exceeding 85 million, mountainous geography, and a strong defense doctrine, Iran is one of the most difficult targets in the Middle East for America.

It is not a flat country like Iraq, nor is it a mountainous but sparsely populated country like Afghanistan. In fact, it is a complex geography that embodies both features simultaneously.

I asked a retired staff officer. "A terrifying picture for a military planner," he said.

Mountains in the west, a long coastline in the south, Azeri population in the north, Baluch regions in the east, and millions of militia inside. Not to mention a land army that has hardly been damaged since the beginning of the war.

Therefore, a classic "invasion" plan does not look easy at all, even for the US, which possesses the world's largest army and a terrifying war machine with its technology and financing.

That is why it is highly probable that they are looking for another model.

America had previously mobilized ethnic and sectarian fault lines in the countries it targeted.

Iran has fragile regions in this regard. At the forefront of these is Baluchistan. It is a region that has had problems with the central government for years. A portion of the Baluch population is on the Pakistani side, and there are various armed groups operating on both sides of the border.

For this reason, the Baluch region frequently comes to the agenda in the eastern leg of an operation to be carried out against Iran.

The second important line is the Kurdish region.

Mahabad, Kermanshah, and their surroundings, located in western Iran, are historically active areas. Especially the ties with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq make these regions geopolitically sensitive.

If someone wants to pressure Iran from within, it would not be surprising if these two areas were mobilized simultaneously.

But one critical point must not be forgotten here; Iran has established a serious security structure in these regions for many years. Therefore, under today's circumstances and conditions, there is no guarantee of success for such a strategy.

Let us come to the main question.

What do the missiles falling on Turkey mean? If these are truly coincidental, the matter is simple. But if they are not, then the picture changes.

Because Turkey has one of the most powerful armies in the region. It is also a NATO member. It would not be wrong to say that these two features would put Turkey at the center of the game in any regional war.

Let us formulate it this way: a missile falls, a reaction comes from Ankara, an operation begins to be discussed on the grounds of border security, the button is pressed for the "persuasion process" of public opinion, and finally, NATO gets involved...

In other words, a chain reaction.

This is exactly what we mean by "come on, join in." If Turkey enters the field, the geography of the war expands instantly.

Let us come to the ten-point expert question: will NATO drag Turkey into the war?

The answer to this question is not as simple as it is thought.

NATO has two critical articles.

The first is Article 4; when a member country perceives a security threat, it requests consultations with its allies.

The second is the famous Article 5; an attack on one member is considered an attack on all member countries.

But in practice, NATO countries are quite cautious about invoking Article 5. Because this article directly drags the alliance into war.

A few missiles falling on Turkey do not automatically start a NATO war. But it could lead to the following result:

NATO installs air defense systems in Turkey, which have already been brought for Kürecik.

More intelligence sharing is requested, military logistical support is demanded.

Do these change the balance of the war?

It is not out of the question.

There is another country being watched carefully on the chessboard; Azerbaijan. Millions of Azeris live in northern Iran. This demographic reality is an issue that Tehran is always sensitive about.

On the other hand, Azerbaijan has close relations with Israel.

In a war scenario, Azerbaijan might not be expected to open a direct front. However, opening its airspace, providing logistical support, and sharing intelligence...

Each of these could make a serious difference in the military balance.

Looking at this whole picture, two possibilities emerge.

The first is a major ground war. The classic scenario where tanks cross borders and armies clash directly.

But this model is both costly and risky.

The second is a long-term war of attrition. That is, air strikes continue, missile wars are experienced, internal disturbances are created, and pressure is exerted through neighboring countries.

Ultimately, the target country is weakened economically and politically. This is the most frequently used method in today's world.

However, let us put a big question mark there as to how valid this method would be for Iran.

In the midst of all these scenarios, Turkey's fundamental approach is to prevent the war from escalating further.

A large-scale war with a country like Iran is not just a military issue. It also has severe consequences in areas such as the economy, energy, trade, and domestic politics.

The government is aware of this.

For this reason, we can say that it has adopted an approach of only increasing border security, keeping diplomatic channels open, and not falling for provocations so far.

To repeat, wars in the Middle East sometimes start not with big headlines, but with small news. And one morning, everyone finds themselves in the middle of a war. What is happening today shows that we have not reached that point yet. But it is also a fact that we have stepped into a period where the signs must be read extremely carefully, and with that, let us put a period to our article.