Türkiye’s diplomatic position in the 2026 Gulf crisis and the energy interests behind it, February–September 2026
ABSTRACT
This piece traces how Türkiye’s position in the 2026 Gulf crisis changed between February and September 2026 and how that change relates to its energy interests. The argument is that Ankara moved from carrying messages between the United States and Iran to openly backing Saudi security in September, that the expiry of the Iranian gas contract, Iraqi transit revenue and Saudi investment ties lowered the cost of that move, and that the result remains a conditional alignment without troop commitments and with the channel to Iran kept open. The method is chronological process tracing of Foreign Ministry statements, ministerial remarks, agreement reports and energy trade data, read through Kydd’s (2003) model of biased mediation. Ankara’s September condemnations targeted the Houthis, not Iran, and Tehran’s statement leaving responsibility with the Houthis made that separation easier.
1. The shift and its limits
In the first months of the US–Israel–Iran war that began on 28 February 2026 (NTV, 2026b), Türkiye carried messages between the parties and brokered technical arrangements. By September it had become an actor that condemned in strong terms the Houthi drone attack intercepted south of Mecca (Dünya, 2026), promised support in meeting Riyadh’s military needs, and sat in meetings of a trilateral defence framework with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The claim is that the shift is real but conditional. The weakening of dependence on Iranian gas and the energy ties built through Iraq and Saudi Arabia reduced the cost of moving closer to Riyadh. Ankara nevertheless avoided troop commitments, aimed its criticism at the Houthis and did not target Iran directly. The period covered is February–September 2026, with emphasis on August–September; the evidence is Türkiye’s official statements and contemporaneous energy data.
2. Biased mediation and energy exposure
Kydd (2003), modelling the credibility of information that mediators transmit, argues that a mediator close to one side can be more credible to that side, because it has no interest in misleading the party it favours. The model rejects the assumption that impartiality is a precondition for mediation and makes the direction of bias the decisive variable. Applied to Türkiye, it predicts that rapprochement with Riyadh would not eliminate Ankara’s mediating capacity but would change the party to which it can carry credible messages.
On the energy side, Berk and Ediger (2018) assess Türkiye’s natural gas import vulnerability historically and treat supplier structure as its main determinant. Energy interest is used here in a bounded sense: the supply, transit and investment relationships with a given country that raise or lower the diplomatic cost to Ankara of positioning against or towards that country.
3. From message carrier to technical mediator, March–August 2026
In March 2026 AK Party official Harun Armağan said that Türkiye was carrying messages between Iran and the United States; the same report noted that three Iranian missiles aimed at Türkiye since the start of the conflict had been intercepted by NATO air defences (NTV, 2026a). The missiles did not end Ankara’s mediator role. In June Erdoğan welcomed the US–Iran agreement that ended the fighting, crediting Pakistan’s mediation and the contributions of Qatar and Saudi Arabia (NTV, 2026b).
In early August Türkiye’s role moved into a technical domain. NPR reported that Türkiye was assisting in mediating three weeks of Iran–Oman talks on a Hormuz route, and that a 60-day interim period for oil shipments before a permanent arrangement was under discussion (NPR, 2026). Ankara’s channel to Tehran still functioned. Whether the route agreement was implemented cannot be verified.
4. September: open support for Riyadh and where it stopped
The Houthi strikes of 8 September on Aramco facilities, Abha Airport and King Khalid Air Base, which wounded at least 73 people (Halk TV, 2026), opened a visible change in Ankara’s language. Foreign Minister Fidan called his Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan after the attacks; according to Halk TV, the call brought the Türkiye–Saudi Arabia–Pakistan “Mecca Defence Agreement” back onto the agenda (Halk TV, 2026). The Foreign Ministry condemned the drone attack intercepted south of Mecca, which Dünya dates to 15 September, and reaffirmed support for Saudi sovereignty and territorial integrity; the Houthis denied targeting Mecca (Dünya, 2026). On 18–19 September Fidan said Türkiye would have no difficulty helping to meet Saudi Arabia’s military needs (Al Jazeera, 2026a).
Al Jazeera reports that the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement was signed on 7 August 2026 (Al Jazeera, 2026a); its official text has not been verified. On 24 September the three foreign ministers met within this framework and agreed on an urgent meeting of their chiefs of general staff. According to Al Jazeera, the mutual-defence clause had not been formally invoked (Al Jazeera, 2026b), and Semafor reported that Pakistan and Türkiye had made no troop deployment commitments (Gonzalez, 2026). Türkiye’s September support thus stayed at the diplomatic and institutional level.
The second feature is the target of the condemnations. In the statements examined, Ankara condemned the Houthis. Iranian President Pezeshkian said on 25 September that the Houthis are responsible for their own actions (Reuters, 2026), which allowed Ankara to back Saudi Arabia without confronting Iran.
5. Energy interests that lowered the cost of alignment
The first factor is the weakening of the Iranian gas relationship. Iran International reports that the Türkiye–Iran pipeline gas contract ended in July 2026, after Türkiye imported 4.536 bcm of Iranian gas in the first half of the year, and assesses that the expiry widened Ankara’s supply options while exposing Tehran to the loss of a reliable export market (Shokri, 2026). Actual flows after July cannot be verified. Read through Berk and Ediger’s (2018) emphasis on supplier structure, the expiry reduced Iran’s supply leverage over Türkiye and weakened the energy rationale for diplomatic caution towards Tehran.
The second factor is Iraqi transit. BOTAŞ signed a one-year agreement with Iraq’s SOMO and NOC on 1 August, allocating 750 kb/d of transit capacity on the Kirkuk–Ceyhan line; actual flow was about 170 kb/d in early August (Arab News Pakistan, 2026). The gap between allocation and flow makes Türkiye’s transit revenue dependent on security and production conditions inside Iraq, and Gulf escalation raises demand for the route while drawing Iraqi territory into the conflict.
The third factor is the investment relationship with Saudi Arabia. During Erdoğan’s visit to Riyadh on 3 February 2026, a $2 billion energy investment agreement was signed, its first tranche covering 2,000 MW of solar projects (CNBC-e, 2026). The relationship with Riyadh thus had an energy investment base before the war.
6. Washington as the external constraint
Ankara’s alignment is also bounded by US politics. On 29 September the US Treasury designated Cavalier entities registered in Türkiye, alongside Pakistan-based Cavalier Dynamics and a Saudi-registered Cavalier entity, as part of an Iranian missile and drone procurement network (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2026). The designation shows that Türkiye-registered companies can sit inside Iran-linked supply networks and that Ankara’s positioning is exposed to Washington’s sanctions agenda. US domestic politics also sets the clock. At the UN General Assembly on 22 September Trump said he believed a deal would be reached right after the election; the midterms fall on 3 November 2026 (Schuler, 2026).
7. Alternative readings
One alternative holds that the shift came from security perception rather than energy. The March missile incident could support it. Ankara nonetheless continued mediating in June and August after the missiles, and the marked change in language came after the Iranian contract expired and after the Houthis struck Saudi energy facilities. The timing suggests that energy factors did not by themselves set the direction of alignment but did lower its cost.
A second alternative holds that the alignment is purely declaratory. The absence of troop commitments (Gonzalez, 2026) supports this reading for the military dimension. It does not account for Ankara’s participation in a ministerial meeting that tasked the chiefs of general staff, which is an institutional step beyond rhetoric.
8. Outlook: Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and the World
For Türkiye, the October 2026 indicator is whether the chiefs-of-staff meeting agreed on 24 September produces troop, air defence or logistics commitments (Al Jazeera, 2026b). Without them, Türkiye’s position remains diplomatic support and the channel to Iran survives. With them, Kydd’s (2003) model implies that Ankara gains credibility with Riyadh and loses mediating value in Tehran. Whether Kirkuk–Ceyhan flow moves towards the 750 kb/d allocation is the second indicator, measuring the energy return on alignment.
For Saudi Arabia, the value of the Mecca framework depends on how far it can mobilise regional partners while, according to Semafor, the Trump administration provided no military assistance (Gonzalez, 2026). France’s confirmation on 25 September that it was sending troops, radar and defence systems to the Yanbu oil terminal (Al Jazeera, 2026b) shows Riyadh seeking concrete military contributions outside the Mecca framework. On these terms Türkiye’s uncommitted support may remain a secondary item in Saudi security planning for 2027.
Globally, the decisive calendar is American. A post-election US–Iran deal could widen Türkiye’s room for technical mediation; delay would raise military expectations on the Mecca framework. Into 2027, Ankara’s realistic option is institutional participation in Gulf security while preserving non-energy channels of communication with Iran.
9. Conclusion
Türkiye’s position in the 2026 Gulf crisis moved from message carrier in March to technical mediator in August and to open diplomatic support for Saudi Arabia in September. The move coincided with three energy developments: the expiry of the Iranian gas contract, the new Kirkuk–Ceyhan transit agreement and the solar investment relationship with Riyadh. These lowered the cost of rapprochement with Riyadh. The alignment remains conditional: Türkiye made no troop commitment, directed its condemnations at the Houthis and, in the statements examined, did not target Iran. Kydd’s (2003) model fits this pattern, since Ankara’s bias did not end its mediating capacity but shifted the party to which it can carry credible messages towards Riyadh. Türkiye’s energy interests now depend less on Iranian supply than on the stability of the Gulf and Iraqi routes, and that dependence structure will shape Ankara’s choices in 2027.
SOURCES
Al Jazeera. (2026a, 19 September). Turkiye backs Saudi Arabia’s security amid escalating Houthi attacks: FM. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/19/turkiye-backs-saudi-arabias-security-amid-escalating-houthi-attacks-fm
Al Jazeera. (2026b, 25 September). Saudi Arabia allies line up support as Houthi attacks mount. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/25/saudi-arabia-allies-line-up-support-as-houthi-attacks-mount
Arab News Pakistan. (2026, 1 August). Turkiye, Iraq sign one-year oil pipeline deal. https://www.arabnews.pk/node/2653014/middle-east
Berk, I., & Ediger, V. Ş. (2018). A historical assessment of Turkey’s natural gas import vulnerability. Energy, 145, 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.022
CNBC-e. (2026). Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan Suudi Arabistan’da: 2 milyar dolarlık enerji anlaşması imzalandı [President Erdoğan in Saudi Arabia: $2 billion energy agreement signed]. https://www.cnbce.com/enerji/cumhurbaskani-erdogan-suudi-arabistanda-2-milyar-dolarlik-enerji-anlasmasi-imzalandi-h24327
Dünya. (2026, 16 September). Dışişleri Bakanlığı’ndan Husilerin Mekke saldırısına kınama [Foreign Ministry condemns the Houthi attack on Mecca]. https://www.dunya.com/gundem/disisleri-bakanligindan-husilerin-mekke-saldirisina-kinama-haberi-840325
Gonzalez, J. (2026, 25 September). Saudi Arabia intercepts Houthi missiles. Semafor. https://www.semafor.com/article/09/25/2026/saudi-arabia-intercepts-houthi-missiles
Halk TV. (2026, 11 September). Husiler’in saldırısının ardından Hakan Fidan’dan mevkidaşına telefon [After the Houthi attack, Hakan Fidan calls his counterpart]. https://halktv.com.tr/turkiye/husilerin-saldirisinin-ardindan-hakan-fidandan-mevkidasina-telefon-1054535h
Kydd, A. (2003). Which side are you on? Bias, credibility, and mediation. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00042
NPR. (2026, 6 August). Iran says it is close to reaching agreement with Oman to reopen Strait of Hormuz. VPM. https://www.vpm.org/npr-news/npr-news/2026-08-06/iran-says-it-is-close-to-reaching-agreement-with-oman-to-reopen-strait-of-hormuz
NTV. (2026a, 25 March). “Türkiye, İran ve ABD arasında arabuluculuk yapıyor” [“Türkiye is mediating between Iran and the US”]. https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/turkiye-iran-ve-abd-arasinda-arabuluculuk-yapiyor-1717394
NTV. (2026b, 15 June). Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan: Barış anlaşması memnuniyet verici [President Erdoğan: The peace agreement is welcome]. https://www.ntv.com.tr/gundem/cumhurbaskani-erdogan-baris-anlasmasi-memnuniyet-verici-1728625
Reuters. (2026, 25 September). Allies unite behind Saudi Arabia as Houthis step up attacks. The Kathmandu Post. https://kathmandupost.com/world/2026/09/25/allies-unite-behind-saudi-arabia-as-houthis-step-up-attacks
Schuler, M. (2026, 22 September). Trump calls for Iran’s economic isolation at UN as Tehran offers Hormuz reopening. gCaptain. https://gcaptain.com/trump-calls-for-irans-economic-isolation-at-un-as-tehran-offers-hormuz-reopening/
Shokri, U. (2026, 21 August). Turkey’s gas pivot leaves Iran with fewer cards to play. Iran International. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202608211942
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2026, 29 September). Operation Economic Outcast takes down Iranian military procurement networks. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0637/
Furkan Mahmut Tameroglu