Views are all mine - re-written by ChatGPT.
A stable, confident Iran—whether clerical or secular—has always been, and will remain, a strategic problem for Türkiye. Any assumption that a post-mullah Iran would be benign is naïve. The tensions between Iran and Türkiye are not purely ideological; they are very civilisational and structural. Persian state ambition long predates the Islamic Republic and will outlive it.
Segments of the Iranian diaspora, particularly in the United States, are highly successful, well-embedded, and broadly aligned with Greek, Armenian, Indian, and Israeli circles. Many hold a dismissive or hostile view of Turks. This alignment is not accidental and increasingly expresses itself through academia, policy spaces, and cultural narratives.
Iran’s vast energy reserves, mineral wealth, and capital base ensure it will always attract Western attention and leverage. History shows Iran is willing to be leveraged when it suits its interests. A secular or monarchist Iran—freed from ideological baggage—would integrate rapidly into Western systems and become a far more effective counterweight to Türkiye than the current clerical regime. That would not moderate Iranian behaviour; it would professionalise it.
Erdoğan has undeniably damaged Türkiye’s reputation, and Western interest groups are actively searching for proxies and partners to pressure him indirectly. A rebranded Iran—marketed as secular, civilised, and energy-rich—would be an ideal vehicle. The tools would be soft: academia, culture, energy partnerships, think tanks. The objective would be the same: constrain Turkish influence.
The Pahlavi movement itself is emblematic of this dynamic. Betrayed and humiliated by the US, UK, and France, the family and its supporters now rely entirely on those same powers for legitimacy. Their claims of restoration are delusional, driven more by psychological compensation than political reality. Bound to Western interests, their frustrations often manifest as hostility toward Turks with their pan-Iranian dna.
This hostility is already visible. Iranian-American academics routinely attempt to subsume Ottoman and Seljuk history into a Persian framework. Persian influence on early Turkic states is undeniable—İlber Ortaylı openly acknowledges Persian cultural sophistication—but influence is not ownership. Cultural exchange does not justify historical erasure.
The core issue is not who governs Iran, but what Iran believes itself to be. Whether ruled by mullahs or monarchists, Iran retains a sense of historical entitlement, a willingness to align with Western power when expedient, and a readiness to contest Turkish identity and influence. A non-mullah Iran would not resolve this problem; it would sharpen it.
Respect for Persian civilisation is compatible with defending Turkish identity. What is unacceptable is allowing another influential actor—especially one poised to gain Western legitimacy—to rewrite our history or diminish our agency.
www.nzz.ch
