Both Turkey and Iran are large and important countries in the Middle East; how these two countries relate to each other is of crucial importance both for the region and for the wider world. This book explores the diplomatic, security and energy relations of these two middle power states since 1979, analysing the impact of religious, political and social transformation on their bilateral relationship. It considers the nature of Turkey-Iran relations in the context of middle power relations theory, and goes on to look at diplomatic crises that have taken place between Turkey and Iran since 1979. The author analyses Turkey and Iran’s security relations with the wider Middle East, including the Kurdish-Turkish War, the Kurdish-Iranian War and the Kurdish-Arab War, and their impact on regional politics.

The author emphasizes that, in addition to the Palestine-Israel conflict, the significance of the oil and gas resources of the Middle East and the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq, relations between Turkey and Iran are vital to understanding the politics of the Middle East and the future of the region."--BOOK JACKET.

The foreign policies of Turkey and Iran seem increasingly to dictate the course of events in the Middle East. More recently, and especially following the Syrian crisis, the spotlight has turned to these states' dynamic re-entry onto the political stage, revealing them as key players with an international role in efforts towards the balance of power across the region. This book traces the major determinants of Turkish and Iranian foreign policies and their influence on events in the Middle East. Based on an examination of these states' politics and policies since 1979, and using material gathered from interviews with leading political figures from Turkey, Iran and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Marianna Charountaki offers fresh insights into how we understand the contemporary global order. Of particular importance, this book shows, is the effect of both external and internal factors on foreign policy and how the interaction between state and non-state actors informs political decisions. In placing these issues in a theoretical framework, Marianna Charountaki pioneers a new conceptual map within International Relations. An interdisciplinary study that provides a fresh new perspective, this book will be of particular interest to scholars of International Relations, Politics, Foreign Policy, Kurdish and Middle East Studies.

This book explores emotional-affective implications of partnership and rivalry in Turkey-Iran relations. The main proposition of this research underlines the theoretical need to reconnect psycho-social conceptualizations of “emotionality,” “affectivity,” “normativity,” and “relationality.” By combining key theoretical findings, the book offers a holistic conceptual framework to better analyze emotional-affective configuration of relational rules and roles in trans-governmental neighborhood interactions. The empirical chapters look at four consecutive periods extending from the end of First World War (November 1918) to the resuscitation of US sanctions against Iran (November 2018). In each episode, global-regional contours and dyadic dynamics of Ankara-Tehran relationship are examined critically. The century-long history of emotional entanglements and affective arrangements exposes complex patterning of “feeling rules.” Two countervailing constellations still reign over relational narratives. While the 1514 Çaldıran war myth reproduces sectarian resentment and confrontational climate, the 1639 Kasr-ı Şirin peace story reconstructs secular sympathy and collaborative atmosphere in Turkish-Iranian affairs.

Turkey’s Middle East policy has transformed in recent years and is now more involved in the region, employs more soft power tools and actively engages in third party roles in regional conflicts. Turkey has improved its relations with bordering states as a result of its “zero problems with neighbors” policy. This paper examines the elements of a new Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East and focuses on the reasons for its evolution as well as its structural conditions and political leadership. In discussing these factors this paper aims to identify the circumstances that have created an opening for change. It is argued that those structural conditions which emerged at the beginning of the new millennium coincided with a strategic political leadership that led to this transformation. It is also emphasized that “pull factors” have been important for a new Turkish engagement with the Middle East. Perspectives on Turkey in the region have become more positive in recent years. However, different actors in the Arab world have different perceptions of Turkey and its importance for the region. Some focus on Turkey as a strategic asset in the constantly shifting and highly volatile regional balance of power, while others perceive Turkey more as an important economic partner and critical for the debates on political reform in the region. Finally, this paper focuses on the issue of sustainability of Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East in the face of certain challenges, especially the so-called “Arab Spring”, which has presented difficulties for Turkey in light of the instabilities in various Arab countries and has challenged Turkey’s political and economic interests. The AKP government’s policy towards the region has therefore been evolving and during its first term it positioned itself outside of the polarizations and conflicts in the region and firmly tied its policy to the EU accession process. Such a policy was not only good for Turkey – providing political and economic opportunities – it was also beneficial for the Middle East. However, since 2008 the AKP government’s policy has begun to shift slightly and Turkey would appear to have become more involved in regional polarizations, particularly in relation to Israel and Iran. The weakening of the EU anchor has further contributed to Turkey’s entanglement in the Middle East and the challenge now for Turkey has grown since the geo-political conditions that made Turkey more active in the region have changed. Ultimately, the success of Turkish diplomacy in the Middle East will depend on how far it will manage to respond to the momentous transformations taking place in the region.

How do ideologies shape international relations in general and Middle Eastern countries' relations with the United States in particular? The Clash of Ideologies by Mark L. Haas explores this critical question. Haas's central claim is that leaders' ideological beliefs are likely to have profound effects on these individuals' perceptions of international threats. These threat perceptions, in turn, shape leaders' core security policies, including choices of allies and enemies and efforts to spread their ideological principles abroad as a key means of advancing their interests.Two variables are particularly important in this process: the degree of ideological differences dividing different groups of decision makers ("ideological distance"), and the number of prominent ideologies that are present in a particular system ("ideological polarity"). The argument is tested in four case studies of states' foreign policies, primarily since the end of the Cold War: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey. As the argument predicts, ideological differences in these cases were a key cause of international conflict and ideological similarities a source of cooperation. Moreover, different ideological groups in the same country at the same time often possessed very different understandings of their threat environments, and thus very different foreign policy preferences. These are findings that other prominent international relations theories, particularly realism, cannot explain. The purposes of the book go beyond advancing theoretical debates in the international relations literature. It also aims to provide policy guidance on key international security issues. These prescriptions are designed to advance America's interests in the Middle East in particular, namely how U.S. leaders should best respond to the ideological dynamics that exist in the region.