Iran and Turkey Relations Throughout History: A Delicate Dance Between Rivalry and Cooperation

The relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Turkey is one of the most enduring, complex, and pivotal bilateral dynamics in the Middle East. As two non-Arab powers dominating the northern tier of the region, their interaction is a multifaceted tapestry woven from centuries of imperial rivalry, deep cultural synthesis, and modern geopolitical competition. Today, they are simultaneously major trade partners and regional rivals, supporting opposing sides in conflicts from Syria to the South Caucasus.

To understand the current state of Iran-Turkey relations, one must look back millennia. Their shared history encompasses the ancient conquests of Anatolia by Persian Empires, the profound influence of the Turco-Persian tradition that shaped their courts and cultures, and five centuries of diplomatic ties formalized through treaties since the Ottoman and Safavid eras. This article explores that long journey, tracing the arc from the battlefield of Chaldiran to the negotiation tables in Astana, examining how two neighbors manage a relationship defined by both competition and cooperation.

IRAN AND TURKEY RELATIONS THROUGHOUT HISTORY

Listen to this podcast about "Iran and Turkey Relations throughout History":

The Epic History of Turkey: From Ancient Anatolia to Modern Türkiye

Ancient and Medieval Foundations: The Turco-Persian Legacy

Pre-Ottoman Era

Long before the establishment of the modern Turkish republic, the lands of Anatolia (Asia Minor) were intimately connected with the Iranian plateau. In antiquity, the region was a core territory of the Achaemenid Empire (550–330 BC), with famous cities like Sardis and Smyrna serving as satrapal capitals. Later, the Parthian and Sasanian Empires frequently clashed with the Roman and Byzantine Empires over control of eastern Anatolia, establishing a pattern of the region being a frontier zone between great powers.

The Turkic Migrations and Persian Culture

The arrival of Turkic tribes in Anatolia did not sever cultural ties with Iran; instead, it deepened them. The Seljuk Empire (1037–1194), which emerged from the steppes to rule over Persia and then Anatolia, became the primary vehicle for what historians call the Turco-Persian tradition. In this tradition, the ruling elite were Turkic, but the administrative language, high culture, and literary canon were heavily influenced by Persian. This synthesis continued with the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia and later became a hallmark of the Ottoman Empire, where Persian remained a language of poetry and literature for centuries. This shared cultural heritage creates a unique, if often unspoken, layer of understanding beneath the political rivalries of today.

The Ottoman-Safavid Rivalry: The Shaping of a Sectarian Frontier

The Battle of Chaldiran (1514) and Its Aftermath

The modern geopolitical and sectarian contours of Iran-Turkey relations were forged in the fiery 16th century with the rise of the Shia Safavid Empire in Iran and the Sunni Ottoman Empire. The watershed moment came in 1514 at the Battle of Chaldiran. The Ottoman Sultan Selim I, viewing the Safavid Shah Ismail I‘s propagation of Shiism as a political and religious threat, decisively defeated the Safavid forces. This battle was not just a military defeat for Iran; it solidified the eastern border of Anatolia, a frontier that has remained remarkably stable ever since. It also cemented the Sunni-Shia divide as a political boundary in the region.

Following Chaldiran, Selim I imposed trade embargoes on Safavid silk, aiming to cripple his rival’s economy. He also ordered the arrest of Safavid-affiliated intellectuals and merchants, using economic warfare to maintain dominance. While these measures were relaxed under Suleiman the Magnificent, a renewed embargo in 1603 proved less effective as the Safavids regrouped.

A Centuries-Long Struggle

The Ottoman-Safavid conflict persisted for centuries, punctuated by a series of wars extending into the 19th century. These wars were driven by a mix of sectarian tension, territorial disputes, and competition over trade routes. Key theaters of conflict included the strategic peak of Mount Ararat and the plains of Mesopotamia. The wars of 1789, 1821–1823, and 1830–1833 saw the Ottomans ultimately victorious, defeating Iranian forces and consolidating their dominance.

A significant outcome of these wars was the gradual encroachment of outside powers. Following Iran’s defeats by Russia (Treaty of Gulistan and Treaty of Turkmenchay), Tehran would sometimes re-approach the Ottomans in an attempt to counterbalance the growing Russian threat. This illustrates an early pattern of the two empires oscillating between conflict and rapprochement based on external pressures.

The Treaty of Kasr-i Shirin (1639) and Border Definition

The single most important diplomatic outcome of this era was the Treaty of Zuhab (also known as Kasr-i Shirin) in 1639. This treaty ended the Ottoman-Safavid war and formally delineated the border between the two empires for the first time . Remarkably, this border, which runs through the mountains of the Zagros and overlooks the Ararat plain, forms the basis of the modern Iran-Turkey border today. While disputes, such as the ownership of Mount Ararat, lingered into the 20th century, the 1639 treaty established a status quo that would be formalized in later agreements like the 1932 Frontier Treaty. According to scholars like Qayum, the legacy of these Ottoman-Persian wars continues to echo in contemporary rivalries, particularly in the way sectarian and political divisions play out in Iraq and Syria.

The 20th Century: Forging Modern Nation-States

The Republican Era and the Saadabad Pact

The collapse of both the Ottoman and Qajar empires after World War I gave way to the modern nation-states of Turkey, under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and Iran, under the Pahlavi dynasty, specifically Reza Shah. Both leaders shared a vision of modernization, secularization (to varying degrees), and centralization. This common ground fostered a period of unprecedented friendship.

• 1926 Treaty of Friendship The first major agreement between the new republics was signed in Tehran, establishing principles of friendship, neutrality, and non-aggression. Crucially, it included provisions for joint action against groups threatening the security of either state—a clause indirectly aimed at managing their shared Kurdish minorities.
• 1932 Frontier Treaty This treaty formally confirmed the border as it stands today, based on the centuries-old lines drawn after Chaldiran and Kasr-i-Shirin.
• Reza Shah‘s Visit to Turkey (1934) In a significant display of solidarity, Reza Shah visited Turkey, meeting with Atatürk. He was reportedly impressed by Turkey’s modernization reforms, viewing them as a model for Iran.
• Treaty of Saadabad (1937) This non-aggression pact, signed by Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, solidified a regional bloc committed to security and peace, demonstrating the high point of early 20th-century cooperation.

The Cold War Alignment

The post-World War II order inserted both countries into the Western camp. Turkey joined NATO in 1952, and both Iran and Turkey became members of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), a British- and US-backed "Middle Eastern NATO" designed to contain Soviet expansion. They also founded the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) in 1964 with Pakistan, focusing on joint economic projects. During this period, their foreign policies were largely aligned with the West, and bilateral ties remained stable and friendly.

The 1979 Turning Point: Revolution and Its Aftermath

Ideological Rupture

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a seismic event that fundamentally altered the dynamics of the relationship. The establishment of a Shia theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini posed an ideological challenge to the secular Kemalist establishment in Turkey. The Turkish military and bureaucratic elite, the self-appointed guardians of secularism, viewed Iran’s new Islamist model as a potential threat to Turkey’s domestic stability.

This suspicion defined relations through the 1980s and 1990s. A low point occurred with the "Sincan event" in 1997, when the Iranian ambassador to Ankara gave a speech strongly criticizing Israel. The Turkish military responded by parading tanks through the Sincan district and expelling the ambassador, an act that contributed to the pressure leading to the ousting of Turkey’s first pro-Islamist Prime Minister, Necmettin Erbakan, in what became known as the "post-modern coup".

Security Dilemmas: The Kurdish Issue

Despite the ideological rift, a shared security concern forced a degree of practical cooperation: the Kurdish separatist movements. Turkey accused Iran of supporting the Kurdistan Workers‘ Party (PKK) insurgency in the 1980s and 1990s to gain leverage . Conversely, Iran had its own issues with the PJAK (Party of Free Life of Kurdistan), an offshoot of the PKK operating on Iranian soil. This created a complex dynamic where both states would occasionally accuse the other of harboring or supporting militant groups, while also cooperating when their interests aligned.

The 21st Century: The Era of the AK Party and Strategic Depth

Economic Interdependence and "Zero Problems"

The election of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in Turkey in 2002, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, marked a paradigm shift. The new foreign policy doctrine, crafted by Ahmet Davutoğlu, emphasized a "zero problems with neighbors" policy and positioned Turkey as a "central country" leveraging its Ottoman history to re-engage with the Middle East.

This created a window for rapprochement with Iran. Energy became the primary driver of cooperation.

• In 1996, a massive US$23 billion natural gas deal had already been signed.
• Under the AK Party, trade volumes soared. Turkey, hungry for energy, became a lifeline for Iran, which was increasingly isolated by international sanctions.
• In 2010, Turkey and Brazil attempted to mediate a nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran, seeking a diplomatic solution to the burgeoning nuclear crisis, much to the chagrin of the United States. This demonstrated Turkey’s willingness to act independently of its NATO allies on the Iran issue.

The Syrian Cauldron: A Proxy Conflict Ignites

The Arab Spring, and specifically the Syrian Civil War, shattered the "zero problems" facade and plunged Iran-Turkey relations into their deepest crisis since the revolution. The conflict became a full-blown proxy war.

• Opposing Sides Turkey backed the Sunni opposition, viewing the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad as a strategic necessity. Iran, viewing Assad as a critical node in its "Axis of Resistance," intervened militarily and financially to prop up his government.
• The Kurdish Dimension The war complicated matters further. Turkey saw the rise of the Syrian Kurdish YPG (Peoples‘ Defence Units) as an existential threat due to its links to the PKK. Iran, while wary of Kurdish autonomy, was willing to cooperate with various Syrian Kurdish groups to weaken Turkey-backed opposition forces.
• The Astana Process Ironically, the intensity of the conflict forced a new channel of communication. In 2017, Iran, Turkey, and Russia launched the Astana Process (later the Astana Format) to manage the Syrian conflict, establish "de-escalation zones," and find a political solution . This tripartite mechanism showcased how rivals could cooperate to contain a crisis, even while supporting opposite sides on the ground.

Points of Convergence and Divergence

Beyond Syria, the relationship is a mosaic of contradictions:

CONVERGENCE

• Iraqi Kurdistan Independence Referendum (2017) Both Iran and Turkey vehemently opposed the referendum, viewing an independent Kurdish state as a direct threat to their national security. They coordinated closely with the Baghdad central government to strangle the initiative.
• Qatar Diplomatic Crisis (2017) When Saudi Arabia and its allies blockaded Qatar, both Iran and Turkey rushed to support Doha, with Iran providing food and air routes and Turkey sending troops to a Turkish base.
• Fighting Terrorism Both countries cooperate to combat drug trafficking and cross-border terrorism, even as they disagree on the definition of "terrorist groups".

DIVERGENCE

• South Caucasus Turkey is a staunch ally of Azerbaijan, while Iran has historically maintained ties with Armenia. Turkey’s vocal support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts and talk of a "Zangezur Corridor" to link Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenian territory alarms Iran. Tehran fears this could cut its direct route to Armenia and stoke pan-Turkic irredentism among its large Azerbaijani population.
• Libya and Yemen The two countries have also found themselves on opposite sides in the Libyan civil war (with Turkey backing the GNA and Iran accused of supporting Haftar) and in Yemen.
• NATO Missile Shield Turkey’s agreement to host a NATO radar system as part of a missile shield was viewed by Iran as a direct threat, leading to sharp exchanges between officials.

Conclusion

The history of Iran-Turkey relations is a testament to the complexity of geopolitics. For over five centuries, since the cannons of Chaldiran first spoke, these two nations have navigated a path defined by a constant push-and-pull. They are heirs to a shared Turco-Persian culture yet divided by sectarian identity and political ideology. They are fierce competitors for influence in the Caucasus, Iraq, and Syria, yet they are indispensable partners in trade, energy, and managing the ever-present Kurdish issue.

The relationship today is best described as a managed rivalry. Both nations are adept at compartmentalizing their disputes. While their proxies may clash in the Syrian desert, diplomats meet in Ankara, Tehran, and Astana to de-escalate tensions and secure mutual interests. The recent publication of a joint book on five centuries of treaties by the Turkish National Archives underscores a mutual recognition of this long, intertwined history.

As the Middle East continues to fragment and reorder, the Ankara-Tehran axis will remain one of its most critical fault lines and, paradoxically, one of its most essential pillars of stability. Theirs is a relationship that cannot be ignored and, despite all odds, must be managed.