OPINION: Should Iran Be Defended?

Sevil Nuriyeva on War, Sovereignty and the Future of the Middle East

Summary: Turkish commentator Sevil Nuriyeva argues that while Iran’s regime has a long record of controversial regional policies and domestic repression, foreign military intervention by the United States and Israel cannot be justified. She contends that external attempts at regime change risk destabilizing the entire region, strengthening hardline sentiment within Iran and undermining international law. In her view, opposing the attacks does not mean endorsing Tehran’s policies, but resisting what she describes as coercive geopolitical engineering in the Middle East.

Criticism of Tehran — But No Justification for War

Nuriyeva begins by acknowledging widespread criticisms of Iran’s current political system.

She notes:

• Iran’s role in regional instability through proxy forces, particularly in Syria and Iraq

• Tehran’s past stance during Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories

• Domestic crackdowns on activists, including Azerbaijani Turks advocating for cultural and linguistic rights

• Repression of environmental protests, such as demonstrations over the drying of Lake Urmia

She argues these issues are real and should not be ignored. However, she maintains that none of them justify military attacks aimed at overthrowing Iran’s elected government or targeting senior state officials.

According to Nuriyeva, efforts by the United States and Israel to impose political outcomes on the region have historically deepened instability rather than resolved it.

Escalation and the Risk of Regional Fragmentation

The recent strikes, which reportedly targeted senior Iranian officials, represent a dangerous escalation, she argues.

In her assessment, attempting to engineer regime change in a country as complex and layered as Iran risks triggering:

• Wider regional conflict

• Nationalist backlash within Iran

• Long-term instability across the Middle East

She criticizes rhetoric that frames the intervention as a campaign for “democracy” or “freedom,” especially given Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza. Suggesting that military strikes can deliver liberty, she says, ignores recent regional precedents in Iraq and Libya.

Iran’s Sociological Complexity

Nuriyeva emphasizes that Iran cannot be viewed through a simplistic political lens.

She describes Iranian society as:

• Multi-layered and historically conscious

• Shaped by deep cultural memory and national pride

• Influenced by religious and ideological structures

Opposition to the regime exists, she notes, as it does in any country. But she argues that external attacks could unify segments of society that might otherwise be divided.

The killing of a senior religious figure, for example, could be interpreted domestically as martyrdom — a concept with powerful resonance in ideological-religious systems. Rather than weakening the regime, she suggests, such actions could consolidate internal support.

The Azerbaijani Dimension

Nuriyeva also highlights the role of Iran’s Azerbaijani Turkish population, which she describes as influential in state institutions, commerce and ideological networks.

She questions whether narratives built around restoring the Pahlavi dynasty or encouraging fragmentation would resonate in cities such as Tabriz or Urmia.

Historically, she notes, Azerbaijani Turks experienced assimilation pressures during the Pahlavi era — a factor that complicates assumptions about internal political alignments.

In her view, Iran’s future must be determined by its own people rather than shaped by outside powers.

‘Too Risky’ for Iran to Target Turkey Over U.S. Assets, Analysts Say

Diplomatic Breakdown and Trust Deficit

Nuriyeva raises concerns about the timing of the strikes, which reportedly occurred while diplomatic contacts were ongoing in Oman.

She questions whether trust can be sustained in international negotiations if talks proceed in parallel with military escalation. If mediation channels are exploited or bypassed, she argues, it damages long-term diplomatic credibility.

Turkey, she notes, has attempted to activate back-channel diplomacy, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan instructing Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and intelligence chief İbrahim Kalın to engage regional actors.

However, she adds that Iranian retaliation against US assets in the Gulf also contributes to escalation and should not be considered acceptable.

A World Governed by “Jungle Law”?

From an international law perspective, Nuriyeva argues that global order increasingly resembles “the law of the jungle,” where military force overrides diplomatic norms.

She suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategic calculus extends beyond Iran, encompassing:

• Broader regional influence

• Energy and trade corridors in the Eastern Mediterranean

• Strategic alignments with countries such as India and Greece

In her assessment, the objective is not to bring “freedom” to Iran, but to reshape regional balances of power.

US and Israeli Objectives: Fully Aligned?

Nuriyeva argues that Washington and Tel Aviv may not share identical objectives.

She suggests:

• The US may prioritize quick, low-cost outcomes and remain open to negotiated arrangements.

• Israel may seek maximal strategic gains, including regime weakening or internal fragmentation.

Whether these strategic approaches converge or diverge remains uncertain.

So Should Iran Be Supported?

Nuriyeva’s conclusion is direct: Iran should be supported — but with clarification.

Support, she argues, does not mean endorsing all policies of the current regime. Instead, it means opposing:

• External military intervention

• Forced regime change

• Actions that risk igniting broader regional war

In her framing, the issue extends beyond Iran itself to the future of the entire Middle East.

Broader Implications

The debate underscores a wider regional dilemma:

• How to reconcile legitimate criticism of governance with opposition to foreign intervention

• How to prevent escalation without entrenching authoritarian structures

• How to restore diplomatic credibility amid rising military confrontation

As the conflict unfolds, the balance between sovereignty, reform and regional stability remains deeply contested.