Over the years, Iran and Turkey have tried to play a leading role in the Arab region and the Middle East, regards to this purpose they were using various ways. During these years, the efforts have reached a closed road and have not achieved their goals .This is despite the fact that both countries are considered as a middle powers in the international system and have the necessary economic and military resources to play this role.
As for Iran, this effort began long ago, in 1979, after the proclamation of the Islamic Republic, then followed the policy of “exporting the revolution” and spread its ideas to neighboring countries. After nearly a decade of separation due to the Iran-Iraq war, he resumed this policy and supported it in two ways through the use of military means; Direct intervention, similar to intervention in Syria, or supporting local agents, as it does in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. In these cases, the intervention was not acceptable to domestic public opinion in these countries, but became a cause of tension and instability.
As for Turkey, this effort became gradual after Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002 and the wishes of its leadership became apparent, especially with the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings in late 2010 which through political support and media Ankara presented for the uprisings. His interventions in Syria, Libya and Iraq, and his attempt to establish a military base in Sudan, took on a military form.
Like Iran, Turkey’s policy has faced various obstacles and strained relations with many Arab countries. We can theoretically distinguish between the ownership of the tools that enable them to play a regional leadership role and their inability to play this role on the ground; this is in the light of theoretical conditions in the field of international relations on the concepts of regional system and regional leadership. Depending on the circumstances, there are several factors that create a favorable environment for a country to play this role, and several other factors that prevent it. In the case of Iran and Turkey, the following four factors can be mentioned;
- Intimate validity for regional systems; due to the fact that seeing the role of regional leadership has several conditions; the clarity of the regional system and its boundaries, the extent of its participation, seeks to play a leadership role in the common identity of the system, and the activities of the institutions that include the members and regulate their interactions. In the case of our region, there are two clear debates between the supporters of the concepts of the “Arab system” and the “Middle Eastern system”. The roots of the Arab regime go back to the formation of the League of Arab States in 1945 and the subsequent formation of dozens of Arab public and private organizations and unions, united by the Arabic language and a sense of common cultural identity. According to the definition of this system, neither Iran nor Turkey are considered members, but two countries are “marginal” and below the system and deal with it.
- Spread of power in the regional system; Regional leadership is linked to a pattern of power sharing and dispersion among the member states of the system, so that the leading country is able to counter opponents and protect allies, and the pattern of this division varies in different regional systems. In some regional systems, there is an explicit hierarchy led by a particular country, which often facilitates that country’s leadership role. In some other systems, the method; it is the division of power between the two main countries, which often leads to a conflict between the two countries over leadership roles. In another part of the system, the types of power are divided and deployed among a number of countries, which often means that no country can play the leadership role alone and must form alliances with other countries.
- Accepting the leadership role of others; Regional leadership involves interaction between the aspiring country and other countries in the region, which is not achieved through self-imposition or hatred, but in this case becomes a form of hegemony or occupation; but it can be achieved through the approval of public opinion in other countries with this leadership role. According to this factor, Turkey and Iran do not have a countless opportunity to play a regional leadership role, because the military and financial assistance provided by Iran goes to its domestic agents in the countries and is intended to achieve Iran’s regional goals. As for Turkey, its policies have led to rising suspicions and anti-Turkish sentiment. In Iraq, it has built military bases without the consent of the Iraqi authorities, and its warplanes constantly violate the air border between Iraq and the Kurdistan Region under the pretext of the presence of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) forces.
- The relationship of the regional system to the international system; This factor refers to two levels; The first is the relationship of the regional system with the world’s major powers, and the second is the relationship of the country that seeks to play a leadership role with the countries that have the greatest power and hegemony among the member countries of the world system.
In short, the factors that allow a country to play a leadership role at the regional level do not occur for Iran and Turkey, but this does not prevent one of these two countries from being able to dominate with the others. They can also use money and weapons to find domestic supporters and agents as a means of achieving their goals.
