Iraq and Turkey Seek Cooperation Through Connectivity

Spearheaded by Iraq and Turkey, the Development Road Project (DRP) is an ambitious trade route connecting the Persian Gulf to Europe through rail, road, and port infrastructure. The project intersects with other regional connectivity efforts which aim to transform the Middle East’s from a region beset by insecurity and conflict into a hub of trade and economic opportunity. In essence, the DRP offers a vision for future regional cooperation.

Iraq and Turkey view the project as a foundation for a new partnership based on shared economic interests. Iraqi officials believe that the DRP will have "great impacts on Iraq’s bilateral relationships with its neighbours," allowing Iraq and its neighbours to develop relations "on the basis of common interests." Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has heralded the project as "the new Silk Road of our region." Both governments have high hopes that the DRP open a new chapter in their bilateral relations, while also elevating their geopolitical stature as a central node connecting Asia and Europe.

Altogether, the DRP consists of three phases, set to be completed by 2028, 2033, and finally 2050. The total investment in the project is expected to be around $24 billion in the next three decades. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have agreed to contribute financially to the project, alongside investments from the other partner countries. 

The route starts at Grand Al Faw port in Iraq’s Basra, which is only now finishing its first stages of completion as it prepares to enter operation in 2028. It will follow the Euphrates River to Nasiriyah, pass through the holy Shia pilgrimage cities of Najaf and Karbala, continue to the capital Baghdad, and then proceed to Mosul. From there, it will reach the southern Turkish border city of Mersin before finally extending to Europe.

However, the project faces numerous obstacles. For Turkey, the project is contingent Iraq’s support for curtailing the PKK, a Kurdish militant group. For Iraq, the project depends on progress in disputes with Turkey over water rights. Meanwhile, Iran could act as a spoiler for the project if it sees its interests undermined. 

Mutual Benefits

To bring the DRP to fruition, Iraqi and Turkish policymakers will need to learn from the failed connectivity projects of the past. A shared oil pipeline running from Kirkuk in Iraq to Ceyhan in Turkey has been shut for over a decade due to disagreements over how the two countries should share export revenues. But the stakes for cooperation may be higher now than before.

 Turkey is striving for better relations with Baghdad after years of disputes over water-sharing agreements and its military operations in northern Iraq against the PKK actions mostly taken without Baghdad’s go-ahead. This is central to Ankara’s new regional strategy to expand its diplomatic footprint by offering economic and security dividends to its potential partners, in a bid to make diplomatic cooperation more attractive. Additionally, the DRP allows Turkey to position itself as a gateway for Gulf countries to access European markets. Turkey has been vocal about its exclusion from other regional connectivity schemes, especially the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), which will passes through Saudi Arabia and Israel.  

For Baghdad, the DRP represents a golden opportunity to diversify its oil-dependent economy—oil exports currently account for 90 percent of government revenues. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani is keen to reshape Baghdad from a site of regional competition to a regional mediation hub—leveraging its 'middle position'. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last year, Sudani expressed his desire for Iraq to be “part of the solution to any international and regional problem.” Sudani also aims to take advantage of Iraq’s strategic location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to attract new trade and investment projects. Of course, success in these arenas would also boost his popularity ahead of the national elections to be held  in 2025, should he seek a second term.

The DRP has two main selling points. First, according to one estimate, the rail route will save around two weeks compared to the Red Sea-Suez Canal route to Europe, which takes approximately 26 days from Asia—thereby reducing fuel and freight costs associated with shipping goods. Second, the project will reduce regional dependence on the Suez Canal. Since November 2023, commercial vessels travelling to the canal through the Red Sea have been targeted by Houthis forces, under the pretext of the group’s support for Palestine. Consequently, ships have been forced to take the costly detour around the Cape of Good Hope to reach European customers, adding a staggering up to 10 days to the overall shipping time.

Mismatched Expectations

For Ankara and Baghdad, the deals being negotiated alongside the DRP are arguably more important than the project itself, as they attempt to resolve long-standing disagreements. As a condition of its support for the DRP, Ankara is seeking more concessions from Baghdad regarding the PKK, which Turkey has designated as a terrorist organisation. The PKK has long maintained a presence in Iraq’s northern stronghold, allowing it to operate close to the Turkish border. Curtailing the PKK has a practical purpose as well—the group has repeatedly targeted the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline and could pose a threat to DRP infrastructure.

Following his visit to Iraq on April 4, his first since 2011, Erdogan claimed to have signed a security pact with Sudani against the PKK. Erdogan emphasised that Iraq had finally recognised the PKK as a “terrorist” organisation. However, the Iraqi central government designated the group as a “banned” organisation, stopping short of labelling it a “terrorist” group. It is conceivable that Ankara made these initial claims to pressure Baghdad into adopting a full designation. A source with knowledge of the Turkish position told the author that Ankara understands and does not expect Iraq to combat the PKK in its strongholds or engage in direct confrontation. Instead, Ankara suggested that the Iraqi central government could implement alternative measures to curb the PKK’s operational abilities in Sinjar, such as increasing checkpoints in the areas and prohibiting permits for PKK offices

These more pragmatic requests contrast starkly with the reality on the ground. In April, Erdogan threatened a major offensive to clear the PKK from Iraqi Kurdistan once and for all. Following through on these threats, Ankara launched a new offensive in Iraq in May, which accelerated in June. While the offensive has been more limited than observers expected, the Iraqi Ministerial Council for National Security declared that it “rejects Turkey’s military operations within Iraq.” Although this statement is likely more for public consumption than anything else, it indicates that a prolonged incursion could build public resentment. 

For its part, Iraq has focused its demands surrounding the DRP on services and water management rather than security. Baghdad has long condemned Turkish dams for reducing water levels in Euphrates and Tigris rivers—crucial for Iraqi irrigation. In a positive development, both countries signed a framework agreement to resolve the water issue during Erdogan’s visit. But ongoing meetings between bilateral working groups, formed after Erdogan's visit, have yielded little progress, making it unlikely that Baghdad will receive its fair share of water anytime soon.

Pushback from Iran

In Iraq, the DRP has also faced local opposition from Iran-backed groups who could scuttle the project—Ankara and Baghdad have done little to secure broader buy-in for the project among these groups. The new revenue streams associated with the DRP could stir-up competition among the different groups comprising the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF)— an umbrella organisation comprising various military groups in Iraq, many of which are backed by Iran.

The spokesman for the Iran-backed Shia paramilitary group Kata’ib Hezbollah announced that the road “remains a concern” without specifying the reason. Kata’ib Hezbollah has demanded “guarantees” about the project from Iraqi authorities sparking fears that they could hinder the DRP’s progress. Meanwhile, an official from the parliamentary bloc representing the Iran-backed Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq took to social media to state that the project represents a “stain in the history of Iraqi politicians.” However, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq is unlikely to act as a spoiler given its growing role within the PMF that may increase its chances of receiving substantial revenues from the DRP project.

Ultimately, Iraqi paramilitary groups might be tempted to target the DRP if they are not included or perceive their interests to be at risk. In the past, the PMF have attacked Turkey’s interests, including energy export infrastructure, in response to its military operations in Sinjar– a hotspot of competition between Ankara and Tehran.

Given Iran’s deep ties to Iraq and its significant sway over several armed groups in the country, its stance could make or break the project. The role it chooses will also depend on the fluctuating state of Iran-Turkey relations. Iran has shown wariness about connectivity projects that could rival its own aspirations to become the primary hub for transit routes, particularly with the development of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Tehran’s support for the DRP is therefore conditional on its involvement. Specifically, Iran aims to complete its first railway link with Basra soon. If this railway connects to the DRP—a possibility Iran is pursuing—it would enhance trade with both Iraq and Turkey. This point was made clear during a meeting in June between Iranian Acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani and Sudani, where Iran expressed its willingness to "contribute" to the project.

Looking Ahead

Importantly, the Iraqi government has yet to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study to assess the mega project's viability. Turkey and Iraq seem comfortable with the delay, viewing it as a confidence-building measure that could eventually lead to greater economic consolidation. However, the real challenge lies ahead: addressing the longstanding issues that have strained Iraq-Turkey relations for years, rather than skirting around them with vague promises that will only resurface later and derail the project. In the absence of security-focused negotiations to address these issues, they risk becoming bigger obstacles to the DRP’s success.

Much of the diplomatic burden unfairly falls on Iraq to rally support among the different armed groups and governorate-level political groups—who may act as spoilers if their interests are not met. Baghdad should engage seriously with groups likely to feel excluded, while both countries should adopt a multi-pronged diplomatic approach to secure regional buy-in.

Before this can happen, both nations urgently need to flesh out the funding details and conduct a feasibility study to align expectations among the many stakeholders. Ultimately, in a region where infrastructure projects too often get caught in the crossfire—and considering the unpredictable nature of the Iraqi political sphere—this venture requires a more proactive approach to succeed. Political will alone is not enough.’

Photo: AK Party

The Shadow of Sanctions in Istanbul's Housing Market

Istanbul residents are experiencing a cost of living crisis. Prices of food, clothing, and other essentials have spiked. Property prices have also surged and Istanbulites are spending a growing share of their income on housing. The high prices are primarily due to President Erdoğan’s heterodox belief that lowering interest rates can lower inflation, a so-called “low interest rate, low inflation theory.”

But many in Istanbul blame the higher prices on foreign property investors, who they believe are crowding out locals in the housing market. This resentment played an important role in the Turkish presidential election earlier this year. The leading opposition candidate, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, campaigned on banning the sale of homes to foreigners for at least five years. While the public anger is real, the actual impact of foreign investment on housing prices is not as concrete.

In recent years, the Turkish government has courted foreign investors, seeking an influx of foreign currency to replenish reserves dangerously depleted during the Turkish central bank’s defense of the lira. To help shore up its own economy, the government has enacted policies to make Türkiye a more attractive destination for foreign investment and residence. The outreach to foreign investors has been timely—Russian and Iranian investors have been eager to protect their assets from waves of Western sanctions.

Russian and Iranian investment in Türkiye rose markedly after the imposition of sanctions. When the US reimposed sanctions on Iran in 2018, the number of Iranians starting businesses in Türkiye jumped. Russian investment followed a similar pattern. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the sanctions levied by the US and the EU coincided with a rise in the number of Russians registering Turkish companies. The largest spike—in the past two years—followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Property investments follow a straightforward pattern—when the US imposes sanctions, capital flees to Türkiye. In 2022, Russians purchased just under 15,000 Turkish residential properties, while Iranians purchased just over 9,000.

For Russians and Iranians, sanctions and growing fear of instability were push factors. Meanwhile, the Turkish government’s deliberate courting of the fleeing capital pulled investors to Istanbul, Antalya, and Ankara. The physical proximity of Türkiye to Russia and Iran make its cities attractive destinations. More importantly, the Turkish government is under no threat of being sanctioned and Turkish banks continue to be connected to SWIFT and other international banking systems.

While Russian and Iranian companies have established operations in Türkiye, the country is also a destination for individuals seeking to avoid economic isolation and instability in their home countries. Türkiye advertises citizenship to foreigners if they invest over four hundred thousand dollars in Turkish property. For wealthier Russians and Iranians, this offers a pathway to a new passport. The only condition for gaining Turkish citizenship is to maintain the requisite investment for at least three years and to confirm the investment with the land registry.

But acquiring Turkish citizenship does not appear to be the main goal of Russian and Iranian investors. The passport policy implemented five years ago has not led to a significant rise in foreign investors receiving Turkish citizenships. Of the tens of thousands that have bought Turkish property, less than five percent gained Turkish citizenship. While Iranians have made up a large percentage of those who receive investment-based passports, more Iranians bought property in August 2018 more than those who received a passport that year.

The fact that passports make such a small proportion of total foreign buyers—particularly those from sanctioned countries—raises additional questions. It is unclear whether those who have qualified for citizenship based on their investment of at least $400,000, fail to do so because of a lack of knowledge, indifference, or the bureaucratic slog. But clearly, Russian and Iranian buyers are more interested in acquiring an asset in a safe market than they are in becoming Turkish citizens.

Foreign purchases of residential properties have spiked in recent years, particularly in Istanbul, but also in other major cities of Türkiye, such as Antalya and Ankara. In Istanbul, Russians buyers have concentrated in Beylikdüzü, Kadıköy, Bağcılar, and Sarıyer districts. Iranians have focused on Esenyurt, Kağıthane, Sarıyer, Kartal, and Maltepe.

The market share of foreign buyers in Istanbul’s residential property market has nearly tripled in just five years, rising from 3.43 percent in 2017 to 9.61 percent in 2022. But these purchases remain a small share of Türkiye’s overall residential market. In October, purchases of Istanbul property accounted for less than 15 percent of all residential property sales in Türkiye, according to data from the Turkish Statistical Institute.

While foreign buyers are playing a bigger role in the Istanbul property market, there is no clear link between the rise in the proportion of foreign buyers and higher house prices. While yachts and luxury developments attest that there are rich Russians and Iranians in Istanbul, the volume of home purchases point towards a middle class involvement in the market. This could pit middle class Russian and Iranian buyers against members of the Turkish middle class, but foreigners and Turks have very different paths to purchasing homes in Istanbul.

The Turkish mortgage market is still developing and approval rates remain low. Buyers are expected to make a downpayment of nearly 80 percent, and the mortgage interest rate remains around 20 percent. Last year, only about half of all homes bought in Türkiye were purchased with a mortgage. Turkish lenders do not offer mortgages to foreigners, which means outside investors to make their property investments in cash.

Another difference is the commission that the brokerage receives for selling a given property. While the brokerage receives a commission from both foreign and domestic buyers, the currency of the commission depends on the buyer. Real estate brokers prefer to be paid their commission in stable euros or dollars, meaning that foreign buyers have a comparative advantage over Turkish buyers.

These advantages may explain why the rise in foreign property investment has not more clearly contributed to higher prices. Foreign buyers do not need to pay a premium on market prices in order to make property investments. By offering cash payments and attractive commissions, they may be able to secure a purchase agreement with a lower offer than a Turkish buyer would need to make. While sales to Russian and Iranian buyers have boomed in key neighbourhoods, there is no clear link between these purchases and price increases at the district level, according to data from Endeksa, a Turkish real estate analytics company.

Even if Russian and Iranian investment is not a major contributor to the cost of living crisis, it has cast a shadow on the housing market by shaping public perception. Young Turkish professionals who saved for years in the hopes of buying a home are now seeing their savings eaten away by inflation. Both for aspiring homeowners and renters, the doubling of housing costs has required cuts to other kinds of spending, adding to a perception of diminished standards of living. The response of the government has been to raise minimum wages and increase salaries for civil servants, but support for wages does not mitigate the underlying housing shortage. The Turkish government has also taken steps to lower housing demand, aiming these policies at poor refugees, mainly Syrians, by limiting their work visas and encouraging them to move onwards to Europe.

Most studies on sanctions impacts focus on the senders and the targets. The impacts of sanctions on political and economic circumstances in third countries are largely overlooked. In the case of Türkiye, capital flight from both wealthy and middle class Russians and Iranians has created new dynamics in the housing market. Understanding this capital flight is important for understanding the effectiveness of financial sanctions. Countries like Türkiye can modify their policies to accommodate this capital flight, potentially undermining the goals of those governments imposing sanctions. But these policies can have unintended consequences, like the shadow of sanctions cast on Istanbul’s housing market.

Photo: Canva 

The Middle East’s Next Conflicts Won’t Be Between Arab States and Iran

By Vali Nasr

For more than two decades, the United States has seen the politics of the Middle East as a tug of war between moderation and radicalism—Arabs against Iran. But for the four years of Donald Trump’s presidency, it was blind to different, more profound fissures growing among the region’s three non-Arab powers: Iran, Israel, and Turkey.

For the quarter century after the Suez crisis of 1956, Iran, Israel, and Turkey joined forces to strike a balance against the Arab world with U.S. help. But Arab states have been sliding deeper into paralysis and chaos since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, followed by the failed Arab Spring, leading to new fault lines. Indeed, the competition most likely to shape the Middle East is no longer between Arab states and Israel or Sunnis and Shiites—but among the three non-Arab rivals.

The emerging competitions for power and influence have become severe enough to disrupt the post-World War I order, when the Ottoman Empire was split into shards that European powers picked up as they sought to control the region. Although fractured and under Europe’s thumb, the Arab world was the political heart of the Middle East. European rule deepened cleavages of ethnicity and sects and shaped rivalries and battle lines that have survived to this day. The colonial experience also animated Arab nationalism, which swept across the region after World War II and placed the Arab world at the heart of U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

All of that is now changing. The Arab moment has passed. It is now the non-Arab powers that are ascendant, and it is the Arabs who are feeling threatened as Iran expands its reach into the region and the United States reduces its commitment. Last year, after Iran was identified as responsible for attacks on tankers and oil installations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi cited the Iranian threat as a reason to forge a historic peace deal with Israel.

But that peace deal is as much a bulwark against Turkey as it is against Iran. Rather than set the region on a new course toward peace, as the Trump administration claimed, the deal signals an intensification of rivalry among Arabs, Iranians, Israelis, and Turks that the previous administration failed to take into consideration. In fact, it could lead to larger and more dangerous regional arms races and wars that the United States neither wants nor can afford to get entangled in. So, it behooves U.S. foreign policy to try to contain rather than stoke this new regional power rivalry.

Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear capability and its use of clients and proxies to influence the Arab world and attack U.S. interests and Israel are now familiar. What is new is Turkey’s emergence as an unpredictable disrupter of stability across a much larger region. No longer envisioning a future in the West, Turkey is now more decidedly embracing its Islamic past, looking past lines and borders drawn a century ago. Its claim to the influence it had in the onetime domains of the Ottoman Empire can no longer be dismissed as rhetoric. Turkish ambition is now a force to be reckoned with.

For example, Turkey now occupies parts of Syria, has influence in Iraq, and is pushing back against Iran’s influence in both Damascus and Baghdad. Turkey has increased military operations against Kurds in Iraq and accused Iran of giving refuge to Turkey’s Kurdish nemesis, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Turkey has inserted itself in Libya’s civil war and most recently intervened decisively in the dispute in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh. Officials in Ankara are also eyeing expanded roles in the Horn of Africa, and in Lebanon, while Arab rulers worry about Turkish support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its claim to have a say in Arab politics.

Each of the three non-Arab states has justified such encroachments as necessary for security, but there are also economic motivations—for example, access to the Iraqi market for Iran or pole positions for Israel and Turkey in harnessing the rich gas fields in the Mediterranean seabed.

Predictably, Turkish expansionism runs up against Iranian regional interests in the Levant and the Caucasus in ways that evoke Turkey’s imperial past. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s recent recitation of a poem lamenting the division of historic Azerbaijan—the southern part of which now lies inside Iran—during a triumphant visit to Baku invited a sharp rebuke from Iran’s leaders. This was not an isolated misstep.

Erdogan has been for some time suggesting that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was wrong to give up Ottoman Arab territories as far south as Mosul. In reviving Turkish interest in those territories, Erdogan is claiming greater patriotism than that of the founder of modern Turkey and making clear that he is breaking with the Kemalist legacy in asserting Turkish prerogatives in the Middle East.

In the Caucasus, as in Syria, Turkish and Iranian interests are interwoven with those of Russia. The Kremlin’s interest in the Middle East is expanding, not only in conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh but also on the diplomatic scene from OPEC to Afghanistan. Moscow maintains close ties with all of the region’s key actors, sometimes tilting in favor of one and then the other. It has used this balancing act to expand its advantage. What it wants from the Middle East remains unclear, but with U.S. attention on the wane, Moscow’s complex web of ties is poised to play an outsized role in shaping the region’s future.

Israel, too, has expanded its footprint in the Arab world. In 2019, Trump recognized Israel’s half-century-old claim to the Golan Heights, which it seized from Syria in 1967, and now Israeli leaders are planning out loud to expand their borders by formally annexing parts of the West Bank. But the Abraham Accords suggest that the Arabs are looking past all of that to shore up their own position. They want to compensate for America’s dwindling interest in the Middle East with an alliance with Israel against Iran and Turkey. They see in Israel a crutch to keep them in the great game for regional influence.

The tensions between Iran and Israel have escalated markedly in recent years as Iran has reached farther into the Arab world. The two are now engaged in a war of attrition, in Syria and in cyberspace. Israel has also targeted Iran’s nuclear and missile programs directly and has been blamed most recently for the assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist.

But the scramble for the Middle East is not just about Iran. Turkey’s relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have been deteriorating for a decade. Just as Iran supports Hamas against Israel, Turkey has followed suit but has also angered Arab rulers by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey’s current regional posture—extending into Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and the Horn of Africa while staunchly defending Qatar and the Tripoli government in Libya’s civil war—is in direct conflict with policies pursued by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt.

This all suggests that the driving force in the Middle East is no longer ideology or religion but old-fashioned realpolitik. If Israel boosts the Saudi-Emirati position, those who feel threatened by it, like Qatar or Oman, can be expected to rely on Iran and Turkey for protection. But if the Israeli-Arab alignment will give Iran and Turkey reason to make common cause, Turkey’s aggressive posture in the Caucasus and Iraq could become a worry for Iran. Turkey’s military support for Azerbaijan now aligns with Israel’s support for Baku, and Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have found themselves in agreement worrying about the implications of Turkey’s successful maneuver in that conflict.

As these overlapping rivalries crisscross the region, competitions are likely to become more unpredictable, as will the pattern of tactical alliances. In turn, that might invite meddling by Russia, which has already proved adept at exploiting the region’s fissures to its advantage. China, too, may follow suit; its talk of strategic partnership with Iran and nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia may well be just the opening act. The United States thinks of China in terms of the Pacific, but the Middle East abuts China’s western frontier, and it is through that gateway that Beijing’s will pursue its vision for a Eurasian zone of influence.

The Biden administration could play a key role in reducing tensions by encouraging regional dialogue and—when possible—use its influence to end conflicts and repair relations. In response to change in Washington, feuding adversaries are signaling a truce, and that provides the new administration with an opportunity.

Although relations with Turkey have frayed, it remains a NATO ally. Washington should focus on improving ties between not just Israel and Turkey but also among Turkey and Saudi Arabia and UAE—and that means pushing Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to truly mend ties with Qatar. The Gulf rivals have declared a truce, but fundamental issues that divided them persist, and unless those are fully resolved, their differences could cause another breach.

Iran is a harder problem. U.S. officials will have to first contend with the future of the nuclear deal, but sooner rather than later Tehran and Washington will have to talk about Iran’s expansionist push in the broader region and its ballistic missiles. Washington should encourage its Arab allies, too, to embrace this approach and also engage Iran. Ultimately reining in Iran’s proxies and limiting its missiles can be achieved through regional arms control and building a regional security architecture. The United States should facilitate and support that process, but regional actors have to embrace it.

The Middle East is at the edge of a precipice, and whether the future is peaceful hinges on what course the United States follows. If the Biden administration wants to avoid endless U.S. engagements in the Middle East, it must counterintuitively invest more time and diplomatic resources in the region now. If Washington wants to do less in the Middle East in the future, it has to first do more to achieve a modicum of stability. It has to start by taking a broader view of regional dynamics and making the lessening of new regional power rivalries its priority.

Vali Nasr is the Majid Khadduri professor of Middle East studies and international affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served in the U.S. State Department from 2009 to 2011.

Photo: IRNA