Turkey
Quicktabs: Keywords
The authors challenge the conventional wisdom that an Iranian nuclear capability would compel Turkey to follow suit.
[ More ]Turkey also will be concerned, for security and prestige reasons, about a nuclear weapons capability in neighboring Iran. Turkey's economic, scientific, and engineering capabilities probably make it more capable of going nuclear than either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Turkey's calculation will be affected by other political interests, however. Turkey is a member of NATO, a nuclear alliance, and thus already enjoys a nuclear guarantee by the United States. Dozens of tactical nuclear weapons are based in Turkey, and some of Turkey's aircraft are wired to deliver these weapons, which could be turned over to them under circumstances determined by the United States, and based on long-standing procedures agreed within NATO. This relationship would be jeopardized were Turkey to embark on its own independent nuclear weapons program. Turkey also aspires to membership in the European Union. Though the Europeans have been only moderately encouraging, it seems likely that the EU would discourage an independent Turkish nuclear effort. Conversely, it seems possible that the EU might become more accommodating of Turkey's effort to join the EU if that helped discourage a Turkish nuclear program.
European governments are anxious about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear capacity. They are not concerned that the arms may be used against them, although Iran's efforts to increase the range of the Shehab missiles to cover parts of Europe, or develop or purchase missiles with a range of 3,000-4,000 kilometers that cover all of Europe does arouse their concern that Iran will try to use nuclear extortion against them as a bargaining chip. They do not have an alternative explanation for the increase in the missile range. Yet for the European governments, the fact that nuclear arms in Iranian hands will upset the stability of the Middle East is of no less importance. The specificthreatto Israel, which might potentially lead to regional deterioration, joins the possibility of a more aggressive Iran and a more radical Middle East. A nuclear Iran may also spur an acceleration in the regional arms race, with Turkey being one of the prime potential participants. Most of Turkey is already within the range of Shehab-3 missiles. This would further heighten tensions in NATO, and the arms control regime would suffer considerably.
Most important to understanding why the Middle East will not be a zone of unrestrained proliferation is the significant difference between desiring nukes and the actual capacity to acquire them. Of all three states that Shavit mentioned, the one on virtually everyone's list for possible nuclear proliferation in response to Iran is Turkey. But the Turkish Republic is already under a nuclear umbrella: Ankara safeguards roughly 90 of the United States' finest B61 gravity bombs at Incirlik airbase, near the city of Adana. These weapons are there because Turkey is a NATO member, and Washington's extended deterrence can be expected to at least partially mitigate Turkey's incentives for proliferation.
But even if the Turks wanted their own bomb, they have almost no capacity to develop nuclear weapons technology. Indeed, Turkey does not even possess the capability to deliver the 40 B61 bombs at Incirlik that are allocated to Turkish forces in the event of an attack, according to a report released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Given the changes in Turkey's foreign policy and its drive for global influence, it is conceivable that it will want to develop a Turkish version of France's force de frappe. However, Ankara would literally be starting from scratch: Turkey has no fissile material, cannot mine or enrich uranium, and does not possess the technology to reprocess spent fuel, all of which are required for nuclear weapons development.
Turkey: Unlikely to weaponize for strategic and political reasons. Like most of the region, Turkey's stated goal for developing a nuclear program is to meet its energy needs. But Turkey's nuclear journey has been a long and difficult one so far.
Ankara has faced a number of regulatory challenges in the development of its nuclear program. As is the case for most of the region's nuclear newcomers, Turkey's leading nuclear partner is Russia's Rosatom. The two countries concluded a so-called "BOO" [build, own, and operate] agreement. At the current pace, Turkey’s first nuclear power plant won’t be ready before 2022. The severe impact of sanctions on the Russian economy may further slow progress. In addition to Russia, Turkey is also working with a Franco-Japanese consortium that would build a second plant in the Black Sea town of Sinop by 2023.
To date, Turkey denies any plans to develop an enrichment or reprocessing capability. In addition, Turkey has entered a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and has agreed to the Additional Protocol, putting Ankara’s program under strict IAEA monitoring and making it difficult to divert fissile material for use in a weapons program.
Aside from the technical limitations, there are strategic and political reasons why Turkey isn't likely to weaponize. As a member of NATO and a US ally, Turkey benefits from Washington's nuclear umbrella. Its defense needs are met without it having to go through the trouble of developing its own nuclear capability—a resource-heavy endeavor for a country struggling to build a nuclear energy program. A military nuclear program would most likely result in a loss of the US as a strategic ally and the NATO nuclear umbrella.