SavedAdd your journal

Journals / TRT Akademi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 28

Türkiye’s Mediation Diplomacy in the 2026 Iran War: Examining the Mediator Image Constructed by Opinion Leaders in the Media

2026 İran Savaşı’nda Türkiye’nin Arabuluculuk Diplomasisi: Kanaat Önderlerinin Medyada Kurduğu Arabulucu İmajının İncelenmesi

Tuğçe İyigüngör(BOLU ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7431-3403
Pages
1132–1169
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study is significant in showing how opinion leaders from different sociocultural backgrounds represent Türkiye’s mediation role differently in the media.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:During the 2026 Iran War, Türkiye took on a prominent regional role through the diplomacy it conducted between the warring parties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach and Fairclough’s three dimensional model, the analysis works through six discursive strategies: naming, actor representation, presupposition, modality, polarization, and metaphor.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study is significant in showing how opinion leaders from different sociocultural backgrounds represent Türkiye’s mediation role differently in the media.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Türkiye · İran · Medya

Abstract

During the 2026 Iran War, Türkiye took on a prominent regional role through the diplomacy it conducted between the warring parties. This study examines how opinion leaders in Western and Arab/Gulf media represented that mediation. The corpus consists of fifteen expert commentaries, read through critical discourse analysis. Drawing on van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach and Fairclough’s three dimensional model, the analysis works through six discursive strategies: naming, actor representation, presupposition, modality, polarization, and metaphor. Both groups of commentators attribute active diplomatic agency to Türkiye, but they weight that agency differently. In the Arab/Gulf texts, Türkiye appears as a central actor that seizes the opportunities the conflict opens up, and its legitimacy is grounded in cultural and historical references, above all its Ottoman past and its standing in the Muslim world. The Western texts describe a more constrained actor with limited room for maneuver, one largely carried along by events it does not control. This study is significant in showing how opinion leaders from different sociocultural backgrounds represent Türkiye’s mediation role differently in the media.

Özet

Türkiye, 2026 İran Savaşı boyunca taraflar arasında yürüttüğü yoğun diplomasiyle bölgenin öne çıkan aktörlerinden biri olmuştur. Bu araştırma, Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk rolünün Batı ve Arap/Körfez merkezli medyada, kanaat önderleri tarafından nasıl temsil edildiğini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. On beş uzman analizinden oluşan örneklem, van Dijk’in sosyo-bilişsel yaklaşımı ile Fairclough’un üç boyutlu modelinden hareketle adlandırma, aktör temsili, ön varsayım, kiplik, kutuplaşma ve metafor olmak üzere altı söylemsel strateji üzerinden eleştirel söylem analiziyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgulara göre her iki eksen de Türkiye’ye etken bir diplomatik faillik tanımaktadır. Ancak yüklenen değer belirgin şekilde farklılaşmaktadır. Arap/Körfez medyasında uzman analizleri Türkiye’yi fırsatı değerlendiren, merkezde duran bir güç olarak sunmaktadır. Meşruiyetini Osmanlı mirası ile Müslüman dünyadaki konumu gibi kültürel ve tarihsel temellere dayandırmaktadır. Batı’da ise Türkiye olaylara sürüklenen, hareket alanı sınırlı bir aktör olarak sunulmaktadır. Araştırma, farklı sosyokültürel arka plandaki kanaat önderlerinin Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk rolünü medyada farklı biçimlerde temsil ettiğini göstermesi bakımından önemlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

İyigüngör, T. (2026). Türkiye’s Mediation Diplomacy in the 2026 Iran War: Examining the Mediator Image Constructed by Opinion Leaders in the Media. TRT Akademi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 28, 1132–1169. https://doi.org/10.37679/trta.1981737

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Akçapar, B. (2019). Policy entrepreneurship in international peace mediation: A study of Turkey’s role at the UN, OSCE, and OIC. Center on International Cooperation, New York University.
  2. Akpınar, P. (2015). Mediation as a foreign policy tool in the Arab Spring: Turkey, Qatar and Iran. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 17(3), 252–268.
  3. Al-Adeimi, S., & Allweiss, A. (2025). Think tanks as stenographers of the state: Crafting the war on Yemen through an imperial discourse. Middle East Critique. Advance online publication.
  4. Altunışık, M. B., & Cuhadar, E. (2010). Turkey’s search for a third party role in Arab–Israeli conflicts: A neutral facilitator or a principal power mediator? Mediterranean Politics, 15(3), 371–392.
  5. Ambrosetti, E. T. (2024). Tarafsız: Turkey’s impartial stance vis-à-vis Russia’s war against Ukraine. In A. Mihr & C. Pierobon (Eds.), Polarization, shifting borders and liquid governance (pp. 367–382). Springer.
  6. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities and regions. Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Aras, B., & Karakaya Polat, R. (2007). Turkey and the Middle East: Frontiers of the new geographic imagination. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 61(4), 471–488.
  8. Axyonova, V., & Lozka, K. (2024). Diplomacy beyond the state: Ukrainian think tank experts as wartime diplomacy actors. European Security, 33(4), 557–575.
  9. Aydın, H., & Kavak, G. (2026). Mediation in Turkish Foreign Policy: A Case Study of the Ethiopia– Somalia Crisis. PERCEPTIONS: Journal of International Affairs, 30(2), 96–125.
  10. Aydın-Düzgit, S., Kutlay, M., & Keyman, E. F. (2026). Strategic autonomy in Turkish foreign policy in an age of multipolarity: Lineages and contradictions of an idea. International Politics, 63, 184–205.
  11. Balta, E., & Bal, H. B. (2026). How do middle powers act? Turkey’s foreign policy and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. International Politics, 63(1), 161–183.
  12. Baritci, F., & Aydeniz, H. (2019). The media as a public diplomacy tool: The case of TRT World. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 6(2), 1551–1576
  13. Bayer, R., & Keyman, F. (2012). Turkey: An emerging hub of globalization and internationalist humanitarian actor? Globalizations, 9(1), 73–90.
  14. Bercovitch, J. (1997). Mediation in international conflict: An overview of theory, a review of practice. In I. W. Zartman & J. L. Rasmussen (Eds.), Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and techniques (pp. 125–154). United States Institute of Peace Press.
  15. Cull, N. J. (2008). Public diplomacy: Taxonomies and histories. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54.
  16. Davutoğlu, A. (2013). Turkey’s mediation: Critical reflections from the field. Middle East Policy, 20(1), 83–90.
  17. Deutsche Welle. (2026, February 28). Türkiye’den İran açıklaması: Arabuluculuğa hazırız [Iran statement from Türkiye: We are ready to mediate]. Retrieved May 1, 2026, from https://www.dw.com/tr/türkiyeden-iran-açıklaması-arabuluculuk-yapmaya-hazırız/a-76167133
  18. Dieckhoff, M. (2014). International mediation: A specific diplomatic tool for emerging countries? European Review of International Studies, 1(2), 107–123.
  19. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
  20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
  21. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge.
  22. Fereday, J., & Muir Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.
  23. Gilboa, E. (2000). Mass communication and diplomacy: A theoretical framework. Communication Theory, 10(3), 275–309.
  24. Greig, J. M., & Diehl, P. F. (2012). International mediation. Polity Press.
  25. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
  26. Henrikson, A. K. (1997). Middle powers as managers: International mediation within, across, and outside institutions. In A. F. Cooper (Ed.), Niche diplomacy: Middle powers after the Cold War (pp. 46–72). Macmillan.
  27. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Free Press.
  28. Kiraz, S. (2020). Uluslararası arabuluculuğa dair değişen yaklaşımlar ve Türkiye’nin arabuluculuğun dönüşümündeki rolünün incelenmesi [An examination of changing approaches to international mediation and Türkiye’s role in the transformation of mediation]. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 20(2), 227–238.
  29. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  30. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.
  31. Manheim, J. B. (1990). Strategic public diplomacy: The evolution of influence. Oxford University Press.
  32. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
  33. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
  34. Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
  35. Michalski, A. (2005). The EU as a soft power: The force of persuasion. In J. Melissen (Ed.), The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations (pp. 124–142). Palgrave Macmillan.
  36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
  37. Murinson, A. (2006). The strategic depth doctrine of Turkish foreign policy. Middle Eastern Studies, 42(6), 945–964.
  38. Nicolson, H. (1969). Diplomacy. Oxford University Press.
  39. NTV. (2026, March 23). Türkiye, ABD ile İran arasında arabulucu mu? [Is Türkiye a mediator between the US and Iran?]. Retrieved May 10, 2026, from https://www.ntv.com.tr/dunya/turkiye-abd-ile-iran-arasinda-arabulucumu-1717141
  40. Nye, J. S. (2021). Yumuşak güç: Dünya siyasetinde başarının araçları [Soft power: The means to success in world politics] (R. İ. Aydın, Trans.). Serbest Kitaplar.
  41. Özlü, Ö. (2024). Discourse of foreign digital media: analysis of the 2023 Turkish presidential election coverage, Journal of Academic Inquiries, 19(1), 119–136.
  42. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
  43. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. Routledge.
  44. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2008, May 21). No: 81–İsrail ile Suriye arasında aracılı barış görüşmeleri hk. [No: 81 – On the indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria]. Retrieved May 19, 2026, from https://www.mfa.gov.tr/no-81---21-mayis-2008_-israil-ile-suriye-arasinda-aracili-barisgorusmeleri-hk_.tr.mfa
  45. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2010, May 17). 17 Mayıs 2010 tarihli Türkiye, İran ve Brezilya Dışişleri Bakanları Ortak Deklarasyonu [Joint declaration of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye, Iran and Brazil, dated 17 May 2010]. Retrieved May 28, 2026, from https://www.mfa.gov.tr/17_05_2010-joint-declaration-of-the-ministers-of-foreign-affairs-ofturkey_-iran-and-brazil_.tr.mfa
  46. Ringmar, E. (2002). The recognition game: Soviet Russia against the West. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(2), 115–136.
  47. Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. Palgrave Macmillan.
  48. Sevin, E. (2017). Public diplomacy and the implementation of foreign policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan.
  49. Svensson, I. (2009). Who brings which peace? Neutral versus biased mediation and institutional peace arrangements in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(3), 446–469.
  50. Süsler, B., & Alden, C. (2026). Brokering peace: Emerging middle powers, agency and mediation. Global Policy, 17(Suppl. 1), 33–44.
  51. Türkten, F. (2024, December 16). Küresel krizlerin çözümünde anahtar ülke Türkiye [Türkiye, the key country in resolving global crises]. Anadolu Ajansı. Retrieved June 6, 2026, from https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/gundem/kureselkrizlerin-cozumunde-anahtar-ulke-turkiye/3425631
  52. Ulas, G. (2026). Türkiye’s strategic ambiguity in the Russia-Ukraine war. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 37(2), 425–445.
  53. United Nations. (2022). Black Sea Grain Initiative. Retrieved June 15, 2026, from https://www.un.org/en/black-sea-grain-initiative
  54. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
  55. van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112.
  56. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
  57. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
  58. Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and disrespect in international politics: The significance of status recognition. International Theory, 3(1), 105–142.
  59. Yağmurlu, A. (2007). Halkla ilişkiler yöntemi olarak kamu diplomasisi [Public diplomacy as a public relations method]. İletişim Araştırmaları, 5(1), 9–38.
  60. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2021). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (12th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  61. Yumuşak, T. (2023). Türkiye’nin Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşı’ndaki arabuluculuk rolünün değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of Türkiye’s mediation role in the Russia-Ukraine War]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 165– 194.
  62. Zartman, I. W., & Touval, S. (1985). International mediation: Conflict resolution and power politics. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 27–45.