Turkey aims to leverage the current ceasefire in the Strait of Hormuz to strengthen its role as an effective mediator by establishing a mechanism to ensure the flow of food and energy. This requires swift action to maintain its reliability and build trust among the involved parties.
Wars begin on the front lines, but their real effects manifest beyond them. While bullets kill people, disruptions in supply chains lead to the collapse of communities. The recent crisis in the Strait of Hormuz was a clear indication of this type of issue.
Details of the Event
This crisis was not merely a military tension between Iran and the U.S.-Israel axis from the outset; it was a multi-dimensional shock threatening global energy flow and trade routes, and most importantly, food security. Now, there is a new situation on the ground: a ceasefire.
Ceasefire agreements are often misunderstood; they are either seen as declarations of victory or viewed as temporary periods of calm. However, a ceasefire is often neither a declaration of peace nor a mere interruption of war. It is considered a pivotal stage from which new possibilities emerge to fill the void left by war.
Context and Background
The question that must be asked today is no longer, 'Who will win?' This question is often misleading. The real question is: What has the world lost because of this war, and can the ceasefire be transformed into an opportunity to compensate for this loss? The high price of wars is often paid by those not involved in them, rather than the parties in conflict.
People in Africa, Asia, and even Latin America are not parties to this war, yet they are directly affected by rising bread prices, difficulty accessing fertilizers, and supply chain disruptions. War does not enter their lives as a bullet but rather as famine.
Consequences and Impact
In this specific context, a new opportunity arises for Turkey. Turkey has presented a model that transcends traditional diplomacy through the grain corridor it established in the Black Sea during the Russian-Ukrainian war. The strength of that model lies in its ability to build a mechanism that can operate even amidst war.
The parties did not reach a political agreement, but they agreed to establish a technical mechanism. Turkey was the guarantor and operator of this mechanism, and the goal was not to end the war but to mitigate one of its most devastating outcomes. Now, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is different; this time we are not in the midst of war but in a space created by the ceasefire.
Impact on the Arab Region
This difference should not be underestimated; the mechanism built amidst war differs from the system established in a ceasefire environment. A ceasefire provides a ground that makes the parties more open—at least temporarily—to the idea of a 'regulated system.' This makes it possible to consider a more advanced version of the 'Black Sea model' to apply in Hormuz.
However, a fundamental change in mentality is necessary here; it is not enough to view the Hormuz issue solely from an energy security perspective. While the flow of oil and liquefied natural gas is vital, the real vulnerability today lies in food and agricultural supply chains; difficulty accessing fertilizers directly impacts production, and a decline in production could turn into a global food crisis within months.
For this reason, the model proposed for the Strait of Hormuz should not merely be a 'corridor for energy' but should also be a 'corridor for food and agricultural security.' Establishing a line that ensures the safe transport of fertilizers, grains, and agricultural inputs, especially for poorer countries, could be the clearest and most significant outcome of this ceasefire.
Of course, Hormuz is not the Black Sea; when establishing the grain corridor in the Black Sea, there were two main parties, whereas in Hormuz, the equation is more complex as it involves Iran, the United States, Gulf countries, and global markets. This structure is more complicated and less predictable.
But precisely for this reason, the mechanism to be established here is more valuable, as any disruption in traffic in the Strait of Hormuz does not only shake prices but also rattles the entire global system. The role Turkey can play in this scenario is not mediation in the traditional sense; rather, Turkey can be a 'foundational' actor, not just a 'speaking' actor in such an initiative.
The experience of the Black Sea has proven this. Turkey is one of the few countries that not only brings parties together but also has the capacity to build an effective system.
How can this model be established? First, the goal must be kept simple; the biggest mistake in such initiatives is setting maximum goals, as the purpose here is not to declare peace but to ensure effective operation. A limited yet vital goal must be defined, such as ensuring the flow of food and energy and creating safe lines specifically for food and agricultural products.
Of course, risks still exist; Iran's security concerns persist, the strategic goals of the United States and Israel have not changed, and Gulf countries remain in a fragile position. However, with the ceasefire, a new reality has emerged: no party wants to bear the cost of violating this truce alone, which opens the door for active third parties like Turkey.
Turkey now faces three options, as usual: wait, align with one side, or launch an initiative. The first two options are easy, while the third is a difficult but meaningful choice. Moreover, this time, the third option is not merely an ideal proposal but a tangible opportunity.
If Turkey is to take on this role, it must act quickly and clarify the technical framework, and most importantly, maintain its reliability, as the success of such initiatives does not stem from military power but from the ability to generate trust.
The world has reached the limits of traditional diplomacy today; wars do not end, but they are managed. The grain initiative in the Black Sea was the first example of this new era. Establishing a corridor for food and security in Hormuz could represent an advanced stage of this model.
But perhaps the fundamental question is whether Turkey will be able to see this opportunity? Because sometimes, history is not written by the victors of wars, but by those who turn a ceasefire into an opportunity.