• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "George Perkovich",
    "Sinan Ülgen"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Türkiye",
    "Europe",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Why Turkey Won’t Go Nuclear

Economic interests, combined with national security considerations, give Turkey an incentive not to seek nuclear weapons.

Link Copied
By George Perkovich and Sinan Ülgen
Published on Apr 10, 2015
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More
Program mobile hero image

Program

Europe

The Europe Program in Washington explores the political and security developments within Europe, transatlantic relations, and Europe’s global role. Working in coordination with Carnegie Europe in Brussels, the program brings together U.S. and European policymakers and experts on strategic issues facing Europe.

Learn More

Source: Project Syndicate

ISTANBUL – According to conventional wisdom, if Iran develops nuclear weapons, then Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and perhaps Egypt will try to follow suit. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went further when he addressed the United States Congress in early March, asserting that even allowing Iran a uranium-enrichment program would “spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.”

Each of these potential nuclear dominoes should be analyzed separately and carefully. And, as far as Turkey is concerned, the conventional wisdom seems to be largely wrong.

Turkey does have a nascent nuclear energy program. After decades of false starts, the Turkish government signed a contract with Russia in 2010 for the construction and operation of the country’s first nuclear power plant. The project, located on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast, is now under construction.

The Turkish government’s effort to secure other international suppliers has been complicated by the fact that the terms offered by Russia are significantly more generous than those proposed by its competitors. Still, Turkey is in negotiations with a Franco-Japanese consortium for the construction of a second nuclear power plant on the Black Sea.

Turkey has valid economic arguments for developing the capacity to produce nuclear energy. Primary energy imports comprise almost half of Turkey’s chronic current-account deficit, because the country imports more than 90% of its oil and natural gas. Moreover, unlike in Europe, Turkey’s electricity demand continues to grow at 5-6% per year. Turkish policymakers see nuclear power as an almost indispensable tool for enhancing energy security and reducing the import bill.

These economic interests, combined with national-security considerations, give Turkey an incentive not to seek nuclear weapons. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Turkey is prohibited from developing military applications of the technology. If it were perceived to be breaking this commitment, other states, including those that would otherwise contribute to its nuclear energy program, would turn against it and jeopardize its ability to meet growing demand at an affordable cost. This, in turn, would undermine the economic growth that has been central to sustaining the government’s popular support over the past two decades.

Moreover, Turkey is a member of NATO and thus benefits from the security guarantee that the alliance provides, including its nuclear umbrella. Indeed, the US has based nuclear weapons in Turkey for decades. More recently, NATO and the US have deployed ballistic missile defenses in the country. If the Turkish government sought to acquire its own nuclear weapons, it would jeopardize these security guarantees and turn NATO against it.

In any case, Turkey lacks the know-how and technical infrastructure to produce a nuclear weapon quickly, and the country would need a long time – probably more than a decade – to develop this capacity. During this period, Turkey would face severe political, economic, and security pressures not only from the US and other NATO states, but also from Russia, Iran, and others.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s immediate security threats would be exacerbated. Nuclear weapons would do little to reduce the dangers posed by Syria’s violent disintegration, the rise of the Islamic State, and the unresolved challenge of Kurdish separatism. Turkey’s relations with Iran, which heretofore have been manageable, could become more prone to crisis.

All of these considerations point to the serious risks that seeking nuclear weapons would pose to Turkey’s security. These risks could in turn exacerbate internal discord in the country at a time when the ruling Justice and Development Party is struggling to retain popular support.

In these circumstances, it matters how the rest of the world portrays and talks about Turkey’s nuclear future. To assert that Turkey will naturally – perhaps inevitably – seek to acquire a nuclear arsenal ignores the important incentives the country has not to militarize its existing civilian energy program.

Glib talk of nuclear proliferation risks should not mislead Turks about their own interests. The rest of the world would be wiser instead to reaffirm the country’s efforts to pursue a purely peaceful nuclear energy program and to work within NATO to seek a resolution of the Iranian challenge.

This article was originally published on Project Syndicate.

About the Authors

George Perkovich

Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow

George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.

Sinan Ülgen

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Sinan Ülgen is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on Turkish foreign policy, transatlantic relations, international trade, economic security, and digital policy.

Authors

George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich
Sinan Ülgen
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Sinan Ülgen
Political ReformSecurityNuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyTürkiyeEuropeIran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Mullin with his hand raised, taking an oath
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Can Mullin Revive FEMA?

    Restoring competence and trust to the anemic, neglected disaster recovery agency is a matter of national security.

      • Sarah Labowitz

      Sarah Labowitz, Debbra Goh

  • Worker pushing machinery toward a car frame
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Europe’s New Industrial Policy Can Learn From U.S. Mistakes

    Although the IAA often differs from the IRA, European policymakers can still take note of the U.S. act’s shortcomings.

      Milo McBride

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Time to Merge the Commission and EEAS

    The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle East

    The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer Market

    The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.