Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, President Erdoğan’s archnemesis, has been arrested—marking another sign of the AKP government’s tightening grip on power in Turkey. As the regime drifts further into authoritarianism, the costs of Western indifference grow. It is time to confront the flawed assumptions driving policy toward Ankara—and to recognize that supporting Turkish democracy is not a matter of values, but of strategic necessity.

Fallacy One: Authoritarianism Equals Stability

One of the strongest theories in political science is the democratic peace theory. It suggests that democracies, benefiting from institutional accountability, transparency, and robust civil societies, tend to resolve conflicts through diplomatic means. Authoritarian states, lacking these constraints, are prone to strategic miscalculations and unpredictable escalations. 

Let’s not forget: Tensions between two NATO members, Greece and Turkey, escalated into military conflict only when one of them was governed by a military junta, highlighting how authoritarian governance can exacerbate diplomatic crises.

History consistently demonstrates that the Western indifference to authoritarian escalation may be costly: The fall of the Shah in Iran in 1979 exemplifies this point. Declassified documents show that the US viewed Iran’s then emerging Mullah regime as the lesser evil to a government potentially under the Soviet influence. They got the wake-up call with the hostage crisis, but their miscalculation resulted in a nuclearizing theocracy with widespread proxy networks, destabilizing the region for decades.

Fallacy Two: Transactionalism is a Sustainable Strategy

Western allies have gone along with the transactional approach in dealing with Turkey, focusing on short-term, issue-specific exchanges that President Erdogan skillfully exploited, particularly regarding the migration issue and NATO expansion talks.The fallacy of the transactional approach with Turkey lies in the assumption of fixed costs. It may seem manageable right now, but such an approach becomes increasingly expensive when authoritarian regimes face economic challenges. 

Egypt offers a cautionary example: heavily dependent on U.S. support, the Egyptian regime’s economic reliance has intensified over time, creating a partnership conditional on financial assistance. As Turkey’s internal conditions deteriorate, similar dynamics is likely to unfold, increasing the costs of Turkish cooperation.

Fallacy Three: We Know President Erdogan and His Limits

A politician who must win elections to remain in office and one who does not are fundamentally different actors –even though they may be the same person. Assuming President Erdogan’s foreign policy will remain the same under authoritarian conditions neglects the crucial moderating role of democratic competition. Without institutional checks and real electoral accountability, President Erdogan is likely to adopt more aggressive, risk-prone, and unpredictable positions. 

Policies influenced by ever-increasing anti-Western and ultraconservative rhetoric could escalate tensions and risk direct confrontations, endangering regional stability. Early signals, such as increased tensions with Israel over military actions in Syria, highlight this risk.

Western policymakers must avoid these fallacies and respond decisively to the erosion of democratic institutions in Turkey. Defending and promoting Turkish democracy is not simply a matter of principle—it’s an essential strategic investment in regional stability.