Summary
The analysis argues that Turkey has become an increasingly assertive regional power whose policies toward Israel, NATO, and neighboring regions are creating new security challenges alongside those posed by Iran. It highlights concerns over Turkey’s relationships with Islamist groups, its regional economic and military ambitions, and the possibility of renewed U.S. defense cooperation despite existing legal and strategic obstacles. The discussion also questions NATO’s effectiveness in managing internal disagreements among its members. It ultimately calls for stronger enforcement of U.S. policy, expanded regional partnerships, and a reassessment of alliance strategies.
Key Takeaways
- The analysis argues that Turkey has emerged as a growing strategic challenge alongside Iran, citing its support for Hamas, increasingly hostile rhetoric toward Israel, regional ambitions, and efforts to expand its geopolitical influence.
- It contends that potential U.S. moves to restore defense cooperation with Turkey, particularly involving F-35 aircraft, could create legal, military, and alliance-related concerns because of Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 air defense system.
- The analysis concludes that NATO’s current structure is insufficient to address modern security challenges and advocates for stronger U.S.-Israel cooperation, stricter policies toward Turkey, and greater reliance on smaller regional partnerships.
The Iranian regime’s renewed attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, triggering U.S. military strikes on Iranian missile, drone, and coastal military sites, have intensified multi-front threats to Israel. The Islamic Republic’s latest attacks reflect strategic timing, empowering Turkey as the host of the NATO Summit in Ankara, at a moment of renewed hostilities between the Iranian regime and the West. Turkey and Iran, “frenemies” – as competitive regional powers with overlapping interests – have cooperated when it comes to provoking Israel, the United States, and the West, even as NATO powers.
One NATO member stands out as a troubling wildcard: Turkey and its neo-Ottoman President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. While formally aligned with the West, Turkey’s actions increasingly reflect a Western-legitimized rogue power: eliminationist anti-Israel rhetoric, the hosting of Muslim Brotherhood networks including Hamas, military adventurism, and economic competition that sidelines Israel and rivals the Islamic Republic. In several respects, Turkey is positioning itself as the Sunni imperial competitor to the Shiite Islamic Republic in Tehran. Erdoğan is an ambitious, Islamist actor seeking regional supremacy at the expense of Western interests and, more acutely, Israeli and Arab security and stability. On June 6, Erdoğan’s Interior Minister, Mustafa Çiftçi, declared that after Damascus, Aleppo, and Karabakh, ‘one day we will also see the liberation of Jerusalem’ – a statement consistent with Erdoğan’s long-standing vision of Turkish influence beyond its territorial borders.
Turkey’s confrontation with Israel fits this turbulent picture, personified by Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. As head of Turkey’s national intelligence agency, MİT, for over a decade, Fidan built the operational backbone of Turkey’s relationship with Hamas and shared intelligence with Iran. Israeli security officials reported on June 21, 2026, that they had identified five Hamas operatives directing West Bank and Israel operations from Turkish soil. Fidan has escalated his rhetoric, branding Israel a “burden humanity can no longer bear.” Turkey’s Foreign Ministry recently rejected Israeli accusations as a “coordinated disinformation campaign,” accused Israel of “genocide in Gaza” and destabilizing policies, while claiming that Ankara seeks “peace, stability, and prosperity” for the region. Netanyahu has responded forcefully, branding Erdoğan an “antisemitic dictator” who supports Hamas, and has called on President Trump to block arms sales to Turkey and “rein in” Erdoğan.
The “Erdoğan Effect” may have strained ties between Washington and Jerusalem. For President Trump, Turkey appears to be a stabilizing power in an otherwise chaotic Middle East – a stance he underscored on July 7, 2026, upon arriving in Ankara for the NATO summit, where he praised Erdoğan as a “great leader, very strong person” with a “great military,” and said he was attending the summit largely “because of Erdoğan.” Erdoğan fields the second-largest military in NATO – a million-man armed force – and has projected power and arguably stability in Syria, all while avoiding the Iranian regime’s and, largely, the broader Arab condemnation that Israel faces daily. Yet Turkey is selling an illusion. Ankara is consolidating power while aligning with Islamist extremists, hosting Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, partnering with Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Qatar, and backing malign actors in Somalia, Libya, and Sudan across Africa and along the strategic Red Sea corridor – rather than aligning with the West.
The F-35 Dispute: Compounding Risks Amid U.S.-Israel Tensions
The contradictions in U.S. defense policy are stark. Speaking alongside Erdoğan on July 7 at the NATO summit in Ankara, Trump confirmed he would ‘certainly consider’ selling Turkey the F-35, calling it ‘the best plane by far,’ and said of the sanctions blocking the sale: “We’re going to be taking the sanctions off… We don’t want to sanction friends.” Erdogan noted during the summit that Trump had promised him the sale of at least five F-35s. This would reverse the 2019 ban imposed after Turkey acquired the Russian S-400 air defense system. The security risks are profound. The S-400’s radar could gather critical intelligence on the F-35’s stealth signature – information Russia could exploit or share with adversaries such as Iran, especially dangerous amid the recent attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Any American reversal, however, faces a hard legal ceiling: Section 1245 of the FY2020 NDAA gives the president no waiver authority. It requires a joint written certification from the Secretaries of State and Defense – 90 days in advance – that Turkey no longer possesses the S-400, a step Ankara has not taken and shows no sign of taking.
Washington may also advance a roughly $700 million sale of F-110 jet engines to power Turkey’s homegrown Kaan stealth fighter. Aircraft originally built for Turkey remain in storage in the United States. Administration officials are exploring workarounds, such as rendering the Russian-supplied S-400 inoperable, transferring it to a third country, or shipping it to Ukraine – though U.S. and regional officials confirm none of these options had produced progress in the days leading up to the Ankara summit.
U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are pushing back. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) responded to the reports with, ‘I hope this is wrong.’ Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said flatly, ‘We know it will not happen until the issue of the air-defense system, the S-400, has been resolved,’ while Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, offered conditional support only once the S-400 is dealt with. Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) and three House Democratic colleagues are pressing House leadership to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval should the administration proceed.
Reports also point to friction between Washington and Jerusalem, with one U.S. official reportedly criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s handling of the Iran war (“promises that didn’t come to pass”), even as Netanyahu presses Trump on both Iran and Turkey policy. Why accommodate Turkey – and pursue further understandings with Iran – when such moves risk undermining Israel’s qualitative military edge and NATO interoperability? Transactional deal-making should not override strategic red lines.
IMEC Competition and Regional Ambitions
Turkey’s challenge extends to geoeconomics. The India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) was designed to strengthen regional ties via Israel’s Haifa port. Turkey is promoting alternatives – the Iraq-Turkey Development Road and new routes through post-Assad Syria to its own Mediterranean ports – seeking to sideline Israel while positioning itself as the key Sunni hub in a weakened Iranian landscape. As JCFA’s Yoni Ben Menachem has indicated, Ankara views Israel as a strategic rival, destabilizing the region, and is pursuing neo-Ottoman influence in Syria and beyond.
NATO in the 21st Century: An Outdated Institution?
Turkey’s troubling behavior raises fundamental questions about NATO itself. Like the UN, NATO is a post-World War II creation ill-suited to 21st-century hybrid threats: Islamist networks, grey-zone attacks such as shipping disruptions, and ideological subversion.
It is worth noting that in June 2026, Turkish F-16s deployed to occupied Northern Cyprus since 2024 intercepted and radio-jammed aircraft carrying the defense ministers of Greece, France, and the Netherlands as they flew into Nicosia for an EU meeting, in an act that seemed to be testing Western resolve. In another diplomatically confrontational act, Turkey played the traditional Ottoman Janissary march “Ceddin Deden” during the official reception for Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis at the NATO summit in Ankara, an apparently nationalist provocation that defies protocol.
Considering this animosity, NATO has seemingly legitimized a member’s malign, even subversive, behavior. Its consensus rules empower rogue outliers. In this unprecedented case, Turkey maintains Russian air defense systems, occupies Northern Cyprus, sustains decades-old tensions with Greece, and hosts Islamist terror groups and other extremists – all of which undermine alliance cohesion and moral and strategic principles. More flexible and dependable coalitions, such as an Israel-Greece-Cyprus-India axis alongside Arab partners, may prove more effective and dependable.
Policy Recommendations
Israel and the United States must address these threats forthwith, as Netanyahu has urged. Washington should enforce red lines on F-35 transfers, advance IMEC and its alternatives, with Israel included, expose Turkey’s hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its historical patterns of minority persecution. NATO and other international organizations must apply punitive actions where necessary, and Washington should bolster “minilateral” frameworks that bypass NATO’s problematic consensus mechanism.
Turkey has long held potential as a regional leader and stabilizer – as it demonstrated under the former Kemalist government and in its historical role as a Muslim-majority democracy exemplifying the separation of religion and state. But its current path – exploiting regional grievances, aligning with Islamist extremists, and threatening the West’s most dependable ally while competing against shared Western interests – benefits no one. As JCFA has warned, ignoring Ankara’s ambitions invites greater instability. Clear-eyed realism and decisive action are essential before an outdated alliance enables the very chaos it was meant to prevent.
References
Ben Menachem, Yoni. “Turkey’s Confrontation with Israel: Strategic Posturing in a Shifting Middle East.” Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), 2026. https://jcfa.org/turkeys-confrontation-with-israel-strategic-posturing-in-a-shifting-middle-east/.
Gramer, Robbie, Jared Malsin, and Yoko Kubota. “Trump’s Push for F-35 Deal With Turkey Sets Up Potential Clash With Congress.” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2026.
Kuperwasser, Yossi, and Lenny Ben-David. “Turkish Hyper-Activity Reverberates Throughout the Middle East.” Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), 2020. https://jcfa.org/article/turkish-hyper-activity-reverberates-throughout-the-middle-east/.
“NATO Summit: Erdogan Welcomes Mitsotakis with Ottoman Military March.” News247, July 7, 2026. https://www.news247.gr/en/nato-summit-erdogan-welcomes-mitsotakis-with-ottoman-military-march/.
Schanzer, Jonathan, and Sinan Ciddi. “Don’t Launder Erdogan’s Record at the NATO Summit.” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, July 6, 2026. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/07/06/dont-launder-erdogans-record-at-the-nato-summit/.
