How US-Turkiye ties shape Ankara’s power play

At various times in history, the trajectory of Turkish-American relations has played a key role in shaping Turkiye’s position in the region. Depending on the geopolitical context, Ankara has at times acted as Washington’s security partner in the region. At other times, it has positioned itself as a bridge between the US and its rivals or asserted itself as a regional middle power pursuing autonomous foreign policy for its own strategic interests. Thus, US policies have both constrained Ankara’s role while also providing opportunities for it to enhance its position in the region.

Ankara now faces a new opportunity. All eyes are fixed on the upcoming NATO Summit, which will be hosted by Turkiye next month. US President Donald Trump is expected to attend. Both US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan have confirmed his participation. Rubio this week said: “I think the next meeting of NATO in Turkiye in July is probably the most important meeting in NATO’s history, because there are some things here that need to be cleared up and fixed.”

At the Ankara summit, NATO members are expected to address questions over defense spending and the US’ evolving role in the alliance. Within this context, Turkiye appears poised to seize an opportunity by positioning itself as a bridge between NATO allies to manage the growing divisions within the alliance.

The personal rapport between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Trump and the evolving Turkish-American relations have likely contributed to the US president’s decision to attend. This was confirmed by Trump confidant Tom Barrack, the US envoy to Ankara, who noted in April that relations between Washington and Ankara had improved significantly over the past 16 months, adding that the two sides had made more progress during this period than in the previous 15 years.

Turkiye appears poised to act as a bridge between NATO allies to manage the growing divisions within the alliance

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

This week, Trump announced that Barrack would serve as his special envoy for Syria and Iraq — two of Turkiye’s neighbors that occupy a central place in its foreign policy. This appointment reflects Washington’s preference for continuity in its engagement with regional issues, relying on Barrack’s established ties with the Turkish political elite. Barrack was praised in Ankara when he supported the integration of the Syrian Democratic Forces into the new security structures in Damascus in the post-Assad transition. He is also expected to take an increasingly visible role in shaping US policy in Iraq, which Ankara will closely follow.

However, Barrack’s dual appointment as special presidential envoy for both Iraq and Syria sparked debate. Barrack is often regarded as a controversial figure due to his outspoken statements on regional issues. After his appointment, he posted on X remarks that drew criticism from Turkish analysts and political figures. He stated that “Iraq, Syria, and Turkiye remain the strategic fulcrum upon which any enduring Middle East stability must pivot. Balancing these three nations requires a single, consistent point of American contact and leverage.” Critics argued that such statements are against the sovereignty of regional states. Others interpreted his remarks differently, saying he was emphasizing that regional stability requires coordination among Turkiye, Syria and Iraq.

Although Barrack’s rhetoric may appear provocative at times, it also often aligns with certain Turkish interests. US support for the post-Assad transition in Syria and discussions around the integration of the SDF have overlapped with Ankara’s own strategic preferences. While US and Turkish interests often diverged during the Syria war, they are now at a more pragmatic and cooperative phase in their relations, which is also helping Turkiye’s regional positioning.

Although Barrack’s rhetoric may appear provocative at times, it also often aligns with certain Turkish interests

Dr. Sinem Cengiz

Historically, Turkiye’s disagreements with the US have at times enhanced its regional credibility. For example, Ankara’s decision not to support the 2003 US-led war against Iraq and its refusal to give permission for American troops to use its northern territory in the war against Iraq increased its credibility in the region. At the time, many scholars wrote that the decision challenged the long-held view of Turkiye as a “stooge of the US” in the region.

Similarly, Turkiye’s opposition to fragmentation in Syria in the post-Assad era, despite differing from US policy toward Kurdish groups, has received support from regional actors that prioritize centralized states. This approach is also a setback for destabilizing powers that prefer fragmented states.

That is why Turkiye’s stance against Israeli policies has gained broader approval, as regional states increasingly align around efforts to contain Israeli policies, which prefer regional fragmentation. Additionally, increasingly hostile rhetoric from Israel toward Turkiye brings new tensions that neither Barrack’s diplomatic maneuvering nor broader US policy has fully addressed. Turkiye expects the US to play a more decisive role in containing Israel. Ankara views regional stability as impossible without addressing Israeli policies that it considers destabilizing.

As a response to recent escalations, Turkiye has accelerated its coordination with regional states to develop alternative economic corridors, as the US-Israeli war with Iran has led to disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Ankara is deepening security ties with these countries as doubts grow in the region about the reliability of US security guarantees. Both Turkiye and regional states are pursuing a containment strategy in the current war, aiming to avoid alignment with the US.

Within this context, US policies in the region continue to act as both a constraint and a source of strategic opportunity for Ankara. This gives Turkiye the leverage to assume a dual power play: positioning itself as a bridge between NATO allies and a regional power aligning with the interests of the Arab regional system — even when it diverges with the US-envisioned regional order.

• Dr. Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkiye’s relations with the Middle East. X: @SinemCngz