Home › Analysis › Will Trump Choose Turkey Over Israel? NATO’s “Turkish Question” Comes To A Head

Will Trump Choose Turkey Over Israel? NATO’s “Turkish Question” Comes To A Head

By Editor on 10th July 2026 • ( 0 )

Will Trump Choose Turkey Over Israel? NATO’s “Turkish Question” Comes To A Head

As Trump embraces Turkey’s Erdogan and opens the door to F-35 sales, Israel increasingly fears isolation. Long-simmering tensions within NATO are now exploding into view, with states like Greece alarmed. Is Washington ready to sideline its closest Middle East partner to pursue new leverage? The US may find itself forced to choose between Tel Aviv or Ankara.

As US President Donald Trump wrapped up his visit to Ankara for the NATO summit, the signals were difficult to ignore: Trump warmly praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a “terrific” leader and a loyal partner, signalling his intention to lift CAATSA sanctions tied to Turkey’s S-400 purchase, while considering the possibility of F-35 sales.

The American leader even stated he might not have attended the summit if it were not hosted by Erdogan.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s planned visit to Israel was canceled amid these developments, a move widely seen as tied to Israeli concerns over the potential arms transfer.

The Turkish leader, for his part, mocked objections from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Greek leaders (Greece has its own territorial disputes with Turkey), declaring that such talk “has no place in my world.”

Greece, a NATO ally with longstanding Aegean disputes, views the move as upsetting regional military balances. Israel, the recipient of unparalleled US support, sees it in turn as a direct threat to its qualitative military edge. Netanyahu has warned that arming Turkey would “destroy” the power balance in the Middle East.

One may recall that Trump’s current approach echoes earlier manoeuvres. As I wrote back in May 2025, his Middle East tour back then emphasized Gulf deals with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, while downplaying immediate Israeli priorities like normalization – thus signalling that Washington’s backing is not unconditional.

The current Turkish pivot, as a matter of fact, appears to be yet another calculated “leverage gamble,” using closer ties with Ankara to manage broader regional fatigue.

Israel’s intensified rhetoric against Turkey, including sharp exchanges with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, reflects in any case deep unease.

The wider context reveals longstanding fissures: Turkey has long pursued strategic autonomy, cooperating with NATO when convenient while maintaining ties with partners such as Russia – and at the same time advancing its own ambitions in Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean, and beyond (sometimes potentially clashing with Russia as well).

Moreover, the “Kurdish question”, albeit rather underreported in the West, potentially spills over, complicating dynamics from Syria to Iran. Greek-Turkish rivalry in the Aegean, plus Black Sea policy divergences, the S-400 affair, and competition in Syria all expose NATO’s internal contradictions.

Western efforts to pressure or isolate Ankara have thus far proven counterproductive, weakening the alliance’s south-eastern flank rather than reinforcing it. The hard truth is that the “Turkish Question” is symptomatic of a broader crisis of Western unity.

Turkey’s growing assertiveness, from Black Sea power plays to regional mediation attempts, highlights in a way how the alliance is becoming increasingly fragmented rather than cohesive, with member states pursuing national interests that often clash.

The timing of the Trump-Erdogan development is also significant: this rapprochement comes as Washington remains preoccupied with the fallout from the Iranian quagmire, further complicating its regional priorities.

Israeli pressure on the US to confront Iran has been significant, with some speculation even of blackmail, as seen with the Epstein affair – and figures like Marco Rubio have openly alluded to the costs and to Israeli pressure.

Considering all of this, the American superpower, facing ongoing strikes, Hormuz disruptions threatening global energy markets, and a costly inconclusive conflict, seems quite “exhausted” by the entanglement. Thus, courting Erdogan offers pragmatic leverage: prioritizing US energy security, reduced entanglements, and countering Eurasian integration through a stronger Ankara as a potential “stabilizer” in Syria or against Iranian remnants.

At this point, considering Israeli pressure, there are at least two possible extreme scenarios:

In one such scenario, US fatigue with the Iran conflict leads Washington to sideline Israel by leveraging closer ties with Turkey, severely straining the special relationship. Trump, attributing part of the quagmire to Israeli pressure, pivots toward F-35 deals and sanctions relief. He positions Turkey as a regional counterweight while distancing himself from Netanyahu’s hardline approach. Israel would eventually face reduced US aid and intelligence sharing, congressional resistance on arms packages, and emboldened adversaries, including Turkey-backed forces and Iranian “proxies”.

Tel Aviv could respond by accelerating independent strikes and seeking new partnerships, especially with Gulf states wary of Ankara. Domestically, this triggers a political crisis, more aggressive policies in the West Bank and Gaza, or a painful security reassessment. Long-term, the US-Israel relationship is transformed, weakening Israel’s deterrence in an emerging multipolar world.

A very different scenario could unfold if Israel escalates hostility toward Turkey (possibly with strikes in Syria) and successfully pressures Washington to back Tel Aviv, or at least to freeze support for Ankara. Netanyahu would then intensify diplomatic efforts and mobilize pro-Israel voices in Congress. Facing bipartisan backlash and legal obstacles on F-35s, Trump would abandon the “reset”.

In that second scenario, Turkey, NATO’s second-largest military, would feel betrayed. Ankara could then escalate anti-Western rhetoric, deepen ties with Russia and China, and obstruct NATO operations in the Black Sea – or at Incirlik. Erdogan might even weaponize nationalism (and Pan-Turkism) for more assertive moves, raising risks in the Mediterranean. While a full NATO rupture still remains unlikely, alliance cohesion would erode sharply, leading to paralysis on the eastern flank or even setting a precedent for à la carte membership.

Such scenarios are of course an exercise in informed speculation. Real outcomes depend on personalities and on the Trump-Erdogan rapport, as well as on congressional resistance, Iranian developments, and unintended escalations.

Both paths, be as it may, risk broader instability. Washington may soon face a hard choice between Turkey and Israel. The point is that the current dynamics highlight the fact that NATO’s fractures, long simmering, are now coming to a head. The “Turkish Question” is therefore not merely bilateral but a test of whether the Western bloc can adapt or will continue to short-circuit under its own contradictions.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.