Follow us on social

Joe_biden_and_president_erdogan_on_isil

Will Joe Biden pave a new path for US-Turkey relations?

Trump’s recent sanctions on Turkey highlight a tumultuous relationship throughout the past four years.

Analysis | Middle East

As we await the incoming Biden administration, the president-elect’s Middle East vision deserves a closer look, particularly on Turkey. The Trump administration severely undermined the parameters of the longstanding bilateral cooperation between Turkey and the United States, by, among other measures, imposing sanctions on Turkey on its way out the door. Yet cooperation with Turkey still offers great value and can serve as a pillar of stability and bolster U.S. interests in the region.

There is a tendency to attribute Ankara’s foreign policy to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s personal ambitions or his authoritarian tendencies, but this analysis misconstrues the underlying dynamics of Turkish foreign policy.
Turkey has increasingly relied on hard power to project influence around the region in hot spots like Syria, Iraq, and Libya in sharp contrast to the pre-2015 period where Turkey relied primarily on soft power to expand its influence. Most recently, Turkish incursions into the Eastern Mediterranean and Nagorno-Karabakh have added to existing tensions with its European and Caucasian neighbors.

Although Turkey has pursued a more assertive policy in recent years under Erdogan’s leadership, the scope of its engagement has been limited and largely aimed at improving Turkey’s position and leverage in existing conflicts and disputes, rather than creating new ones or resolving longstanding issues.

In fact, Washington’s effective abdication of its leadership in the Middle East since 2017 has left regional actors, including Turkey, to fend for themselves.

So while Turkish regional policies appear out of step with the United States or the European Union, the broader context suggests that Ankara’s more assertive policies largely aim to safeguard its longstanding interests in Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Caucasus, in ways designed to take advantage of the void left by fading U.S. hegemony. Despite Erdogan’s singular dominance of Turkish politics, the basic trajectory on which he has taken Ankara’s foreign policy is certain to outlive his tenure; his policies have broad popular support and track Turkish interests in the region.

The fact is that Washington and Ankara have mutual interests in the region, and Turkey can be a particularly valuable partner for Biden for two key reasons.

First, as the incoming administration is looking to restore the nuclear deal with Iran, the United States will need all the support it can mobilize. In view of the likely opposition by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel, enlisting Turkey’s support will be critical. As Iran’s neighbor, Turkey seeks to maintain and enhance strong economic relations with Tehran, a solid incentive in itself for Turkey to support such a deal.

Second, any potential U.S. competition with China or Russia would require prying Turkey away from its growing ties to both countries. Despite the strong anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric Erdogan has routinely employed, Turkey’s ties with Russia and China still lag significantly behind those with the United States and Europe and, crucially, lack deep, strategic components. For example, Turkey’s increasing interactions with Russia on Syria, Libya, and Nagorno-Karabakh are part of a series of transactional engagements, reflecting longstanding distrust between the parties. Turkey’s search for greater foreign policy independence could also serve U.S. interests in limiting Russian regional influence.

Similarly, Turkey’s gestures toward China, notably the Turkish state’s silence on the suppression of Uighurs in China — has largely failed to pay off in major new financial investments from Beijing, which Turkey’s troubled economy badly needs. Turkey is thus well-positioned to check Russia’s and China’s expansion in the Middle East.

Beyond their mutual geopolitical interests, a closer bilateral relationship between Washington and Ankara could facilitate Biden’s express intentions to prioritize human rights and democratic reforms abroad in sharp contrast to the outgoing administration’s disdain for such efforts, including in Turkey itself.

Despite setbacks in recent years, particularly after the failed 2016 coup, the Turkish political system is still characterized by key elements such as a robust opposition, commitment to democratic politics, and rhetorical adherence to pluralism. While the status quo is far from ideal, there is room for Washington to push Turkey on the status of ethnic and religious minorities, press freedom, and women’s rights.

The key question is whether Erdogan himself can be persuaded to move toward rapprochement with the United States. There is potentially much to be gained. As noted above, Turkey’s more assertive regional posture, particularly within NATO, could clearly work to Washington’s advantage in an emerging age of “competing great powers” as the recently published “NATO 2030: United for a New Era,” described it.

But the potential economic dividends from an improved relationship may be at least as or more important. Years of misguided policymaking, regional instability, and doubts about Turkey’s strategic orientation have led to a serious downturn in its once-thriving economy and major challenges in securing critical external financing despite the government’s efforts to overcome them by attracting Gulf and Chinese investment.

But domestic political uncertainties and weakened adherence to the rule of law have also contributed importantly to Turkey’s economic straits, and it is in this sphere that a Biden administration, in coordination with the EU, may be able to persuade Erdogan to return to a closer relationship with the West. Recognition on their part of the necessity of addressing the political nature of Turkey’s economic troubles gives them leverage, specifically by conditioning economic assistance in the form of loans and guarantees on ensuring human and minority rights and democratic and judicial reform.

Of course, Erdogan also has leverage, particularly in light of Turkey’s recent regional initiatives. It can always play a spoiler role if Turkey is left out of a post-Trump U.S. Middle East policy. He has shown time and again the utility of anti-American and anti-Israel discourse in shaping both domestic and regional public opinion. Put simply, the Biden administration can shore up regional public support by securing Turkey’s buy-in and enlisting its cooperation.

A return to the past seems neither feasible nor desirable for both countries. Instead, the United States and Turkey can choose to cooperate on their shared interests in a new nuclear deal with Iran and limiting Russian and Chinese influence in the region. Despite the recent volatility in the relationship, the Biden administration can avoid the prospect of creating another pariah state by excluding — or sanctioning — Turkey from its vision for the Greater Middle East.


Photo: Office of the Vice President, Obama administration.
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.