Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1843743697-scaled

Turkey's elections: What’s at stake?

To expect that a leadership change will fundamentally change Turkey's long-term geopolitical orientation would be a mistake.

Analysis | Middle East

Few can predict the outcome of this Sunday’s critical presidential elections in Turkey. Polls suggest considerable voter dissatisfaction within the country after over two decades of domination by the AK party of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — a figure who has dominated the Turkish political order for so long that, for some, change seems almost inconceivable and unsettling.

More significantly there is much electoral logrolling and manipulation of politics at the local level that could play to Erdoğan’s advantage. The election will be free, but not likely fair.

Indeed, if Erdoğan had left office after his first decade in power he would undoubtedly be heralded as the most successful prime minister in Turkish history. However, his move into a second decade of power brought out greater authoritarian tendencies that have retroactively tarnished his reputation. And he has, at the same time, changed Turkey’s place in the world immutably.

If Erdoğan loses, it will bring relief to many people within the country, particularly to those hundreds who have been jailed for expressing anti-regime views in the context of a highly controlled press. Certainly, any successor government will move to liberalize the political order, release large numbers of political prisoners, and ensure greater press freedom. But the economic problems that Turkey faces will remain very challenging, to say the least.

The West, however, will be more focused on potential changes in Turkey's foreign policies. Erdoğan — in conjunction with his gifted and imaginative former foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu — vastly expanded the geopolitical vision of Turkey's place in the world, transforming it into a serious regional power.

During the Cold War, Washington had considered Turkey a "loyal NATO ally." But, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Ankara began to reimagine its role in a new world whereby it now conceived itself not only as a European power, but also as a Mediterranean, North African, Middle Eastern, Islamic, Caucasian, and Central Asian power. Indeed, Turkey's foreign policy reach now extends down into East Africa and to Ukraine as well--perhaps a reflection of the ambitious reach of the Turkish Ottoman Empire which was once one of the world’s largest and longest-lasting empires.

Today, Turkey's own attention has been particularly drawn towards the East — Eurasia. (Turks are well aware that their primeval homeland was around Lake Baikal in Siberia.) Despite centuries of wars with the Russian Empire as a geopolitical rival, today, despite its NATO membership, Turkey enjoys close working relations with Russia on numerous Middle East and Central Asian issues. (Except for Tajikistan, the Central Asian states of the former Soviet Union also happen to be all Turkic-speaking.)

Indeed, Turkey's interests extend even to the Turkic Uighur population in China's western Xinjiang province —although Ankara has kept criticisms of Beijing's culturally repressive policies there at a low key. And Turkey perceives the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative — extending economic trade routes, building roads, railroads, and infrastructure all across Central Asia — as important for Turkey’s own future. 

It would therefore be something of a fantasy for Washington to believe that if Erdoğan leaves power a new Turkish government would change all that and "return to the West.” Indeed, there are many in Washington and NATO who believe that Turkey's increasingly important ties with Russia and China actually constitute grounds for its expulsion from NATO — as a “rogue state" in Washington’s parlance.

But the blunt reality is that NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. Turkey, after all, has serious regional clout and controls access to the Black Sea through the Straits of the Dardanelles, which constitute Russia's sole access to the Mediterranean and southern seas. Indeed, Turkey’s geographical location is almost omni-azimuth.

If the opposition coalition wins this weekend's elections, we can anticipate a new government to move to slightly mollify NATO’s discomfort with Turkey’s foreign policy, such as by rapidly ratifying Sweden's membership in NATO that has been blocked by Erdoğan. A new government will similarly seek to improve ties with the EU in general after years of considerable friction. (That does not, of course, mean that Turkey will achieve EU membership any time soon.) 

But, over the past two decades, Erdoğan has irrevocably expanded Turkey’s foreign policy vision, and there is no going back to the old NATO Turkey. From now on, Ankara  will resist any pressure to subordinate its geopolitical range and freedom of action to Western interests. And although Ankara will work far more closely with both Russia and China in the region, it will not yield its independence in the new Eurasia to either of those two powerful states either. And despite centuries of somewhat prickly relations with Iran, Turkey has developed a modus vivendi with Tehran which is likely to persist and possibly prosper under new Eurasian conditions.

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of the marked decline of Washington's ability to call the geopolitical shots around the world. That will hold true in spades for Washington's ties with Turkey. So, while there may be some brief "honeymoon” between any new Turkish government and the West, the new geopolitical realities of an expanded Turkish vision and its Eurasian focus now represent the hard new facts of world politics.

That is even more true as Turkey bids to join the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) economic association (along with Iran and Saudi Arabia) — an emerging power bloc that encompasses a large proportion of the global economy and population that is shifting geopolitical power to a potent new “Global South."

Should Erdoğan lose this election, lots of Turks and most Western governments will be delighted. But most Turks also harbor deep suspicions of Western political intentions towards Turkey. So to expect that a leadership change will fundamentally change Turkey's long-term geopolitical orientation would be a mistake — and represent a failure to grasp the rapid shift of the balance of power of Eurasia in the world today.


ANKARA, TURKEY - 24 OCTOBER 2020: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Photo: Nuno21 via shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.