Sinan Ciddi | April 1, 2026
President Donald Trump is right to demand that NATO allies shoulder more of the burden for collective defense. For too long, the United States has underwritten the security of partners who are increasingly selective about when they reciprocate. If Washington is serious about recalibrating this imbalance, it should begin with Turkey.
No NATO ally has benefited more consistently from the alliance than Turkey. Since the early days of the Cold War, the U.S. and its partners have invested heavily in building Turkey’s military capabilities — modernizing its armed forces, integrating it into NATO command structures, and positioning it as a front-line state against Soviet expansionism. That investment continues today. In recent days, U.S.-supplied and NATO-integrated air defense systems intercepted Iranian ballistic missiles targeting Turkish territory. Once again, the alliance came to the capital Ankara’s aid.
This is not new. When Turkey has faced existential threats, Washington has stepped in. In 1999, U.S. intelligence, working alongside Israel, played a pivotal role in the capture of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, delivering him into Turkish custody. For years, the U.S. has also provided critical intelligence and operational support to Ankara, Turkey, in its fight against the PKK. These are not symbolic gestures; they are tangible demonstrations of alliance solidarity.
Trump has gone to great lengths aligning the U.S.’s post-Assad Syria policy with Ankara’s, thus helping to augment Turkey’s regional standing as a major power. Trump also recently helped Turkey, by dismissing an embarrassing lawsuit that implicated Turkey’s second-largest public bank in the biggest violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
What is Ankara offering in return?
As conflict engulfs Iran, Turkey stands to gain significantly from the weakening, or even the collapse, of the Islamic Republic. A diminished Iran would remove a key regional rival and open new opportunities for Turkish influence across the Middle East, the Caucasus, and beyond. This is something President Recep Tayyip Erdogan desires greatly. And yet, Ankara has chosen passivity, by calling for an end to the war that it accuses Israel of starting. While even Ukraine — currently fighting a brutal war against Russia — has signaled willingness to support U.S. efforts against Tehran, Turkey remains conspicuously absent.
Instead, Ankara continues to make demands of Washington. It wants reentry into the F-35 program. It seeks upgrades and sales of F-16 fighter jets. It is pressing for access to engines and technology for its indigenous KAAN fighter program. These requests are not unreasonable in isolation. But alliances are not one-way transactions. What is Turkey contributing to advance shared security objectives?
Turkey possesses significant capabilities that could materially assist current operations. Its navy is among the largest in NATO, with the capacity to help enforce freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. It has mine-clearing capabilities that could prove vital in securing maritime routes. Its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets could augment allied efforts to monitor Iranian activities. These are not hypothetical contributions — they are practical steps Ankara could take today.
Instead, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has chosen a different path. Rather than joining efforts to confront a regime that threatens regional stability, he has defaulted to familiar rhetoric — blaming Israel for escalation and warning of broader conflict. This posture is not only unhelpful; it is revealing. For years, Turkey has tolerated, and actively facilitated, networks linked to Iranian-backed groups, in particular Hamas. Ankara’s reluctance to act decisively against Tehran raises a deeper concern: Does Turkey ultimately prefer the survival of the Islamic Republic?
If so, that places it at odds with the strategic objectives of the U.S. and much of NATO.
Mr. Trump’s call for greater allied burden-sharing is not about punishing partners — it is about restoring credibility to the alliance. NATO’s strength has always rested on mutual obligation: the understanding that security guarantees are matched by meaningful contributions. When a major ally such as Turkey consistently benefits from that system while declining to support it in moments of crisis, the imbalance becomes untenable.
Washington should make clear that future defense cooperation — from advanced aircraft sales to technology transfers — will be contingent on reciprocity. Turkey need not lead the charge against Iran. But it cannot remain on the sidelines while continuing to demand the benefits of alliance membership.
If Trump wants to reset NATO, Ankara is the logical place to start.
Sinan Ciddi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where he directs the Turkey program.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.