Turkiye's influence in NATO poised to increase
https://arab.news/45t24
For the first time in its history, Turkiye will on July 1 assume command of the NATO Allied Reaction Force Amphibious Task Force Command and the Landing Force Command, marking a significant milestone for the country within the alliance. Its year-long command will oversee several critical operations aimed at bolstering NATO's collective defense capabilities. The Turkish Defense Ministry emphasized that this leadership position is a testament to the country's increasing role in NATO operations and its contribution to the alliance's defense structure.
From the beginning, Turkiye's relationship with NATO was transactional. Ankara initially sought membership in 1948 but was only offered 'associate status' in 1950. It did not secure strong support for its NATO membership until it sent thousands of soldiers to fight alongside the US during the Korean War. In May 1951, Washington proposed Turkiye's membership and, soon after, NATO backed the move and Turkiye was admitted to the alliance in 1952.
Being part of NATO is seen as a rational foreign policy move in Turkiye. During the Cold War, NATO was key to Turkiye's defense against the Soviet threat. Being a NATO member gave Turkiye a national security identity and a voice in European defense matters, while also creating opportunities for its economic growth as a Western ally. In return, Turkiye took on the responsibility of protecting the alliance's southern flank, serving as a strategic buffer against Soviet expansion in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Turkiye's cooperation was essential in NATO's strategy to counter Soviet influence.
The symbolic fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union raised concerns that NATO might become irrelevant and that Turkiye's importance to its Western allies would decrease. However, that did not happen. Today, Russia remains a significant player and Turkiye's growing ties with Moscow enhance Ankara's strategic value to its Western allies — despite their unease over Turkish-Russian relations.
Turkiye's policies do not always align with those of its NATO and EU partners, particularly regarding the Middle East.
Dr. Sinem Cengiz
Despite being one of the longest-lasting military alliances in history, NATO is going through tough times in adapting to changes in global security. There are challenges to its unity, such as the weakening military strength of many members and the shift in the US' focus from Europe to the Pacific. There are also differences among members in how they perceive threats, their varying interests and how to cope with the issues.
Turkiye, which has the second-largest military in the alliance after the US, also hosts NATO facilities. These facilities are significant in terms of giving NATO a timely response capability in the region. Turkiye is also one of the top-five contributors to NATO missions, participating in operations such as those in Afghanistan and Kosovo. It continues to play an important role in securing NATO's southern flank, especially in the Mediterranean, Black Sea and broader Middle East.
However, Turkiye's policies do not always align with those of its NATO and EU partners, particularly regarding the Middle East. While NATO and the EU prioritize expanding their influence, advancing economic interests and securing Israel, Turkiye places greater emphasis on regional peace and stability. For Ankara, fostering a stable region and having good ties with its neighbors is a higher priority than fully adhering to its Western allies' policies. As a result, Turkiye pursues an autonomous foreign and security policy in its neighborhood, while carefully balancing its relations with both Russia and Iran, avoiding the confrontational stance that its NATO and EU partners often adopt.
Turkiye has learned lessons from being dependent on the US and NATO and it realized the limits of this dependence during its fight against terrorism in Syria, when NATO allies imposed arms embargoes on it, irking Ankara.
Moreover, within NATO, Turkiye was not always on equal terms with its Western allies. Ankara often felt that its national interests and security concerns were secondary to those of the US and other allies. One example was when Washington continued to cooperate with the Syrian Kurds at the expense of Turkiye's security concerns. A closer look at European policies against Turkiye in the pre-Ukraine war period would also be relevant.
As the US appears to be distancing itself from NATO, Turkiye wants to fill this void to bolster its influence.
Dr. Sinem Cengiz
Given the immense challenges facing NATO, the roadmap is clear: NATO's European allies must collaborate with Turkiye to ensure the future of European security, while acknowledging Turkiye's desire for autonomy in its foreign and security policy.
In the region, Turkiye is using its influence in NATO to block any new cooperation with Israel. Ankara reportedly stated that it will continue this policy until a permanent ceasefire is reached in Gaza. It has previously blocked Israel from obtaining observer status at NATO — a stance it lifted during a reconciliation process between the two countries in 2023.
As the US appears to be distancing itself from NATO, Turkiye wants to fill this void to bolster its influence. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that Ankara is willing to engage in a new security accord in Europe and proposed protecting Ukraine in the event of a future ceasefire or peace agreement. In the post-Ukraine war period, NATO should focus on establishing a partnership with Ankara in the Black Sea, where Russia is the dominant actor.
Nevertheless, NATO today remains as important to Turkiye as it was in the past, while Ankara remains a crucial member of the alliance whose role no other country could replicate because of its unique geopolitical position. Turkiye is both a European and a Middle Eastern country in several aspects. This dual role presents both opportunities and challenges, particularly in balancing tensions between the West and Russia. However, Turkiye's commitment to NATO is strong and, as such, it will host the 2026 NATO Summit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
Middle East Erupts: Israel Strikes Iran
Israel launched strikes against Iran on Friday, targeting nuclear and military sites, following a warning from US President Donald Trump about potential massive conflict in the region. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the strikes targeted the core of Iran's nuclear enrichment program, including the Natanz facility and nuclear scientists. Netanyahu emphasized that the operation would persist for as many days as needed to achieve its objectives. Iranian state media reported that residential buildings in Tehran were also hit, resulting in civilian casualties including women and children. Fire and smoke were seen at a key site for Iran's Revolutionary Guards, and explosions were heard in Natanyeh city. Iranian media confirmed that the leader of the Guards, Hossein Salami, was killed in the strikes. Air traffic was halted at Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport, and neighboring Iraq also closed its airspace and suspended all flights at its airports. Responses and Reactions Israel declared a state of emergency and closed its airspace, with Defense Minister Israel Katz warning of possible retaliatory action from Tehran. Katz stated that following Israel's preemptive strike against Iran, a missile and drone attack against Israel and its civilian population was anticipated soon. An Israeli military official noted that the army believed Iran could strike Israel at any moment. US President Donald Trump indicated that a deal on Iran's nuclear program was close but warned that an Israeli attack could disrupt negotiations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Iran not to target US interests or personnel, stating that Washington was not involved in the strikes. The United States also announced it was reducing embassy staff in Iraq, a long-standing zone of proxy conflict with Iran. Oil prices surged by as much as 8%, while stocks plummeted following the Israeli strikes, which came after Trump's warning. Trump told reporters at the White House that while he did not want to say an attack was imminent, it looked like something that could very well happen. He also mentioned that a good deal on Iran's nuclear program was close but that an attack could jeopardize it. Historical Context and Ongoing Tensions Israel, which relies on US military and diplomatic support, views Iran as an existential threat and has targeted Iranian air defenses in the past. Netanyahu has vowed less restraint since the unprecedented October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Tehran-backed Hamas, which triggered a massive Israeli offensive in Gaza. The United States and other Western countries, along with Israel, have repeatedly accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, which Iran has consistently denied. Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, criticized the resolution as extremist and blamed Israeli influence. In response, Iran announced it would launch a new enrichment center in a secure location and replace first-generation machines with advanced sixth-generation machines at the Fordo uranium enrichment plant. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60%, significantly above the 3.67% limit set in the 2015 deal and close to the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Short link : Post Views: 2
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Pakistan, other nuclear states together spent $100 billion on weapons in 2024 — report
GENEVA: Nuclear-armed states spent more than $100 billion on their atomic arsenals last year, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons said Friday, lamenting the lack of democratic oversight of such spending. ICAN said Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States together spent nearly $10 billion more than in 2023. The United States spent $56.8 billion in 2024, followed by China at $12.5 billion and Britain at $10.4 billion, ICAN said in its flagship annual report. Geneva-based ICAN won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in drafting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which took effect in 2021. Some 69 countries have ratified it to date, four more have directly acceded to the treaty and another 25 have signed it, although none of the nuclear weapons states have come on board. This year's report looked at the costs incurred by the countries that host other states' nuclear weapons. It said such costs are largely unknown to citizens and legislators alike, thereby avoiding democratic scrutiny. Although not officially confirmed, the report said Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye were hosting US nuclear weapons, citing experts. Meanwhile Russia claims it has nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus, but some experts are unsure, it added. The report said there was 'little public information' about the costs associated with hosting US nuclear weapons in NATO European countries, citing the cost of facility security, nuclear-capable aircraft and preparation to use such weapons. 'Each NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement is governed by secret agreements,' the report said. 'It's an affront to democracy that citizens and lawmakers are not allowed to know that nuclear weapons from other countries are based on their soil or how much of their taxes is being spent on them,' said the report's co-author Alicia Sanders-Zakre. Eight countries openly possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons, although it has never officially acknowledged this. ICAN said the level of nuclear weapons spending in 2024 by these nine nations could have paid the UN budget almost 28 times over. 'The problem of nuclear weapons is one that can be solved, and doing so means understanding the vested interests fiercely defending the option for nine countries to indiscriminately murder civilians,' said ICAN's program coordinator Susi Snyder. The private sector earned at least $42.5 billion from their nuclear weapons contracts in 2024 alone, the report said. There are at least $463 billion in ongoing nuclear weapons contracts, some of which do not expire for decades, and last year, at least $20 billion in new nuclear weapon contracts were awarded, it added. 'Many of the companies that benefited from this largesse invested heavily in lobbying governments, spending $128 million on those efforts in the United States and France, the two countries for which data is available,' ICAN said. Standard nuclear doctrine — developed during the Cold War between superpowers the United States and the Soviet Union — is based on the assumption that such weapons will never have to be used because their impact is so devastating, and because nuclear retaliation would probably bring similar destruction on the original attacker.
Asharq Al-Awsat
7 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump: On the Way to Crucial Summits
While President Donald Trump prepares for G-7 and NATO summits later this month political circles and media in Europe are busy trying to cut him down to size before the two events. 'Trump will come empty-handed,' says one commentator. 'None of the things he announced with fanfare has been achieved.' Other commentators use such phrases as 'deflated balloon' and 'bogged down in the mess he created.' At first sight it looks certain that he has not scored big on any of the dramatic goals he announced. His tariff campaign is stalled in a maze of zigzags. His peace-making gambit in Ukraine has led to him humiliating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and labelling Russian President Vladimir Putin as 'quite mad'. He has not secured the accord with Iran which he had boasted would be done and dusted in an afternoon. Worse still, scores of US judges have lined up to block some of his dramatic measures including the crackdown on illegal immigration. His purge of bureaucracy has also been stalled and the federal government is desperately rehiring many of the staff that Elon Musk fired as 'do-nothing parasites.' In another register, the Gaza tragedy continues and the ceasefire promised seems as remote as ever. The cherry on the top of all that is the riot triggered by illegal immigrants in Los-Angeles leading to the deployment of the National Guard and the Marines, a rare move in American history. Even on the personal side of things his success in securing business contracts for Trump holdings plus a Jumbo Jet is counter-balanced by the acrimonious split with his most ardent backer Elon Musk. With such a tableau, Trump's favorite words 'amazing' and 'wonderful' used to describe his first 100 days in office sound hollow. Well, what can one make of all that? At the start of Trump's second term I suggested that the sky hasn't fallen and advised those who saw the events as an end-of-time catastrophe to take a deep breath and not judge Trump by what he says he might do but wait and see what he does. At the time many Trump critics overestimated his power, indeed the power of any president of the United States and assumed he could do what he likes by fiat or ukase. This time they may be underestimating the United States as the indispensable world power. That misunderstanding is due to the fact that the American model doesn't easily fit into concepts such as democracy and republic. What became the United States was the fruit of a rebellion against a system in which concentration of power contained the threat of tyranny. For the Founding Fathers, therefore, the priority was to prevent any one person or institution of state to monopolize power with a system of checks and balances learned from Xenophon in his 'Cyropaedia' and Montesquieu in 'The Spirit of Laws'. Thus the US couldn't become a state modeled on Athenian democracy in which the 'people', which in fact meant a small minority of free male citizens could do whatever they liked with the power won through elections. Nor could the US become a republic modeled on the Roman republic or the more recent Venetian version where power was wielded by narrow patrician elites. To complicate matters further the system the founding fathers designed included elements both of democracy and republic. It is a democracy because almost all public positions are filled through elections. However, those elected face a series of constraints both in having their election confirmed and when exercising the power delegated to them. Worse still the art of winning an election isn't the same as the craft of governing. In other words a genius in winning elections may turn out to be a dunce in governing. In that system the Leviathan, Hobbes' symbol of state power, is heavily chained down. The aim of those who designed it was to make sure it did as little as possible. In what could be a constitutional republic democracy is more of a point of moral reference than a blank cheque to exercise power. This is why President Barack Obama, a closet collectivist, was unable to implement his agenda and inject a heavy dose of socialism into the American economy and foreign policy. George Shultz, one of the wisest American politicians of the last century, noted that no political battle in the US is ever won or lost forever. The US is a giant cruiser set on its course by mystical elements and couldn't be suddenly put on another course wished by the captain of the moment and his crew. Politicians, therefore, are either swimming with the tide or as L.H Mencken charged 'brothers in pillage.' According to Shultz, the American system doesn't allow radical changes; in its reform, could only be incremental. A passing revolutionary mood may help you win an election. Soon, however, you shall find out that you are in office but not in power to implement your promised revolutionary agenda. The American system is designed to slow down decision making to avoid both tyranny and anarchy. The ideal government in that model is one that doesn't do anything, thus allowing individuals who make up the society to shape their lives in a framework of laws that guarantees freedom. The key concept in the American system is consent which, if and when achieved, could allow changes of course, innovations and what is branded as reform. The political set-up against which Trump led his 'revolution' was the fruit of a consent that started with President Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' reforms and took almost half a century to shape the status quo that Trump challenged. The Trump 'revolution' was also the fruit of a new consent that took decades to shape as a challenge the status quo created by the previous consent in its many forms including positive discrimination, political correctness, globalism and more recently wokism. But, once the revolutionary mood ebbs reality strikes back with people who wish to light the chimney without setting their home on fire. Though the fruit of a rebellion dressed as a revolution American society has always been deeply conservative in politics. In some cases political power comes with a heavy dose of personal attributes. Nero wasn't satisfied with just being emperor and fancied himself as a great musician and poet. Although he had a squeaking voice he was convinced he was the best singer in the empire. Commodus believed he was a descendant of Hercules and showed his strength by strangling savage beasts in the forum. More recently, Obama saw himself as a magician to conjure a new American rabbit out of his cylinder hat while reforming the Islamic world. The Caesar may be able to tame the whole world but is unable to rule his own inner self. That task is always performed by reality which obeys no Caesar. Thus the best option is to wait until that golden rule of history is applied to Trump who continues to represent a desire by many Americans, perhaps still a majority, to put the giant cruiser on a new course. Reality will teach them that the American system allows only incremental changes of course. The Trump-Musk fall-off may not be a mere lovers' tiff but is also unlikely to be as final as it seems. Love cools, friends fall off, brothers divide belongs to theatre. In politics a Cato cannot re-script his role as a Brutus. The Trump-Musk duel may turn out to be a palatial version of catch wrestling popular in the US in which adversaries seem to be killing each other with incredibly violent attacks which turn out to be harmless show-off gestures. These are known as kayfabe in wrestling circles and regarded as an art form. Let us return to George Shultz. He believed that a US president could regard himself as immensely successful if he manages to implement 10 per cent of his agenda. Mencken, for his part, noted that all US presidential terms end either with a scandal or a sense of dissatisfaction. Well, who knows, maybe the system is so designed to produce only such outcomes.
