Foe or Friend? US-Turkey Bilateral Relations Seem Set to Improve as Interests Align

Why It Matters

The alignment enables coordinated responses to regional crises and supports trade and defense collaboration, bolstering both countries’ influence. Ignoring the friction could jeopardize NATO cohesion and supply‑chain resilience.

Key Takeaways

• Eleven of sixteen issues show strong US‑Turkey alignment
• Friction concentrates on Eastern Mediterranean, Iran, Israel, sanctions
• Trade goal targets $100 billion bilateral commerce by 2025
• Energy cooperation balances Turkish hub ambitions with US sanctions pressure
• NATO relevance hinges on managing domestic political narratives

Pulse Analysis

The renewed convergence between Washington and Ankara stems from a pragmatic assessment of great‑power competition. Both capitals view the Black Sea, the Caucasus and Central Asia as arenas where Russian and Chinese expansion must be checked, prompting coordinated diplomatic outreach such as the Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States. This strategic calculus aligns with Turkey’s multiaxial, balance‑seeking foreign policy and the United States’ enduring counter‑revisionist stance. By focusing on overlapping objectives rather than ideological labels, the two allies have created a foundation for stable, issue‑by‑issue cooperation despite lingering mistrust.

Economic and security ties reinforce the strategic bond. Ankara’s ambition to become an energy hub dovetails with U.S. efforts to diversify away from Russian supplies, while joint defense contracts and low‑tariff trade policies aim at a $100 billion commerce target by 2025. The ‘Development Road’ initiative in Iraq and coordinated humanitarian work in Africa illustrate how trade and development projects serve mutual security interests. Moreover, the shared focus on a unified Syrian state and a stable, non‑Iran‑dominated Iraq provides a platform for intelligence sharing and joint military planning, enhancing NATO’s eastern flank.

Nevertheless, domestic politics in both nations generate friction that can spill over into policy. Turkish public opinion remains skeptical of U.S. intentions in the Eastern Mediterranean, while American lawmakers pressure Ankara over sanctions compliance and its stance toward Israel. These narratives risk eroding the operational trust built through years of collaboration. To preserve the partnership, policymakers must adopt an adaptive approach that separates public rhetoric from pragmatic engagement, leveraging institutional mechanisms within NATO and bilateral forums. A calibrated balance between concession and principle will determine whether the alliance can sustain its strategic relevance in the coming decade.