The year of 2019, and especially its first half, will go into the history of Turkey-U.S. relations as a critical turning point. At no point during the 70 years of bilateral relations, there existed such a strong opposition towards Turkey in Washington, as there is today. Within the first five months of the year, almost 10 bills and resolutions regarding Turkey were introduced in the U.S. Congress. Turkey’s plan to purchase the S-400 air defense systems has brought all groups in the U.S. opposing Turkey together, with Congress coming first. From the Armenian lobby to the Greek lobby, from the Jewish lobby to Neo-con think-tanks and the Central Command (CENTCOM), a wide range of actors are working to block progress in politics and diplomacy by using anti-Turkish propaganda. Statements made and the bills that are introduced show that the common point of all this propaganda is Ankara’s purchase of the S-400 systems.

Upon a brief examination of the latest developments in relations between Turkey and the U.S., a difference in discourse between Ankara and Washington on the subject of the S-400 can be clearly observed. Turkey defines the S-400 agreement as one that is complete and finalized. It must be noted that despite this, statements made by U.S. authorities portray the situation regarding the S-400 systems as one where Ankara can still be convinced. Within the last few weeks, reports citing anonymous sources emerged in the U.S. stating that Turkey was offered to indefinitely delay the purchase of the S-400s and that Ankara was evaluating this option. But these claims were dismissed by Turkish authorities.

At no point during the 70 years of bilateral relations, there existed such a strong opposition towards Turkey in Washington, as there is today.

A statement pushing the boundaries of diplomacy regarding the Istanbul elections was published by the U.S. Department of State. The expression in the statement that the U.S. “took note” of the decision to cancel the election is one that is hard to understand diplomatically. On the other hand, it has been expressed that regarding Syria, the meetings between the two countries are positively progressing. The 50% tariffs on Turkish steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. introduced during the Brunson crisis were also reduced to 25%. Beyond these topics, anti-Turkey propaganda and the pressure applied on the administration in regards to the S-400 issue continues.

Anti-Turkish sentiment in the U.S. Congress

On the subject of Turkey, most of the pressure applied on the administration comes from Congress. It’s no secret that whenever Trump closes his doors and starts engaging with Turkey, members of Congress come forward with statements, bills and resolutions opposing Turkey. It must be emphasized that this anti-Turkish sentiment in Congress causes great damage to bilateral relations. Attempting to keep Ankara on Washington’s side by applying pressure on the subject of defense while Turkey is trying to overcome national security matters is not an attitude that is possible to explain in strategic terms. Due to the fact that there is a “diffusion of power” in the global arena against the U.S., the administration is planning a national security strategy that prioritizes rivalry between great powers. In such a situation, the approach of applying pressure on an actor, especially one that has played a critical role during the Cold War era, should not be expected to serve the interests of the U.S. in any way.

Within the last three months, seven bills directly concerning Turkey were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. All these bills had both Democrat and Republican representatives as their sponsors. This is important in illustrating the scale of anti-Turkish sentiment in the U.S. Congress. It is also worth mentioning that almost all of these bills referred to Turkey’s purchase of the S-400s. In other words, seven bills opposing Turkey were introduced to the U.S. Congress within a span of three months, of which all were supported by both Republican and Democrat representatives, and all of these bills included opposition to the purchase of S-400 air defense systems, whether relevant to the bill or not.

Anti-Turkey sentiment in the U.S. Congress is high. Within the last three months, seven bills directly concerning Turkey were introduced, all with the support of both Democrat and Republican representatives.

The first of these bills is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019. This act is also known as the defense budgeting bill. While its general purpose is drawing the limits of Pentagon’s budget, it also contains many sections regarding foreign policy. Parts of this bill are dedicated to Turkey and request a report from the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense regarding Ankara’s purchase of the S-400s. The National Defense Authorization Act of the previous year also requested a report on the same subject and this was presented to Congress in November. However, this time it was requested for the report to be updated and that until this report was submitted, the delivery of F-35s to Turkey to be stopped. Prior to this bill, the temporary spending bill that ended the temporary spending crisis between Trump and Congress and allowed the Federal Government to reopen also requested the U.S. Department of Defense, in consultation with the State Department, to submit a report regarding the status of the Turkish-American alliance and Turkey’s purchase of the S-400s. Until the report is submitted, or until November 1, 2019, the transfer of any F-35 aircraft or equipment to Turkey has thus been banned.

The first bill that directly concerned Turkey was introduced on March 28, 2019, by Republican Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, Democratic New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Republican North Carolina Senator Thamos Tillis and Democratic Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen. The bill titled “Protecting NATO Skies Act” states that no F-35 aircraft should be transferred to Turkey until the U.S. government confirms that Turkey will not receive any S-400 air defense systems. The bill also states that no intellectual property and data regarding the maintenance of F-35s must be transferred to Turkey and that no storage facilities for these aircrafts should be established in the country.

The bill also emphasizes that Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 systems is within the scope of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) and states that “such a purchase would endanger the integrity of the NATO alliance, would adversely affect ongoing operations of the United States Armed Forces, including coalition operations in which the United States Armed Forces participate, would result in a significant impact to defense cooperation between the United States and Turkey, and would significantly increase the risk of compromising United States defense systems and operational capabilities.” A similar bill was also introduced to the House of Representatives. Of course, it must be expressed that the points of whether these bills will be considered alone or appended to another bill, or whether they’ll undergo changes, are not clear but they are important in reflecting the opinions of Congress.

Other bills suggesting to call the events of 1915 a so-called “Armenian Genocide” were introduced to the Senate and House of Representatives in April. These bills are non-binding. But the fact that Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim U.S. representative who is of Palestinian origin, was among the sponsors of one of these bills presents a situation that must be carefully considered. Another bill introduced to the U.S. Senate was titled “Defending United States Citizens and Diplomatic Staff from Political Prosecutions Act.” This bill directly targeted Turkey and was aimed at Turkish citizens working at U.S. diplomatic missions who have been found to be in contact with the Gulenist Terror Group, also known as FETO. But in this bill as well in the section regarding the outlook of Congress towards Turkey, it was stated that an agreement between Turkey and Russia regarding the S-400s would negatively impact relations between Turkey and the U.S.

There is also another bill that deserves special attention due to the potential it carries of creating many serious strategic consequences if passed into law. This is the bill titled “Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act” introduced by Democratic representative Bob Menendez and Republican representative Marco Rubio, both of whom are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the section titled “Findings”, the bill emphasizes the importance of cooperation with the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus (GCASC), Israel and Greece, and states that it opposes behaviors and attitudes in the Mediterranean, Aegean and the Middle East (all but naming Turkey) that are one-sided, in violation of international law and against the principle of maintaining good relations with neighboring countries. It also draws attention to the statement made during the trilateral meeting held between Israel, GCASC and Greece on March 21 that any “ill-intentioned activities” would be defended against, and supports this sentiment. The same section also mentions that Turkey has purchased S-400 systems from Russia and could be subjected to CAATSA sanctions due to this.

The bill emphasizes that the U.S. must ensure energy supply security between its allies. In this section, which expresses that energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean will lead to the economic benefit of Europe, the importance of building the Southern Gas Corridor and the Trans Adriatic Pipeline in reducing Europe’s energy dependency on Russia is stressed. The bill suggests removing the arms embargo on the GCASC, the creation of a U.S. Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center to help energy cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean between Israel, GCASC, Greece and the U.S., providing Greece with 3 million dollars of foreign military financing assistance, and providing Greece with 2 million dollars and GCASC with 2 million dollars of funding for international military education and training support.

If the Menendez & Rubio bill on the Eastern Mediterranean passes, it will change the existing military status quo in the region.

There are two points that deserve extra attention in the Eastern Mediterranean bill: First, if the bill passes, the U.S. will have officially interfered on the matter of energy resources in the E. Mediterranean in favor of the interests of Israel, Greece and GCASC. Secondly, the U.S. will change the existing military status quo in the region by removing the arms embargo on the GCASC. The U.S. also enforced an arms embargo on Turkey following the Cyprus Peace Operation, but removed this without Ankara hanging its Cyprus policy. The arms embargo on GCASC was kept in place. Despite the fact that many bills put forward with pressure of the Greek lobby recommended the removal of the embargo, these attempts failed. The difference in this case is that alongside the subject of energy in the Eastern Mediterranean, this bill also mentions reducing Europe’s energy dependency on Russia and blocking the transfer of F-35 aircrafts to Turkey until it abandons its plans on the S-400s. This greatly increases the chances that Congress will pass this bill into law. Moreover, the fact that the main sponsors of the bill are Rubio and Menendez, two influential representatives from both sides of the aisle, shows the gravity of the situation.

It can be said that the Greek, Armenian, Jewish and all other anti-Turkish lobbies have found an opportunity to employ all their strategies against Turkey in Congress. There are almost no representatives with a favorable attitude towards Turkey, including Muslim representatives as well. The efforts of Congress to oppose Turkey today are severe enough to cause strategic cracks in relations between the two countries. And the subject of S-400s has been transformed from a technical matter to a political problem between Turkey and the U.S.

Turkey and F-35 

Turkey has repeated the same statements since the day it signed the S-400 agreement. Turkish authorities expressed that this was a finalized agreement and that Ankara urgently needed air defense systems. The administration also added that a joint technical study on the S-400 systems could be conducted with the U.S. in terms of assessing its risks. However, the discourse on the subject changed as the issue became more politicized in the U.S. The U.S. expected this issue to be resolved by Turkey accepting not to activate these systems. Concerns regarding the deployment and activation of these systems were being voiced, but with pressure from the Congress on the administration, the completion of Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 systems have become unacceptable. During budget meetings in Congress, both U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting U.S. Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan stated that in the case of Turkey completing the purchase of S-400 systems, the transfer of F-35s will not be allowed. The nuance in the discourse shows how political pressure has affected the administration.

In addition to this, the U.S. has prepared steps that will be taken against Turkey, meaning, the plan to exclude Ankara from the F-35 program. Shanahan confirmed that they met with partners of the F-35 program regarding Ankara’s exclusion from the program after Pentagon stopped the transfer concerning F-35s to Turkey and the manufacture of F-35 parts by Turkish firms. However, the details of this process are even more interesting. In the report presented by the Pentagon to Congress in November, possible complications that may occur in Ankara’s exclusion and legal and judicial concerns along with all precautions that will be taken regarding these concerns are evaluated and plans for all possible scenarios on this subject are clearly described.

An official from the Pentagon stated, “In a letter on July, Secretary Mattis voiced the complications that may occur if Turkey is excluded. And following this the Congress told us to go and take all precautions for the possible situation. And that is what we worked on.” Talks are being held with partnering countries on this subject and strangely enough, more than whether Turkey should be excluded or not, these meetings focus on who will take on the business and production parts that the Turkish defense industry handles, along with where and how this production can be done, meaning its feasibility in the event that Turkey is excluded. In other words, the only worry for partners regarding Turkey’s exclusion is how countries and shareholders remaining in the project will slice up the pie of work that will be created.

One of the most important aspects of the S-400 crisis that must be emphasized is that for the U.S., this subject is no longer a technical matter that can be overcome, but one that is very much a political matter. The perception created in the U.S. is on such a level that it’s being said in meetings of the U.S. National Security Council that Turkey has purchased the S-400 systems especially to operate outside of NATO and that it intends to use these systems against the alliance.

The U.S. expected the S-400 issue to be resolved by Turkey accepting not to activate these systems. 

In meetings concerning national security, it is being discussed that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes the U.S. and NATO countries supported FETO’s failed coup attempt and that in case there is another coup attempt and NATO supports this, S-400s could be used against the alliance. The biggest factor in the creation of this perception has been the propaganda from think tanks known for their support for FETO and other terror groups such as the PKK/YPG and names that are well-respected in the U.S. with no tolerance against Turkey. For example, Turkey’s expectation towards Trump bringing sanity back to the U.S.’ Turkey policy by handling the S-400 crisis together with President Erdogan is being attempted to be nullified.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Eric Edelman, who is known for his close relations with FETO and FDD Vice President Jonathan Schanzer discussed this subject in an article published in the Wall Street Journal. Both stated that Trump must not show any tolerance towards Turkey. The article is carefully written and penned as if to constitute a briefing for Trump, and describes Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 systems as a “serious national security threat for the U.S.” The article is almost an attempt to block any moves Trump can make on the subject of the S-400s. At the same time, propaganda about removing U.S. nuclear weapons under the authority of NATO from Turkey is being brought into public discussion by similar organizations and media institutions. Thus, it seems very difficult for the U.S. administration to escape this torrent of manufactured perceptions and focus on the long-term strategic interests of the U.S. These manufactured perceptions also make it impossible for Turkey to express its anxieties regarding its national security and explain its commitment to multinational partnerships such as NATO.

What in the aftermath?

It is not in the interests of the U.S. to pressure Turkey through its national security. Turkey lies in a circle of fire. There’s Russia on one end of the circle and the U.S. on the other. In an environment where global politics is evolving towards such a multipolar order, U.S. pressuring Turkey as if it is the absolute hegemon will not yield any results. Let alone an ally that has thousands of years of state tradition, the U.S. can no longer exert authority on small states such as Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea, or a state that has been under embargos for years, such as Iran. Russians have taken the Assad regime in Syria at the verge of death from the hands of the U.S. and has revived it. It is unknown why the U.S., seeing Russia and China in every corner in international politics, expects the pressure policy that it engages in at the risk of alienating an actor such as Turkey to yield results.

It is not in the interests of the U.S. to pressure Turkey through its national security. Turkey lies in a circle of fire. There’s Russia on one end of the circle and the U.S. on the other.

Turkey may have economic vulnerabilities and this pressure policy of the U.S. may have an effect on the economy to a certain point, but it will not lead to changes in Turkey’s national security strategy. This is because Turkey is not an actor that can easily be overcome in the region. Second, its national security strategy is based on the security balances and the threats in the region, and it will not negotiate on these points. Third, the acceleration of its national defense industry initiative is another goal that will be executed in parallel to its national security strategy. Turkey has long expressed that it no longer wishes to be exclusively a buyer of military equipment and that it is making investments and engaging in programs towards this goal. Thus, its national defense industry initiative is directly related to the security balances and threats in the region. Turning Turkey back from this point will interfere with the future prosperity of the country.

There is currently a diffusion of power in the global arena. There is no longer a singular hegemon, but regional hegemons. The U.S. is part of this hegemony in every region. It has updated its strategy for the “new cold war” that it has entered with China and Russia according to the principles of competition with great powers and in every region, even in space, is attempting to decrease the influence and presence of Russia and China. Losing Turkey in such an environment would lead to a great loss for the U.S. and Europe in the long run. Whether this policy of pressure will help solve problems between the U.S. and Turkey is still being discussed, but what is obvious is that it is leading to a level of distrust that has never been seen before between the two governments.

Two parties are simply arm-wrestling to prove their points in a historical evaluation process of their alliance in the rapidly changing age of the new international system.

Since the July 15, 2016, failed coup attempt in Turkey, bilateral relations between Turkey and the U.S. have been deteriorating. The recent S-400 conflict may lead to a new phase of relations between the two NATO allies. The cause of this conflict is Ankara’s determined stance in buying S-400 air defense missiles from Russia. In return, the U.S. has threatened to apply CAATSA sanctions on Turkey and remove the country from the ongoing F-35 project, which involves 8 countries in total.

How did this happen in the first place? Merve Seren – Associate Professor at Yildirim Beyazit University, Ankara, argues that Turkey has been using Nike Hercules and I-HAWKS defense missiles, dating back to the 60s technology, with an updated version of i-hawks (improved hawks). However, Ankara’s neighbors have all been updating their defense systems and this has proved as a serious threat to Turkey’s national security.

Ankara’s neighbors have all updated their defense systems and this has proved as a serious threat to Turkey’s national security.

Merve Seren highlighted how Turkey declared the need of a new defense system to its NATO allies back in 2006, before the Syrian Civil War kicked off, but that no serious development took place. After the break out of the crisis in Syria, Turkey’s need of an updated defense system became vital and therefore Ankara asked for offers from producing countries. Based on price, delivery time, co-production and various other criteria, China initially won the bid. However, the contract was cancelled due to pressure coming from the U.S. administration at the time.

Merve Seren also notes that in 2015, Turkey requested missiles from NATO. Batteries arrived, but Seren adds that due to differences among Turkey and other NATO allies in their policies towards the ongoing Syrian crisis (e.g. buffer zone, YPG/PKK), batteries were removed from Turkey in 2016. According to Seren, these developments isolated Turkey among its NATO allies, which is why the country had to seek to purchase an alternative system.

The alternative came from Russia. After the Russian plane crash incident, Russia and Turkey declared a strategic alliance to find solutions to the Syrian crisis. The Turkish government signed a deal with Russia and purchased S-400 missiles to be delivered in July 2019. Meanwhile, Turkey conducted two successful military operations in Syria with the support of Russia.

The issue is not about F-35s or S-400s; the real issue is the balance of power in the region.

According to TRT Middle East producer Muhammad Valid, the issue is not about F-35s or S-400s; the real issue is the balance of power in the region. Turkey and Israel are the two most important military powers balancing each other in the region, together with other regional actors. Since the Obama administration, the U.S. has wanted to keep Turkey weak and fragile, as opposed to increasing support for Israel. Valid adds that “Keeping Turkey weak would prevent President Erdogan from criticizing Netanyahu and Sisi – two close allies of the U.S.”

Similar to Merve Seren, political analyst at TRT World, Yusuf Erim, argues that Turkey has been left alone by the U.S. administration during the process. He gives the example of cancelled Sig Sauer hand-guns to Turkish President Erdogan’s security guards. Erim argues that the U.S. strategy to keep Turkey fragile forced the latter for an alternative, and when Turkey did try alternative defense systems, the U.S. applied political pressure. This is why the HQ-9 contract with China was cancelled. However, Erim notes that this time round Turkey did not only engage with Russia to purchase S-400s, but is in a strategic cooperation, which is why Ankara did not cancel the contract on this occasion.

The experts we have contacted confirm that the S-400 row between the U.S. and Turkey can be solved technically by a joint group from both sides.

At the moment the U.S. administration is forcing Turkey to cancel the contract, claiming that the placement of S-400s in Turkey and F-35s flying over them is “incompatible.” The experts we have contacted so far including Merve Seren, Muhammad Valid and Yusuf Erim, confirm the possibility to some degree with some objections, but they all seem to think that the issue of security can be solved technically by a joint group from both sides.  

According to records, President Erdogan and Donald Trump had a phone call and discussed the joint group option regarding the procurement of the S-400 defense system at the end of April. During a meeting held on May 1 in Ankara, Turkish Defense Minister Huluski Akar emphasized this point to U.S. Special Envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey. During an interview, Akar stated that the cancellation of Turkey’s order of F-35s (100 planes) or removal of Turkey from the F-35 project are both against international law and would damage both the project’s future as well as the companies and countries involved.

Yusuf Erim and Muhammad Valid confirm that the removal of Turkey from the F-35 project will affect the future of the project in a negative way. In the first place, Erim argues that the project has already been delayed enough, and that the removal of Turkey from the project will further delay the process for at least two years. This would have a negative impact on the confidence of the companies and countries involved. Secondly, while there are some technological problems in the project, it is not easy to remove Turkish companies from the project as these companies are producing critical parts that require years of know-how knowledge and experience. Finally, Turkey has the advantage of using F-35s in real conflicts toward the threats from the south, test the product, record valuable information about the product and its combat capabilities. According to Erim, this point is quite important for the market confidence in F-35s. Therefore, he argues that the U.S. will keep Turkey inside the project and deliver the F-35s.

Buying F-35 does not mean Turkey can use the planes wherever-whenever. The joint system of F-35s does not allow you to act independently but only together with the U.S.

Merve Seren adds that buying F-35 does not mean Turkey can use the planes wherever-whenever. The joint system of F-35s does not allow you to act independently but only together with the U.S. In other words, buying F-35s does not give property rights to Turkey – there are only 4 countries that have this right: Israel, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore. Seren specifically highlights that purchasing S-400s would not cause Turkey to leave NATO, but rather that both NATO and Turkey will benefit from this purchase. She also adds that the locations of deployment of S-400s is quite crucial in this process. Seren argues that it is important to highlight the fact that Turkey is not a threat to NATO or the West. In fact, Turkey is protecting NATO’s western borders in the hardest line of alliance and without Turkey’s strong stand, Europe would face greater threats.

Muhammad valid argues that the U.S. administration will sell F-35s to Turkey, but that if F-35s do not arrive to Turkey, then the latter could purchase SU-35 from Russia, which are more practical, cheap and one of the best air superiority planes in the market. In fact, he adds that F-35 is not an air superiority plane (like SU-35), but a multi-function plane.

If F-35s do not arrive to Turkey, then Turkey could purchase SU-35 from Russia, which are more practical, cheap and one of the best air superiority planes in the market.

Yusuf Erim argues that the U.S. sees the situation as damage to its reputation and does not want this product to be sold to Turkey. Erim states that according to Americans, the issue has become one of precedent, which allows for Russia to emerge as a competitor in the military industrial market. Therefore, they are forcing Turkey to cancel the deal. Erim argues that the U.S. administration describes the situation as Russia selling a ‘big ticket item’ to an important NATO ally for the first time in history.

The S-400 crisis is just one of the many differences of opinion between Turkey and the U.S. Other areas of differences include the YPG/PKK existence in northern Syria, excessive U.S. support for Israel, and U.S. sanctions on Iran. Both sides are changing their policies according to their new position in the rapidly changing developments both in the region and the world. However, Turkey, which declares a strong defense system is vital for its national security – based on the developments in the region – seems to have the upper-hand in the wrestle, as opposed to the U.S., which is basically trying to keep an ally under control. The relationship between President Erdogan and Donald Trump may help find a solution to S-400 row. However, many uncertainties in the region may lead to new other crises between the two.

The U.S.-Turkey relationship is up for renewed tensions in the coming months as a result of the pending S-400 air defense system purchase from Russia. The U.S. Congress has introduced several legislative measures, clearly designed to send Turkey a message about the potential transfer of these systems to Turkish soil. Congress had already asked Pentagon to produce a report about the state of relations with Turkey and blocked the potential transfer of F-35s to Turkey unless the S-400 transaction was canceled. Given the increasing role of Congress in especially Russia-related foreign policy matters as a result of the showdown with President Trump due to the Mueller investigation, Turkey’s S-400 purchase from Russia is destined to become a part of this domestic political struggle.  

At the technical level, various news reports indicate that U.S. military leaders think the security of F-35s would be compromised if they are operated alongside S-400s. Turkey has recommended to create a technical group to address these concerns but the U.S. is considering this as a tacit acknowledgement that purchasing Russian military systems might seem acceptable. Turkey has also made it clear that the decision to purchase S-400s was made after years of an air defense system that met Turkish requirements on price, tech transfer, and delivery schedules. After years of negotiations with the U.S., Europe, and China, Russia took the opportunity to provide Turkey with a deal that met all the Turkish conditions, adding favorable financing terms that were meant to sweeten the deal. However, the evolution of the Turkish position and how we got here seem to have little impact on the U.S. military leaders who find it unimaginable to allow a Russian system being operated alongside F-35s.

Given the increasing role of Congress in especially Russia-related foreign policy matters as a result of the showdown with President Trump due to the Mueller investigation, Turkey’s S-400 purchase from Russia is destined to become a part of this domestic political struggle.  

There is surely an economic aspect of this issue as well. The U.S. is not particularly thrilled about the Russian S-400 System’s encroachment into the international arms market, especially on the soil of a NATO country. For Turkey, however, various NATO members’ and the Obama administration’s decisions to pull the Patriots from the Turkish border with Syria without consultations with Turkey is a sore point. Turkey was exposed to missile threats from within Syria, where the civil war was raging and the absence of Turkey’s own air defense capabilities was laid bare in the face of a relatively sophisticated air defense system enjoyed by the Syrian regime at the time. Ever since, Turkey felt a diminished sense of solidarity in protecting Turkish security by its NATO allies. The Syrian conflict’s various threats pushed Turkey to urgently find solutions to its security capability gaps.

Turkey has traditionally been a strong customer of the U.S. defense industry. However, in recent years, the negative environment in U.S. Congress has prevented Turkey from enjoying a strong defense partnership with the U.S.

Turkey has traditionally been a strong customer of the U.S. defense industry. However, in recent years, the negative environment in U.S. Congress has prevented Turkey from enjoying a strong defense partnership with the U.S. The U.S. support for the YPG in northern Syria has soured bilateral ties as well. The current standoff about the S-400s threatens the decades-long strong defense relationship between the two NATO allies. There is no question that it would simply benefit Russia to give Turkey ultimatums rather than work with the Turkish leadership to resolve the issue. The U.S. needs to reassure Turkey about its security needs and repair the damage done by the U.S. support for the YPG. The two NATO allies have cooperated on creating a safe zone plan in recent months, thanks in large part to the U.S. team on Syria that is much more willing to take Turkish concerns seriously and address them properly on the ground. A similar cooperative attitude rather than a confrontational one needs to occur with the S-400 issue. Neither the U.S. nor Turkey would benefit from a strategic drift from one another.     

Once again, Turkey-U.S. relations are signaling of going through another turmoil. This time it is about Turkey’s purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Russia. Charlie Summers, head of the American forces in Europe and NATO’s top military officer stated, “If Turkey takes the S-400, there would be grave consequences in terms of our military relationship, and the Patriots and the F-35s.” It is yet to be known how binding or how backed this statement is given the complexities and ambiguities in the American state apparatus in recent years. Nevertheless, it is serious in its tone. The statement is not the first of its kind but is unprecedentedly tough. The statement also brings in some retaliatory measures, such as pulling out of the Patriot missiles purchase and denying the transfer of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

Despite this pressure from the U.S. side, Turkey seems solid in its deal over purchasing S-400s. During a TV interview last week, President Erdogan said that it was a “done deal,” “as we conclude the S-400 issue, signed a deal with the Russians, and will start co-production.” He even stated that after this deal is finalized, Turkey and Russia may work on a possible S-500 deal. Erdogan is well-known for his firm stance against pressure, whether coming from domestic or international parties. This is more than a simple choice though. This is a strategic choice that might re-shape Turkey’s overall position in international politics. Turkey is known as a loyal ally to the U.S. since the Cold War, but it seems like some factors have pushed Turkey to question this role.

Turkey’s purchase of S-400s from Russia is more than a simple choice. It’s a strategic choice that might re-shape Turkey’s overall position in international politics. 

In fact, it is quite a simple equation. Turkey has very concrete and longstanding worries with regard to its national security. Two of them are paramount. Two organizations, the PKK and FETO, have caused many casualties for the country. Yet both organizations have found safe havens under U.S. support. The U.S. hosts FETO leader Fetullah Gulen, a Turkish citizen, and has not complied with Turkey’s extradition request. Many other FETO members and FETO institutions still remain active in the U.S. Last week, First Lady Melanie Trump even visited one of the organization’s schools in Oklahoma.

The U.S. support for the PKK is even more threatening. This is because they are operating right across Turkey’s Syrian border. The U.S. is providing weapons, training, and active surveillance for the PKK’s Syrian branch, the PYD. This is the organization that sends suicide bombers into Turkey from Syria. Amongst the 11 such attacks documented prior to Turkey’s operation against the PYD in Syria, one was quite significant. In December 2016, the PYD conducted a terrorist attack in Besiktas, Istanbul, and caused 46 deaths, including 39 police officers and 7 civilians. The attack occurred right after a football game and the suicide bomber blew herself when she was noticed by the policeman surveilling for the game. The militant who carried out the suicide bomb received training and instructions in the PYD-ruled Kobani (Ayn-al Arab) and crossed the Turkish border illegally.

As the U.S. keeps pushing Turkey away, Turkey will now have to seek for alternative partnerships and alliances.

This is one of many examples where the PYD directly targeted Turkey, which later caused the Turkish government to conduct an operation against the PYD in Afrin. The only power that keeps this organization alive today in Syria is the U.S. It would be ridiculous to expect a blind loyalty from Turkey while the U.S. backs this group, which poses a serious threat to its national security. Naturally, Turkey is seeking security partnerships with other regional and global actors – the ones that do not support terrorist organizations that target Turkey.

This is the recent story of Turkey’s shift away from the U.S. As the U.S. keeps pushing Turkey away, Turkey will now have to seek for alternative partnerships and alliances. The bad news for relations between Turkey and the U.S. is that Turkey has never felt more threatened from any other power than it feels today about the U.S. support for terrorist organizations attacking Turkey. The S-400 deal might create grave consequences, but Turkey seems to be okay with this as it feels that it has no other choice. If the U.S. genuinely wants to re-build relations with Turkey, it is as simple as stopping the support provided for the PKK and FETO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-9qws51mlY 

Despite the provisions aimed at preventing Turkey’s procurement of F-35s in H.R. 5515 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019), the Pentagon confirmed that Turkey’s first F-35 delivery will take place – as it did – in Fort Worth, Texas on June 21. While it is clear that the U.S. government is employing the F-35 program as political leverage against Ankara, an approved restriction on Turkey’s F-35 procurement process is likely to create a lose-lose situation for both NATO allies, and yield dire consequences for Turkish-American bilateral relations and strategic military partnership in the Middle East.

As put forth in the House bill, the U.S. insists on removing Turkey, a prominent Lockheed partner and NATO ally, from the F-35 program. Turkey’s intention to purchase Russian S-400 air missile defense systems, and the detention of the American pastor, Andrew Brunson,– who has been accused by the Turkish court for serving the Fetullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) following the July 15 coup attempt– are stated to be the major reasons behind the American resentment.

The emergence of terrorist groups such as Daesh and the PYD, and various external threats emanating from the interest of international actors against Turkey’s will in the region have made it necessary for Ankara to obtain air defense systems. The idea of removing Turkey from the F-35 program is hazardous as it will further deteriorate Turkish-American relations, push Turkey towards further cooperation with Russia and discredit American legitimacy on the international arena.

Turkish-American relations have considerably deteriorated due to the U.S.’s encouraging approach towards the PKK/PYD in Syria. Preventing Turkey from procuring F-35s on the eve of a potential political rapprochement over the agreement of Manbij and the FBI-initiated investigation on the FETO case is likely to further damage cooperation between the two NATO allies. By procuring F-35s, Ankara aims to protect Turkish national interests and provide safety in its immediate surroundings, which is not only beneficial for Turkey but also for the NATO alliance.

Turkey has long served as NATO’s Eastern-wing by participating in numerous joint military operations and monitoring tasks, globally. Instead of disqualifying Turkey from the F-35 program, the U.S. should focus on improving military cooperation with Ankara. If the Senate passes H.R.5515 without an amendment to the current provisions against Turkey’s F-35 procurement, Turkey will have no choice but to purchase Russian S-400s to compensate its essential air defense system needs in the short-run. This will also accelerate Ankara’s desire to cooperate with other non-NATO countries in the defense sector.

From a political point of view, the current provisions of the House bill degrade the U.S.’s international legitimacy and trustworthiness, as the pastor Brunson case is a conjuncture and a bilateral issue and has no direct links to the F-35 program. It is, in fact, entirely incidental that pastor Brunson’s case casts a pall on such a crucial military and economic agreement. Turkey is one of the original nine partner countries and has been dedicated to the F-35 program. Currently, Turkey’s industrial participation in the manufacturing and assembly of the F-35 program reaches over $12 billion. The interruption of such a high-volume military project will not only put a severe financial burden on the U.S. but will also slow down the production and procurement processes of the F-35s for the remaining partner countries, undermining the U.S.’s adherence to international commitments. If the U.S. Senate insists on Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program due to the S-400 deal and pastor Brunson case, the ongoing conjunctural issues between the two states are likely to turn into deepened structural crises.

In case of removal, Turkey might rethink its ongoing military commitments involving the Incirlik Air Base. This includes intelligence surveillance, fight against terrorism, and other NATO-affiliated international missions. During the Cold War era, it was understood that military and economic sanctions are not the best strategies to alter Turkey’s independent policies. More importantly, in the presence of the current security issues in the Middle East and other critical regions, such as Eastern Europe, there is a competing geopolitical narrative vis-a-vis Turkey’s strategic importance among U.S. security establishments. This will be the main determining factor in the Pentagon report to the Senate, which will provide a detailed analysis on U.S.-Turkey relations.

It is evident that Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program will not eliminate potential risks by Russia. It will only hamper NATO influence in the region and further deteriorate Turkish-American relations, as part of a lose-lose scenario.

Since the beginning of the 2000s, Turkey has been one of nine prime partner nations of the JSF and one of its biggest customers – with 116 stealth fighters on order. Besides, Turkey has been partnering with Lockheed Martin for over 25 years, primarily on the F–16 and continued this partnership by joining F–35. However, a bill introduced by senators Lankford, Tillis and Shaheen aims to prevent the transfer of F-35s to Turkey and aims to keep the country out of being a maintenance depot for stealth fighters.

The bill set the stage for reconsidering relations between Turkey and the U.S., as it seems like the two country’s are no longer strategic partners, but rather are turning into foes. As can be expected, neither will the U.S. or Turkey live happily ever after, nor will the hostile attidue of the senators continue forever. In any case, in the end, “mutual interests” will probably suppress the “clash of interests.”

U.S.-Turkey relations have soured since March 1, 2003, when the Turkish Parliament refused to pass a proposal to allow U.S. troops to operate from the Incirlik Base during the Iraq War. Since then, Turkey has repeatedly come face-to-face with the U.S. in the Middle East. So the current F-35 case is not the first and will not be the last case for Turkey having experienced undesired congressional responses whenever the country disagrees with U.S. policy due to its defense and security needs. An example of this in recent years is the big clash that arose due to the “local force” that was initially designed by the U.S. to be used against Daesh.

For Turkey, the PYD/YPG is a terrorist organization and the Syrian arm of the PKK – which the country has been fighting against for almost 40 years both within and outside its borders. The same terrorist organization – the YPG – is accepted by the U.S. as the most capable ground force (although it is initially listed by the CIA as an offshoot organization of the PKK in Syria) in fighting Daesh, and thus deserves to be fully supported with aids and arms. In addition to this, the Turkish government has been seeking the extradition of Fetullah Gulen, while American pastor Brunson is still being judged in Turkey. Tensions again rose to a higher level due to the AK Party’s severe criticism towards Israel and U.S. opportunism in Syria and Palestine, as well as Turkey’s planned purchase of S400 systems and the contract signed for domestic industrial cooperation.

Same Punishment Methodology

Ankara eventually got used to undesired responses, threatening patterns of Congress and sanctions whenever the interests of the U.S. clashed with Turkey’s. As you may also recall, the Cyprus issue (Johnson’s letter warning Turkey not to use NATO equipment), the 1974 Peace Operation (U.S. Congress to impose an embargo on arms transfers to Turkey), and the political differences between the U.S. and Turkey, especially in regards to the fight against terror, are the first examples that come to mind. Congress is once again utilizing the punishment methodology on its strategic partner and wants Turkey to be sanctioned if Ankara completes the purchase of Russia’s S-400s. However, Congress needs to remember that the U.S. was also a bidder in the T-LORAMIDS but could not fully meet Turkey’s criteria in regards to technology transfer, local contribution, delivery date and price.

Besides, Congress should also keep in mind that Greece is the only NATO member that purchased the Russian made S-300PMU-1 system in the mid-1990s (Bulgari and Slovakia are also NATO members that posses S-300s in their inventories). Moreover, at the NATO Missile Firing Installation in Crete, in December 2013, Greece carried out its first test firing of the missle as part of an operational live exercise, “White Eagle.” Here we must ask why Greece has the privilege to make use of a Russian system operative after so many years and why Israel is the only country allowed to customize U.S. F-35s.

Political reaction, not final decision

The bill is a political reaction against the AK Party government, and is not really dealing with technological concerns. Certainly, the political reasoning behind the bill is Ankara’s close ties with Moscow. For the U.S. and NATO, F-35s symbolize the deterrent power of the West against challenger powers such as Russia and China. If Turkey purchases S400s, then Turkey will become a strategic deterrent with Russian military technology. If Russia sells this system to a NATO country, then it will also increase its own current deterrent.

From a different perspective, the main goal of acquiring high tech systems such as F-35s is to increase deterrence and military capabilities against hostile state and non-state military actors. As a matter of fact, the U.S. clearly defines the potential hostile countries as Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Therefore, Turkey’s cooperation and trade in military technology with Russia is somewhat perceived as a successful attempt of the Putin administration to shade U.S. power. However, Turkey’s external orientation in purchasing a missile system from Russia must be analyzed through the whole process – namely how Turkey was left alone in struggling to meet its defense and security needs.

Lose-lose situation

If Senate approves the bill to punish Ankara, then it will punish its own defense company Lockheed Martin as well. Yet Turkey is one of the company’s biggest customers, with 116 stealth fighters on order. Either way, Turkey will pay a high price for a fifth-generation jet fighter purchased from either the U.S. or another country. None of the world’s largest arms exporters would want to lose a customer such as Turkey while Russian and Chinese companies are dying to sell their own combat jets. In other words, during a time where rivalry is increasing among suppliers, none of the world’s largest arm exporting countries – including the U.S. – would ever want to lose such a major client. In this respect, the Senate needs to carefully examine its gains and losses in regards to the income that will be earned by companies within the defense ecosystem as well as their power of lobbying. Losing Turkey by keeping it out of the JSF also means that the U.S. would weaken its own strategic objectives in the Middle East.

What really happens if Turkey is left out of the F-35 program?

Firstly, Turkey’s deteriorating relationship with the U.S. will worsen; the increasing tension between the two countries will bring unfavorable reflections over deals in areas such as terrorism, especially against Daesh in Syria. More, this decision might also have negative impacts on relations between Turkey and NATO. As it is known, NATO plans to set up a 30,000-strong reserve force in order to improve its combat readiness. As a NATO member sanctioned by the U.S., Turkey would most probably not want to contribute to the Atlantic Alliance and would not want to take an active place in a variety of missions.

Secondly, Turkey will bring the issue to a trial and file a claim for compensation in accordance with the original agreement. This agreement is not only about purchase through foreign procurement, but is also about co-production. For instance, Turkey’s Roketsan collaborated with Lockheed Martin for the development, production, marketing, selling and supporting of Turkey’s SOM-J air-launched cruise missile for the F-35 Lighting II combat jet. Likewise, TAI has also undertaken important responsibilities in contributing to the program. For instance, one of the most complex structural sections of the aircraft, “F-35A Center Fuselage” is produced by TAI as a second source. There are also other work-packages such as F-35 A/B/C Composite Components, F-35A’s Metallic Sub-Assemblies and Air Inlet Ducts and F-35 A/B/C Air-to-Ground Alternate Mission Equipment Pylon Manufacturing.

Thirdly, Turkey might embark on a quest to buy fifth generation fighters from other countries such as Russia’s SU-57 and China’s J-31. However, if Turkey decides to buy a fighter jet from a non-NATO country, this may lead to infrastructure and technology problems. Lastly, the Senate’s sanction method does not seem to be the best way to keep Turkey in NATO’s security architecture. While political issues are undermining relations between Turkey and the U.S., the military aspect is without a doubt the most crucial part to sustain strategic relations between the two countries.