Trump needs Turkiye on board to ‘Make America Great Again’ in the Middle East

As US President-elect Donald Trump prepares to “Make America Great Again” both domestically and globally, his expected foreign policy signals a revived grand strategy of restraint and retrenchment. Focused on reducing direct US involvement in costly, prolonged conflicts, this strategy prioritises the maintenance of influence in strategic regions, positioning the US as a “balancer of last resort”, intervening only to prevent the rise of regional hegemons. This approach departs from the ideals of democratic enlargement and liberal hegemony, emphasising a pragmatic, realist outlook rooted in power and security rather than ideology.

Reflecting an emerging multipolar international system and intensifying great power competition, Trump’s “America First” policy focuses on containing rising powers like China and Russia, as well as regional competitors like Iran. By strengthening alliances with capable partners to manage regional threats, the US can reduce defence costs, redirect resources to domestic priorities, and focus on containing China. In this context, Turkiye is an essential Middle Eastern ally, and the Trump administration must prioritise this strategic partnership to avoid a significant erosion of US influence in the region.

Turkiye has emerged as a significant power in the Middle East-North Africa region

With its growing military strength, expansive diplomatic reach, and autonomous foreign policy, Turkiye has emerged as a significant power in the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region. As NATO’s second-largest military force and a solid actor amid ongoing regional turmoil, Turkiye serves as an essential anchor of stability. As the global order shifts, Turkiye is increasingly adopting a model of strategic autonomy, balancing its NATO commitments with ties to the Sino-Russian sphere to navigate a multipolar world without reliance on any single power bloc.

OPINION: Turkiye and Trump: theoretical optimism, but practical concern

Its diplomatic flexibility is an asset that could support Trump’s vision for ending the conflict in Ukraine. Turkiye’s foreign policy during the Russia-Ukraine conflict exemplifies its balancing act. By maintaining relations with both Russia and Ukraine, Turkiye condemned Russia’s invasion and supported UN resolutions against it, yet refrained from joining US and EU sanctions. Additionally, while collaborating with Russia, Turkiye actively opposed the Assad regime in Syria and Iranian militias. Turkiye supplied Ukraine with Bayraktar TB2 drones, symbols of Ukrainian resistance, while simultaneously acting as a mediator by hosting peace talks, facilitating a grain export deal, and enabling significant prisoner exchanges between the US and Russia, the largest since the end of the Cold War, demonstrating its ability to operate as an independent regional power and effective mediator.

Turkiye has recently strengthened its regional role through active engagement in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Organisation of Turkic States, positioning itself as a key partner for stability in the region. Serving as a bridge between NATO, the US and Turkic states, many of which are gradually shifting away from Russia-oriented policies, Turkiye offers strategic leverage against China’s expanding influence in Turkestan, Central Asia. This relationship would support US efforts to counter China’s reach across the Turkestan region and support Trump’s strategy of pressuring China by leveraging Uyghur-focused human rights issues. Moreover, with its geostrategic location linking the Middle East to Europe and its unique position as a Muslim-majority NATO member, Turkiye can serve as a bridge in strengthening US relations with the broader Islamic world. Furthermore, with Trump’s aim to reduce US troop presence and shift defence costs to European allies, a partnership with Turkiye offers NATO a practical way to bolster European security without overextending resources.

The US foreign policy in Syria highlights the costs of side-lining Turkiye as a strategic ally. By partnering with the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in counter-Daesh operations since 2015, despite the group’s ties to the PKK, a designated terrorist organisation, the US strained its relationship with Turkiye. This partnership led Turkiye to question America’s reliability as a security partner, driving it closer to Russia. Although the US reliance on proxies was effective in defeating Daesh, it failed to advance the key objective of curbing Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq, while inadvertently strengthening Russian and Iranian footholds in the region.

READ: ‘Gaza-Istanbul Declaration’ condemns Israel actions, calls for global action

The Syrian conflict exposed the limits of relying on non-state actors at the expense of established regional allies with shared interests. While Russia, Iran, Turkiye and the Assad regime are now positioned to shape Syria’s future, the US has been largely side-lined, losing strategic ground. This situation underscores that US interests in the region would have been better served by a closer alignment with Turkiye, as it has a vested interest in countering both Russian and Iranian influence in Syria, which has become a geopolitical deadlock and a source of significant US-Turkish tension, leading to broader diplomatic crises. Learning from the mistake in Syria, the US should coordinate with Turkiye constructively to reduce troop presence and leverage its strategic position to restore regional stability and influence in the Middle East.

The crisis in Gaza and unwavering US support for Israel are major bones of contention in US-Turkish relations and could deepen as President-elect Trump’s pro-Israel cabinet takes shape. Key figures in Trump’s prospective administration hold critical views on Turkiye’s policies, supporting sanctions against Turkiye and opposing its military operations in Syria, as well as criticising Trump’s earlier decision to withdraw from north-east Syria. They have also opposed a ceasefire in Gaza and rejected Palestinian statehood.

Direct diplomacy could provide a flexible approach to managing tensions

Despite these challenges, the potential for leader-to-leader diplomacy between Presidents Trump and Recep Tayyip Erdogan could offer a path forward. Unlike the institutionalised framework of the Biden era, direct diplomacy could provide a flexible approach to managing tensions, fostering opportunities for crisis resolution and deeper cooperation. Through pragmatic diplomacy, Trump and Erdogan could find common ground and address sensitive issues more effectively, enabling constructive engagement in areas critical to US-Turkish relations.

With a strategy of restraint centred on great power competition, Turkiye emerges as a valuable partner for a prospective Trump administration to sustain US influence and stability across the MENA region and beyond while reducing its military commitments.

READ: US-made bombs used in Israel’s deadly attack on journalists in Lebanon

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.