Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as they are flanked by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, on February 24, 2025. [Murat Cetinmuhurdar/PPO/Handout via Reuters]
Serious concerns -and some praise-regarding Turkey’s role as a US and NATO ally were voiced during a congressional hearing, where lawmakers and experts debated Ankara’s increasingly independent foreign policy and its reliability within the alliance.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, several panelists argued that Turkey can no longer be counted on to defend NATO’s collective interests, as it pursues its own strategic agenda. However, others defended Turkey’s role, highlighting its geopolitical importance and contributions to the alliance.
“Turkey seems solely focused on advancing President Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ambitions,” said Representative Dina Titus, a Democrat, during Wednesday’s hearing. She argued that the United States would be better served by strengthening its relationship with Greece, which she described as a more dependable and consistent ally in the region.
She stated that “Greece best represents US interests in the region. Allowing Greece to maintain its qualitative and strategic advantage over Turkey is crucial, as it provides a deterrent to Turkey’s historic aggression toward Greece. This balance should not be upset and would be upended if Turkey were to acquire the F35. Erdogan’s fundamental positions and claims, which violate Greek and Cypriot sovereignty, remain unchanged”.
Turkey “plays an integral role in the current geopolitical landscape” and possesses a “unique ability to put NATO’s security mandate into action” but its “willingness to do so” remains a significant concern, said Representative Mark Green, a Republican and chair of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The US must begin asking “hard questions” about Ankara’s recent policies, including its stance toward Israel and support for Hamas, its actions in Syria, its deepening ties with Russia, and its growing overtures to China, said Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who testified before the committee. He accused Ankara of harboring aspirations for “regional or global domination.”
“Turkey has aggressively challenged Greece and Cyprus in their own exclusive economic zones, engaging in illegal drilling and pushing its Blue Homeland policy to assert control over international waters. This cannot continue if NATO is to maintain even a semblance of stability,” Schanzer told lawmakers.
He also urged Congress to restrict major arms sales to Turkey until it demonstrates a clear shift in its priorities. “I am concerned about giving the F-35 to this government in Turkey. I believe it would be used to further Turkey’s aggressive posture in the region, and I fear it could lead to clashes between Greece and Turkey,” he said, referring to the US fighter jet program. “We should not put them back on the program, and even if they relinquish the S-400, there should be a cooling-off period-probably several years-before we consider providing them with the F-35. There needs to be a price to pay when our allies disobey clear directives, as we gave the Turks. We told them not to buy the S-400, yet they did so anyway. They should pay a steep price,” Schanzer added, echoing ongoing concerns about Ankara’s acquisition of the Russian missile defense system.
On the issue of Turkey’s procurement of the Russian S-400 missile system, Celeste Wallander, until recently the Assistant Secretary of Defense, emphasized the importance of NATO interoperability and the alliance’s transition toward the F-35 as a core capability.
“I believe that-because the United States is a member of NATO and because the American people are only as secure as the alliance is strong-it is in our interest to ensure advanced military capabilities remain within NATO,” Wallander said. “Interoperability across the alliance is extremely important. If Turkey were to undo its mistake regarding the S-400 in a verifiable, irreversible manner with the right provisions and security guarantees, it would align with US national interests. However, any such move should be approached with due caution and a period of assessment to ensure it remains in the US interest going forward.”
The committee also heard from Anna Borshchevskaya of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who highlighted Ankara’s deepening ties with Moscow in energy and trade. However, she noted that tensions between Turkey and Russia have surfaced over Syria and Ukraine.
She argued that the US should better leverage Turkey’s strategic position in the Black Sea to curb Russian influence and reduce dependence on Russian natural gas. Additionally, Washington could collaborate with Ankara to counterbalance Moscow’s ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean and the South Caucasus. “I think the best way to encourage positive progress is to take a pragmatic, practical approach and compartmentalize our relationship. Turkey is a problematic ally on many fronts, but we also need it,” she said.
For Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson, a strong supporter of Turkey, the US should make “every effort to reinforce the relationship that has been so beneficial. There have always been ups and downs in our relationship, but I believe that ultimately, our mutual benefits should form the foundation of our partnership-leading to positive outcomes for both our countries in the name of freedom and democracy,” Wilson said.