Alongside American citizens, the international community also followed the results on the finish line in the U.S. presidential race – which many described as “neck-to-neck” – between former President Donald Trump and the incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris.
Although the official results have not yet been announced, Republican candidate Trump has been announced as the clear winner of the U.S. elections, enabling him to take over the White House as the 47th U.S. president.
“This is a magnificent victory for the American people that will allow us to make America great again,” Trump said, addressing his followers on Wednesday. “We’re going to help our country heal.”
Not only is it almost certain that Trump will run the White House, Republicans will also control the Senate and possibly the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the American voters have made their democratic choices and what this will mean for their daily life at many different levels for the next four years is to be seen.
The elections were also followed closely beyond the U.S. borders. I asked an American friend of mine if she could list three things that could be described as “a legacy” left behind by President Joe Biden’s administration, either domestically or internationally. The answer, in a way, was an empty silence. Perhaps this response was a reason why Trump was elected strongly, among many other reasons that could be listed. Yet, one thing for the observers from outside the American borders is certain. Biden left the international community with two deadly and destructive wars unsolved. In the Ukraine-Russia war, Biden lacked an exit strategy and failed to find a solution. In Palestine, not only did his administration unconditionally strengthen support for Israel in its genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza and expansion of war to Lebanon, but his or Harris’ remarks on human rights did not go beyond mere rhetoric, let alone translate into action or policy changes.
For those in Türkiye, we will remember Biden’s administration for his unwillingness or inability to solve the bilateral issues with a short period of some communication between Washington and Ankara. In short, the momentum captured during the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, in July last year did not produce any medium-term action that could fix ongoing bilateral disagreements.
It is no secret that Ankara and Washington have been distant due to several disagreements in security and regional issues. What will this mean, however, now that Trump will be running the show at the White House? Will there be significant changes in matters of disagreement? Biden and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan did not have a close relationship. Will the communication in the leader-to-leader relationship change with Trump being in the White House? Of course, time will show. Yet, there are some significant indicators that could help us provide insight into the “bleak” future in world politics and, more specifically, in Türkiye-U.S. bilateral ties during Trump’s new term.
Erdoğan was among the first international leaders to congratulate Trump on his apparent victory.
“I congratulate my friend Donald Trump, who won the presidential election in the U.S. after a great struggle and was reelected,” Erdoğan said in a message released on his X account, and said that he “hopes Turkish-U.S. relations grow stronger and that regional and global crises and wars, especially the one in Palestine and the Russia-Ukraine war, will come to an end.”
During his term as the 45th president of the U.S., Trump had a frank, direct and at times controversial communication style with Ankara. His pragmatism and transactional approach were seen as manageable in Ankara, though there were ups and downs and turbulent times. Nevertheless, present issues dating back to former President Barrack Obama’s period remained unsolved during both previous Trump and Biden administrations and continue to be on the agenda.
In addition to the Syria-YPG/PKK issue, the Gülenist Terror Group (FETÖ) issue, S-400s or F-35/F-16-related defense issues that are already problematic between the two capitals, the genocide launched by Israel against the Palestinians since Oct. 7 and Israel’s effort to spread the war to the region with attacks on Lebanon have triggered new conflicts in the rapidly changing regional balances. We should also keep in mind that the world is still undergoing the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine-Russia war. Therefore, it would be more accurate to evaluate the dimensions of the bilateral issues on a different level when comparing Trump’s old era to Trump’s new term.
In response to Türkiye’s security concerns, Trump relatively understood, but still, his approach did not result in a concrete policy change when it came to supporting the PKK terrorist group’s Syrian wing YPG. Still, if we consider the fact that communication channels were more open during his previous era, especially with Erdoğan, we may speculate that if the rumored U.S. withdrawal from the region takes place, this may bring the two NATO allies closer. Moreover, Israel’s actions in the region – especially against Iran – and the impact of developments in the Asia-Pacific and the Black Sea are also expected to shape the dynamics of the bilateral relations.
The issues related to defense also remain unsolved. The S-400 air defense systems, which Türkiye procured from Russia when it could not find support from its Western allies for its request to defend its airspace, continue to be one of the most fundamental problems in bilateral relations. Following Ankara’s S-400 decision, Türkiye was excluded from the F-35 program during Trump’s previous term and Biden did not have a solution-based approach.
The Turkish side no longer sees this issue as an essential priority due to the defense industry policies and defense industry that it has developed with its own methods and means, with the exception of the demand for a refund for money paid for the F-35. Meanwhile, although some steps were taken on the issues related to the purchase and modernization of the F-16s after Ankara said “yes” to Sweden and Finland’s NATO membership, this issue is also still on the table to be solved. Given Trump’s unpredictable approach, it is difficult to conclude how he will handle this issue.
Another issue in bilateral ties is the presence of FETÖ, the group behind the failed July 15 coup attempt, in the U.S. Despite all initiatives and demands by Turkish officials, both the current administration of Biden and the previous Trump administration, the extradition process for FETÖ leader Fethullah Gülen, who recently died in the U.S., and other members of the group have been left unanswered. It is challenging to have hope that this issue will be solved in bilateral ties as the U.S. position seems to be constant on this matter.
At a regional level, the genocide in Palestine and the war in Ukraine will also affect the course of the ties from time to time.
Considering Trump’s uncompromising approach to Israel, this will be a risky area that could negatively affect Ankara-Washington ties. An important factor here would be Trump’s advisors and team’s view of Erdoğan and Ankara. Given Trump’s unpredictability, while it would not be a surprise to see Trump asking Türkiye to normalize with Israel, he could also separate the two issues. Ankara’s firm position on standing in solidarity with Palestine will not be received well. Yet, if Trump’s new term can analyze and evaluate the new regional and global dynamics, Türkiye’s strategic importance will be seen clearly, and this could elevate bilateral ties in terms of regional matters. The same could be said also for the Ukraine-Russia war, which Trump has pledged to end. Türkiye’s role, particularly Erdoğan’s communication with the warring sides, could facilitate the plans for an exit strategy that could be supported by the new Trump administration.
In conclusion, and to put all the above in context, there are two factors that must be kept in mind. First, many significant international events have taken place that have changed global dynamics since Trump’s first term. Second and more importantly, Trump – or the White House – is not the ultimate decision maker when it comes to U.S. foreign policy that aims to secure the U.S. long-term interests around the world. Given this fact, expecting a Trump leadership independent of the U.S. establishment’s pressure would be naive despite his controversial and seemingly freestyle actions. In other words, whether the Trump-Erdoğan relationship could produce some concrete and positive changes in bilateral ties will also be based on how other elements in Washington see Erdoğan and Türkiye as their partners.
Speaking to the BBC Turkish recently and commenting on Ankara-Washington ties ahead of the elections, former U.S. Ambassador to Ankara James Jeffrey also supported this approach and commented, “No matter what Trump and Harris do, they will generally remain loyal to the framework (of Türkiye-U.S. relations) if they go beyond this, they will face very serious reactions and disagreements.” In other words, while Trump’s approach and style are different, the U.S. foreign policy goals are determined within the framework of long-term interests, regardless of who the presidents are. With this assumption, of course, Trump’s methods will indeed be different from Biden’s; however, time will tell whether he will be able to act freely with his own team.
Nevertheless, in the new presidential term, Trump must reevaluate the realities of the U.S.’ NATO ally, a strong actor in the region that seeks to protect its own interests with independent foreign policy objectives. The new administration at the White House must not position Ankara as a rival in the region, especially when it comes to Türkiye’s security concerns. Partnering with Türkiye, not terrorist groups like the YPG/PKK, would only strengthen long-term strategic goals for both parties and serve their relationship in the new multipolar world order.
