“Is Turkey changing its policy? Is it abandoning its neutrality policy and strengthening its alignment with NATO (the US)?” This question contains nuances that raise these questions. The answer lies in the changing global and regional conjuncture. When this change is combined with the elements Turkey possesses, a different picture emerges.
Celal ÇETİN
The established world order is rapidly changing in economic, political, and technological fields. This process is not new; it is happening in stages.
First, a “bipolar world (US-Soviet Union)”, then a “unipolar world (the US, left without rivals after the collapse of the Soviet Union)”, followed by the third stage, a “multipolar world (the emergence of China, India, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and others in addition to the US and Russia)”.
The classical order, during the bipolar period, shaped the relations between the two sides of the North Atlantic (US and Europe) after World War II, with the emergence of the US as a global hegemonic power and the Soviet threat.
With the official dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, the United States remained the sole hegemonic power, establishing a unipolar global system.
For the next 35 years, the US has strived to maintain its unipolar hegemonic power, until the re-emergence of the Russian Federation under Putin. Elected President of Russia on March 26, 2000, Putin created a new state from a blend of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. This date opened the door to a process of balancing the unipolar US order. With the subsequent entry of other states into the scene, the order established by both sides of the Atlantic began to weaken; the balance of power shifted from West to East and to different centers.
The US’s attempts to implement policies in the Middle East, its efforts to encircle Russia in the Caucasus using NATO, and its “preventive strategies” against China failed to halt the weakening of the classical order.
Despite this, the US continued its traditional policies until January 20, 2017. Trump took office as the 45th president of the United States. Despite being elected from the Republican Party, Trump differed from the traditional Republican and Democratic presidencies we know, which alternated between them. While presidents who came to the White House until 2017 continued traditional US policies, Trump developed a contrasting approach to governance, from the economy and immigration to healthcare and foreign policy.
This policy approach was embraced by the lower-middle class of Americans seeking an alternative to the Republican and Democratic governance styles.
Until when?
Until February 28, 2026.
On this date, following the conflicts that began between Iran, the US, and Israel, the Strait of Hormuz crisis, and consequently a global energy and supply crisis, began. The closure of this waterway, through which approximately 20% of global oil and LNG passes, increased energy prices and called into question the US’s position as a “security guarantor” in the region. The Gulf states learned firsthand the unpredictability and unreliability of the US, and how its presence jeopardized its regional allies. This reality led the Gulf countries to seek diversification of their defense and export routes.
This crisis fundamentally shook not only the already weakening US-centric hegemonic power system, but also the American people’s trust in Trump.
While this was the situation in the Middle East, it was no different in Europe. Russia’s attack on Ukraine revived the “fear of a Soviet threat” on the European continent. While Europe successively announced military and economic support packages for Ukraine to protect itself, Trump withdrew with the ultimatum: “Either you increase your NATO budget, or you’ll have to fend for yourselves. I will withdraw from NATO.” This ultimatum led to a similar experience in Europe, which lives under the protection of the US, as in the Gulf countries, where it learned firsthand about the unpredictability, unreliability, and how the US presence risks its regional allies.
Although the United States has allies in the Indo-Pacific region such as Japan, India, South Korea, and the Philippines, it is known that these countries are closely monitoring developments and shifting their relationships from a “dependency” dimension to a “balanced policy” dimension.
Aware of the wave of insecurity spreading across the region, Washington is taking steps to alleviate concerns. In a speech in Manila, the capital of the Philippines, Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of the War Department for Policy, stated, “The United States is absolutely not withdrawing from Asia. We are not leaving; on the contrary, we are strengthening our presence to ensure an appropriate balance of power where it is most needed. We simply want our partners to take on more responsibility for their own defense.” This is similar to the demand made for Europe.
TURKEY AT THE CROSSROADS OF THE NEW WORLD
While the above-mentioned developments closely concern almost every country, they place Turkey at the very center. Situated as a central country on political, strategic, and energy routes, Türkiye is forced to undertake new missions and roles.
Turkey is strengthening its position as an “inevitable middle power” at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, in the context of America’s relative decline in the Middle East, the Iran-Gulf crisis, and the upheaval in global energy security. Its geography, NATO membership, growing defense industry, energy corridor potential, and regional maneuverability make this possible.
Turkey has assumed a “balancing” role both within NATO and in the region. It is strengthening its ties with both the West and the East, and expanding its strategic autonomy.
The first example of this occurred in Syria. Turkey filled the vacuum created after Assad’s fall, due to regional proximity and historical ties. Trump’s protection of Sharjah and his efforts to preserve Syria’s integrity and state system were also influential in this process.
Turkey continued its balancing role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It gained the status of “a country that both countries can trust” and hosted the initial talks. This policy was the result of a paradigm shift in Turkey. However, the attack by Ukrainian drones on Turkish commercial ships in the Black Sea caused a rift between the two countries.
Furthermore, according to US Congressional records, news that Türkiye would transfer a weapons package to Ukraine, including 70 M39 ATACMS missiles carrying cluster munitions, also caused friction between Turkey and Russia. There are claims that this decision was made at the NATO Summit in Ankara. As is known, the summit decided to increase support for Ukraine.
Turkey’s strategy of expanding its sphere of influence, starting from its immediate surroundings, is noteworthy. Another example is Libya. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan met with Khalifa Haftar, the leader of the armed forces in eastern Libya. Khalifa Haftar is the leader of the armed forces (Libyan National Army) that rival the internationally recognized government based in Tripoli. Until a few years ago, Haftar was known for his anti-Turkish stance. Turkey is working to unify Libya. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) agreement that Turkey signed with Libya provides an important balance in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Turkey’s latest move in the Middle East was the Mecca Defense Agreement. Signed with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the agreement was an initiative that changed all the balances in the region. Although claims have been made that “the agreement was made against Iran,” the alliance is not directed against a specific country. Iran stated that “there is nothing to worry about.” In Israel, however, there is an anxious wait. The reason for this anxiety is not that the Mecca Defense Agreement is directed against them, but rather the “fear of exclusion and isolation.”
-Trump said, “I am very pleased with the signing of the Mecca Defense Agreement.”
-Israeli officials state that the agreement targets not only Iran but also Israel, and that concerns are growing. -Iranian officials stated that there is no reason to worry that the agreement was made against them.
1- If Trump is pleased but Israel is worried, it means Trump is “pleased that the agreement worries Israel.” 2- Israel is worried, but if Iran isn’t, it means the Mecca Agreement is shifting the balance in the region against Israel.
3- Trump wants to withdraw from the region by reaching an agreement with Iran and opening the Strait of Hormuz, but he can’t escape Netanyahu’s pressure.
4- Trump presented a 15-point plan for the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, which Netanyahu rejected.
5- By presenting the Mecca Defense Agreement and the Gaza plan, Trump is diverting Netanyahu’s attention away from Iran. Netanyahu will have to deal with a new regional threat and will put Iran in the background. Trump will also be relieved of pressure and will reach an agreement with Iran. Iran is already ready for an agreement.
6- The Gulf countries also don’t want a conflict with Iran. The UAE has started to gradually release Iranian assets.
7- Trump is acting with Iran and the Gulf countries, and Israel is becoming isolated.
8- The resolution of problems between Israel and Middle Eastern countries is being prevented by Netanyahu. Trump is forced to side with Israel on these issues. By uniting regional countries around an alliance, he is stepping aside from the conflicts between Israel and Arab countries.
9- Without Trump’s support, Netanyahu will either have to make peace with Iran and regional countries, or he will lose the elections.
10- If Trump can free himself from Netanyahu’s pressure, reach an agreement with Iran, and open the Strait of Hormuz, his chances in the Congressional elections will increase.
A game of chess is being played between Netanyahu and Trump in the Middle East. Trump seems to have delivered a checkmate.
UNEXPECTED MOVE IN THE AEGEAN
Turkey declared a total area of 23,000 square kilometers in the North Aegean, off the coasts of Muğla Fethiye and Antalya Kaş, as a “Marine National Park.” This decision caused panic in Athens. The fact that the marine park between Rhodes and Meis covers a very large area particularly disturbed the Greek government.
The decision has two implications.
The first meaning; Greece declared two large marine parks in the Aegean and Ionian Seas in July 2025, a decision that drew a reaction from Turkey. This decision is a response to Greece.
The second meaning is; a defense cooperation agreement between Israel, Greece, and the Greek Cypriot administration.
WHAT COURSE IS TURKEY FOLLOWING?
The developments summarized above contain nuances that raise the question: “Is Turkey changing its policy? Is it abandoning its neutrality policy and strengthening its alignment with NATO (the US)?”
The answer to this question lies in the changing global and regional conjuncture. When this change is combined with the elements Turkey possesses, a different picture emerges.
Turkey’s importance stems from the combination of the following elements:
Geography: The intersection of Europe, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. A transit country via the Central Corridor and energy pipelines.
Military and industrial capacity: A rising power in the production of equipment meeting NATO standards, and in the export of drones and ammunition. Regional operational experience (Libya, Syria, Karabakh).
Diplomatic flexibility: As both a NATO member and a Muslim-majority country, it can simultaneously engage with different camps.
Potential as an energy and trade hub: The increasing risks associated with straits like the Strait of Hormuz are accelerating this potential.
Turkey’s energy corridor strategy is based on this potential. This strategy is a multi-layered approach aimed at transforming its geographical location into geopolitical and economic power. The main goal is to transform the country from merely a “transit country” into a regional energy hub where resources such as oil, natural gas, electricity, and in the future hydrogen, are stored, traded, priced, and directed to Europe.
This strategy gained momentum, particularly with the Strait of Hormuz crisis in 2026 (the long-term impact on the strait due to Iran-US/Israel tensions). The disruption of approximately 20% of global oil and LNG passing through Hormuz dramatically increased the importance of alternative land and sea routes.
THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ CRISIS AND GLOBAL ENERGY SECURITY
The Hormuz crisis brought energy security to the center of geopolitics. Alternative routes (Iraq-Turkey pipelines, Mediterranean access via Ceyhan port, the Middle Corridor) came to the forefront. Turkey has the potential to keep some Gulf oil away from the risks of the Strait of Hormuz through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline and its potential extensions to Basra. A significant increase in LNG terminal capacity, gas imports from the US and other sources, Azerbaijani gas, and production from the Sakarya field in the Black Sea are bringing Ankara closer to its ambition of becoming a regional energy hub.
This situation has a dual nature. As an energy importer, Turkey’s oil supply is increasing. On the other hand, it is increasing its geopolitical weight as a transit and trade hub. Europe’s efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and the Gulf’s search for alternatives are strengthening Turkey’s “Middle Corridor + Four Seas” vision. From this perspective, Turkey is undertaking the mission of being the country that can ensure energy security in the region.
THE SEARCH FOR A NEW SECURITY ARCHITECTURE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE
The US (Trump’s) attack on Iran under pressure and threats from Israel (Netanyahu), and its consequences, have called into question trust in the US, while revealing the inadequacy of the US-centric unipolar security order in the region.
Trump is aware that the November congressional elections are at risk and that his public trust in the US has declined. Therefore, he is looking for ways to get out of the Iranian quagmire.
At this point, the Mecca Defense Agreement signed between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan gains importance.
To understand this importance, it is necessary to know Trump’s policy change towards the region.
The traditional US strategy is based on the principle of working with non-state actors. This strategy, on the one hand, ensures that target states are kept under constant threat, while on the other hand, it provides cheap armed groups to fight on behalf of the US.
However, this This method resulted in anti-US countries like Iran also using non-state actors. The proxy war created a cycle that weakened every country and state system in the region. When this situation turned into more of a loss than a gain for the US, Trump changed his approach. He began working with state mechanisms, bypassing non-state actors.
Supporting the Shara government in Syria, withdrawing troops from Iraq in agreement with the central government, and establishing good relations with Turkey are indicators of this paradigm shift.
This change replaced the strategy of securing the region’s energy security with US troops with securing it through alliances formed by powerful regional countries. The first step in this was the Mecca Defense Agreement.
FULCRUM DOCTRINE
With this policy change, the US is implementing the Fulcrum Doctrine in the Middle East. The Fulcrum Doctrine is a concept that expresses the new geopolitical approach of the US in its Middle East policy, particularly in the context of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
According to the doctrine, the US is basing its approach on “changing borders or establishing new autonomous structures.” Abandoning its previous policies, it is returning to strengthening existing states.
Washington (including Europe) has for many years used Kurdish actors in the region as pawns to destabilize established states (as a balancing factor). Today, the Trump administration is working directly with Damascus in Syria.
ENERGY COMPANIES INSTEAD OF NON-STATE ACTORS
The fundamental philosophy of the Fulcrum Doctrine is to cooperate with states instead of non-state actors such as Kurdish groups and Hezbollah.
Non-state actors cannot make reliable and lasting agreements with energy companies. States do. And that’s what the US wants.
The most important result of this approach is observed in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, the Democratic Forces (SDF) have had their scope of action narrowed and have been forced to integrate into Damascus.
The situation is the same in Iraq. The joint US-Iraq statement issued in Baghdad on June 16th, and Iraq’s commitments to eliminating non-state armed groups, were addressed within the same framework as projects by American companies such as Chevron, HKN Energy, Western Zagros, Hunt Oil, Starlink, and Excelerate Energy.
According to The National Context, which attracts attention with its news and analysis focusing on Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, the Damascus administration also held extensive talks with American energy companies during the same period. The signing of agreements between the Syrian Oil Company and ConocoPhillips and Novaterra, President Ahmed al-Shara’s reception of company executives at the presidential palace, and HKN Energy’s commencement of operations in oil fields around Hasakah were noteworthy.
The emerging picture shows that Washington now views Iraq and Syria as a single, interconnected energy and trade corridor. The US’s new goal is to establish influence not through military bases, but through energy infrastructure, pipelines, telecommunication systems, and investment networks.
IS “NATOME” BEING ESTABLISHED?
For many years, the idea of a “NATO Middle East” (NATOME) has been discussed. However, it has not been established as a formal global alliance. Instead, regional military/security partnerships (Strategic Security Alliances) encompassing the Gulf and Sunni Arab states in the region, led by the US and Israel, have been brought up from time to time. Attempts were made to implement this through the Abraham Accords.
Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the massacres, and most recently the US-led attack on Iran, have increased resentment and distrust towards these two countries. Israel, in particular, has been coded as an “enemy state” in the region. This situation has made a US-Israel-centric Strategic Security Alliance impossible.
Furthermore, the Abraham Accords have also lost their validity. However, the need for a “new security architecture” for the Middle East continues.
With the Fulcrum Doctrine, a “Middle East Security Architecture” (Strategic Security Alliance) with changed actors is sought to be re-established.
Turkey will be the dominant country in the alliance, and if it can be established, the leading country of NATOME.
The main purpose of the Fulcrum Doctrine (and NATOME) is to ensure the security of the region’s resources, such as oil and natural gas, and supply routes. In other words, it’s not about eliminating Iranian Kurdish groups. Iran, along with other regional countries, will likely be freed from the Kurdish threat.
The US is not developing this doctrine to bring peace to the Middle East, to contain Iran, or to protect Israel.
Europe, NATO, the Russia-Ukraine war, the Middle East, Iran, and the Strait of Hormuz are secondary issues for Trump. Trump has only one item on his agenda: economic and military competition with China.
But on the other hand, his interests also need to be protected.
That’s the purpose of developing the Fulcrum Doctrine.
To create a compatible alliance in the Middle East and to appoint the region’s strongest country as coordinator.
EUROPE, NATO, AND TURKEY
On the European front, Turkey, possessing one of NATO’s largest land armies, maintains its weight within the alliance through its support in Ukraine and its maneuvering capabilities in the Iranian crisis. Europe’s efforts to increase its own defense capabilities are linked to Turkey. This could open up opportunities for the defense industry. However, Turkey’s approach of “active neutrality” and multifaceted diplomacy (simultaneous relations with Russia, Iran, the Gulf, and the West) is both an opportunity and a source of tension.
Tensions have long existed between the US and NATO (Europe). Trump’s “threat to withdraw from NATO” on one hand, and his banning of European imports of Russian gas and threats of tariffs on the other, fueled the tension.
This tension continued until the NATO Summit held in Ankara on July 7-8, 2026. The summit’s final declaration was a document signifying the end of the tension.
-Emphasis was placed on Article 5, its most critical point:
-NATO is initiating a new arms procurement process worth $50 billion. A commitment was made to provide Ukraine with a $70 billion military funding package within 2026.
-It was confirmed that Iran will never possess nuclear weapons. -Europe remained under the protection of the US. It will give the money it would spend on armaments to Ukraine. Ukraine will continue the war and keep Russia preoccupied. – As long as Europe cannot overcome the “Berlin syndrome” left over from the Cold War, it will continue to see Russia as a threat. Trump is exploiting this syndrome in Europe.
CONCLUSION: Only one result emerged from the summit in Ankara; the ice between the Atlantic and Europe melted, and Trump asserted his “boss” position.
CONCLUSION: The 2026 conjuncture is making Turkey an “inevitable” actor. The relative withdrawal of the US and energy crises are opening up space for Ankara, while also imposing higher risks and responsibilities. Turkey’s success will depend on managing this space by maintaining internal stability, conducting multifaceted but predictable diplomacy, and strengthening its economic foundations. The regional security architecture is tending to be shaped not around a single hegemon, but through multi-layered balances, including Turkey.
Turkey is transforming into an actor that partially shares the burden of the US, balances Iran’s influence, contributes energy and security to Europe, and simultaneously expands its sphere of influence in its own hinterland (Syria, Iraq, Caucasus, Africa). This can be interpreted not as a policy change or a dependence on NATO, but as a “repositioning and redeployment according to new conditions.”