US-Turkish Relations Research Articles

Power struggle on subjectivity and foreign policy: a post-structuralist analysis of JDP’s policies towards the United States (2002–2016)

ABSTRACT This article analyses Turkish foreign policy towards the United States (US) during the Justice and Development Party (JDP) era by using a post-structuralist approach. Post-structuralism posits that foreign policy is a political practice reflecting domestic power struggles. Moreover, subjectivities and foreign policy practices are neither universal, objective, nor predetermined, since they are co-constitutive. From this theoretical perspective, the article explores the JDP’s 'foreign policy' discourse on US-Turkish relations, highlighting discursive practices in legitimising specific subjectivities, such as 'conservative' and 'Muslim' ones, as 'inherent' origins of foreign policy conduct. In two phases, 2002–2009 and 2009–2016, it analyses how changes in JDP’s foreign policy preferences towards the US function to legitimise or marginalise particular subjectivities in its power struggle vis-à-vis 'Kemalist' state elites. Ultimately, the article concludes that the JDP’s discourse exhibits a continuity in hegemonising the 'Islamic' subjectivity ascribed to the Turkish population, despite changes in foreign policy decisions.

Reckoning with ‘new’ Turkey: Modes of US reaction to unwanted policy shifts in the Middle East

AbstractThis article discusses the changing relations between the United States and Turkey in light of Turkey's contemporary foreign policy that often challenges American interests. More specifically, it adopts a comparative approach to examine the variables that determine the course of US reaction when unwanted policy shifts take place in the Middle East. To this end, apart from Turkey, the article examines two more cases: US relations with Egypt in the 1950s, and with Iran right before, during and after the 1979 revolution. The comparative analysis reveals that the case of contemporary Turkey has been more similar to the historical case of Egypt, which explains why Washington has been adopting (and is more likely to continue doing so) a “wait‐and‐see” approach vis‐à‐vis Ankara. However, domestic changes in Turkey, though not as abrupt and radical as in Iran, remain significant and may have a deeper impact on US–Turkish relations in the future.

Turkey and the United States launch a new strategic mechanism: first results and immediate prospects

The article attempts to answer the question of whether it is possible in the near future to restore full-fledged allied relations between the United States and Turkey. Their differences on a number of issues on the international and bilateral agenda are explored, and the personal approaches of Presidents Trump and Biden to their Turkish counterpart Erdogan are shown. A critical analysis of the current state of US-Turkish relations and the impact of events in Ukraine on them is presented. The potential role of the adopted new strategic cooperation mechanism is assessed and possible prospects for its influence on overcoming tensions are considered. It is shown that Washington in current relations focuses on interaction with Turkey on the Ukrainian issue, while Ankara would like to see the Biden administration treat them equally as other NATO allies, including economic and defense cooperation. So far, it is unclear whether Washington, even with sufficient diplomatic perseverance, will be able to restore trust and strategic ties with Ankara under President Erdogan. Much depends on how the issue with the supply of American F-16 fighters to Ankara is resolved, and whether Turkey approves the applications of Finland and Sweden to join NATO.

A Cautious and Determined Ally: US-Turkish Relations in the Wake of the Iranian Revolution, 1978–1982

Drawing on recently declassified documents from the Carter Library and memoirs of Turkish diplomats, this essay focuses on the relationship of the United States and Turkey during the early years of the Iranian Revolution when the two NATO allies pursued markedly different policies toward the Islamic Republic. Some basic elements of this relationship are well known, but this study elaborates on the subject and, in the process, reveals how a regional power succeeded repeatedly in defying its superpower ally.

Configuration of forces in the Black Sea after Russian annexation of Crimea

The article analyzes the new configuration in the Black Sea after Russian annexation of Crimea. The Black Sea has an important role for Russia to promote its interests in the southern direction. Crimea in this strategy has the role of an important bridgehead. The peninsula has modern coastal and air defense systems that cover the skies over the Crimea and control the airspace of Eastern European countries. The deployment of nuclear weapons in Crimea threatens almost all of Europe. Russia uses factories of the occupied peninsula to build new ships for the Black Sea Fleet. Russia is using the energy factor in the region to attract NATO members to Bulgaria and Turkey. Bulgaria is taking a cautious ambivalent stance, while Turkey is playing its own game with Russia, raising its status in the region. Western analysts’ skepticism about the strategic importance of the Black Sea and the fragmentation of the region make it difficult to formulate a joint NATO strategy to counter Russia. Therefore, the main actions of the Alliance in the region remain the visits of warships, joint exercises and reconnaissance flights, the number of which in 2020 increased by 40%. But this is not enough to curb Russia’s aggressive policy. Therefore, NATO needs to increase its presence in the Black Sea by expanding the format of joint action and intensifying cooperation with partners Ukraine and Georgia. The normalization of US-Turkish relations should play a significant role in the security of the region. Tightening sanctions against the Kremlin and restricting energy cooperation should be an important tool to deter Russia from the collective West.

Lost in translation or transformation? The impact of American aid on the Turkish military, 1947–60

ABSTRACT US–Turkish relations were marked by the primacy of military actors during the Cold War. This is considered to be the consequence of the so-called special relationship between the US and Turkish militaries based on mutual trust. However, historical record suggests that the two militaries clashed over a number of institutional, strategic and cultural matters from the onset. The US military assistance did not result in Turkish military’s transformation along the US military system. Nevertheless, it precipitated a long overdue generational change within a decade. The US-trained young officers purged the Prussian/German–trained old guard from the ranks.

The Raid in the Editorial Of ice of the Turkish Newspaper Tan, 1945, and its Impact on the State of Soviet-Turkish and US-Turkish Relations in the Post-WWII Period

The author examines the demonstrations carried out by university students in Istanbul on December 4, 1945 and the raid on the printing operations of the pro-Soviet Tan newspaper, known as the Tan Raid, in light of U.S. State Department documents, namely the related fi les in National Archives Records Administration. The infl uence of the Tan Raid on Turkey’s international relations is discussed in the context of Turkish-American and Turkish-Soviet relations. The Raid is regarded as a signifi cant incident since it coincides with the post WW2 period when Turkey’s relations with the Soviet Union had already deteriorated due to Moscow’s demands to revise the Montreux Convention by 19th of March 1945. Furthermore, Turkish-American diplomatic contacts in the aftermath of the Raid show Washington’s perspective on policy towards Soviet Union, as U.S. offi cials advised a moderate line to their Turkish counterparts. On the other hand, preparations for the Raid seem highly controversial since Turkish government offi cials did not strongly condemn the event and the police did not intervene against the protestors despite of their violent actions towards Tan and some left leaning bookstores. The slogans during the demonstration show its anti-Soviet character, which Ankara denied in order to decrease tensions with the Soviets by arguing that it was Tan ’s owner, the Sertel couple to whom the anger was directed, not the Soviet Union. The intelligence obtained by diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, the meetings they conducted with Turkish politicians, their conclusions regarding the process leading up to the raid, and their opinions on Turkish-Soviet relations provide the background for the analysis.

Turkish-American relations (2009-2019)

The article attempts to analyze the main vectors of development of US-Turkish cooperation from 2009 to 2019. The US foreign policy concept since 2009 was aimed at smoothing the “sharp corners” in the development of contacts with countries of the Middle East region and Turkey, in particular. By the beginning of B.Obama’s reign, US-Turkish relations showed a decrease in mutual trust in connection with the consequences of the Iraq crisis in 2003. At present, the relationship between Washington and Ankara can be described as a “systemic crisis”, which implies the existence of serious disagreements on issues of bilateral contacts.

Systemic Crisis in the US-Turkish Relations Under the Presidency of D. Trump

Relations between the United States and Turkey, the two military-political allies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), are experiencing an unprecedented crisis in their history. Its depth and scale is so significant that it affects the long-term foreign policy strategies of both countries, as well as the process of building a unified security architecture. In the study the author raises a question to what extent the current crisis in the US-Turkish relations is systemic? How high is the probability that it will turn out to be a long-term one? To answer this question, the study is divided into two parts.The first part analyzes the evolution of American approaches to Turkey in US foreign policy, the implementation of these approaches since the end of World War II till nowadays. On the basis of a system-historical approach, the author analyses the evolution the Turkey’s strategic positioning in the US foreign policy strategy and the transformation of political, economic and military relations between the two states since the moment of their institutionalization. The author distinguishes two stages of this evolution. During the first one, for the United States Turkey was one of the key countries that was blocking the Soviet expansion southward towards the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal. The author notes that by the end of the bipolar confrontation, Turkey was de-facto losing its functional purpose in the logic of the Cold War. During the second stage, the US regards Turkey as one of the key NATO allies, whose geo-strategic location can be used for pursuing American national interests in the nearby regions. Author posits, that bilateral relations are gradually moving away from such a model of interaction. This happens because of the Turkish desire to diversify foreign relations and accumulation of contradictions between Washington and Ankara due to the divergence of their foreign policy strategies.The second part analyzes the contradictions in the American-Turkish relations under the presidency of Donald Trump on political, military and economic issues. The author comes to the conclusion that the crisis is indeed a systemic one. Firstly, the existing problems began to affect significant elements of the military-technical infrastructure of their relations. Secondly, it is difficult to resolve these problems without reformatting the interaction as between equivalent actors of international relations. Thirdly, the expert and political communities have not presented any kind of a new approach to rethink the allied status of American-Turkish relations.

Karmaşıklığın Dansı: Suriye Uyuşmazlığı Bağlamında ABD-Türkiye İlişkileri

Alliances under unipolarity operate with different logic than under bipolarity. Unipolarity makes the twin dangers of abandonment and entrapment more likely for the weaker states that need the unipole for the pursuit of their regional security interests. The article takes the US-Turkish relations within the context of Syrian conflict as exemplary and shows how the strategic discrepancies between the US-Turkish positions paved the way for Turkey’s abandonment in Syria. The article concludes that the unipole’s strategic alliance commitments are no longer reliable for regional allies to assume risky regional restructuring roles as they face the risk of abandonment on the halfway.

Analysing a Tumultuous Relationship: Turkey and the US in the Middle East

This article analyses the US-Turkish relationship in the Middle East. Washington and Ankara’s policies have clashed in Syria, Iran, Israel, Egypt, the GCC states and Iraq. The two NATO members strongly disagree over military sales, the extradition of Fetullah Gulen, the leader of the Hizmet movement accused of fomenting the 2016 coup attempt who is ensconced in Pennsylvania, and their ideological visions often diverge with President Erdoğan’s affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood. Through the use of realist and constructivist theories the article examines the decisions of Presidents Erdoğan, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump as they have impacted US-Turkish relations in the Middle East. The realist lens raises issues of changing systems and questions of balancing, while the constructivist lens is employed to examine the weighty ideational and identity issues prevailing in the region. The article concludes by applying the theoretical analysis to policy solutions.

The events of Iraq and its reflection on US-Turkish relations since 2011

The political, security, economic and social events taking place in the Iraqi arena - both before 2003 and in the period that followed - have different effects at the internal and external levels due to the overlap of interests and the multilateral parties concerned with the situation of Iraq and related to it in one way or another, including its impact on the United States US and Turkey, as the United States of America, the countries that occupied Iraq in 2003 and then withdrew from it in 2011 and is associated with treaties and strategic agreements, Turkey is the northern neighbor of Iraq and links with links and political and security issues and economy And thus the events in Iraq positively and negatively affect relations between the US and Turkey.

A “defense umbrella” for Cold War rainy days: TurkishAmerican relations (1947-1990)

This brief article seeks to shed light on the interdependence that emerged in Turkish-American relations during the Cold War era in the face of Soviet threat. The alliance was based on keeping the balance of power in a tight bipolar world order. On the US side, the inclusion of Turkey in the US defense umbrella was recognized as a primary US interest in pursuing the policy of containment regarding Soviet expansionism, because of the geopolitical position of Turkey. On the Turkish side, the US was regarded as a security guarantor in the face of Soviet territorial demands. Thus, the rapprochement between the US and Turkey in deterring Soviet aggression was shaped heavily by a strong ‘mutuality of interest’. The paper provides an overview of the evolution of US-Turkish relations as they were shaped by the realities of the Cold War era. Thereby it also illuminates underlying reasons for Turkey’s attachment to the West during the Cold War. This paper argues that the high level of Soviet threat resulted in the US and Turkey sharing common ground in their foreign and security policies. In order to explain the alliance behaviour observed, the paper adopts balance of power theory based on structural realism’s assumptions of international relations.

Injecting the Iranian Factor in US-Turkish Relations: A New Player in Town

The article attempts to bring forward a framework analysis which elaborates on America’s shifting foreign and defence policy priorities from the Middle East region to the Asia-Pacific. Pulling of resources for sustaining a US rebalancing strategy to Asia is inextricably linked to successfully coordinate a set of alliances in a far from straightforward regional security environment. In an effort to achieve a functional balance of power in the Greater Middle East, Washington’s game-changing for managing regional rivalries and the spillover effects of the Syrian civil war, indicate a necessity for reassessing Middle East’s security system by approaching two non-Arab Muslim countries; Shiite Iran and Sunni Turkey. To avoid Iraq’s disintegration and above all to preserve a regional balance of power, America’s strategy involves engaging Iran in a constructive process of rapprochement with the US, while empowering Turkey to counterbalance its growing leverage in the region.

US-Turkish Relations: In Search of a New Paradigm

US-Turkish relations are in the best shape of recent memory. President Barack Obama’s first official overseas visit (in 2009) was meant to start a new type of relationship with Turkey, dubbed the “model partnership,” but the bilateral relations received particular attention in the wake of two major diplomatic crises in 2010: a flotilla incident—when the ship the Mavi Marmara, owned by a Turkish nonprofit organization, was boarded by the Israeli military while on the way to Gaza with aid—and Turkey’s “no” vote at the UN Security Council on sanctions against Iran. Both of these crises had to do with regional issues of vital importance for both the United States and Turkey. The Arab Spring that began in late 2010, however, created a new dynamic that rendered cooperation between the two countries critical.

Arab Uprisings and Completing Turkey's Regional Integration: Challenges and Opportunities for US–Turkish Relations

Today, regional economic integration in the Middle East continues to remain at an unusually low level compared to other regions of the world. This is especially problematic because traditionally, regional integration has long been seen as an effective tool for encouraging regional peace, stability and prosperity, with also the added expectation that economic growth may also help or facilitate transition to democracy. This paper asks the question of whether the Arab uprisings might provide a new environment in which Turkey and the USA, together with the European Union, could cooperate to bring about some degree of regional economic integration. The paper discusses Turkey's increasing economic engagement of its neighbourhood since the end of the Cold War and argues that this experience constitutes a good basis for cooperation, even if there remain a number of challenges stemming from Turkey as well as the Middle East. As much as these challenges may seem insurmountable, initiating a tri-lateral dialogue is of critical importance as the rewards of regional integration in the Middle East in terms of stability, peace and prosperity would be huge and of a ‘win-win’ nature for Turkey, for the EU, for the USA, and of course for the region.

US-Turkish Relations in the Obama Era

As the new-look Obama administration sets foreign policy goals for the coming four years, many of the changes that swept through the Middle East during the US president's first term will continue to reshape regional geopolitics. It is within this context that the relationship between the US and its NATO partner in the region, Turkey, could come to play a vital role. Beniamin Poghosyan argues that after a period of apparent distance, during which Turkey prioritised its relations with non-Western allies, Ankara's recent policies show a renewed emphasis on its strategic alliance with the US in its attempt to successfully ride the waves of unrest in the Middle East.

US–Turkish relations under Obama: promise, challenge and opportunity in the 21st century

Since taking office in January 2009, the US President Barack Hussain Obama has stated on various occasions that his administration will project a new concept of American power and turn a new page i...

Valley of the Wolves as representative of Turkish popular attitudes towards Iraq

In 2006, the Turkish film, Valley of the Wolves [Kurtlar Vadisi-Irak] (Serdar Akar, 2006), was released to audiences in Turkey and Europe. Costing US$10 million, it was the most expensive production in the history of Turkish cinema, breaking all box office records in the country. A fantastical account of a Turkish victory over a fictional US invasion of the country, Valley of the Wolves has been interpreted as a reaction to the Sack Incident [uval olayi] of July 2003, in which eleven Turkish soldiers were hooded and arrested in northern Iraq shortly after the US invasion. The film's title hence refers to a dark and dangerous place where howling and vicious wolves namely Americans and Kurds are gathered. This article argues that Valley of the Wolves confirms a reemergence of 1960s Turkish industry (Yeilam) films which emphasized the historical conflict between Western and Islamic values. It discusses the extent to which Valley of the Wolves reflects popular Turkish attitudes towards the US war on Iraq, and it analyzes the film's projection of Turkish humiliation, anger and frustration following the Sack Incident. The article also addresses how Valley of the Wolves engages USTurkish relations and Turkish concerns over current Iraq-related politics, especially the USKurdish alliance, the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, Turkmen and the issue of Kirkuk, US violations of international law in Iraq, and the conflict between Islam and Christianity.

Turkey, the United States and the Delusion of geopolitics

US–Turkish relations have been driven by a narrow concept of geopolitics. Today, the key questions are not geographic or theoretical – whether Turkey is a bridge or a barrier, a flank or a front – but how Turkey will act, and whether Turkish and American policies are convergent or divergent. For decades, the relationship between Ankara and Washington has been described as ‘strategic’ – sustained and supportive of the most important objectives of both sides. The strategic quality of the relationship can no longer be taken for granted. A reinvigorated strategic relationship is possible, but is likely to have quite different contours, with new forms of engagement and more realistic expectations.